Sitting of 17 May 1988

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

  SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Southern Water Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under section 90 of the Land Drainage Act 1976.—[Mr. Durant.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Primary Teachers
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities concerning difficulties in recruiting primary school teachers.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): None recently. There are sufficient primary teachers nationally. However, the high cost of housing in particular has led to recruitment difficulties in some parts of London and the south-east.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. I am sure that most LEAs welcome the Government's initiative in teacher recruitment. However, in Erith and Crayford there is a considerable shortage of primary teachers and housing is, of course, a major consideration. Will my hon. Friend consider further initiatives to encourage married women to come back into primary school teaching, perhaps on a part-time basis?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I recognise that there are some difficulties in his constituency. I understand that all but three of the teaching vacancies in the borough of Bexley have been filled this term and, indeed, all but one in the school in which I believe he is particularly interested, Southlake primary school.
    We are doing everything in our power to recruit teachers and to encourage part-time teachers; and the borough of Bexley is taking an initiative in encouraging married women to come back into the teaching profession part-time.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is it not a fact that the Government have no published targets for overall teacher numbers? The Secretary of State's recent report of 31 March, which criticised the lack of objective data available, makes it
    786
    impossible to state whether recruitment, retention, motivation and quality are satisfactory. How can the Minister expect us to take anything that she says on this matter as being definitive?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady will no doubt therefore be glad to hear that the demand for teachers rises as primary school pupil numbers rise and, to cope with the future demand, target entry into initial teacher training for primary pupils has increased from almost 7,000 in 1983 to 11,000 in 1989. To date, we have more than 17,600 applications for almost 10,000 places. That is 77 per cent. over target, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome that.
    Mr. Pawsey: To bring those figures into perspective, will my hon. Friend give the House details about the number of teachers employed in the profession and about the recruitment of teachers? Is she satisfied with both the quantity and quality of recruits coming forward for the profession?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Yes, Sir. We have almost 500,000 teachers in primary and secondary schools at present. We are very happy about our programmes for recruitment of teachers through our task Force, particularly in London through the Islington recruitment fair, which has been extremely successful in attracting 3,400 people who showed an interest in primary school teaching.

    Free Milk
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement concerning the removal of the discretionary power of local authorities to provide free milk for children in special schools.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Children whose families are in receipt of income support continue to receive free milk. Nothing in the Social Security Act 1986 prevents a local education authority from providing subsidised milk at lunch time to other children attending special schools, provided that milk offered to children attending mainstream schools receives the same level of subsidy.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the Government's recent mean and miserly measures, free school meals have been removed from a majority of children in special schools, and, with them, the right to free school milk? Is not taking the milk from the mouths of children with special needs a thoroughly nasty and disgraceful act which has caused enormous harm and ill-will among thousands of children and to those who teach them, not least in Greenacres school for special needs children in my constituency?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. and learned Gentleman uses intemperate language. I must remind him and the House that the latest survey showed that before the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986, 39 of the 97 authorities in England did not exercise their discretion to provide free milk to children attending special schools. Of those authorities, 13 were Conservative-controlled, one was Liberal—heaven forbid—16 were hung councils and nine were controlled by the Labour party.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only do 100,000 more children in special and ordinary schools receive an allowance through their parents for free school meals than formerly, but that the allowance covers free school meals throughout the year, not simply during term time, as under the previous Labour Government?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend the is absolutely right in his interpretation. I remind the House that it was always our intention that financial benefits should be concentrated on those in financial need. That is right and proper.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that he can play around with statistics, but he will never convince the people who live in Kent who are very angry about the fact that in excess of 4,000 children will lose free school meals? Does his conscience not prick him—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a question about meals later. This is about milk.
    Mr. Dunn: I should like to know by what authority the hon. Gentleman seeks to speak for the county of Kent.
    Mr. Tony Banks: He speaks for England.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says.
    Mr. Dunn: If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) speaks for England, heaven help the country.

    Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
    Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the report of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I have received written and oral representations from the teacher unions and the local authority associations.
    Mr. Buckley: Does the Secretary of State accept that morale in the teaching profession is pretty low because of pay? Does he also accept that the interim advisory committee report recommends that teachers should have an equal salary increase across the board and also considers the £300 million allocated to be a restraint on the wage increase for the teaching profession, which is well below the average increase in earnings of 8 per cent. recently awarded to other workers, such as nurses and doctors, and others in industry? Will the Secretary of State comment on that?
    Mr. Baker: Teachers will receive 4·25 per cent. from 1 April on top of the 8·2 per cent. last October. Teachers on the main scale will, on average, receive a further 4 per cent. in September as a result of increments. Increases for individual teachers during this year will range from 4·25 to 14·5 per cent., when allowance is made for the increased value and number of allowances.
    Mr. Madel: As the administration and teaching of GCSE has a lot to do with teachers' conditions of service,
    788
    will the advisory committee on pay and conditions publish some of its conclusions and opinions on how this first year of GCSE has worked out?
    Mr. Baker: That goes rather beyond the remit of the interim advisory committee, but I pay tribute to the work of teachers across the country to make the introduction of GCSE so successful, which I am sure it is and will be.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many teachers are looking to the Government for some response to the work that they have been putting in to improve GCSE and to cope with the many changes that he is suggesting? Is it not disgraceful that the Government are suggesting offering them just over 4 per cent., when other average earnings are increasing by more than 8 per cent., and when the Government gave in to pressure from the nurses to improve their pay and conditions? Why will the Secretary of State not respond to the teachers?
    Mr. Baker: There was a major restructuring for the teachers last year, just as there is a major restructuring for the nurses this year. I do not know whether the hon. Lady heard my reply earlier, but I said that teachers would receive 4·25 per cent. in April and the great majority of teachers on the main scale will receive another 4 per cent. in September. If they qualify for incentive allowances, some teachers will get infinitely more than that.
    Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extra increase in incentive payments in the latest award—well above the basic 4·5 per cent.—means that there is ample opportunity for the better teachers to improve themselves and be better rewarded?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is one of the features of the IAC report and the structure of teachers' salaries introduced last year. There are now five different grades of allowances which permit good teachers, teachers with more responsibility and teachers in shortage subjects to be rewarded. That structure was given tremendous impetus by the IAC report.
    Mr. Fatchett: As the Press Association tapes report that the Secretary of State is having to cancel meetings because of the
    "pressures of the Education Reform Bill",
    we are delighted to see him here this afternoon. Will he note that the interim report paints a worrying picture of low morale among teachers, of key shortages of teachers of important subjects, and states that there is real doubt about the ability of teachers to deliver the national curriculum? What action will he take on the interim advisory committee's suggestion that none of those problems can be satisfactorily resolved if the £300 million ceiling is maintained?
    Mr. Baker: To answer the hon. Gentleman's last point, although there was a cost envelope of £300 million, the cost of the report's full recommendations came to £332 million, and I have accepted the extra allowances. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already emphasised the impetus that we are putting into increased teacher training. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we shall need more teachers, particularly in certain shortage subjects, to implement the national curriculum. We have several schemes in hand, and there was a good increase in recruitment last year. I hope that there will be an increase this year as well.
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next proposes to discuss the restoration of negotiating rights with the teachers' unions.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I expect to discuss the Green Paper on future pay determination machinery with representatives of teacher unions over the next few months.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that the Minister has now got himself into such a mess about the Education Reform Bill and the education system that he does not know where he is and is having to cancel all his speeches in order to be here? Does he realise that free negotiation is fundamental to the democratic rights of any group of working people, not only teachers? For the right hon. Gentleman to take that right away from teachers and then start boasting of how much he is giving them is no way of doing what the International Labour Organisation has asked him to do, which is to restore teachers' negotiating rights. It is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that teachers are getting this, that and the other. That is insufficient, and he should restore teachers' negotiating rights in a democratic manner, straight away.
    Mr. Baker: The ILO committee on freedom of association will be meeting later this month to report to the committee of experts, but it has no formal standing in itself. If in due course, the ILO makes representations to the Government, we will carefully consider them. However, I have already met the six teaching unions during the course of the past few days. We have discussed only briefly the future machinery for the determination of teachers' pay and conditions, but I will meet all the unions again later this year. The Government have put forward certain proposals in the Green Paper, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is still a wide difference of opinion between the unions about the machinery that they would like.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend reflect upon the appalling fact that, of the five teacher associations, the NAS/UWT has already decided that it will take industrial action, which is against the interests of the children in the classrooms? Does he agree that it is not just a coincidence that the fastest-growing teachers' association is constitutionally committed against any kind of industrial action?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Professional Association of Teachers is totally committed against taking any kind of industrial action, and its membership is growing. I saw representatives of the NAS/UWT last Friday morning and made it clear to them that I was shocked and appalled that, of all the unions, it advocated a half-day teachers' strike. Such action will be highly damaging to the children affected—and only the children will suffer. It is a completely unnecessary and purely token strike. I hope very much that that union will think again.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State committed to the restoration of negotiating rights for teaching unions?
    Mr. Baker: I clearly stated that we have put forward our proposals for a teachers' negotiating group, and I shall be discussing that with the teaching unions in the coming
    790
    months. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not taken this opportunity to condemn utterly the proposed half-day strike by the NAS/UWT.

    Village Primary Schools
    Mr. Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to ensure the future of village primary schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dunn: It is the responsibility of local education authorities to provide a proper service to villages and rural areas as well as to other areas that they serve. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently supporting a number of projects, including one in Cornwall, designed to identify ways of enriching the curriculum of rural primary schools. Any proposal for the closure of a village school which comes before us is considered very carefully in the light of the criteria set out in the Department's circular 3/87, which makes it clear that size is not a criterion for closure.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that, to ensure the future of our village primary schools, it is esential that adequate resources are made available for vital improvements and extensions? Is he aware that in Cornwall alone over 50 major and minor primary school projects are awaiting attention, which is particularly worrying as by 1993 Cornwall will have 40,000 children of primary school age, the highest ever?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right, but I must point out that allocations for capital works are made annually. Cornwall's allocation for schools and for further and higher education in 1988–89 was £6·4 million, which represented an increase of 14 per cent. over the figure for 1987–88. Of course, it is the duty of local authorities to look at their demographic situation and to decide whether to build new schools.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Hon. Members will be aware that I represent and take particular interest in what the Minister has had to say about Cornwall's education system. The Minister will be aware of the particular difficulties that the county faces. I welcome the county's increase in its capital spending programme this year, but, with the new assessment arrangements, particular costs, in terms of teaching time, will hit primary schools. Has the Minister made any assessment of that impact, and has he any plans to help local authorities to overcome it?
    Mr. Dunn: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being appointed to his new post.
    I must remind him that in allocating resources for capital expenditure the Department of Education and Science will continue to give priority to projects which provide places in areas of population growth. That answers the hon. Gentleman's point and refers to the earlier point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks).
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend give special consideration to education support grants for rural primary schools' curriculum enrichment projects, such as that in Wiltshire, whose term is coming to a natural end?

    791
    It would be disastrous if such projects were cut off at this stage. Will he do his best to ensure that those projects continue?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend will be aware that the projects are in their mid-term phase and are being evaluated at local level. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the possibility of a research project to evaluate the projects on a national basis, with the intention of disseminating to local education authorities examples of successful practice. I undertake to bring my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister admit that there are serious anxieties that open admissions could lead to some schools bursting at the seams and accelerated closures of other schools, with a reduction of parental choice, especially in rural areas? How will he protect such schools?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Lady falls into the trap that Opposition spokesmen fall into every time they appear at the Dispatch Box. They seek, as ever, to deny choice to parents whenever and in whatever situation they can possibly contrive to do so. We stand for sensible choice for parents wherever and whenever possible.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My constituents are more than grateful for the unwavering support that my hon. Friend has always given to village schools and their excellent varied curriculum. They are glad to hear him reiterate that size alone will not be the criterion for closure, but they are worried about what will happen when the new building regulations come into effect in 1991. Will he ensure that there is sufficient money to enable our village schools to continue to serve the rural areas?
    Mr. Dunn: We have always made it clear that many other factors bear upon the life and long-term survival of village schools. I have always recognised that many small village schools have to be retained because of the geographical isolation of the communities that they serve, so my hon. Friend's remarks are well received by me.

    Mr. Paul Gray (Letters)
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any further information about the inquiry into the leak of the letter of 21 January from Paul Gray, in the Prime Minister's Office, to Tom Jeffrey in his private office; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the leak investigation into the improper disclosure of correspondence between Mr. Paul Gray of 10 Downing street, and Mr. Tom Jeffrey, relating to educational testing.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: No, Sir. It is not the usual practice to give information on such matters.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I do not know whether to thank the Minister for that abbreviated answer. Which does he think is the worse crime—that a mole should leak a letter, or that a Prime Minister should oppose the diagnostic testing of children on the ground that the remedial action that would necessarily follow would cost too much?
    Mr. Baker: The Prime Minister does not oppose the diagnostic testing of children. If the hon. Lady reads the task group on assessment and testing report carefully she will find considerable criticism of diagnostic testing and its misuse. I remind the hon. Lady that not only has TGAT been published, but that on the substantive issue I have received three supplementary reports. We shall be publishing those, together with our responses, in the near future. We shall also be publishing our views on the system of assessment and testing.
    Mr. Dalyell: What does the Secretary of State think would occur if he confronted the Prime Minister with the truth, namely, that the leak was authorised on the Prime Minister's behalf from Downing street?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman's paranoid preoccupation with plots is one of his most enduring and, indeed, endearing characteristics. I am afraid that yet again he has let his imagination run wild, and his imagination is one of the most unpredictable elements of British politics.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that over the years the Opposition have had so little to contribute to debates that they are pleased to find leaks of letters to act as a diversion to cover up their inadequacies and failure to contribute to debates on education and on every other subject?
    Mr. Baker: I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are still waiting to hear from the Opposition—[interruption.] I know that my hon. Friend is very popular, so I must mind my Ps and Qs. We are still waiting to hear from the Opposition their ideas and policies on a whole range of education matters, particularly assessment and testing.
    Mr. Straw rose—
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's side?
    Mr. Straw: I was just about to ask that.
    We have read not only the TGAT report but the letter that passed between the Prime Minister's private secretary and the right hon. Gentleman's private secretary. The Secretary of State must know that there is a major difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and himself. Now that the Chancellor has beaten the Prime Minister so roundly over the issue of sterling, will the Secretary of State follow his example, find his courage, and beat the Prime Minister, who wishes to introduce a system of competitive testing that will damage the education of the nation's children?
    Mr. Baker: The Prime Minister and I were at one in welcoming the report. The questions raised by the Prime Minister were precisely the same as those raised in Committee, namely, that any system must avoid being too elaborate to be understood, too difficult to implement and too expensive to be practicable. The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the TGAT report came out in favour of age-related testing at seven, 11, 14 and 16 and the publication of results and records of pupil achievements—all opposed by the Labour party in the past. Are Labour Members going to agree with those recommendations now, or not?
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise once again on the Adjournment the conduct of the Prime Minister's Office.

    Rating Reform
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet the National Union of Students to discuss the arrangements for the introduction of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): No. My right hon. Friend is aware of the views of the National Union of Students on the community charge. Arrangements for the introduction of the community charge are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister accept that there are often good security reasons why women and overseas students do not want their addresses made public? What guarantee will he give as to their safety when the new system is introduced?
    Mr. Jackson: This matter will, of course, have to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I believe that he has made it clear that it will not be necessary to publish the names of certain categories of people, including those to which the hon. Lady referred, in the published list of those who are to pay the community charge.
    Mr. Cormack: How does my hon. Friend defend the imposition of the community charge for students? How will he ensure that they all pay?
    Mr. Jackson: All students have a vote. They have a vote in local elections. They benefit from the services provided by local authorities. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Government are introducing their proposals. More than 60 per cent. of students already contribute to the domestic rates. We discovered from our recent survey that they contribute some £70 to £80 per head.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister understand the position of students from Northern Ireland, whose parents will pay the full rate, while those studying in Great Britain will be liable for the community charge?
    Mr. Jackson: Whether and to what extent students will be further compensated for their obligation to pay the community charge are matters being considered in the Department's review of student support. No decisions have yet been made.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Will my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consider discussing with the Royal College of Nursing the particular position of student nurses under the new provisions?
    Mr. Jackson: I repeat that the eligibility of all students, including nurses, will be considered in the context of the review.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure the House understands why the Minister wants to put the blame and responsibility on the Department of the Environment for the implementation of the poll tax for students. The reason is that it will cause many problems. Will the student have
    794
    a vote at home and pay the poll tax where his college is situated, so that there is not a link for students between the vote and the poll tax?
    Mr. Jackson: It is a matter of electoral law as to where students cast their vote. This is a matter for the Home Office. Students have a choice as to where they register to vote and where they vote. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Reverting to the original question, is my hon. Friend aware of the number of students registered with phoney colleges who are illegally in this country? If this system identifies those people, that will be right and proper.
    Mr. Jackson: The Department has recently tabled amendments against bogus degrees in the House of Lords. We hope that this will be a way of tackling this problem.

    Inner London
    Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the future of education in inner London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Since my announcement on 4 February my Department has received many comments from many sources.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that, if the House of Lords stiffens its spine and decides that there should be a review of ILEA before any decision on abolition, he will recommend that the House accepts that decision? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the message on the tapes today that he is running so scared, and so frit, and is sweating so profusely with fear, that he has cancelled all his engagements and left them to the office boy?
    Mr. Baker: I do not appear at the Dispatch Box as a trembling, blushing violet. I understand that the House of Lords has just started, or will shortly start, a debate on ILEA. We shall all watch the outcome with great interest.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are 20 times as many residents in inner London as those who took part in the so-called phoney parents' ballot? Will he also disregard the jaundiced remarks of ex-Prime Ministers, however eminent they may think they are?
    Mr. Baker: Yes, as to the last, most certainly I will. As regards the parental ballot, decisions to transfer education responsibility from one sphere of government to another have always been taken by Parliament. That is the constitutional position. It is for Parliament to weigh up all the arguments, taking account of the views, not only of parents, but, as my hon. Friend says, of all those ratepayers who have to bear any consequences. As regards the ILEA ballot, the method chosen for the organisation of the ballot makes it next to impossible to determine how many parents actually voted.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Secretary of State remember those days when he was the PPS to the then Prime Minister? Does he not pay any attention whatsoever to his right hon. Friend's wise words these days over the future of the Inner London education authority?

    795
    With regard to that parents' ballot, does the Secretary of State say that that ballot is completely invalid and was fixed? Is that what he is telling the House?
    Mr. Baker: All I am saying is that it was impossible to determine how many parents voted in that ballot. As regards the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), I think that he was wrong about ILEA while he was in office, and he is wrong now.
    Mr. Bowis: My right hon. Friend will have seen the Gallup poll, which shows that the majority of parents in inner London have no worries about the transfer of education to the local boroughs. However, will he confirm that those who do have anxieties will not have their interests served by a delay in the implementation of the Education Reform Bill?
    Mr. Baker: As I have said, this is being debated by the House of Lords. I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. I confirm that I saw a poll yesterday which declared that 62 per cent. of London parents said that they were not at all concerned about the abolition of ILEA. When it came to the inner London parents, 49 per cent. said that they were not concerned.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To help the debate, what can the Secretary of State tell us to allay the fears of all those who enjoy adult education within ILEA and take part in access courses? Will they be able to continue? Can he assure us that there will not be major problems with cross-borough transfers?
    Mr. Baker: I have made it clear that we want to ensure that the good things being done by ILEA are retained. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the other House will be referring to this is a speech which she will be making shortly.
    Mr. Ashby: As someone who has been a governor of ILEA schools, who has served on the Inner London education authority for four years and seen at first hand the high cost of ILEA as against the poor responses and the bad education that children receive, may I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that ILEA is abolished? The children of London will then have the opportunity to have a decent education.
    Mr. Baker: I can assure my hon. Friend that his facts are right. ILEA accounts for some 4 per cent. of the school population of the country and 8 per cent. of the national school budget. It is a very extravagant spender. The new arrangements will ensure that money is better spent, to the benefit of the children of London.

    English Teaching
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further proposals he has to improve the teaching of English in schools, in the light of the responses received to the Kingman report.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further action he proposes to take in the light of the responses received to the Kingman report, on the teaching of English in schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend has asked the new English working group to take account of relevant Kingman report recommendations in its work on attainment targets and programmes of study for English as a whole. He will consider the other Kingman recommendations in due course in the light of public reaction and the English working group's advice.
    Mr. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the traditional method of teaching English in schools, with its emphasis on grammar, on construction and on spelling, has many virtues? Will she ensure that, as far as possible, these basic elements are retained as part of the national curriculum?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are asking the English working group to recommend attainment targets covering the grammatical structure of the English language, building on the Kingman targets.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that children develop their imagination and skill in writing from having freedom to write without too much grammatical constraint, but will she bear in mind that the English language has its cement in its grammar and that that is English language at its greatest and its best? Will she ensure that grammar teaching is preserved?
    Mrs. Rumbold: We are most anxious that the English working group should build on the recommendations of the Kingman report and look at the structure of grammar. We certainly expect our children to be able to read, write and speak English, and to enjoy literature.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister not accept that the curbing of expenditure on books for schools and public libraries over recent years has scarcely assisted attainments in both the teaching of English and reading? Does he not accept that during the previous period substantial attainments were made?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I always accept that there has been progress in teaching in our schools, because, of course, there has. However, there have been considerable advances during the past two years in the amounts of money that have been allocated for schools, especially for books. Indeed, there has been an 8 per cent. increase in the allocation for books and equipment in the current year.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my hon. Friend agree that parents expect—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Private conversations should cease while we are on questions.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my hon. Friend agree that parents expect their children to acquire at least the basic skills at school, of which the use of English must be one of the most important? Does she agree that an alarming difference has grown up between the teaching profession on the one hand, and parents and employers on the other as to what exactly constitutes education?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will be reassured by the fact that for our core subjects in the national curriculum we have chosen English, mathematics and science. It is perfectly true that many employers have complained that some of the children leaving school do not have the

    797
    adequate literacy and numeracy that they believe necessary. That is the reason for the introduction of the national curriculum.

    Provision Quality
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the annual report of Her Majesty's inspectors on the quality of provision in schools.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend hopes to publish the report for the 1987–88 academic year next January.
    Mr. McKay: As previous reports from Her Majesty's inspectors have spelt out the truth about the Government's neglect of our education system, will the Minister ask her right hon. Friend to ensure that the report receives maximum promotion and publicity, as do his reports and statements from the Department of Education and Science?
    Mrs. Rumbold: As I have just said, my right hon. Friend will publish the report. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last expenditure report from Her Majesty's inspectors showed that in just over half the schools visited there was a need for improved teaching styles, better perception of pupils' needs and higher expectations of pupils. The report stated:
    "unsatisfactory standards of provision are more often related to ineffective deployment of people and resources than to shortages of the resources".
    Mr. Ian Bruce: When the report is published, will my hon. Friend comment that it is clear that the amount of money that is spent per pupil varies widely throughout local authority areas and that, unfortunately, we do not get quality for pounds spent in many of those areas, especially in ILEA? Will she highlight the fact that areas such as Dorset, which spend far less per pupil, get a better quality of education for the money spent?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Reports by Her Majesty's inspectors take an overall look at what happens in all our schools. While they take into account expenditure, they also take into account the quality of the education that is delivered. That is easily identifiable and will be recognised in the report.
    Mr. Cryer: Following the disgraceful attack by the Secretary of State on the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the inspectors will be concerned about the standard of buildings in constituencies such as mine of Bradford, South, where the Government are neglecting the construction of the schools. Many schools in my constituency exist almost entirely in temporary classrooms. When will the Government make adequate provision in cities such as Bradford, with expanding school rolls, for which they are not now providing sufficient money?
    Mrs. Rumbold: In the local government elections in the hon. Gentleman's constituency the Labour party lost control, so clearly there cannot necessarily have been such wonderful expenditure on buildings there. The public expenditure plans for this year contain considerable increases, as I have said earlier, for additional building work.

    Education Authorities
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many education authorities have a primary, and middle and high school system.
    Mr. Dunn: In January 1987 there were 44 local education authorities in England operating a three-tier primary, middle and secondary school system.
    Mr. Field: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the three-tier system is every bit as good as the two-tier system?
    Mr. Dunn: I have no evidence to the contrary.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noted the widespread public support for our education reforms? Has she further noted the Gallup poll results in yesterday's Daily Telegraph, which noted that two out of three Londoners would not be worried by the loss of ILEA and that three out of four of them support the national curriculum, testing and parent power to opt out of local authority control?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend makes his point very effectively. I believe that most parents want the chance to opt out, to get their children out of the grip of some of the fanatical Left-wing authorities. I believe that the reforms to which my hon. Friend refers will lead to much better education. That is why the Labour party is fighting them, but parents will be very pleased with them.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I warmly welcome today's cut in interest rates and the Chancellor's victory over the Prime Minister? Does this cut mean that the Prime Minister has changed her position and now wholeheartedly agrees with the Chancellor that further rises in the pound would be unsustainable and would damage British business and industry?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the cut in interest rates. He will note that we have taken interest rates down three times in the last two months. I am sure that he would like a detailed reply.
    My right hon. Friend and I entirely agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]
    Mr. Kinnock: We want to listen.
    The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. I hope that he will listen to the next reply too. My right hon. Friend and I entirely agree that we must maintain a firm monetary policy and a downward pull on

    799
    inflation. I agree completely with all my right hon. Friend's Budget speech, every bit of it, which is more than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition does.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked about exchange rate policy. It is a part of overall economic policy. As I indicated a moment ago, he will note that we have taken interest rates down three times in the last two months. That was clearly intended to affect the exchange rate. We use the available levers, both interest rates and intervention, as seems right in the circumstances and—[Interruption.]—I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will listen very carefully to the last sentence—it would be a great mistake for any speculator to think at any time that sterling was a one-way bet.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am, and I am sure everybody else is, interested to hear the Prime Minister draw attention to the three cuts in interest rates in the past two months. Two months ago I asked her whether she would intervene or use interest rates to bring down the pound and she said that intervention "would lead to inflation" and interest rate action could not deal with the matter because it would not be in the "interests of inflation" to do so. Is she now saying—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These are important matters.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House wants to hear the question.
    Mr. Kinnock: This is of general interest. Is the Prime Minister now saying that she was wrong about the inflationary implications of interest rate reductions?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely the master of his subject. [Interruption.] I gave the right hon. Gentleman the same reply when I was asked the same question on either the last or the previous occasion when the interest rate was taken down ½ per cent. The reply was this: As the value of sterling has risen, that is the exchange rate has risen, that has tightened money supply, which enables us to reduce the interest rate without having any adverse effect on inflation.
    Mr. Kinnock: Between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer we at least know who the master is at present. Did the Prime Minister's last answer imply that if the pound rises above DM 3·18, which is where it is now, the Government will use interest rates again?
    The Prime Minister: Anyone who is asking to know precisely what will happen is the friend of the speculator and aiding and abetting him.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's reduction in the base rate, and the two previous ones, give the lie to media and Opposition Members' accusations and hysteria to the effect that there is a rift between herself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the management of the economy? Does she agree that managing a successful economy, which is the envy of the whole world, means the control not only of inflation and public expenditure and a sound fiscal policy, but of the exchange rate? Does not today's reduction prove
    800
    beyond peradventure that there is complete and utter unanimity in the management of our economy under the capable management of the Chancellor?
    The Prime Minister: Yes.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister clarify the Government's policy towards the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system? Is it still that we will join when the conditions are right? As that has been the position for the last eight years and the pound has varied against the deutschmark from DM 4·79 to DM 2·86, how have the conditions never been right?
    The Prime Minister: It has been a very consistent position. We shall join when the conditions are right. It remains a consistent position.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan may well represent the high-tide mark in Russian expansionism and that it augurs well for glasnost and future peace between East and West? Does she further agree that the world is indebted to the Afghan people for their courage, tenacity and suffering, which has brought this about?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We welcome the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan, which has now begun to take place. We also believe that it was due to the tenacious fighting by the Afghan people against the occupation, with the support of many people throughout the world. We believe that it will improve East-West relations and hope that it will be followed by other withdrawals, for example, by Cuban troops from Angola and by Vietnamese troops from Cambodia.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not clear that the difference between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is simply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer learnt about the problems of the DM 2·40 pound and the way in which it damaged so much of our manufacturing and other industries, and the Prime Minister did not? Will she learn that it is unwise to quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is extremely foolish to do so in public?
    The Prime Minister: I wish that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches could go further and say that they totally endorse the Chancellor's policy, they totally endorse his Budget and they agree with the reductions in tax, instead of trying to take away in increased taxation from the nurses and the doctors some of their increases in wages. That is what the Labour party wants.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that 10 years ago, in the last year of the Labour Government, we had a combination of a weak pound, rampant inflation and goods pouring in from countries with strong currencies, such as Germany and Japan? Does she agree that, in industry's interests, as one of the component factors that it has to take into account is raw material prices, a buoyant currency is an essential concomitant of a successful economy?
    The Prime Minister: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I well remember the way in which the economy was handled by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches. The reserves of this country dropped to only $4 billion and no one in the world would lend us a dollar or a penny piece. The reserves now are $48 billion because of the way in which the economy is run by the Chancellor.
    Mr. Bidwell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bidwell: In view of the right hon. Lady's recently published list of achievements, would it be her intention to add to it the widening gap between the rich and the poor, which is occurring throughout the nation?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone in the nation has benefited from the increased prosperity—everyone. The amount spent on social security is well up. The fact is that Labour Members would rather have the poor worse off, provided that those who create the wealth did not earn so much. It is because we have encouraged those who are enterprising that we now have increased wealth to give in greater amounts to the Health Service and social security.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that her total endorsement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy is a great comfort to her friends, as it is an annoyance to her enemies?
    The Prime Minister: I endorse once again my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's most excellent policy. I hope that my hon. Friend who has asked the question will never cease to extol the virtues of a successful economy, which has been built up over the past nine years.
    Mr. Healey: Was there not a contradiction in the remarks that the right hon. Lady made earlier in Question Time? As I understood it, she said she had agreed that the Chancellor should cut interest rates to bring down the value of the pound, and that that was the appropriate level for bucking the market at this time. But a moment later she said she had agreed earlier to cut interest rates because the high pound made it safe to do so without damaging the control of the money supply.
    The cut in interest rates this morning has already led to a big fall in the pound. Does that mean that the right hon. Lady will now insist on an increase in interest rates in order to tighten the money supply, or is she not entirely the mistress of her subject or of the Chancellor?
    The Prime Minister: If we were going to take lessons we would take them from someone who was the master of his subject and not from the right hon. Gentleman, who reduced this country's reserves to their lowest level ever. No one would lend him a penny piece. I do not wonder why.
    Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cartwright: As the right hon. Lady reminded her supporters yesterday of her manifesto's commitments, will she assure the House that she will honour the manifesto commitment that child benefit would continue to be paid as now, and that there is no truth in press suggestions that child benefit is to be cut, taxed, frozen or abolished?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the manifesto clearly stated:
    "Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother."
    That commitment will be honoured.

Embankment Station (Fire)
3.30 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that there was a fire this morning at Embankment Underground station. Given the sensitivity of the matter and the proximity to the King's Cross inquiry, would it be in order for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement in the House today on this important matter?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for that.

Embankment Station (Fire)

  Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
  3.31 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last week the House attempted to give a Second Reading to a private Member's Bill—the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. During that debate I asked the Minister for Public Transport whether the rumour that there had been a meeting between a member of his ministerial office and the promoter of the Bill was true. He said, as reported at column 397 of the Official Report, that, to his knowledge, there had been no such meeting.
  It has come to light from a written parliamentary answer that I received last night that the Secretary of State for Transport had met the promoter of the Bill, the chairman of Associated British Ports, in February this year, at a time when many hon. Members had put a blocking motion on the Bill and were waiting to debate it. As the Minister for Public Transport promoted the Bill and asked us to support it last Wednesday, would it be in order for you to clarify the position about the meeting of the chairman of Associated British Ports and the Secretary of State? Is it right that such a meeting should take place when the House has yet to consider a private Bill? Is that private business, or is it another way of getting Government business through the back door?
  Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of meetings outside the House. I have seen the answer to that question and I think the whole House will agree that it is highly commendable for any Minister or Back Bencher who inadvertently says something to the House that turns out subsequently to be untrue to put it right, and the Minister for Public Transport has done that.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), Mr. Speaker, in which he pointed out to the House that the Minister had stated in his reply that he had met someone connected with the promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, would it be in order, as it used to be, for the Minister concerned to make a personal statement, instead of dealing with the matter by a written answer?
  Mr. Speaker: I think the whole House will agree that sometimes inadvertently things are stated in the House that turn out to be incorrect. I think that the Minister of State has taken the honourable and correct course in answering a question that was put down by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I do not think that any point of order arises for me. I am not responsible for meetings that take place outside the House.

Oral Questions
3.33 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In no sense do I question your selection of the hon. Members whom you call to ask questions, but would it be possible to explain the criteria on which you base that selection? I have tried kicking up a row to get called and I have tried behaving myself to get called. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) stormed out on Thursday last week in a temper and returned today only to be called immediately. Perhaps I should storm out now and come back to be called.
Mr. Speaker: Let me clarify the position. Bad behaviour certainly does not earn any good marks from the Chair. Today, we only—just—reached Question No. 4, and I seek to call hon. Members to put a question to the Prime Minister if they have not asked a question before.

Oral Questions
  BILL PRESENTED
    ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND)
    Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Norman Lamont, presented (under Standing Order No. 48 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public reserve)) a Bill to raise the financial limit imposed by, and by virtue of, section 29(1) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

Working Life (Reduction in Hours)
3.35 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a shorter working week, a shorter working year, earlier retirement and for connected purposes.
I introduce the Bill against an economic climate that shows a stark contrast. On the one hand, even on the Government's figures, over 2·5 million people are out of work, although we all know that the real figure is much higher. On the other hand, many people have to work excessively long hours, with shorter holiday entitlements than most of their European contemporaries and, in the case of men, having to work to age 65, whether or not they want to. That is why the main provisions of my Bill, which are in line with a long-standing TUC campaign and with European trade union objectives, are, first, to provide for a 35-hour week, secondly, to provide for six weeks' annual holiday, and, thirdly, to give men the choice to retire at age 60. All this would give enormous benefit both to those at work, by improving substantially their quality of life, and to those out of work, by providing the opportunity for the creation of new jobs to fill the vacancies that would result from my proposals.
Dealing first with the 35-hour basic week, at present the average for people in manual occupations is 39 hours a week before overtime, and the average for people in non-manual occupations is 37 hours a week. I can see no reason for a difference between manual and non-manual occupations. A year ago last January legislation was introduced in Norway to reduce the working week of people in manual occupations by two and a half hours to bring their hours into line with those of non-manual workers.
If we add overtime to the basic working week, the figures are worse. It might surprise the House to know that the average working week has increased since 1983 because of the greater tendency of employers, instead of taking on additional workers, to require more and more overtime. There are also great pressures for overtime from people on low wages. I look for a substantial reduction in overtime. I tell my friends in the trade union movement that where they find large amounts of overtime being worked they should start negotiating a reduction in working hours and the employment of more people.
I have chosen a 35-hour week because it opens the exciting prospect of trade unionists being able to negotiate a four-day week for their members. This is happening in limited cases at present. Many people, given the choice of a five-day week of seven hours a day or a four-day week of nine hours or thereabouts a day, would opt for a four-day week. It would make great sense in terms of travel expenses and the wear and tear of commuting. It would lead to a substantial improvement in quality of life for many of our fellow citizens.
The second provision in the Bill is for six weeks' annual holiday. Most German workers get six weeks' annual leave, but in this country the norm is 22 days for people in manual occupations, which is just over four weeks. In recent years there have been moves in the annual pay round to improve holiday entitlements, but the very
806
minimum that we should require is six weeks' holiday entitlement. This is strongly in line with what happens in many European countries and with the TUC campaign.
No doubt we will be told by employers that they cannot afford to grant such leave but, of course, they have said that in response to every improvement in people's working conditions, ever since we stopped sending children up chimneys. They said exactly the same thing when it was suggested that there should be equal pay for men and women. It is a simple statistical fact that an additional week's annual holiday would add no more than 2 per cent. to the annual wages bill of a company, and it is well within the capacity of most companies to meet that. Six weeks' holiday is a perfectly reasonable request.
Finally, I should like to deal with the matter of earlier retirement. My proposal is that men who want to do so should be allowed to retire at 60. We know that 676,000 men between the ages of 60 and 65 are at work. We also know, from repeated Treasury estimates, that it would cost £3 billion to achieve this reduction in the retirement age. I do not know how that calculation can be substantiated, when we realise that many of the vacancies created by those who would be offered a pension would be filled by people in the dole queue, with dependent relatives. Many people have written to me to say that they are 60 years of age and have already worked for 45 years in a heavy manual occupation. They say, "I think that that is long enough for anyone." I think so too. We should adopt the common sense approach and give early retirement to men who want it, because the vacancies thus created could be filled by people in the dole queue.
My Bill contains the enigmatic phrase, "and for connected purposes." I see this merely as a start. There are many other things in the best practice of good employers that we should seek to introduce. Increasingly, sabbatical years are being offered to workers in mid life, but that is much more in evidence abroad than it is here. I commend that practice. There is also increasing evidence that employers are having the sense to prepare people for retirement by putting them on a four-day week during the six months prior to retirement. That is another example of best practice which I strongly commend.
There is much humbug about the dignity of work and about the desirability of more people working longer hours. I have long been of the opinion that if work were such a splendid thing the rich would have kept more of it for themselves. The Bill offers the prospect of substantial improvement in the quality of life of many of our fellow citizens and the substantial possibility of creating jobs for those in the dole queues who are currently searching for work. It is an enlightened Bill and I hope that it is far-sighted. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Sean Hughes, Mr. James Lamond, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. George Robertson, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Working Life (Reduction in Hours)
  WORKING LIFE (REDUCTION IN HOURS) BILL
  Mr. Bruce Grocott accordingly presented a Bill to provide for a shorter working week, a shorter working year, earlier retirement and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 167].
Orders of the Day
  British Steel Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  British Steel Bill
    New clause 1

      SINGLE ENTITY
      'Before the appointed day the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report giving quantitative estimates of the advantages and disadvantages to the Exchequer, to the Corporation, to the customers and the employees of the whole and of the several parts of the Corporation, of the disposal of the successor company and its subsidiaries as a single entity or as more than one entity.'.—[Dr. Bray.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.45 pm
      Dr. Jeremy Bray: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 31, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after 'section', insert '1(5A) and section'.
      No. 32, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
      '(5A) On the appointed day the stake held by the Corporation in Allied Steel and Wire shall not be vested in the successor company but shall be vested in an employees' trust fund to be held for the benefit of the employees of Allied Steel and Wire.'.
      Dr. Bray: The Bill comes back from Committee very much as it went in, with the Committee able to inform the House of little more about the plans of either the Government or of the British Steel Corporation for privatising the industry. However, if the industry is to be privatised, its future shape, size, efficiency and behaviour will be very much influenced by the form in which it is privatised.
      The Government have gone to great lengths in other privatisations, notably of the electricity supply industry, which is the most obvious of natural monopolies, to break up an industry so that it embodies in its future structure a degree of competition. However, when the steel industry was last in private hands and consisted of 14 separate companies, it needed an act of nationalisation to create a rational structure of a single entity.
      The behaviour of a private enterprise is, of course, guided principally by the purpose of maximising its worth to shareholders. The company is able to exploit every bit of market power that it can, within the law of the land. Indeed, it is expected to do so. It is by the Government ensuring that the rules of competition are made and observed that the profit-seeking behaviour of the company in the market place becomes such that the health of the whole community is maximised. The Government argue that with the wealth go employment and people's incomes, and I do not disagree with them on that. Those are the Government's principles and their rules.
      The Government are now proposing to privatise the British Steel Corporation as a monopoly within the meaning of the Act. The Fair Trading Act 1973, in section 6(1) states:
      "For the purposes of this Act a monopoly situation shall be taken to exist in relation to the supply of goods of any description in the following cases, that is to say, if …
      808
      (b) at least one-quarter of all the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom are supplied by members of one and the same group of interconnected bodies corporate".
      Furthermore, the chairman of the British Steel Corporation is on record as favouring "peak lopping", that is, restricting capacity so that, at the peaks in the cycle, customers are forced to go abroad and the amplitude of the cycle is made yet greater for other suppliers, with the expectation that, when demand falls, the customers will come back. It is nice if one can do it, but it is a recipe for losing market share and for ensuring the continuing decline of capacity and output, because other suppliers will become established in the market and the customers who have deliberately been turned away will not come back. The British Steel Corporation should have learnt that lesson in 1980–81, but it does not appear to have done so.
      Likewise, the chairman of the British Steel Corporation advocates spheres of influence within Europe to reduce the amount of steel crossing borders. Those monopolistic tendencies are inherent in the nature of the industry. There is already a case before the European Commission about the alleged restrictive practices of the steel industry in special steels. While steel is in the public sector, the industry is constrained in many ways. For example, there has been formidable competition between works simply to survive because the Government have prevented BSC from closing any major works so long as they have remained competitive. That was the clear policy of the Conservative Government in 1982 and 1985.
      The chairman and customers may speak to Ministers and officials about competition from Europe, which is very important on the demand side. However, it is a fact of life in the works that it is not just the demand side that matters. That may affect the price, but the level of resources required to produce a tonne of steel are conditioned by the absolutely formidable competition between works in recent years simply to survive and to maintain that viability and profitability which, within the understanding and terms of reference given by the Government, it has been necessary to maintain to continue the Government's commitment. That balance between ensuring competition within the industry and maintaining its basic capacity intact and developing it has been highly successful and has produced what is now the most profitable industry in Europe. However, it is threatened by the complete change of regime that the Government are deliberately bringing about.
      An example of competition between works working with formidable and, to many of my colleagues questionable, efficiency was shown during the miners' strike. With the support of the unions locally, inside and outside the steel industry, and with the collaboration of local leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers, it was understood that it was essential to keep ore and coal supplies going to the steel works. If supplies had been interrupted the steel works would have closed, perhaps for ever, because of the loss of the blast furnaces. Neither Ministers nor the top management of the British Steel Corporation had any part in the negotiations. Often they simply did not know what was going on. Indeed, the top management of BSC at Ravenscraig did its best to sabotage the agreement between the unions that kept the works going.

      809
      Another example of the way in which the monopolistic tendencies operate can be found in BSC's attitude towards technological innovation. The BSC has made good use of short-term process improvements of a kind which during my days at ICI we used to call "process investigation work". However, the corporation is cool to the point of hostility to major technological advance. It is a rough, tough industry and the Government are handing over to it a degree of monopoly power which in the past steel tycoons would have found quite unimaginable. The whole commodity steel capacity of this country is to be handed over to a single private company.
      On 3 May in Committee I moved a new clause allowing the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to privatise a part of BSC separately from the rest. The proposal came from people with a great deal of experience of the steel industry. A former works director at Ravenscraig put the suggestion to me in its most logically developed form, Motherwell district council had the proposal examined by the largest consulting firm in Scotland, and the accountants who worked on it were former BSC accountants.
      In reply to the examination made in the report initiated by Motherwell district council, the Government have offered only debating points. They have offered no detailed examination of or justification for alternative structures for the industry, including the single entity. The Government have not even been able to produce evidence that they ever seriously considered any alternative structure for the industry. Instead, they have been hiding in the most extraordinary way behind the skirts of Welsh trade unionists. That is not an entirely honourable course for Ministers to take. There is an understandable sentiment in Shotton and in south Wales about the future structure of the industry, but we are concerned with the survival of jobs in Scotland, not about the sentiment and trading relationships between particular works. Any Government worth their salt and taking a decent, economic and, in the last resort, human view of the position would not be swayed by inevitably short-term sentiments in an untried situation.
      The Ravenscraig, Shotton and Dalzell proposal, by which Ravenscraig would be associated with the plants that it principally supplies as a separate trading entity, is not a solution that the Opposition would prefer. We would prefer the industry to remain in public hands. We would prefer the industry to continue operating and developing as efficiently as it has done up to the present. However, if the Government are to privatise the industry, to do so in the manner that they propose would subject neither the public interest nor the interest of Ravenscraig itself to a fair test of the market, which is a concept that Ministers espouse.
      The decision to privatise it is also an extraordinary demonstration of Ministers' political and economic short-sightedness. The birds will come home to roost on this issue well within the lifetime of this Parliament. Indeed, it is likely that in the course of the next year the British Steel Corporation will announce the intended closure of the hot mill at Ravenscraig. At present, BSC needs all its liquid steel capacity. In my last discussion with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, in the company of my hon. Friend, I heard him say so himself. However, he made it clear that his comments related to liquid steel capacity. It was clear also that he understood that we understood that the need for capacity did not
      810
      relate to the mill. Indeed, the announcement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refers specifically to the fact that there is no expectation or likelihood of the hot mill at Ravenscraig remaining open beyond 1989.
      The closure of the hot mill at Ravenscraig would seal the long-term future of the works, as it would reduce it to the position of being just a slab supplier. Also, any steel works has a limited life without the replacement and modernisation of coke ovens and the relining of blast furnaces, which wear out rapidly with time. Also needed is the modernisation of the mill control systems, finishing processes, and so on, which are necessary to maintain the competitiveness of the product compared with that available from other mills which have been modernised.
      The most important current development in the area in which Ravenscraig is engaged is probably thin slab casting, but BSC is not proposing to install that process anywhere in the corporation. The new plant for continuous thin slab casting being installed in the United States has no parallel in this country. The reason is that BSC has cut back its own research and development by 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Although it is investigating new processes in a small way with heavy percentage grants from the European Steel Community, simply to keep employed the experts it has to maintain in different sections of steel processing, it has no serious expectation that its modest investment in research into new processes will lead to fresh investment.
      The much-quoted remark made by Sir Robert Scholey,
      "I don't need an"
      Effing—
      "physicist to tell me how to run a steel mill"—
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Call for Sir William Rees-Mogg.
      Dr. Bray: I am sure that I was not as explicit as my hon. Friend would be. However, that remark, much quoted within the British Steel Corporation, set the attitude for too much of BSC's management. It was echoed to me by Shotton shop stewards when I was discussing the possible developments there. Indeed, I hope that Sir Robert does not need a physicist to run any of his existing steel mills, but one certainly needs a physicist to design a sensible plant to replace one's present mills. That kind of person is not being recruited today. Of the 40 new graduates that BSC recruited into its research department last year, only two had first-class honours degrees of any kind—only two out of 40, for the whole of the commodity steel industry in this country. In those circumstances, there is no way in which an industry cultivating the kind of technological image which the British steel industry needs can remain technologically competitive.
      Looking at the kind of competition that the Ravenscraig, Shotton and Dalzell group constitutes, there would be a strong incentive to develop the new materials and processes which would keep it technologically competitive. A competitive situation would be created which would not exist in the steel industry in the form proposed by the Government.
      The Arthur Young report shows that, for a wide range of demand variations in the future, it would pay BSC progressively to close Ravenscraig; not to close it next year or the year after, but progressively to close it as new plant is rounded off elsewhere in the corporation and old plant fails to be modernised at Ravenscraig.

      811
      The Arthur Young report also shows that, even with the continued competitive pressures created by the formation of the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell group, its setting up would reduce BSC's profits, income and output, at least for a few years. That is why BSC is flatly opposed to the hiving off of the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell group.
      The arguments are spelt out in detail in the Arthur Young report. They show that it is necessary to maintain the present pressures for competitive improvement for the extra capacity that would be achieved by keeping Ravenscraig operating, to build up the total profits, income and output from present BSC plants to as high a level, with Ravenscraig continuing to operate, as BSC would be able to achieve by the lazy man's way of simply closing Ravenscraig.
      The short-term results of closing Ravenscraig would be a short-term improvement in BSC's profits, but with an immediate reduction of national income and national output and, within a short time, a reduction of total national profits from the present assets. It is a classic demonstration of the abuse of monopoly power.
      If Ministers are not prepared to look more seriously at the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell proposals, it must be because they have been advised that BSC is only marginally viable and believe that it would be gravely threatened by the loss of profits from the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell group. The Arthur Young report looked at that, and my best advice is that that is not the case. The rest of BSC, just as the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell group, would be fully commercially viable. In all likelihood both parts of the corporation would develop further links.
      BSC has already made it clear that it would look to European links, and no doubt Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell would do likewise. It must be clear to Ministers that it simply is not possible to explore such a link without at least the Government's assent. It must also be clear to Ministers that their opposition effectively blocks any serious consideration of any international linkage for the parts of BSC that they are separating.
      In response to the new clause that I moved in Committee, Ministers said that the Bill already allows them to sell the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell group separately, and I accept that that is so. There is nothing in the Bill, and there is nothing in the powers that the Secretary of State will have over the successor company, to prevent the Government's implementing the course proposed in the Arthur Young report—the setting up of a separate Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell group. In new clause 1 we are asking Ministers properly to quantify the alternative option for the structure of the industry. They have not done that. I doubt whether they have done it for themselves. They have certainly not done it for the market place or for the House. It simply is not true that the new clause prejudices the commercial interests of BSC. It does in the narrow sense that BSC's profits would be less if Ravenscriag, Shotton and Dalzell were separately privatised. The Chancellor does not need his advisers to tell him that. He can work that out for himself. But that is not the commercial interest about which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should be concerned. The commercial interest about which he should be concerned is
      812
      the overall profits, output and income generated for Britain. It is those factors that he has in no way put before the House.
      The viability of alternative options is not just a matter for study. Without financial backers prepared to go through with the deal, all the studies in the world would mean nothing. No financial backers can emerge if they are faced with Ministers' political hostility and statements in the House that the Government's intention is to privatise BSC as a single entity, with Ministers concealing the evidence on which any serious alternative proposal, which goes beyond the scope of the Arthur Young report, could be put forward.
      I and my hon. Friends are not in the political point-scoring game. We recognise that the proposal that we put forward here is not an easy one for the Opposition. It is a marvellous opportunity to give Scotland a chance to help itself, to demonstrate its enterprise culture, but instead of that the Government are just giving Scotland a slap in the face.
      If Ministers do not follow their own principles and give Ravenscraig a chance, I warn them, and the Prime Minister, in the words of Adam Smith—whom the right hon. Lady quoted in Perth last weekend—in his book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", which preceded and laid the foundations of "The Wealth of Nations", where he said:
      "We do not originally approve or condemn particular actions, because they appear to be agreeable or inconsistent with a general rule. The general rule on the contrary is formed by finding from experience, that all actions of a certain kind are approved or disapproved of … it is chiefly from this regard to the sentiments of mankind that we pursue riches and avoid poverty. For to what purpose is all the toil and bustle of this world? What is the end of avarice and ambition, of the pursuit of wealth, of power and pre-eminence? In the race for wealth, and honours and preferments … [a man] may run as hard as he can, and strain every nerve and every muscle, in order to outstrip all his competitors. But if he should jostle or throw down any of them, the indulgence of the spectators is entirely at an end. It is a violation of fair play, which they cannot admit of."
      It is that violation that the Government are committing today in relation to Scotland's steel industry. It is not BSC or Bob Scholey who will face the reaction when Ravenscraig is closed. They will merely be playing to the rules set by the Government. It is Ministers and the Tory party who will be seen to have cheated by their own lights and to have closed down Scotland's largest and fully competitive industrial unit.
      My Scottish colleagues and I are simply concerned with some 10,000 jobs in our constituencies. We shall fight all the way to preserve them. But we are also concerned with the survival of a substantial piece of viable industrial capital which, with a deteriorating balance of payments, Britain will continue to need.
      We ask the Minister to think again, or at least to keep an open mind.
      Mr. Bryan Gould: Opposition Members welcome the terms in which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) has moved his new clause. All those who heard him speak during the Second Reading debate and, more particularly, in Committee will understand the depth of his expertise on and commitment to the future of the Scottish steel industry. We share his concern about the future of that industry, and in particular that of the Ravenscraig plant. We take on board the conclusions of the study that was commissioned by Motherwell district council, to which my hon. Friend

      813
      referred. That study was carried out by Arthur Young, accountants. It concluded that 11,000 jobs would be at stake if Ravenscraig were to close, and that, of course, the immense contribution that Ravenscraig makes to the Scottish economy would also be lost. We are entitled to be concerned because of the political history of the issue.
      We know that the Government have made earlier unavailing efforts to close Ravenscraig. We know that, on those occasions, their political nerve failed them, that leading members of the Cabinet threatened resignation if that step were taken, and that, faced with that pressure, the Government backed down. We conclude also that the Government remain, if not committed to, at least persuaded of, that course and that there is still in the Government's mind the possibility—indeed, the likelihood—that, in the interests of a privatised British steel industry, Ravenscraig might be closed.
      Of course, in the present situation, our concern is greatly intensified. Throughout the debates on the privatisation of this great industry, it has been perfectly clear that one of the Government's overriding considerations has been to get the best possible price for the industry. It has been quite clear that the industry should be made to look as attractive as possible to potential private investors. For that reason, great emphasis has been placed on British Steel's admittedly short track record of profitability.
      Most commentators agree that the price that will be obtained will largely be a function of the level of profitability, either current or expected. Most people believe that profits will have to be about 20 per cent. of the capital price paid. Any factor that either pushes up or pushes down the likely level of profitability becomes of intense interest to the Government, as it is quite clear that it will strongly influence market sentiment in terms of what the market is prepared to offer to British Steel.
      The interesting aspect of the Arthur Young report is its conclusion that a privatised British Steel that decides to close Ravenscraig—although doing great damage to the overall viability of the British steel industry and to the national economic interest—and getting rid of a substantial body of costs could nevertheless increase profits by up to £100 million a year. Interestingly, to my knowledge, whenever that point is raised—it was frequently raised in Committee—no Conservative Member contested it.
      If the closure of Ravenscraig will produce an improvement of £100 million—at least in the short and accounting term in which the markets are likely to judge these matters—it becomes a matter of great interest to the Government. It might lead them to the conclusion that it will mean a £500 million increase in the price for which they might sell British Steel.
      Those are the reasons that we fear that the Government have it in mind to sell British Steel, not only in its present monopoly form but with the right to close Ravenscraig. In other words, they cannot afford to sell British Steel if Ravenscraig and perhaps other parts of the corporation have already been divested and already exist and are able to trade independently. Quite clearly, that would substantially reduce the market value of British Steel. They are selling the right to close Ravenscraig.
      That suits the Government from two viewpoints. First, as I have suggested, it might lead them to hope for a much better price on strictly commercial grounds. Secondly, it enables them also to argue that the political objective of
      814
      which they have long been advocates—that is, the political objective of closing Ravenscraig, without the political odium that would normally go with that—could be achieved by shuffling off the responsibility and placing it in the hands of private owners.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): It seems that the hon. Gentleman is walking around the periphery of the amendment and touching on various aspects of the Arthur Young report without coming to the point. I am interested to see where he is going. The point of the amendment is to press the case for British Steel being privatised as a single entity or remaining in state hands as a single entity. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) disagrees with me on the main point and would like to see the company remain state owned. Will he say whether the Opposition say that BSC should remain a single entity? Does he support the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray)? [Interruption.] Of course I say "single entity". Do Opposition Members support the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, who thinks that it should not be a monopoly, as he put it, but should be fragmented?
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Gould: I am flattered that the Chancellor could not contain his impatience and was unwilling to wait for my speech to unfold. I am somewhat disturbed—it may have been a slip of the tongue or an oversight—that he managed comprehensively to express the thrust, sense and meaning of my hon. Friend's new clause in exactly the wrong direction. My hon. Friend's new clause is designed to open the possibility of the corporation being sold other than as a single entity.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): That is what he said.
      Mr. Gould: That is not what the Chancellor of the Duchy said. He may have intended to say that.
      Of course we are extremely concerned about the Government's intentions, but having made the point in support of the real concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South and other hon. Friends, particularly those representing Scottish interests, I invite the Chancellor's attention to the terms of my hon. Friend's new clause. It does riot press the Government to do anything but lay before Parliament, before the relevant date, a report setting out the arguments for one course as opposed to another. That proposal is extremely moderate and restrained. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to see why, for any reason, the Government could oppose it. We shall listen with great interest. After all, the Government have the power of disposal in these matters. I hope that they will enlighten us about their attitude to the new clause. It is their view that matters.
      I am sorry to say that I have just heard a sotto voce comment from Conservative Benches to the effect that the Government are opposed to it. That increases my puzzlement. On what grounds could they be opposed to it? It is a permissive measure. It commits the Government to nothing except a procedural step. It is a time-limited provision. In other words, once the relevant date has passed, the provision loses its force and cannot be revived by a successor Government.

      815
      It is hard to see why the Government should be so nervous about such a provision. It is almost as though they are startled, frightened and shying away from ghosts and shadows. I fully appreciate that the history of the Committee proceedings shows how frightened they are of ghosts.
      Mr. Atkins: Shadows.
      Mr. Gould: Exactly—shadow spokesmen, among others. It is extraordinary that the Government are not prepared simply to fulfil the limited obligation that would be imposed upon them by the new clause.
      The Government are not prepared to accept the new clause, not because they are unwilling to go through this procedural step—they may be prepared to do so, although I am confident that so far they have not informed themselves on these matters—but because they are determined, according to their lights, not to give the wrong signals to the market. They are afraid that, if they accept the new clause and raise even the remotest glimmer of a possibility that the corporation will be divided into separate entities, it will affect its marketability. The Government are concerned, as they approach the market, to preserve the corporation's monopoly position. They do not want the slightest cloud of suspicion to sully that pristine position.
      That is an extremely objectionable attitude for the Government to take. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Under-Secretary of State will confirm, we have written several times to ask for the evidence to which they have referred which has persuaded them that the corporation should be sold off as a single entity. We have been told that these are matters of commercial confidentiality. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South dealt more than adequately with that objection.
      If the Government are not prepared—we think that they act on specious grounds—to tell us what advice they have received and from whom, and even if they say that they have little possibility of influencing these matters, they should give us some guidance as to their preferences on the shape that the industry should take under private ownership.
      Mr. Michael Fallon: I hope that, at some stage, the hon. Gentleman will say what shape he would like the industry to be in. Given his distrust of monopoly—which we accept—and the strong possibility that the legislation will be passed, does he favour a Scottish steel company competing against an English steel company?
      Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman must accept that his right hon. Friends are responsible for the legislation. This is not our Bill. As we have said, if this monopoly is to be maintained, it is clear that, on this and other grounds, the right answer for the British steel industry is for it to remain in public ownership. Let us be clear about that. Any other question is hypothetical. [Interruption.] That may not suit the Government.
      Dr. Bray: Perhaps we would come up with a firm answer if Ministers assured us that, if the Opposition voted in favour of the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell solution, they would accept it. If Ministers merely say that they will
      816
      pursue this for political purposes, to muddy the waters, they will be treated in Scotland with the scorn that they deserve.
      Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend points out that, having revealed informally that they are opposed to the new clause, Ministers are left with the difficulty of explaining how what is to all intents and purposes a monopoly should be handed over to private owners without any adequate protection against abuse of that monopoly power. Whenever we have raised this objection, in Committee and elsewhere, we have been left with the fatuous argument that British Steel is hardly to be regarded as a monopoly, since 40 per cent. of the domestic market is taken by imports. That certainly casts a novel light on the immense increase in import penetration under this Government across the board in manufactured goods.
      We have always assumed that this might be something that the Government regretted and something that they recognised had a connection with the slumps in manufacturing output, manufacturing investment, manufacturing employment, our manufacturing trade deficit and the trade position generally. But not a bit of it; we now hear that the surging imports in steel and other industries are all part of a carefully structured strategy and that this is that very illusory creature—the Government's competition policy. We should be delighted to hear from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he intervenes further in the debate, or from one of his ministerial colleagues, whether that is so.
      Is 40 per cent. import penetration to be held up as an objective to be desired, supported and argued for on the ground that it imposes welcome competition on domestic suppliers? It is a fatuous argument because, even on British Steel's own terms, it is content to accept a monopoly in the parts of the market with which it is principally concerned and to leave it to the value of imports to make up supplies when and where there is a surge of demand which it is unwilling to meet.
      We are left with a familiar situation. The language is that of liberalisation and competition and of subjecting, through the pressure of market forces, operations like this to all sorts of commercial pressures so that efficiency is improved. All that is a complete charade. It falls down because there is no liberalisation or competition and market forces are not suddenly being introduced. Indeed, the reverse applies. The purpose of this "privatisation", to give it its proper name, is carefully to preserve the monopoly in order to maximise the price which can be obtained for the industry.
      We have seen this happen with British Telecom and many other privatisations. We are familiar with the gaping hole in the arguments. That does not stop us—perhaps optimism never quite dies—from looking in vain through the Bill for a sign that the Government are prepared to match, even with the smallest step, the rhetoric of their apparent commitment to liberalisation and competition.
      Where is there in the Bill any measure to prevent a privatised steel company from abusing the monopoly power that it will be handed on a plate? What do the Government propose to do to prevent abuse of that power? Where is the "Ofsteel", an organisation like the one that the Government felt it necessary to introduce for British Telecom, in the form of Oftel? Where is the ombudsman, or some means by which steel consumers and

      817
      customers can be protected? Where are the mechanisms to inhibit the abuse and exploitation of the monopoly position?
      Mr. Tim Devlin: Is it not right that the mechanism to control the industry will exist in the form of foreign competition? Already parts of the project at Canary Wharf will he built and bought overseas. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent someone from buying steel from an outside producer.
      Mr. Gould: I was under the illusion that the hon. Gentleman was present when I spoke on precisely that topic. Although he may have been here physically, I suspect that his mind had wandered elsewhere. I dealt at length—I felt extremely convincingly—with exactly that point. If the hon. Gentleman is advancing, yet again, the theory that a high level of foreign imports is the Government's competition policy and therefore to be much applauded, a great deal of what has happened to British industry and to our trade balance can be explained in those extraordinary and unsatisfactory terms.
      I reiterate Labour's concern for the future of Ravenscraig. I make it clear, as I did on Second Reading and in Committee, that, if the Government intend to slide out from under any responsibility for Ravenscraig's future and respond to its closure by private owners—for the reasons outlined by Arthur Young—by saying, "It is now a commercial matter for the private owners and nothing to do with us," we shall not let them off the hook.
      We put the Government on notice that they will be held politically responsible for the future of Ravenscraig. We are completely committed to that future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South has said, we intend to fight tooth and nail for as long as it takes to ensure that future. My hon. Friend's new clause gives the Chancellor of the Duchy, or his ministerial colleagues, a renewed opportunity to tell us that our fears are groundless. We shall be listening carefully, not for weasel words like "market forces" and "commercial considerations", but for a commitment to the future of Ravenscraig. It is an integral part of the sort of steel industry which the British economy desperately needs.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Fallon: We have listened many times to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), but I wonder whether we have ever before heard him give such unconvincing and uncertain support as he has for the new clause moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray).
      On the one hand, the hon. Member for Dagenham asked my right hon. and hon. Freinds to reiterate, to replicate or to demonstrate their anxiety for Ravenscraig. On the other hand, of course, he advocates all the usual arguments against monopoly. It is no wonder that the English Labour Front Bench is so uncertain about the policies for devolution advocated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his hon. Friends. It is no wonder that the red rose of England is such an unsuitable symbol for the Labour party in Scotland, when we have that ambivalent approach advocated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).
      Mr. John Maxton: Perhaps the hon. Member could explain why the so-called red rose, as he calls it, managed to sweep Scotland in the general election.
      Mr. Fallon: I was just arguing the point that the red rose is not the most suitable symbol for a party that distrusts monopoly, but is unprepared to advocate devolution in Scottish industrial policy. Had the hon. Member for Cathcart believed that the red rose was a Scottish red rose, he would argue—as his colleagues have done on the privatisation of electricity—for a Scottish steel company that was prepared to take on an English steel company, a Welsh steel company or other regional divisions of British Steel. That was the lacuna in the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham. There was a total absence of faith in the ability of the Scottish division of British Steel and of Ravenscraig to stand up to the forces of competition and the commercial play inside the domestic United Kingdom economy—let alone within the European Community.
      This new clause is a Ravenscraig protection clause, but it is none the worse for that. If it is a clause simply to protect Ravenscraig, it might have been more honest if those hon. Members advocating it from the Opposition Benches had said, "We want to protect Ravenscraig for ever," or, "We want to protect it for 20 years, 40 years or 60 years." To dress it up in this special report, in terms of their distrust of monopoly and uncertainty whether the privatisation should be entire or partial, is completely bogus.
      Of all the things that the Opposition could have argued this afternoon, they cannot argue that the Ministers have not taken seriously the arguments for preserving Ravenscraig. I am delighted to see the Minister of State, Scottish Office here. Since 1979, Ministers have done little else in the Scottish Office but take the arguments for Ravenscraig seriously. Had they not done so, had they absolved themselves of any social responsibility in that area of Scotland, Ravenscraig would have been closed some years ago.
      The Scottish Office and Industry Ministers have bent over backwards seriously to consider the problems of Ravenscraig. This does not come easily from my lips, but they have taken a balanced approach to these matters. They have looked at all the social and economic consequences of closing such a large plant. They have looked at the dependence of the local economy upon it and they have drawn quite the opposite conclusion from that inferred by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). The Scottish Office and the Department of Industry have protected Ravenscraig for nine years. Further, they laid out clearly before the House on Second Reading and in Committee the prospect of Ravenscraig surviving for some years ahead. The argument that the Scottish Office or the Industry Department have not taken Ravenscraig seriously does not stand up to serious examination.
      Mr. Stan Crowther: Will the hon. Member accept that I largely agree with what he is saying about political decisions having kept Ravenscraig open? However, what he has not mentioned is that, for the past five years, Robert Scholey has been wanting to close it. Does the hon. Member expect Sir Robert to keep it open when he will no longer be subject to the scrutiny of a

      819
      Minister in the Scottish Office and he can make up his own mind? What does the hon. Member expect the future of Ravenscraig to be with Sir Robert in charge?
      Mr. Fallon: That is an interesting intervention, which I shall answer. I have slightly more faith in the observation of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South in moving this new clause than in that of his hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). The hon. Member for Motherwell, South has assured us that Ravenscraig is "fully competitive". If Ravenscraig is fully competitive, I have no doubt that the markets, the future shareholders of the British Steel Corporation and the board of the British Steel Company plc will fully endorse the view of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. There will probably be no question of Ravenscraig being closed.
      Dr. Bray: It was as a north-east Member of Parliament that I first visited Ravenscraig and involved myself in these arguments. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) has not understood the argument. While Ravenscraig is viable and is justified as contributing a net addition to the income of the country, BSC—when constituted as a private monopoly—would still find it in its interest to close Ravenscraig. That is a typical monopolistic action. If the hon. Member would like to see the figures spelt out in detail, I shall be happy to give him the Arthur Young report.
      Mr. Fallon: The market, the research analysts and those who follow steel pricing will be disappointed with that intervention, because they already see the faith of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South slipping a little. In his first speech, he said that Ravenscraig was "fully competitive". Now he says that Ravenscraig is viable—[Interruption.] He said "viable". He said that its retention is fully justified if one takes the longer-term view. The markets have heard that one before, and they will hear it again. However, "viable" and "fully justified" are not of course the same as "fully competitive".
      Dr. Bray: The Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell group would be fully profitable.
      Mr. Fallon: I am reassured. If the group were to be fully profitable, I see no reason for the markets that follow those matters, the investors in British Steel or the board to go to an annual general meeting or to the City proposing the closure of those plants. I am sure that the new reassurance from the hon. Member for Motherwell, South will be regarded as strongly as his original offering that Ravenscraig is "fully competitive".
      Having dealt with the point about full competition, with the assistance of the hon. Member for Rotherham, I turn now to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dagenham that the report might assist in some way and that the function that he suggested in new clause 3, which was not selected, might be attributed to the ombudsman. I refer to his complaint that no regulatory agency is to be set up. Of course I am concerned, as he is, that the British Steel Corporation should not exercise a monopoly. That is important for my constituency also. The British Steel Corporation has a half share in one of the major employers in Darlington. Therefore, I do not want it to abuse its monopoly position in the United Kingdom domestic market, any more than the hon. Gentleman does.
      820
      However, I am not clear—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's other new clause has been selected, so we will not be able to explore this point fully—exactly how the ombudsman or "Ofsteel" agency would cut across the normal rules of competition policy or the remit that the European Community has in that regard.
      Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I pay him the credit of knowing that he is one of the prime exponents and supporters of free markets and therefore, one assumes, of competition also. I take seriously his statement that he too is concerned about the abuse or potential abuse of monopoly by a privatised steel company, but what does he propose to do about that?
      Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I share that concern. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) about the Canary Wharf development. One of the major fabricators in this country, Cleveland Bridge, in my constituency, has the contract for that development, but it must purchase the steel. Therefore, I am concerned that, when privatised, the British Steel Corporation may be able to abuse or to exploit its position in the United Kingdom market.
      The point that I was putting to the hon. Member for Dagenham and that he was putting back to me was that I do not see how an ombudsman or an "Ofsteel" regulatory agency could necessarily have a stronger regulatory framework than the normal rules of competition policy or the supervision that the Commission exercises in that regard.
      Mr. Gould: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he was honest enough to say that he had not answered my question. Between the question that he is putting to me and the question that I wish to put to him, it is fair to say that we are scrabbling around the margins of a situation that we do not wish to see arise. However, he and the Government, who are the supporters and sponsors of this Bill, are committed to the outcome, so he has to answer the question rather more pointedly than I do. I return to the question: what would he do to allay the fears that he has conceded he feels?
      Mr. Fallon: That is a fair question. All that I am saying is that new clause 3, which has been tabled by the hon. Gentleman, does not go anywhere near as far as we need to go. His regulatory body, which is not called "Ofsteel", but the Office of Fair Trade in Steel, would have, I understand, only a monitoring and reporting role. He does not envisage that office going any further than the present competition policy scrutiny arrangements allow. Therefore, we are entitled to ask how much further new clause 1 takes us. If it is his view that the monopoly aspect of a privatised British Steel Corporation should be of paramount concern to consumers and to industrial customers, he must come up with firmer regulatory arrangements than either his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South or he himself has proposed.
      In conclusion, arguments can be put forward against the privatisation of British Steel as a single entity and arrangements could be advanced by the Opposition for ensuring greater competition. However, the primary amendment or time of attack of this Report stage is this somewhat ambivalent new clause which seeks on the one hand to suggest that British Steel's monopoly is a threat,

      821
      but on the other hand, and at the same time, requires an extraordinary and permanent degree of protection for one plant. I for one certainly oppose the new clause.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I support the broad thrust of new clause 1. The reasons for this debate are, first, the way in which the privatisation is being brought forward and, secondly—this appeared not only on Second Reading but on Report—that the Government are anxious to get British Steel off the stocks while the books look acceptable and have not considered any option other than to sell it as a single entity.
      Even if one brushes aside ideological and philosophical arguments, the thrust of the new clause is that, having decided that our steel industry was ready to be put into the private sector, any responsible Government would wish to look at every conceivable way in which that might be done so that they could pursue the best possible option. The House is entitled to conclude that the Government have not made any such attempts, but have simply said, "Heavens, we have a slippage in our privatisation programme. British Steel looks profitable. Let us flog it off as quickly as we can before we have even considered the best way to do it." The House is entitled to ask the Government to explain why they have not considered the options or, preferably, to say that they are prepared to consider the options and have decided on the particular course of action that is most appropriate, having presented the facts to the House.
      Hon. Members representing Scotland are especially worried about the implications of the Bill for the future of Ravenscraig. In an intervention the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) told us that international competition would ensure that matters of choice and competition would be resolved. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to point to a location for the landing of foreign steel that is about as far away from the Scottish steelyards as one could get, in circumstances where the yards that manufacture steel for North sea oil production are reasonably expecting increased demand in the future and wish to look to a good quality competitive local supplier, which is what they have had in the past few years in Ravenscraig.
      Another matter of concern, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Membr for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), is that the British Steel Corporation has made little secret of the fact that it wishes to offload Ravenscraig. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, it attempted to present information that gave the impression that Ravenscraig was not viable, when in fact it was. The corporation loaded the accounts in a certain way to lead to that possible conclusion. That bears out the anxieties not only of Scottish Members, but of all Opposition Members.
      The argument that was put forward by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), that somehow the market is always right and that if an entity is profitable or viable it has nothing to fear, is naive. It is possible for those in an organisation to say, "We have four viable enterprises, but we could rationalise them into three viable enterprises." That may or may not make any difference other than one of managerial convenience. It may make a marginal improvement in efficiency, but it may not.
      822
      However, the idea that because one of the enterprises is profitable such a decision would not be taken is foolhardy and is not borne out by the facts.
      Ravenscraig is so crucial to the core of what is left of the Scottish industrial economy that its loss would he a damning blow. We should take on board the fact that we are talking about a Scottish economy which at the moment sustains over 5 million people and which, according to Government forecasts, will sustain only 4·8 million people in 12 years' time. Unless we can reinvigorate our whole economy we shall not be able to hold the population that we have, never mind add to it. It is really not credible to argue that if an entity as large as Ravenscraig were taken out there would be sufficient residual strength in the Scottish economy. Ravenscraig is crucial not just to the 5,400 people employed and the £300 million turnover that it represents, but to the whole Scottish industrial infrastructure.
      Mr. Fallon: I appreciate that that may well be the case, but does the hon. Gentleman share the view of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) that Ravenscraig is "fully competitive"?
      Mr. Bruce: As far as I am aware, Ravenscraig has been profitable and, if accounts are independently examined, could have a profitable future, but that depends on several things, two of which are crucial to this argument. One is the wholehearted commitment of the management, which most of us know does not exist, and the second is the follow-through of that wholehearted commitment by investing in the plant to ensure that the extent to which it is competitive can be sustained in the future because it has the best equipment available. So far the only assurances that we have from the Government are qualified and relate to the finite nature of existing investment rather than the ploughing-in of any new investment.
      Mr. Devlin: Does the hon. Member think that Ravenscraig is fully competitive? Perhaps I can home in a little more for him. Would he say that Ravenscraig is fully competitive with the other steel plants in the United Kingdom—Teesside, for instance?
      Mr. Bruce: The pressure from Conservative Members shows why we have every reason to be worried, because the implication behind that question is that the hon. Gentleman thinks that Ravenscraig is not competitive and that the sooner it is closed the better. That is exactly what we are trying to defeat, because the consequences of that action would be devastating. This is not the place to widen the debate to social costs and the costs of infrastructure, but we cannot take out such a plant and ignore what that would mean to British Rail in Scotland and the effect that it would have on the cost competitiveness of our North sea oil industry in the 1990s. Those are factors that should have been, but have not been, taken on board.
      I cite the record of British Steel in the early days of North sea oil development, when it decided to discontinue specialist steel pipe making just at the point when a major market had opened up for North sea equipment. We had to import a large proportion of the piping from Japan because we had closed down our capacity. The judgment of British Steel management has not always been impeccable. That may be—at this stage I say only "may be"—an argument why British Steel, if it is to be privatised, could usefully be privatised in more than one

      823
      entity. Different managements might make different judgments of the appropriate priority and the market opportunity.
      Given the indecent haste with which the Minister wishes to sell off British Steel, before it has fulfilled one year of viability, if British Steel gets into financial difficulties in the future, what will the Government's response be? Will they allow British Steel, as an industry, to disappear? Will Britain simply opt out of steel-making because the Government are not prepared to operate a steel industry that cannot pay its way, regardless of the strategic implications and of the effect that that would have on other industries? If so, that is a highly irresponsible attitude to take. If the Government are prepared to accept responsibility, how will they ensure that we have a viable steel industry that is not likely to get into difficulty? I say only that this may be an argument, but if there were two or three steel corporations, not all of them would necesarily get into difficulty at the same time and the scale of the problem might not be quite so severe.
      The Government have failed to demonstrate that they have in mind what I would regard as responsible stewardship of this industry. I come back to the debate, having spoken on Second Reading and criticised the impetuosity and haste with which the Government have pushed this matter forward, and find that throughout the Committee stage that situation persisted.
      The steel industry continues to be crucial to our economy. Everybody must welcome the fact that it is in a strong position, but questions remain to be answered by the Government, and I do not believe that they have looked at the possible different ways in which they could pursue their objective. I feel that the reason for that is that they are anxious to get British Steel off their hands while the going is good, and I for one have no confidence in their record so far.
      Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I came to the House 24 years ago direct from the steel industry. I start my remarks by declaring an interest in that I am currently associated, and have been for 30 years, with a company that makes the bulk of the melting electrodes for the industry.
      The steel industry today is in very good heart indeed, which has not been achieved without going through some very difficult times during the past two decades. I remember vividly when I came to the House—indeed, I made my maiden speech on the steel industry—that the Labour party was full of the views of the late Richard Crossman and the need for the commanding heights of the economy to be taken into public ownership—and, of course, the steel industry was the most commanding height of all. Far from being an easy business to operate, it turned out to be one of the most difficult that any Government had managed. Indeed, it has been an albatross around the neck of the taxpayer that is only now beginning to release its grasp.
      It amazes me to hear Opposition Members asking for assurances about what may or may not happen in the future and about one particular plant, which I shall certainly refer to in a moment, when I remember the savage treatment meted out to plants such as Consett, where the whole of the local economy was dependent on
      824
      the one plant—the gas supply, the bus station, the whole lot. That was because of the need to keep the corporation viable.
      One could argue that the presence of the big integrated plants has played a substantial part in the destruction of many of the smaller companies and, as a result, produced a great deal of misery and unhappiness in all parts of the country. In Scotland it is not just that Ravenscraig may or may not suffer; other plants have already had to go in order to keep these big monsters alive. One could argue whether the investment in plants, such as Anchor and the other big integrated plants, was in the best interests of the steel industry in this country. One has to recognise that, although the corporation is now in very much better shape than it has ever been before, our inability to provide the necessary products to bring the North sea oil ashore is a good example of how sadly the British steel industry has failed over the last two decades to meet all the requirements that we would all have liked it to meet.
      The British Steel Corporation, as a monopoly, has been ruthless to the private sector. We are being asked by Front Bench Opposition Members to build in all sorts of safeguards to protect various individual companies when the company is eventually privatised. BISPA—British Independent Steel Producers Association—has put up a magnificent fight over many years to try to protect that sector of the industry that was not nationalised, but how can that part of the industry ever compete with a corporation with its hand deep in the taxpayer's pocket? As a result, Ministers from both Labour and Conservative Governments have come to the Dispatch Box at various times with borrowing powers Bills to top up the corporation's finances and created a situation in which a private organisation could not hope not merely to compete but even to survive. Therefore, I hope that we shall not hear too much in the remainder of these debates about the almost benevolent attitude that the corporation has taken in the past. It has been a ruthless monopoly.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is, of course, borne out by the record, particularly the crushing of the private sector from 1980 to 1982. Is he therefore happy that a monopoly which has the potential for being even bigger and more powerful should be put in the private sector without any let, hindrance, control, restraint or supervision in any form?
      Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Under nationalisation, as a result of destroying companies' names and structures, all the landmarks within the industry were ultimately removed. That was done deliberately to make it extremely difficult to denationalise the industry into the shape that it had been before it was taken into public ownership. In future I, too, should like to see the industry returned to real competition. The whole of the nationalisation statute was undoubtedly based on creating a single monopoly and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out in his intervention, that had a disastrous effect on the private sector.
      5 pm
      The Ravenscraig plant has been mentioned. I do not represent a Scottish constituency, and Opposition Members know Scotland's problems better than I do, but in its heyday as a flat product plant supplying originally Rootes at Linwood with autostrip and the shipbuilding industry on Clydebank it obviously had a substantial

      825
      home market. That has changed. I do not know what the future of Ravenscraig is. I do not involve myself directly in that. But we must recognise that other parts of the industry have every bit as strong a claim to survival, but this plant has caught the public imagination and hon. Members with constituency interests have properly fought for it. I hope that we shall recognise, as Opposition Members who lived through the days of closures know only too well, that we cannot make complete predictions about the viability of any plant or business. I hope that Ravenscraig survives and prospers, but I must recognise that its original concept was against a completely different market background from that which applies today.
      I end my remarks with a plea for the industry. The industry's shape has changed, its product range has to some extent changed and, indeed, it is probably safe to say that another blast furnace will never be built. Electric melting should have a bright future, but that depends on energy costs. The cost of energy has always been a problem which we have had to confront in the industry, even when the blast furnace route was regarded as the only route. Sir Ian MacGregor, when chairman of British Steel, said that there was no future for electric melting because electricity costs would never be sufficiently low to make it viable. Indeed, subsequently when he went to the National Coal Board he stated that electricity generation costs would always militate against electric melting. That is a great pity.
      If my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are considering the future of the steel corporation as a privatised entity, they must consider it alongside what I hope will also be a powerful supporter of that entity, namely, a privatised electricity business—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Yes, but I hope not this afternoon.
      Mr. McNair-Wilson: The new clause cannot provide the assurances that Opposition Members seek. Despite the fact that we all share the same desire for a successful corporation in future, no guarantees can be given from the Front Bench.
      Dr. John Reid: I hope that the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will not mind my saying that I found his contribution bizarre. The gist seemed to be that, because plants had been closed in the past in order to retain a viable steel industry, we should now sanction the closure of a steel plant which is viable at present and which would have a fully profitable future if the new clause were accepted. The hon. Gentleman almost seemed to say that we should sanction the closure of Ravenscraig as an act of vengeance for the ruthlessness of the British Steel Corporation in the past.
      At least the hon. Gentleman's speech had the merit of clarity. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) seemed to suffer under so many misapprehensions that it would be impossible to correct them, but perhaps I could try to correct one or two. For the record, the red rose is not the monoply of England. If his knowledge of Scottish poetry is as deep as his knowledge of Scottish history, he has probably been taught that Robbie Burns wrote that his love was like a red, red thistle. The red rose was the subject of that particular poem.
      The hon. Gentleman seemed to suffer from a misapprehension on three other occasions. He seemed to think that we were arguing for a Scottish steel industry. At
      826
      no stage in or outside Committee, or in or outside the House, have any of us argued for a Scottish steel industry; nor do we argue for one in the new clause. Similarly, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that in the new clause we were arguing for protection for Ravenscraig. The clause merely asks that a rational, viable and cold look be taken at all the options. This is not merely a protection clause for Ravenscraig, although that is one element in the reasoning behind the new clause.
      The hon. Gentleman seems to have left the Chamber, but at least he can read my comments in Hansard. Even if this were a protection clause for Ravenscraig, given the choice between a protection clause for Ravenscraig and a protection clause for City investors, I would have to choose the former, and I am sure that my hon. Friends from Scotland would do the same.
      Mr. Devlin: My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) has had to leave the Chamber temporarily to meet a Cabinet Minister and he will return shortly, but I am taking note of all the hon. Gentleman's comments so that I can pass them to my hon. Friend when he returns.
      Dr. Reid: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain the points to his hon. Friend slowly and in single syllables so that his future contributions may be slightly more enlightening than the one he made today.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) outlined in considerable detail the reasons why the Government would be wise, politically and commercially, to reconsider the future configuration of the steel industry. His reasons included consumer satisfaction, competition and national interest. There are 58,500 other reasons why the Government should reconsider—the constituents I represent. I wish that the Secretary of State for Scotland was in the Chamber to hear our combined reasons and to listen to the debate. I cannot think of a more important debate for the industrial future of Scotland in recent years, yet the Secretary of State is prominent by his absence. Why he should be absent is a mystery to me. So far as I am aware, there are no cup finals in Scotland today, but no doubt he has business that he considers more important than the future of Ravenscraig.
      For my constituents and their families, this is perhaps the most important debate held in the Chamber for many years. Moreover, it is vital to millions of people in Scotland who live far from my constituency or, indeed, Lanarkshire and have no direct interest in the steel industry. Today we are simply concerned about the survival of the largest industrial entity in Scotland—the Ravenscraig steel plant.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South has said today as well as in Committee that there are no easy options. We do not expect unanimity on the Conservative Benches, or even on these Benches, on future solutions on configurations. The task is difficult. There are conflicting interests between political parties and within them. There are differing interests of employees at different plants, as there are between managements and product groups.
      I pointed out in Committee that the major steel plant in my constituency is the Clydeside tube works, which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows well. That has been suffering because North Sea oil-related work has been falling as the ratio of the pound to the dollar has

      827
      changed in a direction adverse to the commercial prospects of the works. For all those reasons, the works has been operating at a loss.
      Objectively, at first sight, it would in the interests of those who work in the plant, many of whom are my constituents, as the plant lies at the heart of my constituency, to support the privatisation of BSC as a single entity. But that view is greatly over-simplified and very dangerous, and it is the reason why I support my hon. Friend's new clause.
      We are discussing nothing less than the future of the Ravenscraig steel plant. Unless the new clause is accepted by the Government, and if the Government go ahead with privatisation of BSC as a single entity, as they seem intent on doing, all the history of BSC and all the evidence that I have seen—although I am not privy to the information seen by Ministers, nor have they been inclined to reveal it to me or other hon. Members—suggests that the closure of Ravenscraig is on the cards.
      Closure will not come immediately, of course. Commercial considerations will prevent an early closure of Ravenscraig, and political considerations will be involved as well. It will not do for Ministers, especially those at the Scottish Office, to allow the closure of the Craig so quickly after they have washed their hands of responsibility for the Scottish steel industry. Closure will be done very tastefully, and existing plans for the industry, including the Scottish industry, will first be passed to the private sector. Then a respectable period will elapse during which the Government can clearly indicate that they have severed for ever the ties binding them to the industry.
      After a respectable period, after political honour has been satisfied and when commercial considerations, above all profit, demand it, Ravenscraig will be closed. Perhaps closure will not happen all at once but will be achieved by the infamous "salami tactics"—slice by slice, section by section—but the ultimate outcome will be closure, dictated by profits and implemented by private management and sanctioned from the safety of her bunker in Downing street by a Prime Minister who, given her political responsibility, has been reluctant so far to sanction such a closure. Today is the Government's last chance to avoid that disastrous development.
      I regret to say that, from the evidence of today's debate, the Government still do not want to grasp that opportunity. On the basis of all the evidence that I have seen, I believe that privatisation of the British Steel Corporation as a single entity will mean ultimately the closure of Ravenscraig. Every person in my constituency will be affected. I will not ask workers in the tubes division to safeguard their future by being signatories to the death warrant of the Ravenscraig steel plant; nor will any reasonable person with the future of Lanarkshire and the Scottish industry near his heart.
      5.15 pm
      If the new clause is not accepted, my constituents who work in the tubes division will be asked to participate in an act of industrial murder, which will prove in the long run to be industrial suicide. Despite objective evidence, who can doubt that if BSC in its privatised form comes for Ravenscraig in the early 1990s, it will not be long
      828
      thereafter that it comes for DL Clydesdale, Imperial and Clydebridge, the remaining rump of the Scottish steel industry.
      Two facts motivate our concern and the new clause. Anyone with even a passing acquaintanceship with the Scottish steel industry knows from bitter experience that the Ravenscraig steel plant has long been a target for closure by BSC's management. The battle for Ravenscraig did not start today and does not end today with this debate. It has been fought at the plant, in the press, and in the communities of Lanarkshire. The argument has been paraded almost constantly, it must seem to Ministers, through the streets of Glasgow and Lanarkshire and it has been carried through the snow from the gates of Gartcosh to the barriers at the end of Downing street. It is an argument for survival.
      Over the past few years, workers in the Lanarkshire steel industry, particularly at Ravenscraig, have waged that battle for survival. They fought, not using the traditional weapons of industrial action but by almost unparalleled feats of production. Their efforts have won acclaim from every shade of opinion in Scotland, from plant floor workers, to the churches, community groups, management and trade unions; up to now, ministerial support has come from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and from the Scottish Office.
      Those of us who raise the issues today do so after long thought and consideration. On occasions we have been accused of talking down Ravenscraig or of having almost a death wish about the plight of the Scottish steel industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.
      Nobody who lives, as I and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) do, in the midst of a community that is dependent on the Ravenscraig steel plant would want anything other than a prosperous and healthy future for the plant. But the history of the BSC's imagined ambitions to close Ravenscraig in the past is the first factor that motivates us. The second is speculation about BSC's intentions. By its very nature, it is far more speculative than the history that we can read.
      We have been denied access to information in order to reach that judgment, but we are eternally grateful to Motherwell district council for having financed a study, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South referred earlier. The study was carried out by Arthur Young and Company, which is not a Left-wing think tank, but a company with sound commercial credentials and an impeccable reputation in the City and City affairs. Its conclusions must be taken seriously, and they can be stated starkly.
      They are that, if the Government proceed with privatisation of BSC as a single entity, first, it will not be in the interests of BSC as a commercial enterprise to keep Ravenscraig open beyond 1991. Secondly, it will not be in the interests of BSC to keep DL open beyond 1994. Thirdly, 11,000 jobs will be lost in Scotland, mainly in and around Motherwell. Fourthly, the loss of income to Scotland will be about £100 million. Those conclusions, even the possibility of those conclusions, demand a more urgent and constructive response from the Government than has been forthcoming so far, because they constitute nothing less than a national industrial disaster for the Scottish economy.
      It is no use Ministers harping back to the so-called guarantees of 3 December. I said at the time that those guarantees of steel in our time were as legitimate as

      829
      Chamberlain's guarantees of "peace in our time". They will not guarantee the future prosperity of the steel industry. They were a timetable for the execution of the steel industry in Scotland. There was a symmetry of cold and almost poetic logic in the timetable set out by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 3 December—legislation in 1988, flotation in 1989, amputation of the Craig in 1990 and termination in 1994. If that timetable were allowed to proceed, and if BSC is privatised as suggested, the social and economic effects on my constituency and on Scottish industry will be disastrous.
      I conclude in the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South moved the new clause. We are not here to score party points, and we do not intend to be provocative. We do not ask the Government to prejudge the matter, as some hon. Members have suggested. We merely ask them to abandon prejudgment and prejudice. We ask the Government to leave the door ajar for further reasoned and rational decision-making. We ask them further to consider alternative offers and to encourage such offers. Above all, we ask them to accept the avenue that the new clause provides for combining the implementation of their privatisation plans with the security of our industry. If that offer is accepted, it will certainly benefit the Scottish steel industry and people in my constituency. If the Government reject it, they will find that there is no hiding place if Ravenscraig eventually closes. There will be no political get-outs or management scapegoats. The decision and the responsibility will be theirs. Neither today nor then will they be allowed to avoid that responsibility to the people of Scotland.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I speak on behalf of all my Welsh Opposition colleagues when I make it plain at the outset that we do not agree with the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell option. We in Wales are concerned, in the context of the RSD implications drawn from the structure of the new clause, that splitting-off the finishing plants of BSC from the hot metal production plants will open up the equivalent of Pandora's box. In the steel industry world-wide money is made, not at the steel production end, but at the finishing end. The last thing that we want to encourage is the idea that the finishing end, such as the tinplate or coating divisions, should be split off from the hot metal end, whether at Ravenscraig or in the two south Wales strip mills at Port Talbot and Llanwern. We want to avoid that. We do not want finishing mills to be sold off separately as the most profitable parts of BSC's operations. We do not want that possibility even to be considered, although it might be attractive to the local management of BSC in those areas and to people in the City who might want to back them.
      In amendments Nos. 31 and 32 we question whether the structure of BSC should continue into privatisation without further consideration. I want to continue in the spirit of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and by the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and try to discuss the affairs of the steel industry in the way in which people in it do when talking among themselves. One thinks of people who have finished their shifts and have gone for a pint discussing the industry, or people on the management side of the industry discussing it with their professional advisers.
      What is the proper and best future for the steel industry? We are trying to see whether we can improve the
      830
      Bill. We have said that we are not keen on it and do not like it. We are attempting to persuade the Government that the Bill could be improved by slicing off the parts of BSC over which it no longer has any management control. That makes sense, because. Ministers have so far not examined closely the fact that the nationalisation of the industry took place in two ways, as the hon. Member for New Forest said.
      The main part of the industry was nationalised in 1967, but there was a considerable hidden wave of second nationalisation, in the Phoenix programme between 1979 and 1981, when orders in the steel industry fell off the edge of a cliff, as they said in those days, and when the creation of single-capacity companies, where previously there had been competition between BSC and the private sector, took place on a substantial scale. Some private sector competitors disappeared altogether. Duport in Llanelli was bought out by Mr. MacGregor in 1980–81 and was closed down. There was the merger of the rod and bar interests of GKN and BSC and the formation of Allied Steel and Wire in 1981. The following year—or a few years later—United Engineering Steels was formed, and Sheffield Forgemasters and the other Phoenix companies followed.
      That was the second wave of nationalisation, which absorbed much of the competitive structure under which the private sector had competed with BSC, and the reason for it was that conditions in the industry were appalling between 1979 and 1981. Energy prices were far too high, the pound was far too high, and demand was low. So it was a matter of who would survive the holocaust, and single capacity working was chosen as the only method of procuring any sort of survival. Considerations of competition did not enter into it.
      Now the Government must consider whether they need to undo the nationalisation of the industry as though it had all taken place in one fell swoop in 1967, or whether they should consider undoing it as it actually took place, which was in two stages—the original nationalisation, and the Phoenix nationalisation with the consequent elimination of competition in the areas in which even in 1967 it had been thought right to preserve competition between GKN, Johnson and Firth Brown and other private steel companies such as Duport and BSC.
      We are asking the Government to remove from the successor company the right to inherit the minority shareholdings that it has because of the Phoenix mergers that took place between 1980 and when the last Phoenix company was formed in about 1983. We ask them to give serious consideration to whether those minority shareholdings—sometimes they are as much as 50 per cent., but in Allied Steel and Wire they have shrunk to 20 per cent.—should be separated and denationalised separately, or held by the Government. We could discuss that matter at a later stage. Should BSC be granted the right to hang on to those minority, or up to 50 per cent., shareholdings?
      Accepting these amendments would introduce an area of clean competition between BSC and Allied Steel and Wire. They do not always necessarily compete in steel products, although they do in one or two. In the main, they compete in the end use—in the construction industry. As the hon. Member for New Forest said, they compete because of the competition between the electric arc production method and the blast furnace and basic oxygen method.

      831
      It is a healthy thing for the consumer to know that the Allied Steel and Wires of this world are competing flat out against the BSCs by pitting the best of the electric arc technologies in the world against the best BOS vessel technologies, without BSC having the extra leg that would stifle competition—the leg of knowing exactly the prices that Allied Steel and Wire was negotiating for its electrodes, scrap and so on. That is healthier for the consumer, and it is the way to keep imports down and produce a clean flotation of the industry. It would remove the octupus-like hold that BSC would have, because of its minority shareholdings in the Phoenix companies, on the new companies that are being created, which will shortly be floated themselves. It is suspected that Allied Steel and Wire will be floated in three or four weeks' time.
      What could be healthier for the consumer of steel, for the workers in the industry and for its management than to know that BSC and ASW—and later UES, when it is floated—are competing against one another, not knowing the prices the others are paying for raw materials, the technological developments that they have up their sleeves, or the investment plans of their competitors? What could be worse for management and the work force of Allied Steel and Wire than knowing that every new investment and technological advance and every new negotiated price reduction will be known before they can be made use of, through the nominee directors that BSC will have on the board of Allied Steel and Wire? Is that healthy for the consumer? I do not think that it is.
      Above all, it would not only produce a healthier climate for competition and keep down imports, but would have a beneficial effect. If the 20 per cent. shareholding which BSC holds in Allied Steel and Wire were transferred at any time of the Government's choosing before BSC is floated, early next year or later this year, into an employees' trust fund for the employees of Allied Steel and Wire, it would encourage the workers and management of Allied Steel and Wire to buy shares in the company to ensure that the company stayed independent of BSC.
      5.30 pm
      The Government have agreed in principle to provide a golden share type of protection for the British Steel Corporation. During the period of five years, or whatever time the Government have in mind for a golden share for BSC, the corporation might try to make a clean sweep of the Phoenix companies. It may decide to make a takeover bid for Allied Steel and Wire or for United Engineering Steels. That would do away almost completely with competition within the United Kingdom. There would still be a few companies, such as Sheerness, the ownership of which is outside the country, which would be independent, but in the main it would demolish competition within the country. Indeed, by insisting on the golden share provision, we would protect BSC and make it easier for it to do that, unless a golden share is given for the same period for the Phoenix private sector companies.
      The 20 per cent. share stake in BSC being held by the Government in an employees' trust fund for the employees of Allied Steel and Wire, with comparable arrangements for United Engineering Steels and so forth, will encourage workers to have shareholdings. It will also double as a golden share to protect Allied Steel and Wire from being taken over by BSC, with disastrous effects for competition,
      832
      steel consumers and the level of imports. That is why I ask the Government to think seriously before they dismiss the amendments. They would be healthy for the industry and would reflect the way in which the industry was originally nationalised. They would make a genuine improvement to the Bill.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I am pleased to support the new clause. It is modest in its intent, asking merely for a quantitative estimate of the economics of a competitive privatisation of British Steel. However, it has been enough to expose ambiguities in the Government's position. It has also exposed ambiguities in the position of the Labour party, but I shall leave that to one side for the moment.
      Mr. Maxton: I do not wish to go too deeply into what the hon. Gentleman may say later about the so-called divisions in the Labour party, but his party is in alliance with the Welsh nationalist party, Plaid Cymru. I am interested in the fact that no members of that party are present. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give us the views of Plaid Cymru on the RSD proposal.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) should give his own views.
      Mr. Salmond: I shall certainly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Neither we nor Plaid Cymru are in favour of the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell option. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) does not know that. We argued for an integrated steel industry in Scotland. Of course, the question has been asked many times whether the Labour party Front Bench is in favour of the RSD option, which has been argued so forcefully by Labour Back Benchers. That is a legitimate question to put to the Labour party; it has not been answered. Ambiguities on Labour's position have also been illustrated by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
      But I want to leave the divisions in the Labour party to one side for a moment and explore the ambiguities in the Government's position. On Friday last, I made the mistake of switching on the television and seeing the Conservative party conference in Scotland. One speaker—I forget who; it may have been the Minister of State—in an eminently forgettable speech, was putting forward one argument which had an element of sense. The argument was that the process of nationalisation had removed from the Scottish economy key areas of decision making. That was a legitimate criticism of nationalisation. It is not a criticism of public sector control in itself, but it is a legitimate criticism of the process of nationalisation as it took place in the 1950s and 1960s.
      We might think that it also shows the extraordinary cheek of a party which has privatised the TSB and Britoil and has shown how privatisation can remove control from the Scottish economy. None the less, it was a substantial point which was made at the Conservative party conference in Scotland. Given that the Government have the opportunity to reverse the process in the privatisation of British Steel and the opportunity through privatisation to restore management control to Scotland, it is all the more surprising that they do not take it. Here we see the first major ambiguity in the position of the Conservative

      833
      party in Scotland. The only conclusion can be that the Scottish Office is taking its orders, as usual, from south of the border.
      The second ambiguity exposed by the new clause concerns the attitude to the competitive market environment. I am a member of the Select Committee on Energy where we are discussing the privatisation of electricity, a major utility. There are grave problems about introducing competition into the transmission and delivery of electricity. However, the Conservative members of the Committee and the Ministers who have appeared before it insist that, whatever else happens in the privatisation, competition must be introduced. Is it not all the more curious that, in the privatisation of the steel industry, where it would be much simpler to introduce domestic competition than in the electricity supply industry, the Conservative party should abandon that principle and go for monopolistic privatisation? It is a curious ambiguity, which cannot be defended on principle. There are only the poorest arguments for sending the steel industry into the private sector as a monopolistic entity.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) is not still here. I can only assume that the important meeting with a Cabinet Minister is a meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland. That would explain the absence of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen from the debate. Perhaps the hon. Member for Darlington is giving the Secretary of State for Scotland his weekly economics lecture and is telling him what to say in Scotland next week.
      If the hon. Member for Darlington had been here, I would have put it to him that it is the most elementary point of free market economics that there should be no monopolistic behaviour. Of course, if British Steel is sent into the private sector as a single unit, it will restrict output and maximise profitability. It is incredible that the hon. Member for Darlington should have ignored that point.
      If British Steel is sent into the private sector unencumbered, the entrenched hostility of British Steel senior management to the Ravenscraig complex will come to the fore, without any protection of the public interest. The Chancellor of the Duchy is fond of saying that this fear exists in the minds of Opposition parties and that we talk down the Ravenscraig complex. But that view is generally held. For example, it is held by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). Recently, the Chancellor of the Duchy made some complimentary references to that body which by no means can be described as a party politically oriented body in Scotland.
      In March, in reference to the dangers of sending British Steel into the private sector as a single entity, the council said:
      "On track record, it is reasonable to assume that a single company operated in the private sector and thereafter not subject to public control would close Ravenscraig Works at an early stage. The adverse effects on the Scottish economy have already been well documented. Closure would also jeopardise the delivered price of steel in Scotland from other sources, because of loss of the basing point which is used in the price formula."
      That quote from the Scottish Council encapsulates the real fears on the conclusion of any serious examination of the likely future of the Scottish steel industry under the Government's proposed privatisation. We also recognise the important point made by the Scottish Council, that the closure of Ravenscraig would not just be a matter of the enormous direct loss of 11,000 jobs, and £100 million in
      834
      output, but it would have a continuing impact on the Scottish economy because the loss of the basing point would affect many steel using industries throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
      The fears for Ravenscraig are real, and not just the fears of entrenched political interests. They are shared by many impartial bodies in Scotland, and the Government have done nothing whatever to allay the fears. No hon. Member has made the case for an integrated steel industry in Scotland as the best possible option. I should like to make that case.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to make that case while discussing this new clause.
      Mr. Salmond: The case for how the industry should be competitively privatised is the subject matter of this new clause.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot be reading the new clause that I have before me, because it says:
      "Before the appointed day the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report giving quantitative estimates".
      I fail to see how that would justify the kind of argument that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to advance, and I hope that he will not persist.
      Mr. Salmond: One of the important estimates that I expect to see the Government produce if this new clause is accepted is about the real possibility of an integrated steel industry in Scotland. It should be central to the debate on this clause—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems that there is a difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and me, and on this occasion my opinion will prevail. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the new clause.
      Mr. Salmond: The new clause would certainly prevent what would be the worst of all possible situations—the sending of the steel industry unencumbered into the private sector, unrestrained by the public interest, in so far as that is recognised in Scotland by the Government, and unrestrained by the force of competition in the market place. The new clause will test whether the Government believe in a free market or a rigged market in the Scottish economy. If the Government refuse to accept the new clause, they may well be signing the death warrant of Ravenscraig. If that happens, Scotland will sign the death warrant of the Conservative party.
      Mr. George Robertson: The Opposition have said a number of times that this is the wrong solution for the British steel industry. We have to work on the premise that a better solution exists and that the British Steel Corporation should stay in the public sector. If we accept the argument that it is a central, important and vital industry, then only in the public sector can it get the protection that it deserves.
      We are considering the privatisation of this industry well ahead of schedule; further ahead than the Minister told us after the election. We know that there is a gap in the legislative programme and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his difficulties, needs more of the loot that comes from privatisation, and that BSC falls neatly into that category. This is an important and balanced debate in which we are considering one of the more serious and important issues in politics. It did not require much

      835
      vision to see at the weekend how important even the Prime Minister now considers the Scottish dimension to be to her own political future.
      It was fascinating to watch the Conservative party in Scotland going through a disastrous general election and then an even more disastrous series of local elections only a fortnight ago and then the Prime Minister came to Perth and spent a weekend in Scotland. It was an incredible set of experiences. The Glasgow garden festival was granted three hours of the Prime Minister's time, and Hampden park was graced with her presence for lunch. The large crowd at Hampden park found that she was there to present trophies at the end of the game. It is a matter of some pride to us that she now feels it sufficiently important to come to Scotland and to be troubled about the fortunes of her party.
      5.45 pm
      Those who examine the way in which the Conservative party treats Scotland—and people do not have to be terribly perceptive to do that—will have noticed a considerable difference in attitude from previous occasions. When the Prime Minister came to Scotland at the weekend she did not tell us, as the Conservatives have told us in the past, that we were a bunch of whingeing no-gooders, supplicants at the public purse. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) is the main script writer for the Prime Minister and other Ministers. This time we were told that Scotland was the birthplace of Adam Smith, that he was the precursor of Thatcherism and that we were to be congratulated on producing that philosophy. We were told that Scotland was the base for silicon glen, that it represented all that was best in the country and that only the small aberration in Scotland's voting pattern set it apart from the rest of the United Kingdom. Anyone who watched on television the penguin parade of political casualties in Perth could have been mistaken for thinking that the Conservatives had had two triumphs instead of two disasters there.
      It is important to remind ourselves that Scottish politics are important in the national context and that the debate on the new clause could not be more relevant. In my constituency the largest employer is the Ravenscraig steel works, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). I do not think that any hon. Member who has participated in the debate considers the future of Ravenscraig as a constituency matter or, indeed, as a simple, parochial west of Scotland or even Scottish interest. We are concerned about the importance of Ravenscraig and about the importance of a balanced steel industry to the British economy. At times Conservative Members, and even Ministers, have been willing to admit that that is a fact of life.
      We all rightly feel inhibited about talking down the fortunes of Ravenscraig and the associated steel works in Scotland. I concede that that is a danger. If we speak often enough, and regularly enough, about the dangers to Ravenscraig and to Scottish steel, the argument will take on an inevitability that might bring the disaster that we continue to predict. My hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell, South and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) are aware of that in this debate, as they have been in every other debate that has taken place.
      836
      We are interested, not in milking Ravenscraig, but in boosting it. We do not want to criticise it. We want to give due credit to its work force and management, who over the past 10 to 15 years have made it one of the most efficient, profitable and effective contributors to the European steel industry. That is certainly not knocking Ravenscraig. To draw attention to the dangers facing Ravenscraig, both under the Government and, perhaps more acutely, under the non-political leadership of the present management of BSC, is not knocking or criticising Ravenscraig, but is simply pointing out a basic fact of life that Ministers will have to take on board.
      Much has been made in the debate of the assurances that have been given to Ravenscraig, and I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us about those. We have been told regularly how important those assurances are, and Ministers have mentioned periods of seven years and two years. They have told us that these are greater guarantees than have ever been given by any previous Government. These guarantees exist on paper, but the moment a guarantee is given people ask about what will happen at the end of the guarantee period.
      The Government have a political reason for keeping Ravenscraig open. If the Prime Minister's eyes have been opened sufficiently so that she can walk through the streets of Glasgow with the same fearlessness as she displayed last year when she walked through the streets of Tbilisi in Georgia, she is beginning to learn the lesson that the Scottish people have been trying to teach her for at least the last five years. Perhaps Ministers have taken on board the importance of Ravenscraig to Scotland and the importance of Scotland to the United Kingdom as a whole.
      As Ministers have now realised how difficult it would be in political terms to take a decision that would rob the steel industry of Ravenscraig, they are about to pass the industry into the hands of people whose motives are even more suspect and who are even more remote from political accountability than Ministers with only 10 Members of Parliament behind them.
      I make no attack on Sir Robert Scholey and the senior BSC management. They have done an extremely good job and have produced for the Government an extremely profitable industry which is now so attractive that it is being handed over to them on a plate. Sir Robert Scholey is a man of considerable esteem. Indeed, when I left university 20 years ago I was offered a job at the United Steel Company, which was the main launch pad for Sir Robert Scholey and the group that presently runs British Steel. Given different circumstances, who knows where I might now have been in that organisation.
      I make no criticism of the management's competence. They have said openly that the British Steel Corporation and British Steel plc would be leaner, fitter and more competitive in the general European context in which they believe they must operate if there were one fewer integrated steel works. They make no bones about which one they would like to see go.
      The Government will now hand the stewardship of British Steel into the hands of that group. It is right for and perceptive of our constituents and the wider community in Scotland to be deeply suspicious about the future of Ravenscraig, given the declared views of the individuals who will be in charge of British Steel. It is normal to be suspicious. It is not an aberration to be suspicious of those who will take the decisions in the future. We should not

      837
      take it as part of a gigantic conspiracy. Those suspicions have due foundations and Ministers should take them on board and should not, for their own political skins, dare to dismiss them as the frivolous rantings of the people who represent those areas.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South introduced the new clause as a form of enabling provision that would allow the Government, consistent with their ideological fixations, to put forward alternatives within which competition could take place and accountability could be measured. The Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell plan is on the table as an example of a method by which competition could be achieved and Ravenscraig perhaps safeguarded, but there are other alternatives.
      Strathclyde regional council's industrial development committee has written to the Minister suggesting the possibility of a British Airports Authority-type solution, with different components within the single denationalised organisation. The Government should give balanced consideration to that proposal. It is not designed simply to safeguard Ravenscraig. It has been designed within the context of the Government's objectives for the British Steel Corporation to ensure a degree of internal competition that would perhaps stimulate management, as Ministers believed that the BAA solution would for that organisation. If it is good enough for that, we should not simply consider a monolithic transfer from public ownership to private monopoly ownership. In fairness, Ministers should consider other alternatives, and the new clause would provide the basis for that.
      The many thousands of my constituents in Lanarkshire employed at the Ravenscraig steel works do not ask for special treatment. They are not interested in giving the hon. Member for Darlington and his Right-wing cronies the idea that they are coming with a begging bowl to the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry—or the Department of Enterprise—looking for a lifeline or a permanent subsidy. They want recognition of the achievements at Ravenscraig over the past few years. They want an appreciation of the fact that the Scottish steel industry has been transformed out of all recognition and is now one of the finest in Europe. They want that protected and continued in the future. That is a modest enough request to make of the Government. If the Government choose to decline or ignore that request, they will not be lightly forgiven.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is obviously well qualified to speak in this debate with his constituency interest and background in the steel industry, about which I was intrigued to hear for the first time. The mind boggles at the thought of the hon. Gentleman perhaps moving on, if he had pursued a career in the industry, to become chairman of the British Steel Corporation. He would probably have found himself doing a more valuable job than being a Front-Bench spokesman for the Labour party, however competent he may be at the job, unless his party performs better in the near future. If he had had a continuing direct interest in the steel business from a management point of view, I doubt whether he would have made the speech that he has just made about the possible future configuration of the industry.
      I should like to deal with amendments Nos. 31 and 32, in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr.
      838
      Morgan), who was concerned about the position of Allied Steel and Wire Ltd. He chose a timely day to put forward an amendment about that company because its flotation was announced this morning. The purpose of the amendments is to seek to persuade the House that the Government should take away the 20 per cent. owned by British Steel and make it a Government stake, albeit held in trust for the benefit of the employees of Allied Steel and Wire Ltd.
      I listened with care to the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. He was mainly concerned to protect Allied Steel and Wire Ltd. from what he perceived to be a threat to the future independence and commercial freedom of the company from the British Steel Corporation with its minority holding. I have no reason to believe that Allied Steel and Wire Ltd. is threatened by the BSC in the way that he suggests and I am certainly not persuaded by what he said about allowing the Government to have, in effect, a golden share in a company that has been in the private sector for some years. We shall deal with special or golden shares in the privatised BSC on a later amendment, but the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that we are not tempted by the idea of taking a special share in a wholly private sector company, albeit one in which BSC has a minority holding.
      I am attracted by the idea that the employees of Allied Steel and Wire Ltd. should have a stake in the company. Once again, the hon. Gentleman's chosen method, contained in amendment No. 32—in effect, to give a fifth of the company to the employees—is generous, but it goes over the top somewhat. Most of the employees already have a stake in the company. Most of them own shares in the company, and I trust that many of them will take the opportunity to increase their holding as a result of today's flotation. Generosity would be taken considerably further by, in effect, taking a fifth of the company away from British Steel and holding it solely for the benefit of the work force. We do not need to go so far in worker participation.
      Mr. Morgan: I apologise to the Minister for having missed the beginning of his speech. I was in the Lobby reading his Department's press release regarding the new special share and employee share arrangements, as it had just been handed to me by a journalist. [Interruption.] I had not read beyond the seventh line when I was interrupted and told that the Minister had started his speech, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) would care to look at it.
      Would the Minister take a more generous view of our amendment if he understood it to mean that the transfer from the Government holding to an employee holding could take place gradually over a number of years and involve employees paying for their shares through arrangements, which could be discussed in detail, to maximise the employees' holding in the company?
      Mr. Clarke: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Chamber. I can see no case for removing the 20 per cent. minority holding from the British Steel Corporation. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's fears about the way in which the BSC may use that holding with regard to Allied Steel and Wire Ltd. I also believe that there is already an adequate employee stake in the company. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but, as amendment No. 32 stands, there is no provision for the payment for those shares and

      839
      I do not find the proposition any more attractive after the hon. Gentleman's comments. The flotation that has been announced today should be allowed to proceed. I do not believe that the company's position will be jeopardised if it proceeds without the benefit of amendment No. 32.
      6 pm
      Dr. Reid: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster consider that there are merits in the case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), particularly as the Chancellor said that his major objection was that, although he was not opposed to it in principle, the proposed formulation was too generous? Is it really too generous to give those workers a 20 per cent. share in the company when he is writing off the public debt and writing down the public dividend capital of the BSC by almost a half or even more before gifting it to the City? In comparison to that write-off, does not my hon. Friend's proposal lack generosity?
      Mr. Clarke: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is making a false comparison. Although the hon. Member for Cardiff, West has rather spontaneously tried to modify his first proposition, on its face value amendment No. 32 involves removing a 20 per cent. holding of the BSC in Allied Steel and Wire Ltd. and giving it to the employees. That 20 per cent. holding has a substantial financial value which will emerge as flotation proceeds.
      The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has made a false comparison about what is proposed for the future financial structure of the privatised BSC. We are not writing down debt. We are ensuring that the new privatised company has a balance sheet that reflects its present-day position. We are coping with the accumulated losses that have appeared on the balance sheet from years past when the corporation unfortunately traded at a very heavy loss. There is no cash involved in that and we are not writing off real money. The books will take account of the fact that, unfortunately, during the years of nationalisation the BSC lost a great deal of money on its trading account. That money still lies on the books, and obviously it cannot stay there if the company is to be privatised successfully.
      We started this debate discussing new clause 1. We have had a particularly discursive discussion during which no particular theme has emerged, despite the fact that the vast majority of those who spoke were Opposition Members—Labour Members, Liberal Members or Scottish nationalists. That lack of theme has occurred because no one really agreed with the underlying purpose of new clause 1.
      The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) is the prime advocate of the so-called Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell proposal. He made it clear that he sees the proposal as one way of getting hold of more factual information which he hoped might support his proposition.
      The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, and other Labour Members, out of a sense of courtesy, did not directly contradict the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. The hon. Member for Dagenham seemed to imply that he almost supported the new clause in so far as it was
      840
      a technical matter asking for a report and some information. However, it became clear that no one really supports the underlying aim of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South.
      The hon. Member for Dagenham confirmed that he believes that the BSC should remain a single entity. He is no more attracted by the idea of breaking up the BSC, either in the public or in the private sector, than Conservative Members. It is wrong to believe that there is widespread support for the idea of different configurations. I hope to reveal that it is wrong to believe that the future of Ravenscraig will benefit from vaguely floating ideas that one might restructure the company and privatise it as two companies which, in effect, is what the hon. Member for Motherwell, South was advocating.
      Mr. Gould: I am certain that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is sufficiently intelligent to understand that a single entity in public ownership is a different proposition from a single entity in private ownership. That is essentially the point that we have made. It is also the point of new clause 1. Of course we support new clause 1 in the sense that it provides a straightforward and unobjectionable mechanism whereby the Government can learn and then inform Parliament about the basis on which they will reach a decision on the form that the British steel industry should take in private ownership. That seems to be a very modest request and the simplest of requirements of good government in that area.
      Mr. Clarke: I will consider what I believe to be wrong with the mechanism in a moment. Before the hon. Gentleman retreats and considers new clause 1 as a purely technical amendment after he and his Labour colleagues have spent two and a half hours debating the issue, I want to state that, of course, I understand the difference between a single entity in public ownership and one in private ownership. I accept that the hon. Gentleman would prefer it to remain in public ownership. I remain quite convinced—and the hon. Gentleman has never contradicted me—that, if it is to be privately owned, the hon. Gentleman prefers it to be a single entity.
      It is obvious that that is the view of all Labour Members, apart from the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, who continues to advocate what I regard to be a complete red herring—namely, the so-called Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell proposal.
      Dr. Reid rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
      The hon. Member for Motherwell, North underlined the fact that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South is not putting forward a truly Scottish option. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North rightly explained that Clydesdale is not included in his hon. Friend's proposal.
      The Ravenscraig-Dalzell-Shotton option is not entirely Scottish. To make it a credible proposition, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South must try to annex Shotton, which is in Wales, to the other Scottish interests. I know that Arthur Young's report stated that the headquarters of the new entity might be situated in Wales. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, that does very little to assuage Welsh fears, because no one in Wales or in the BSC outside Motherwell sees the slightest future in the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell

      841
      proposal, which is the underlying aim of the new clause. That proposal is a complete red herring in the wider debate.
      Dr. Reid: Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) nor I, or anyone else, has ever claimed that the proposal is motivated by nationalism or national sentiment. The configuration has been put forward on the basis of industrial sense and commercial viability. It is a red herring to suggest that somehow that shows a lack of support, because we have never claimed it as a Scottish option. For the record, I want to correct the Minister. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South and his proposal. Even if we stand in splendid isolation, if the proposal offers a solution for the long-term security of Ravenscraig, I am proud to support the proposal.
      Mr. Salmond rose—
      Mr. Clarke: It seems that the proposal has the support of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North and it appears that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is about to volunteer his support as well. However, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West opposes the proposal and the hon. Member for Dagenham will not say what he thinks. I want to consider what I believe is wrong with the idea of privatising British steel other than through a single entity.
      Mr. Salmond rose—
      Mr. Clarke: It is always a mistake to guess at the grievances of the Scottish nationalists. I had better hear what they are.
      Mr. Salmond: As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is aware, I should be delighted to set out the Scottish option if I am allowed to do so. With regard to the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell option, the Minister must not invest in the new clause something which does not exist. If people believe that there should be a non-monopolistic privatisation of the BSC, they are entitled to support new clause 1, whether they believe in the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell option or any other for privatising the BSC. Both I and my party believe in that.
      Mr. Clarke: The Government remain convinced that the corporation should be privatised as a single entity. If anyone is suggesting that it should be broken up for privatisation, they are at liberty to put forward the configuration that they would prefer in different companies. As far as I am aware, the Ravenscraig—Shotton—Dalzell configuration is the only one that has ever been suggested. If anyone has some alternative way of dividing the corporation, it has not been advocated this afternoon.
      The reason why I believe the corporation should remain as one—and we examined a huge variety of options before taking the decision to come forward last December with the privatisation proposals—is that any change in its shape will dismember an interdependent business—which has been built up very successfully by the management and work force in recent years—which has begun to show considerable commercial success. It would throw the future of all parts of the business into considerable uncertainty and set back the achievement we have seen so
      842
      far, whereby the last published half-year figures showed £190 million profits. Everybody obviously expects those profits to be maintained.
      To divide up the corporation and to cut out of it and privatise the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell operations alone would be extremely difficult. The resulting company would have no kind of track record and its commercial outlook would be uncertain. It would have considerable difficulty in raising investment capital and it would be an extremely weak competitor against the rest of British Steel, let alone competitors in the rest of Europe.
      The hon. Member for Motherwell, South spoke of the history of what he described as the competition for survival between steel plants, and of the pressures which are placed on Ravenscraig. Competition to reduce costs and increase efficiency is an essential part of the steel business, especially in present circumstances. I do not see how those pressures would be reduced, because the proposed new RSD company would be pitched into difficult competition against the remainder of British Steel and other European competitors.
      I believe that such a company would be impossible to float. There are those in Scotland who believe that a type of trade sale to Scottish interests might be arranged. I am doubtful about the prospects of raising any capital for a company having no track record of any kind.
      Having listened to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, who is very erudite and who surrounds his arguments with as much information as he can, I still believe that what has been conceived is a political structure for part of the industry. The origins of the argument centre on fears about Ravenscraig. In order to make a credible configuration for a company that might protect Ravenscraig, there has been devised the notion of Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell as some kind of industrial entity. It is not the Government who are obsessed with the Welsh trade unions, and so on. That configuration has been devised as the best that could be produced—leaving out other parts, because the trade unions are opposed to their inclusion. The hon. Member for Dagenham will not support it because he knows that the Welsh trade unions are against it. Clydesdale Steelworks is not included because the hon. Member for Motherwell, South knows that the Scottish trade unions are against it. It is the Opposition who are getting knotted over the trade unions. They are trying to produce a political structure which they believe will improve their position vis-a-vis Ravenscraig.
      The whole history of steel, as of other industries, shows that once one starts making political decisions about the structure of the industry, about where investments should be made, and about the future, the more one causes difficulties, closures and disruption. We believe that privatising British Steel as a single entity is best for British Steel and for all those who work in it.
      Dr. Bray: The Minister is quite inaccurate in his claim about the origins of that idea. The first time that I remember hearing about it was—if the Minister insists that I name names—from Jake Stewart, chairman of the flat products group of the British Steel Corporation. It was later argued for in the presence of Bob Scholey by the managing director, who is a Welshman but whose name I momentarily forget.

      843
      6.15 pm
      The argument when Gartcosh was being closed was not that Ravenscraig was being robbed of a finishing mill but that the originator was being given a newer, more modern and more diversified finishing mill at Shotton. BSC itself planted the idea and made the point that it was an integral, sensible operating unit.
      Mr. Clarke: I shall take that point up with Jake Stewart when next I meet him, if indeed he was the originator. However, Ravenscraig is still supplying Shotton. British Steel, when privatised as a single entity, will continue to have that link between Ravenscraig and Shotton.
      Whatever the origin of the suggestion—and I accept that the originator may have been Jake Stewart, as the hon. Gentleman said—it has nevertheless been put forward by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South as a political solution to what he perceives to be the problems of Ravenscraig. He has sought to cloak it with more credibility by citing, for example, the Arthur Young report. What I regret about this debate is that, as it has progressed, it has depended upon an attempt by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South and some of his hon. Friends to continue casting doubts on the assurances that we have given about the future of Ravenscraig. The Arthur Young report seeks to diminish the calculations made by British Steel and its expectations as to the future of Ravenscraig. I do not see the point of doing that.
      What ought to be regarded as the best news from the steel industry for people in Scotland for many years is British Steel's commercial estimates of its future steelmaking needs in Scotland. Its best estimate, subject to market conditions—and those are not weasel words; they are essential and sensible words which the management of any corporation would use—was that steelmaking at Ravenscraig would be required for at least another seven years. It followed that the output of the Dalzell plate mill would be required for as long as the output from Ravenscraig continued—another seven years.
      That is a much better description of the prospects of an industrial plant than the managers of most industrial plants, north or south of the border, will usually give. The situation will always depend on continued commercial success, continued efficiency, and the kind of efforts which have been achieved by the management and work force at Ravenscraig in the past.
      The best estimate is that at least seven years' more steelmaking is required. Beyond seven years, as was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), everything will depend upon the state of the steel market at the time and on the performance of BSC, including that of Ravenscraig. An underlying myth in much of this debate is that politicians can override those factors and give political guarantees extending beyond seven years—and beyond the best estimates of the British Steel Corporation.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is it not a fact that but for political guarantees, of which the Secretary of State for Scotland has boasted to the House on many occasions, Ravenscraig would not be there to provide a seven-year guarantee at the time when privatisation was formulated? For Scottish
      844
      Members of Parliament not to find the Minister's assurance credible is not unreasonable, given that we know what the management of British Steel wanted to do before.
      Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) refers to previous assurances given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that, again subject to market conditions, three years' output of steel was expected about three years ago. In the present situation, that estimate has improved. The chairman of BSC expects that seven years' output will now be required from Ravenscraig. There are no such things as political guarantees. The history of British industry, particularly during the last Labour Government, shows that when politicians claim that they can, by political undertakings, wave away the dictates of the market and the requirement to be competitive and give guarantees that a particular industrial operation will, come what may, continue, such claims are not worth the paper on which they are written or the voices by which they are uttered.
      We have here a much more copper-bottomed reassurance for the people of Ravenscraig. The commercial judgment of those managing the corporation is that the mill will be required to make steel for another seven years. The Opposition are so put out of countenance by the estimates made by the chairman of BSC last autumn that they are trying to fan the flames of fear in Ravenscraig. The Opposition are attempting to imply that the situation is not what it appears to be and is not such a reflection of good performance as I have said. The hon. Members for Motherwell, North and for Mortherwell, South are trying to imply that the privatisation of a separate unit comprising Ravenscraig, Shotton and Dalzell will offer Ravenscraig a better future. I do not believe it. A small splinter company would have a difficult time after being privatised. There would be difficulty in raising the capital and it would be exposed to a much more difficult competitive climate.
      Dr. Reid: As the Chancellor wishes to avoid weasel words, let me give him the opportunity to give a straight answer on the commercial guarantee. I ask him for no political guarantee. Is it the right hon. and learned Gentleman's understanding, in accordance with the statement of 3 December and the commercial guarantee, that there is no guarantee of a hot strip mill at Ravenscraig employing 1,200 people beyond 1990? Is that his understanding as well as mine?
      Mr. Clarke: The hot strip mill was, as I made clear in December, not included in the forecast of BSC's steel-making requirements. BSC's best commercial estimate is that it will require steel making at Ravenscraig for at least seven years. At the moment it has surplus capacity in the hot strip mill and BSC has made it clear that it will not reconsider its future, or that of any other hot strip mill, until 1989. Beyond that, it depends on the requirements of hot strip.
      I see cheery looks from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), delighted to discover that neither I nor British Steel can give the same guarantee for the hot strip mill. Presumably the Labour party will guarantee four hot strip mills in Britain for seven, 10 or 15 years, whether anybody wants them, regardless of cost, regardless of the advantage that that may give to our overseas competitors and regardless of the cost that that may impose on British steel users. I do not believe it. The

      845
      Labour party is seeking to imply that it will give a more copper-bottomed guarantee to Ravenscraig about the future of steel making and hot strip. It is not for me to judge, but I do not believe a word of it. It is not within the Labour party's capacity to guarantee the future of steel making, the hot strip mill and everything else at Ravenscraig, regardless of commercial and market considerations.
      Dr. Bray: Can the Chancellor name any other works that have survived simply as a slab producer? Will he bear in mind that 70 per cent. of the slabs produced at Ravenscraig go into the hot mill hot. If they have to be transported 250 miles to south Wales before being rolled into hot rolled coil, how can they possibly be hot?
      Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman regards himself as an alternative management for BSC. He spends his entire time lecturing the House and, when he can, BSC's management about the plant's configuration, where the products should and should not be made, where they should be sent, and so on. If I had to choose between the opinion of Bob Scholey and his colleagues on the board and their managers and that of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, I know which I would prefer.
      BSC expects steel making to continue at Ravenscraig for at least seven years. Whether the hot strip mill will continue all that time, we know not. However, BSC has made it clear that it will not close that this side of 1989. The future of Ravenscraig depends on the continued commercial success of the kind that it has achieved so far. The Opposition do not have it within their power to give political guarantees that extend beyond that.
      The argument that is being used by those, other than the hon. Members for Motherwell, North and for Motherwell, South, who seek to claim they have a genuine interest in looking at alternative configurations, means that they are worried about our privatising BSC as a monopoly. When that argument is put forward, as it was by the hon. Member for Dagenham, it carries the slight implication that he would therefore contemplate breaking it up, but he never quite acknowledges that.
      When talking about the need for competition and whether the privatised BSC might constitute a harmful monopoly, we are principally talking about the interests of consumers as well as those inside BSC. It is necessary to test that argument primarily by looking at the market within which BSC operates. At the very least, it is a European-wide market because we are in the European steel regime. We are not just looking at the United Kingdom market. If we were, the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell argument would not improve things much, because the RSD group would be the only producer of coated steel within the United Kingdom market. Therefore, it would not immediately inject any added competition into the United Kingdom market, unless and until British Steel started competing with it in coated steel by alternative routes.
      The competition argument was used by the hon. Member for Dagenham, and it is relevant. It is no good dismissing it and saying that we are not just talking about the United Kingdom market for steel. We are looking at the European-wide market for steel, the competitive pressures within that market and the kind of choice that consumers have as things stand. As has already been mentioned, and it cannot be dismissed, 40 per cent. of steel
      846
      is imported into Britain, so there is no doubt that United Kingdom consumers have a choice about steel. About one third of BSC's entire production is exported. It sells only about two thirds of its production in the British market.
      When BSC is privatised, it will be the dominant British producer, but it will not have a competition-free hold on any part of the market, whether in the United Kingdom or in the rest of Europe. It is our intention to proceed to a cartel-free market. We are anticipating the end of European quotas. In the new situation that will emerge, once we have got rid of the excess capacity and quotas, there will be no legitimate grounds for feeling, on grounds of competition or anti-monopoly policy, that there is anything wrong with privatising BSC as a single entity which will compete successfully in the kind of market that will then emerge.
      Mr. Salmond: The Chancellor says that having two or more companies in the steel market would not introduce competition if not all their production was in the same area. Is not that argument rather like saying that Rowntree does not compete with Cadbury because Cadbury does riot produce KitKat?
      Mr. Clarke: I thought that I was at last coming to the House of Commons to talk about something other than chocolate. The market for steel is not quite the same as the market for chocolate. There is an altogether more international market in steel, whereas chocolate has a particularly domestic market. The British taste in chocolate is sharply different from that in the rest of western Europe. Steel has at least a European-wide market. In fact, it is international, because American steel comes into the continent as well.
      The Opposition cannot be, serious in saying that they are pressing alternative configurations because of the need for competition. I am not quite sure what they are pressing and this is not the time to take that further. There may be more enlightenment on Third. Reading. The hon. Member for Dagenham would not say what he was in favour of, other than hinting that on competition grounds he would like some kind of regulatory body of steel, rather like Oftel. He has floated such ideas once or twice recently.
      If we are talking about how to privatise BSC and how to provide the competition to which a great deal of attention has been devoted, I should be interested to know where the Labour party has got to. It has not yet made it clear whether BSC is one of those companies that it proposes to renationalise if it returns to power. We are told by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, among others, that the Labour party is searching for a new form of public ownership. It does not seem yet to have found that new form. It is working on it hard. Not only has it not decided what form of public ownership it will have, but it has not decided which industries will be in public ownership. If we had a new, enlightened—dare I say—Social Democratic Labour party, it might go back to square one and ask whether it needs to have public ownership of any of the commanding heights of the economy at all. At the moment it is engaged in a fruitless search for some form of public ownership and it cannot even decide on the candidate industries.
      Mr. Michael Brown: I think that I can help my right hon. and learned Friend on the point of confusion because last night, with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), I heard a speech

      847
      given by the honourable Roger Douglas, the Minister of Finance in the New Zealand Labour party. I saw the hon. Gentleman taking copious notes. I suspect that he listened to this small portion of the speech where the Minister said:
      "I would say to those countries which choose for domestic political reasons to ignore economic realities, that the results of your subsidy and protectionist policies are that your poor are poorer"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What does this have to do with new clause 1?
      Mr. Brown: I am trying to account for the Opposition's confusion. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) obviously realises that he will—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If there is confusion, the hon. Gentleman is making it worse by bringing in extra matters.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Clarke: There is confusion on all fronts about whether Opposition Members, if they support the new clause, want to divide British Steel into more than one company when it is privatised, whether they would renationalise it if it were privatised, how they would regulate it if it were nationalised, whether they want alternative configurations, and whether they want Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell or some other configuration. No light was shed on any of those matters. The hon. Member for Dagenham regards it as a narrow, technical clause. It is harmful also on that ground. It requires us to give information about the many options that we considered before we proposed privatisation, as I said in my statement of 3 December.
      We resist the new clause and the suggestion that we produce the information and the kind of report for which new clause 1 asks because the contents of the report will be of huge value to British Steel's competitors. It would involve disclosing information about British Steel's future business strategy, the kind of market share that it envisages getting for its products, where costs lay and how they are incurred in different parts of British Steel. Not only the British Steel Corporation but any other company, whether nationalised or in the private sector, would strongly object to being required publicly to produce—in this case, in the House of Commons—the kind of information that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South plainly contemplates will be produced if the new clause is carried. Although the Opposition Front Bench treats the new clause as a minor technical matter, if it is inserted in the Bill it will do great commercial damage to the British Steel Corporation while it remains nationalised and when it is privatised.
      Having listened to the debate, the Government remain persuaded that the British Steel Corporation should be privatised as a single entity. It is in the best interests of the corporation, its work force, customers and the taxpayer to do so. Because we remain so convinced, and having looked closely at the options, I invite the House to reject the new clause if it is pressed on any ground.
      Mr. Maxton: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster concluded by saying that he did not wish to give information. That is his usual line. He does not want to give information to hon. Members, but he is quite happy
      848
      to give it to the press. Just before the debate the Department of Trade and Industry released a press statement on the Bill, announcing two minor concessions. The Chancellor and his junior Ministers are happy to give information to the press before they give it to the House of Commons. The Minister could have given the information when our amendments were moved. That would have been the respectable, proper way to do it. It is typical of the Minister. He does not like to give information.
      It is nice to see the Chancellor here at all during consideration of the Bill. In Committee he was notable for his absence. He is winding up this debate, not because he has any particular interest in Ravenscraig or because he believes that the new clause is important, but because he wants to speak early in the debate, then go and have his usual good dinner and big cigar and not have to bother with any later speeches. Any Minister and any Government with any sensitivity to the steel industry and to what the new clause is about would not have put forward the Chancellor or anybody connected with the Department of Trade and Industry to speak in this debate.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland should have replied on behalf of the Government. It was obvious that it was to be a Scottish debate. It was to be about the future of Ravenscraig, not about the overall nationalisation of the British Steel Corporation. Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland? I know where he is. Tonight, Scotland are playing Colombia at Hampden park. Yet again, the Secretary of State is desperately trying to retrieve the political position in Scotland by going to Hampden park, as he did on Saturday, without, of course, informing the relevant hon. Member of his presence on that occasion. I consider that to be extremely rude and offensive.
      Mr. Richard Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maxton: I shall not give way. It is a short debate.
      Mr. Holt: On Hampden park?
      Mr. Maxton: I shall give way on Hampden park.
      Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman was in my constituency on Sunday, attending the opening of the new Catholic cathedral, and did not have the courtesy to let me know?
      Mr. Maxton: I do not wish to go down that route. Three Conservative Members were in my constituency on Saturday. The only one who bothered to inform me was the Prime Minister, and she did so on Monday. That does not show a great deal for what Conservative Members have to say.
      Mr. Fallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maxton: No, I shall not give way. We have listened to a confused speech from the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). He spends most of his time attacking Scotland and all that is in Scotland. I see no reason why we should willingly allow him to speak in any debate. Obviously he will take part in debates, but we shall not give him an opportunity. I make no apology for that.
      The new clause presented an opportunity to the Scottish Office Minister to tell us what guarantees he is prepared to give Ravenscraig. The Chancellor and his Ministers use the phrase "the future of steel making". They

      849
      do not talk about the hot roll mill or anything like that. They talk only about steel making. As it stands at present, British Steel Corporation's investment programme is a timetable for closure. It is not a guarantee for the future. We are seeking, more from the Scottish Office than from the Department of Trade and Industry, a guarantee on the future of the corporation.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, the Tory party conference was held in Scotland last week. It was quite a remarkable occasion. It is best compared to the French aristocrats gathering in English country houses after the 1789 French revolution, desperately telling themselves that the revolution had not taken place and that, with the help of the English armies, their wealth and lands would soon be restored to them. At the conference, members of the Conservative party tried to prove that a few extra votes at Edinburgh and winning one Stirling seat by one vote from an independent candidate meant that the fight back had begun. They failed even to mention the loss of one of their five out of 66 seats in Glasgow and the continuing decline—
      Mr. Fallon: Let us have a vote.
      Mr. Maxton: I shall refer to steel.
      Mr. Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am completely at a loss to understand what the hon. Gentleman's arguments have to do with new clause 1. Why has the hon. Gentleman managed to attract only six Opposition Members to the debate? What will he do with the new clause? Will he press it to a vote?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to refer to the new clause.
      Mr. Maxton: I am about to refer to the new clause and, more particularly, to what it is about, which is the future of Ravenscraig. The closure of Ravenscraig is of prime importance to the political future of Scotland. That is what it is all about.[interruption.] I know what the new clause is about. It is an opportunity for debate. That is quite clear. Therefore, I am entitled to make some reference to it. Conservative Members hate to talk about their disastrous political future and presence in Scotland. They know that perfectly well. They have lost election after election. If they cannot give a guarantee to Ravenscraig, they "ain't seen nothin' yet" in terms of what will happen to the Tory party in Scotland. That will be the end of the Tories.
      Ravenscraig has become a symbol for the industrial present and future of Scotland. It is no longer just about steel making. Ravenscraig's closure would be, not just another industrial closure to add to the already appallingly long list that Scotland has suffered since 1979, but a psychological body blow to the whole Scottish economy. Confidence would be lost. There would be disastrous unemployment throughout Scotland, such as exists in my hon. Friends' constituencies at present. That is why the new clause has been tabled. I am displeased that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster replied to the debate, rather than even the Minister of State, Scottish Office, because we want long-term guarantees on Ravenscraig's future, not those that we have had so far.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If that was the purpose of the debate, why did no hon. Member ask for those guarantees until I replied? The hon. Gentleman has nothing to say on
      850
      the new clause, which is about privatisation of the industry, whether as a single entity or not. Having sat here for three hours, the hon. Gentleman finally decided what the new clause might be about and what his opinion was, but so far he has not addressed himself to one solitary subject raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray).
      Mr. Maxton: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had bothered to come to any of the Committee sittings, or even to sit at the hack of the Committee Room and listen to the debate, or had managed to read any of the Committee's reports—which, obviously, he has not bothered to do—he would know that Ravenscraig's future has been of concern. He should not suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) is not concerned about Ravenscraig's future.
      Dr. Reid: On the subject of arguments that have been missing, perhaps my hon. Friend would like to give some thought to the lack of argument by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on competition, which we argued would be enhanced by the new clause, and in particular his bizarre boast that, because we have 40 per cent. imported steel, consumer choice has increased. It is rather like defending the invasion of Poland on the basis that the Poles had someone different with whom to drink.
      Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend's analogy is apt, and amusing. He is right.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the great believer in market forces, the use of the market place and all things to do with privatisation—spent his whole speech defending the monopoly. That was remarkable.
      We are concerned about Ravenscraig because it has done everything that the Government wanted it to do. Conservative Members have talked about efficiency and competition. Ravenscraig has reduced production costs, increased productivity and shed so-called surplus labour and, rightly or wrongly, it continued to work during the miners' strike. Ravenscraig has become profitable. The grave danger is that Ravenscraig can be destroyed by its own efficiency.
      One of the things that Ravenscraig does better than any other part of the steel industry is to produce highly specialised steels, such as the grain-oriented steels for the electricity industry, which no other company can produce with any profit. Those types of steels are expensive to produce and do not yield the large profits that flow from other mass-produced steels. The danger is that Ravenscraig, by being able to produce such steels, can be made to appear unprofitable in the market place and therefore liable for closure. A privatised industry might believe that it is more profitable to close Ravenscraig than to keep it open, whatever its profit levels and productivity. Unless Ravenscraig can show that it can make more profit than the £100 million that closure would produce, it might be easier for the private sector to close it.
      We have not had guarantees from the Government about Ravenscraig. Obviously we shall not get such guarantees from the Secretary of State for Scotland, or even from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That appalling indictment will be visited upon the few Tory politicians left in Scotland. The day that Ravenscraig closes, they will be in deep trouble. Scotland will make its electoral decision at the next general election and even the

      851
      Minister of State, Scottish Office—the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—will lose his seat. We do not want to see that—
      Mr. George Foulkes: We do.
      Mr. Maxton: There are grave dangers in having no Tories left in Scotland. That would put the Union at risk. Even now the Government should consider giving guarantees on Ravenscraig's future, which so far they have dismally failed to do.
      6.45 pm
      Dr. Bray: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was perhaps a little uncharitable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he suggested that it was the thought of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's dinner and cigar to which we owe his presence. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that I shall not keep him long from them.
      The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred to the ruthless policies of the British Steel Corporation in concentrating production on five sites. That proposal was originally put forward in the Benson report in the 1960s, before the nationalisation of steel, so the hon. Gentleman's friends in the private steel industry were behind that move.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster powerfully endorsed the structure, as we dreamt it up in 1966, of the nationalised steel industry. As one of the Ministers responsible, I am flattered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's endorsement of that structure, but I am not entirely persuaded that, after more than 20 years, we do not need to take a further look at it, in view of the different regime in which it will operate in the private sector.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell company would be difficult to float, but my advice is to the contrary. There would not be difficulties in financing it. It is not big enough to float on the stock exchange immediately, but the financial institutions would accept it.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that no other proposals to split off bits of BSC had been received, and he was right. That is what I expected. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said that there was some fear that the Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell solution would open a Pandora's box, with all the finishing plants wanting to spin off from it. That is not a danger and there has been no evidence to that effect.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that it would be difficult for the RSD group to survive. Another reaction is outrage at the thought that it should romp off with some of the most profitable bits of the BSC, leaving BSC without any coated sheet capacity. I do not think that the group would have difficulty in surviving, but it would make sense, in terms of marketing in Europe, to form wider links, just as BSC will do. One difficulty in discussing this matter has been that the moment one starts talking about steel companies in Europe, questions are asked about the United Kingdom Government's attitude, and so far we have not been able to offer any assurance. If Ministers could offer even a glimmer of interest privately,
      852
      it would be possible to put forward practicable arrangements to assure the viability of Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we were asking BSC to produce confidential information which would prejudice its competitive position with other steel companies. The most important, sensitive performance measures in steel companies, and steel works, are collected by the International Iron and Steel Institute and are published. Therefore, it was possible for the Arthur Young report to produce its argument, which has not been disputed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman or BSC. A further report might convince Ministers that that was a viable solution that would solve a number of their problems.
      We met the Chancellor of the Duchy in July and were, I think, the first group of people outside the Department whom he had met since taking office in the Department of Trade and Industry. At that meeting, he said engagingly that he did not really know much about the steel industry, but that he was anxious to learn. He said that he was more concerned about getting the structure of the steel industry right than in privatising it—there was no hurry to do that. It was therefore a surprise when a few months later he said,
      "By the way, the structure is the same, but we are going to privatise the industry."
      In the debate today, the right hon. and learned Gentleman showed some dangerous signs of beginning to learn something about the industry, of taking an interest in and asking some of the right questions about the future of the structure of the industry. In the hope that that process will be carried further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it your wish that the new clause be withdrawn?
      Hon. Members: No.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 253.

      Division No. 306]

      [6.50 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Beith, A. J.

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Thomas, Dr Datydd Elis

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Wallace, James

      Fearn, Ronald

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Mr. Malcolm Bruce and

      Salmond, Alex

      Mr. Andrew Welsh.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Allason, Rupert

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Amess, David

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Amos, Alan

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Arbuthnot, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Ashby, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Atkins, Robert

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Atkinson, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Baldry, Tony

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Batiste, Spencer

      Brazier, Julian

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Bellingham, Henry

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

      Bendall, Vivian

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      853

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hayward, Robert

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Heddle, John

      Burns, Simon

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Butcher, John

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Butler, Chris

      Hill, James

      Butterfill, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Holt, Richard

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Carttiss. Michael

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

      Cash, William

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Irvine, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Irving, Charles

      Colvin, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Jackson, Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Janman, Tim

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jessel, Toby

      Cope, John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Cran, James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kilfedder, James

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Devlin, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dicks, Terry

      Knowles, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knox, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Dover, Den

      Lang, Ian

      Dunn, Bob

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Eggar, Tim

      Lightbown, David

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lilley, Peter

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Evennett, David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Farr, Sir John

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Favell, Tony

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Maclean, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Forman, Nigel

      Madel, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Forth, Eric

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Mans, Keith

      Franks, Cecil

      Maples, John

      Freeman, Roger

      Marland, Paul

      French, Douglas

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Fry, Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gale, Roger

      Mates, Michael

      Gardiner, George

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mellor, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mills, Iain

      Gorst, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gow, Ian

      Moate, Roger

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Gregory, Conal

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mudd, David

      Grist, Ian

      Neale, Gerrard

      Grylls, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, Richard

      Hannam, John

      Paice, James

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

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Harris, David

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Powell, William (Corby)

      854

      Price, Sir David

      Thorne, Neil

      Raffan, Keith

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thurnham, Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Tracey, Richard

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Tredinnick, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Trippier, David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Trotter, Neville

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walden, George

      Sims, Roger

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Speller, Tony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Watts, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Wheeler, John

      Stern, Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Stevens, Lewis

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sumberg, David

      Wood, Timothy

      Summerson, Hugo

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mr. Richard Ryder.

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PROJECTS
      '(1) The successor company shall inform the Secretary of State of any proposed capital expenditure projects the cost of which exceeds £1 million, and in connection therewith shall make an annual forecast of the domestic prospects for steel demand in the five years from the end of the most recent financial year.
      (2) The forecast specified in subsection (1) above shall be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable.
      (3) This section shall no longer apply when the successor company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown.'.—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      It is clear from the previous debate that Ministers desire only to sell the British steel industry in one lump—to get rid of it and to run. Their only real desire to offer any help, encouragement, support or intervention in the industry—their only real aim—is to put up posters of Sir John Harvey-Jones looking as if he is about to burp and saying, "History is in the making." That is the Government's only preoccupation with the indu3try. They do not have arty concern about competition. They have not learnt the lessons of privatising monopolies such as British Telecorn. They have not thought of the consumer, or of whether they are privatising or just creating private sector monopolies, which seems the essence of the process.
      New clause 1 asked the Government to give the reasons for and an explanation of what they are doing and why they are doing it. New clause 5 puts that more positively. We want to reinforce our concern about investment because that is crucial to the British steel industry. The new clause is limited by section 3 and ceases to apply when a successor company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown. So far as one can gather from the rumours and the

      855
      gossip, the Government's aim is to get rid of the corporation as quickly as possible. In my view, that would be a mistake and a national tragedy.
      We had to put the new clause in that form because of the nature of the Bill. It is essentially a shabby little Bill. It transforms the great British Steel Corporation into a company of a kind that might have fallen off the back of the register of companies, and allows the Government to flog it off. It is difficult for us to intervene in a Bill that is shaped like that.
      However, our intervention is an attempt to impose concern about investment and a requirement on the company to report to the Secretary of State and to Parliament on the need for, the prospects of and the commitment to investment, and to set a precedent which we hope will be sustained after the Government have finally got rid of it and it has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown. We are primarily concerned about investment in the industry.
      Investment will not be the central preoccupation of private investors, who will want the maximum rate of return from the British steel industry, the highest level of dividends, and to be able to write off the investment over a period. They will not be concerned, in the way in which a public sector company or a nationalised industry is, with the long-term health and viability of the steel industry. They will not have the same concern as a nationalised industry about wider social and national interests or about the need to provide a cheap basic feedstock for manufacturing industry.
      The key to the Japanese manufacturing success has been the provision of low-priced, high-quality steel to manufacturing as a basic raw material. We are anxious that such steel should be provided as cheaply as possible to our manufacturers as the base for manufacturing's healthy activity. We think that a nationalised framework is best for that. If the corporation is now to be passed to the investors, who will be concerned about getting a return and not about building up the industry, we believe that we can only sustain investment by requirements such as those set out in new clause 5.
      However, Ministers do not seem to be interested in investment, although it is crucial if the industry is to remain viable, effective and competitive. We must have more investment in continuous casting. The proportion of our output derived from continuous casting is lower than that of most of our competitors. We have been slow to move into continuous casting. Japanese industry will be almost totally continuous casting within a short period. If we are to stay competitive, there must be heavy investment in that area. We also need investment in continuous annealing, which is further downstream. We need investment in plate and mini-mills.
      We need considerable investment. The chairman of British Steel has estimated such investment at £300 million per year. However, he has not said for how long he intends to sustain that level of investment, or whether it will be a long-term commitment, which is what we should like. However, we are talking about a heavy level of investment to bring British Steel up to the level of our competitors and to allow for the new technology and new processes that are necessary in a rapidly evolving industry.
      856
      Without sustained concern for investment and a sustained process of investment, British Steel will lag behind, and be concerned only to exploit the market and pay out dividends, which is what happened when the steel industry was in private ownership. It had an appalling record of paying dividends—often out of capital—failing to invest and failing to keep up with processes. Investment can be sustained adequately only by nationalisation. Nationalisation has transformed the industry. The under-invested wreckage that was taken over by the Labour Government in the 1960s was transformed into an industry which has been developed on five integrated coastal sites, which is highly invested and which needs to keep up if it is to remain at the forefront.
      All we ask, therefore, is that there be a continuing requirement on the company to report on its investment proposals, the role of that investment as a drive motor of the economy and the role of steel as an index of economic performance in this country, and to report also to Parliament. Although the Secretary of State's views may be prejudiced and, under this Government, ill informed, Parliament will then at least have the basis for forming its own judgments and testing and measuring the assumptions built into these investment projections by British Steel. This is therefore an attempt to maintain a continuing interest by Parliament and Government in the responsibilities that both have for the British steel industry.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): We had a long debate earlier without a vote and now perhaps we can have a short debate with a vote. I do not want to delay the House for long.
      At present, under section 4(3) of the Iron and Steel Act 1982, the corporation is obliged to act in accordance with a general programme settled from time to time with the Secretary of State when carrying out any work which involves a substantial outlay on capital account. During the period between vesting and privatisation, the question of investment by the successor campany will be covered by provisions in the company's articles of association and a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of State. These will broadly preserve the present arrangements for monitoring the company's investment programme at a strategic level. The Secretary of State will not intervene in the day-to-day management of the company. All such arrangements will cease once the successor company ceases to be wholly owned by the Crown. While the company is wholly owned by the Crown, the Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament as the company's sole owner. As such, he will have ultimate control of the company and its strategic operations.
      During the interim period before privatisation, therefore, the successor company will have to inform the Secretary of State of major capital projects. There is no need to incorporate the arrangements in the Bill. Such arrangements in previous privatisations have been handled perfectly satisfactorily in the same way.
      We see no reason to provide in the Bill that the successor company shall submit a forecast of steel demand in the United Kingdom for the five years following the last financial year. If the successor company submits an investment proposal to the Secretary of State for approval, it will be required, under the memorandum of understanding, to submit a detailed investment appraisal.

      857
      Clearly, that appraisal would be subject to commercial confidentiality and would not be proper material for debate in Parliament. If hon. Members wish to obtain forecasts of future steel demand, there are sources other than British Steel which could provide those figures.
      We do not therefore accept that there is a need to incorporate the provisions of the new clause in the Bill, and I ask the House to reject it.
      Mr. Michael Foot: I find the Minister's answer totally unsatisfactory. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) moved the new clause in the form that he did because he called attention to one of the essential weaknesses in the Bill which the Government are trying to push through and one of the most important features of the steel industry. I hope that this new clause will be passed and that the Government and the BSC will be forced to take it into account.
      I believe that the evidence from all that has happened in past years underlines the need for that kind of action. I cite the steel works in my own constituency, which in the past two or three years has been fairly successful. The tinplate finishing plant in Ebbw Vale has been producing tinplate as successfully as any firm on the face of the planet, but all that was planned and was dependent upon investment that took place 10, 11 or 12 years ago. When we had the big rundown in general steel making, we carried through a big expansion of investment in the finishing plant, and that is why we have been able to carry through the advances there. We had an investment of £70 or £80 million in 1977 and 1978, and that is the reason for the proper conduct of the industry in Ebbw Vale at the present time.
      We want the same sort of guarantees for the future, but the BSC, for its own reasons—I am not blaming it for this—has been carrying through fresh investments in Trostre and Velindre, not quite on the scale that it did with us 10 years ago, but looking to the future there. Naturally, when that tinplate investment took place elsewhere, we asked the BSC to give us guarantees that we should have fresh investment to sustain our tinplate production on a proper basis over the years ahead.
      The people in the BSC are eager that that should happen. They told us that they planned a major expansion of the operation in Ebbw Vale in two or three years' time and that there would be other capital advances in the meantime. The tinplate operation in Ebbw Vale would be serving the nation for the next 10 or 20 years, and would at any rate have the basis of proper investment for the future.
      Of course, if the industry had been left in public ownership, that is exactly what could have been done. The Steel Corporation could have given a valid, continuing pledge to the people in Ebbw Vale, who have managed a very difficult changeover with great skill and success. But, owing to the miserable, squalid measure that the Government have brought forward, and their allegiance to the ridiculous dogma of handing the industry over to somebody else, the corporation is not able to give that guarantee.
      So, even at this late hour, I urge the Government to accept the new clause and the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby so that at least some safeguards may be incorporated in this measure. It is quite absurd that that kind of guarantee
      858
      should have been removed by the change in ownership. We are trying to rescue something so that the workers in the industry may have some proper guarantees for the future.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has put the case so powerfully that there is no need to repeat it. The Minister's reply was very unsatisfactory. It indicated that in all those hours in Committee he learned nothing, and that he d id not know much in the first place. His reply was totally dismissive. Under private ownership, this industry had an appalling record of bad investment and disorganisation. It has now been passed back in to the private sector, with no guarantees concerning the maintenance of investment, by a Government who tell us that they have no major proposals for investment in the steel industry at the present moment. It is no answer to our argument to hide behind the skirts of business confidentiality. We need to know that British Steel has plans for investment in continuous casting and all the other processes to keep up with the technology.
      We need to be satisfied that this will be a healthy industry that will take Britain into the next century and provide a firm, strong base for the manufacturing sector—a manufacturing sector that it will be the responsibility of the next Labour Government to rebuild and that will be rebuilt on the basis of a powerful, competitive steel industry. That is our concern, and it can be met only by investment and continuous provision for investment through this new clause.
      I ask my hon. Friends to support the new clause in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 235.

      Division No. 307]

      [7.20 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Clay, Bob

      Allen, Graham

      Clelland, David

      Alton, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Anderson, Donald

      Cohen, Harry

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Corbett, Robin

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ashton, Joe

      Cousins, Jim

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cox, Tom

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Crowther, Stan

      Barron, Kevin

      Cummings, John

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Beith, A. J.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bell, Stuart

      Darling, Alistair

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

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bermingham, Gerald

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

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dewar, Donald

      Blair, Tony

      Dixon, Don

      Boateng, Paul

      Dobson, Frank

      Boyes, Roland

      Doran, Frank

      Bradley, Keith

      Douglas, Dick

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Eastham, Ken

      Buchan, Norman

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Buckley, George J.

      Fatchett, Derek

      Caborn, Richard

      Faulds, Andrew

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fearn, Ronald

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

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

      Canavan, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Flynn, Paul

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      859

      Foster, Derek

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foulkes, George

      Morley, Elliott

      Fraser, John

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Mullin, Chris

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Murphy, Paul

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Nellist, Dave

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      O'Brien, William

      Gordon, Mildred

      O'Neill, Martin

      Graham, Thomas

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Parry, Robert

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Patchett, Terry

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pendry, Tom

      Hardy, Peter

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Prescott, John

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Henderson, Doug

      Radice, Giles

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Randall, Stuart

      Holland, Stuart

      Redmond, Martin

      Home Robertson, John

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Hood, Jimmy

      Richardson, Jo

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Robertson, George

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Illsley, Eric

      Salmond, Alex

      Ingram, Adam

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Janner, Greville

      Sheerman, Barry

      John, Brynmor

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Short, Clare

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

      Kennedy, Charles

      Soley, Clive

      Lambie, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lamond, James

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Leighton, Ron

      Stott, Roger

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Strang, Gavin

      Lewis, Terry

      Straw, Jack

      Litherland, Robert

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      McAllion, John

      Turner, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Vaz, Keith

      McCartney, Ian

      Wall, Pat

      McFall, John

      Wallace, James

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Walley, Joan

      McKelvey, William

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      McLeish, Henry

      Wareing, Robert N.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      McTaggart, Bob

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Marek, Dr John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Wilson, Brian

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Winnick, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Maxton, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Meale, Alan

      Wray, Jimmy

      Michael, Alun

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Mrs. Llin Golding.

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Allason, Rupert

      Baldry, Tony

      Amess, David

      Batiste, Spencer

      Amos, Alan

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Ashby, David

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Atkins, Robert

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      860

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Grist, Ian

      Body, Sir Richard

      Ground, Patrick

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hannam, John

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Harris, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hayward, Robert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Heddle, John

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hill, James

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Burns, Simon

      Holt, Richard

      Burt, Alistair

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Butterfill, John

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

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Cash, William

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hunter, Andrew

      Chapman, Sydney

      Irvine, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Irving, Charles

      Churchill, Mr

      Jack, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jackson, Robert

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Janman, Tim

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jessel, Toby

      Conway, Derek

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Cope, John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Couchman, James

      Kilfedder, James

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

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knapman, Roger

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knowles, Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knox, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lang, Ian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dover, Den

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dunn, Bob

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lord, Michael

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Maclean, David

      Evennett, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Farr, Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Favell, Tony

      Madel, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Mans, Keith

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maples, John

      Forman, Nigel

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Forth, Eric

      Mates, Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Franks, Cecil

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Freeman, Roger

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      French, Douglas

      Mills, Iain

      Fry, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Gale, Roger

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gardiner, George

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Moss, Malcolm

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mudd, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Neale, Gerrard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Neubert, Michael

      Gow, Ian

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Page, Richard

      Gregory, Conal

      Paice, James

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Patnick, Irvine

      861

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Price, Sir David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Raffan, Keith

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Tracey, Richard

      Riddick, Graham

      Tredinnick, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Trippier, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Walden, George

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sims, Roger

      Warren, Kenneth

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Watts, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wheeler, John

      Speller, Tony

      Whitney, Ray

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Steen, Anthony

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stern, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Sumberg, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mr. Richard Ryder.

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause l

      VESTING OF PROPERTY ETC. OF BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION IN A SUCCESSOR COMPANY
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 19, at end insert
      `and shall remain thus owned in perpetuity'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 29, in clause 3, page 2, line 45, leave out from 'State' to end of line 49.
      No. 30, in page 2, line 49, at end insert
      '(1A) The proportion of the securities of the successor company which are allotted and subsequently issued in accordance with subsection (1)(b) above shall not exceed 20 per cent.'.
      No. 12, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, after 'limit', insert
      'of not less than one quarter'.
      No. 13, in page 4, line 20, leave out 'first'.
      No. 14, in page 4, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 48.
      Mr. Mitchell: I have moved the amendment in the hope that the steady fall in the Government's majority, which was achieved by the brilliant arguments from this side of the House, will continue. The amendment deals with the basic principle whether British Steel should be privatised and will be better under private ownership or, as we believe, should continue under national control as a public corporation.
      It is a basic argument whether British Steel should serve national, social and economic purposes for the nation, as it can do and does under public control, or whether it should serve primarily the interests of investors; whether its measure of success should be geared to its rate of profit. In our view, BSC should stay under public control and continue to serve those purposes which it has been serving so successfully over the years.
      We argue that BSC's present success, which the Government tell us about and which British Steel itself
      862
      points out in its advertisements on commercial television to prepare the way for privatisation, is due entirely to the fact that the company has been built up under public ownership. Only public ownership has allowed the amount of investment and expenditure that is required to keep steel going through the difficult periods that a cyclical industry always faces and allowed the British steel industry to develop into the successful industry that it is today. That is entirely the result of public ownership.
      It is irresponsible to throw away those benefits and advantages as the Government propose to do in order to make a quick profit and seize on a window of opportunity for the sale. Fortunately, that action would be made impossible by our amendment, which allows the Government to achieve what they believe to be the benefits of privatisation. Those are the benefits of running the company commercially, of placing marketing imperatives on the company, and of freeing it from the shackles of Treasury control and interference by Ministers, who know so little about industry, and care less.
      The amendment allows the company to be governed as a Companies Act company. The shareholder will be the Government of the day. In other words, we want, and we shall maintain, ultimate public control of the organisation. We draw the line there. The amendment requires the Government to keep the shares in perpetuity. Subsequent amendments, particularly amendment No. 29, stop the provisions in later clauses that allow the Government to sell off shares in the company.
      It is sensible to draw the line there. What else can the Government gain by flogging shares that they have created in the company? They do not need the money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been insistent that he has money rolling out of his ears to give away to the wealthy, with £2 billion going to the top 5 per cent. of the population. As the Chancellor has that much money and the economy is doing so well, why do the Government need the much smaller amount that will be forthcoming from the sale of British Steel?
      Not only do the Government not need the money, but there is the question of the cost of selling this corporation, as opposed to borrowing the money in gilts, which is the alternative. Privatisation is a form of public debt that is acquired by selling off assets belonging to the state. It is cheaper to sell gilts, taking into account the reduction of the value of the assets and the taxpayers' investment written off, and taking into account also the cost of privatization—the advertising, the underwriting, and the advice given to the Government by self-interested parties in the City about how privatisation can be made more palatable and acceptable to them.
      When all that is taken into account, the gains from privatising British Steel and selling the shares, as distinct from the Government borrowing in the normal way, are minimal. The answer is, "Do not sell." Our amendment allows the Government to get the advantages of the more commercial approach with British Steel, which they say they need, without the ultimate act of selling the shares to the public. It is a simple amendment along those lines.
      The amendment brings us to the basis of the argument about privatisation. The Government are obsessed with ideology. Privatisation is not a matter of fact or any tenable arguments or propositions about commercial advantages. It is simply doctrine. The Government have the obsession of Lady Macbeth. They want to wash their hands of any involvement in industry and any control over

      863
      industry. Yet how can they do that with steel? The industry is basic to the economy. It is the basic raw material of manufacturing, and basic to the manufacturing strength and health of this country.
      It is in the interests of manufacturing that steel should be provided as cheaply and efficiently as possible and of as high a quality as possible. That needs massive investment. Indeed, massive investment has been needed to get the steel industry to its present state. That scale of investment is likely to be forthcoming only from the state. It is an industry that is capital hungry, in a way that very few other industries are. It can be fed better by the state because the state does not have to ask for the same rate of return, thus forcing up the prices of the finished products and making our industry less competitive on world markets, in a way that is certain to happen with privatisation.
      The Government are so obsessed with privatisation that they are putting themselves in the position of spivs or ticket touts, seizing on a brief window of opportunity, as if they were selling a perishable product, to get rid of it as quickly as possible. That is exactly what they are doing.
      The opportunity has gone, though the effects linger on in steel production. The fall in the value of sterling in 1986, which the Chancellor neither wanted nor accepted, and resisted all the way, was forced on him by the rising oil price. It made British Steel, and much of British manufacturing, competitive. It opened our export opportunities in a way that the Government should have passed on to industry much earlier than they did, if they had had the economic sense to do so.
      Steel has benefited from the growth of manufacturing that was provided by that fall in the value of sterling, but it has done so at a time when the Chancellor has killed the goose that has laid its golden eggs. He has riddled it with bullets, gone through it with a machete knife, buried it and put a stake through its heart, and put garlic on the grave. Essentially, he has massacred that goose by letting the pound go up in a way that has been destructive to manufacturing industry.
      This argument between the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet seems to have dominated the public prints. Nobody seems to notice that they are arguing from the wrong hypothesis. Both accept some increase in the value of sterling. The only argument is whether it should be fast and out of all proportion, or slower and more moderate. Yet there has been an increase of 23 per cent. in the real exchange rate of the pound sterling against the deutschmark since the last quarter of 1986. Our steel industry, in order to be competitive in the face of such an increase in the value of sterling, could not, even if British steel workers began to work for free, eliminate the cost increase forced on it by economic policies of high interest rates keeping sterling artificially over-valued.
      The Government are laying burdens and charges on the industry by power price increases, too. The 9 per cent. increase in electricity charges will be crippling for steel and many other industries. Having brought steel to the verge of privatisation, the Government can now impose charges on it to fatten up electricity for privatisation in its turn. So another window of opportunity has been closed and another burden on the steel industry added. It is another difficulty that will make the corporation a much less marketable proposition.
      864
      By July, probably 90 per cent. of quotas on steel production will have been taken off by the EEC. There will be almost unrestricted competition in the EEC then, and it can be guaranteed that other EEC countries will support their industries more generously than we shall, even if direct state aids are forbidden. Governments can manipulate to get around such restrictions, as the Italians have shown. So, even if there are no state aids, industries in other countries will be more generously supported than will ours, through transport subsidies, redundancy payments and other indirect means of state support with which our Government are much meaner than comparable Governments in the EEC. So another window of opportunity has been closed.
      There is a fourth closed window, in the sense that other industries are now going through the modernisation process and shedding labour in the way that British Steel pioneered. They will catch up. The Germans may be facing difficulties now, but they—Thyssen, for instance—are rapidly slimming down to a highly competitive state, the more so as the deutschmark has become under-valued against the pound, and there is world over-capacity in steel.
      British Steel will be sailed off into dangerous, stormy waters by the Government as quickly as possible in order to grab the briefly opened window of opportunity provided by the improvement of 1986–87, which was caused largely by the fall of sterling. The symptoms of these problems are all around us. They can be seen in the Metal Bulletin of 14 April, which says that United Kingdom demand for steel is up only 4 per cent., but customers' lead times are lengthening. The only alleviation of the situation is offered by imports, which are now much cheaper because of the high value of sterling. In 1987 imports were at an all time high, excluding 1980, the year of the steel strike. Metal Bulletin for 31 March says that Teesside's order to supply slabs to Tuscaloosa has now been lost to USX, formerly United States Steel—an early symptom of what is happening because the dollar is falling and the pound rising.
      In this position it will be a wise Government who recognise the risks of turning this capital-hungry cyclical industry loose on the world market and absolving themselves of all involvement in the consequences. Steel may face consequences and difficulties that will make it again need support from the State to see it through the difficulties that it has had in the past.
      The real question to be asked about privatisation—it is the reason why we want to stop the sale of the securities—is who will British Steel be sold to? What are the imperatives of the investors who will take it over? I do not imagine that they will be small investors. This will be a somewhat risky investment in a cyclical capital-hungry industry—too risky to sell to Sid and his friends. All the signs from the Bank of England are that Sid is satiated and will be once bitten twice shy after last October. The buyers will be big internationally diversified investors who want another element in their portfolio. They have no interest, necessarily, in the continuation of steel production in this country. They want a return that will perhaps allow them to write off their assets over a 20-year period. All they want is another egg in their basket, which British Steel can provide.

      865
      7.45
      This is part of the Government's process of making this land fit for investors to live in. They have closed down £25 billion worth of investment in manufacturing industry to make the rest of investment in manufacturing industry more profitable. They have allowed investors to diversify overseas, with money pouring out of this country. They have put on the stock market better invested internationalised industries as an attractive alternative to overseas or other industrial investment in this country. The land is becoming fit for investors, but investors do not have the same commitment to the maintenance of a powerful and effective steel industry, to providing steel as cheaply as possible to manufacturers, and to investing to keep up with the foreign competitors, as the State and community have. Nor do they have the same resources as the State to provide the wherewithal for investment. They do not have the commitment which is central to public ownership and which can be sustained only by public ownership.
      The very terms in which the company is being privatised in this shabby little Bill, with its shabby little company, are incentives for investors to write off their investment over a period and for British Steel to run the company to pay dividends regularly to investors rather than to invest in new capacity, new plant and new processes as we would want.
      The process of privatisation is essentially a commercial fiddle to write down the assets and make them attractive to investors. Lord Jenkin of Roding said that the Government will sell British Steel at a price that will be attractive to the investor. In other words, they will manipulate the asset value of British Steel until they get it to a price at which investors will bite and be guaranteed the return they want. Such a fiddle would be prevented by our amendment.
      The Government will not only write off the £17·6 billion—at current prices—that the taxpayer has put into British Steel, and for which he will receive no return, but even the remaining £3·9 billion of public dividend capital, which is all that is left after earlier write-offs. will be written down to make it attractive to investors. The best estimate that we have of the price that investors will pay for British Steel conies from the Financial Times of 29 February and is £2 billion. At that price the corporation will be an attractive investment for internationally diversified investors who want another egg in their basket.
      Clause 2 allows the Government to write down the public dividend capital of £4 billion to a level at which it can be sold—let us say £2 billion. So there will be a substantial write-off at the start to make British Steel attractive to investors. But there is another element in the confidence trick—clause 7. Our best estimate of the assets of British Steel is £5·4 billion. That figure is a combination of the fixed assets at current cost, which are £3·2 billion, plus £926 million of plant, which is fully written off and depreciated, but still in use in British Steel, which is still extracting profit from that money, plus the other assets of £1·2 billion, giving a total of £5·4 billion worth of assets.
      The statutory reserve in clause 7 will be set at the difference between the written-down value of public dividend capital—say, £2 billion—and the nominal value of the shares. If the nominal value can be determined at will, the Government can create for themselves free capital which can be distributed and used to absorb losses and then form the basis for write-downs in the asset values of the British Steel Corporation. If the fixed assets are written
      866
      down, as they will be, below their economic value, the returns that they produce count as income available for distribution. So the basis of privatisation is a confidence trick to fiddle down both assets and public dividend capital to a price that investors will pay. The Government are robbing themselves and the taxpayer and knocking down the value of their assets to get them on the market as quickly as possible—just to get rid of them.
      The Government have no higher sense of commitment to or responsibility for the steel industry, which is so important to the economy. As British Steel's assets are already under-valued, this sets the industry out on a dangerous path. The Government say that it is possible, even desirable, to write down assets to provide dividends for investors, and that it is desirable to reduce the price I to make it attractive for investors. On what path does that start the steel industry? It starts it back on the path on which it was previously under private ownership. The record of private ownership of steel was to pay dividends out of capital, to keep up the flow of dividends, at the expense of cutting down on investment or, in many cases, making no investment at all.
      There was a fascinating article in Accountancy in 1959 which showed how, when the industry was privately owned, in most years up to the war it paid dividend out of capital. It resumed that process in the 1950s and continued it in the 1960s. It was effectively an industry that was eating itself. It produced a cycle in steel that was a national tragedy. Irresponsible private ownership meant no investment and distribution of dividends out of capital, so reducing the industry to a position where it had to be taken over by the state to build it up by force feeding it in a sense, because only the state is powerful enough to do that.
      The state transformed the industry so that in the 1970s and the early 1980s it was a well invested, highly developed industry, producing an extremely competitive product on five integrated coastal sites. Then along come the Government to throw it back to the private sector to resume the irresponsible cycle that will reduce the industry to the state that it was in the early 1960s. This the Government call wisdom, economics and statesmanship. It is pure, simple irresponsibility which is unworthy of any Government, even this one.
      Mr. Crowther: No doubt my hon. Friend will recall the Benson report, which drew attention to the fact that the industry was being starved of capital, which led directly to its being taken into public ownership. No doubt my hon. Friend agrees that if that had not happened there would not be a steel industry today.
      Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. Because of his long association with and deep knowledge of the steel industry, I am grateful for the point that he made.
      The interests of investors will not be the interests of the nation, the workers or manufacturing. Investors will be interested only in their returns. It is worthwhile asking how the return will be secured from British Steel. The answer is that it will be secured by the kind of fiddle which the Government themselves sanction by the very basis of the Bill.
      If we take £2 billion as the price for British Steel, the return that an investor will require will be about 20 per cent. We have to add to the rate of return 10 per cent., say, as a risk premium because of the nature of the industry. On our calculation, that will mean an annual dividend of

      867
      about 20 per cent. to make it an attractive investment. That is a high return. If we take into account Sir Robert Scholey's statement that he wants investment of about £300 million—he did not say for how long—it will be difficult for British Steel to make an annual return to investors on that scale and carry through the national investment.
      How could British Steel do that? It could do it by fiddling the figures in part, as it has done by using capital which has been written off. It has already started on that path to pretty up the accounts for privatisation. The Government encouraged that process after they had painted the picture far blacker than it was up to 1985 in order to enhance the case for loss of jobs and closures.
      Even on the return which it is making in 1987–88 British Steel will not be able to provide an annual return of £400 million. Therefore, it will be driven down the path that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) described. The report from Youngs, the management consultants from Motherwell district council, shows clearly how the profits of British Steel could be increased by closures. The figures in the report are clear and dramatic. The closure of Ravenscraig would produce, every year, an extra profit of £100 million because there would be no need to finance investment and employment. In other words, British Steel could get from closures the rate of return that investors will want.
      It is not a question of profitability, but just of getting more profit as a return for the investor. That will be feasible by closing plants that might be profitable. The closure of Ravenscraig alone might not bring the dividends up to the requisite figure. The Government have already started British Steel down that path by sanctioning in clause 7 the write-off of assets. That will lead inevitably to further closures to extract more dividend for investors.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: There is another path as well as the one to which my hon. Friend has referred. British Steel could engage in asset stripping and sell off cheaply United Engineering Steels, which is so important in Rotherham and in my constituency.
      Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is correct.
      Different dangers attend privatisation. There is the wasting way, the anorexia nervosa treatment, which provides a steady return for investors at the cost of failing to invest to build up the capacity of the industry so that it may remain competitive. That started with the process which we are now on of letting imports fill the peaks and not expanding the industry to provide for them. That path was pioneered by the British motor cycle industry and has also been trodden by the British car industry. It has had disastrous consequences for both of them.
      There are lots of possibilities. What we need is public control so that the industry serves the purposes of the nation, the national strength and British manufacturing. That can be secured only by public ownership in the form provided for in the amendment. The argument is simple. The danger is an irresponsible handover by a Government who are determined to get the cash as quickly as possible and to grab at the money in the window of opportunity so as to produce an incentive for investors who will take over British Steel to screw the maximum rate of return out of
      868
      their investment in ways which are disadvantageous for the national purposes of the country and the economic health of manufacturing.
      It would be irresponsible to throw away the benefits of public ownership and public investment just when they are beginning to make a return. Why should that money not return to the taxpayer? If the industry is to be as efficient and competitive as the Government tell us, why should the taxpayer not continue to derive the benefit and retain for himself and the community the power to sustain the industry through the difficulties which might lie ahead and which the cyclical industry of the past has shown probably do lie ahead?
      Mr. Michael Brown: I am absolutely flabbergasted by what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has said. He served with me on the Standing Committee. I refreshed my memory from the proceedings in Committee to see what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that the Labour party's amendments to the Bill
      "propose that British Steel should demonstrate a track record before privatisation."
      He went on to say, and I remember him saying it:
      "We are not standing in the Government's way and saying, 'Thou shalt not privatise'. We are saying that we should privatise taking into account all the sense and virtues that the Government tell us are to be found in the Conservative party"—
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brown: No, I will not give way until I have completed the quotation—
      "the feelings of financial market, financial rectitude and financial responsibility—by establishing a track record before this important national asset is launched on an uncertain sea."
      Later, he said:
      "Our concern, which we reiterated throughout the Second Reading debate, is that British Steel should not be privatised. We do not want it to be privatised. We are flatly opposed to privatisation."
      [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 March 1988; c. 59–60.]
      8 pm
      I do not think that the Labour party knows its policy about the British steel industry. Once upon a time we knew what it was. I have no doubt that hon. Members who were here in the mid-1960s—such as the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—when the nationalisation of the steel industry was going through the House saw the House packed with hon. Members. Today there is no passion in the Opposition's arguments, and the fact that only about half a dozen Opposition Members are present shows that there is little concern whether the British steel industry is privatised.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is fascinating for me to hear my speeches reread with some deterioration in the style, the grammar and the charm of the delivery. It is "Play Away" politics for the hon. Gentleman to engage in that kind of exercise. He well knows that the purpose of a Standing Committee is to probe the thinking of Ministers. In Committee, we were probing to find out if there was any thinking. Ministers emerged very badly from that examination. It is the intention of the Standing Committee to approach matters from different angles. The

      869
      amendments to which I was speaking approached the problem from different points of view. It is silly and irresponsible to quote one and to hold it against the other.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the Labour party's position on privatisation. Our policy is to stop it. This industry needs to stay in public ownership. Public ownership has served the industry well and we feel that it will prosper only under such ownership. That is a clear statement of the position.
      Mr. Brown: We have made some progress, because we know what the Labour party would not do if it were in government. It would not denationalise or privatise. If one day—perish the thought—the Labour party were to form the Government, what would they do with the steel industry? We have not heard from the Opposition whether they would renationalise it.
      Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brown: No, because I intend to be brief.
      We know what the Labour party opposes, but we do not know what it would do to the steel industry if it were to come back to power. I remember pressing the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) time and again in Committee about what he would do, and his ideas changed from day to day. When he and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby had not had time to consider their policy, they expressed totally different views.
      Shortly before the 1987 election, the Prime Minister announced three broad goals that the Government would set out to achieve in their term of office: first, a reduction in the burden of public indebtedness; secondly, a significant reduction in personal and corporate tax rates; and, thirdly, the improved provision of social services. A key role in the reduction of debt was to be played by the reform and sale of state-owned businesses.
      Those words were used not by our Prime Minister but by the Finance Minister in the New Zealand Labour Government. He used them yesterday evening in the presence of the hon. Member for Dagenham. Labour Governments in other countries who have the responsibility for looking after state assets recognise that they cannot for ever be held in the the public sector. The Labour Government of New Zealand have found a way of giving a future to their steel industry. It was significant that the hon. Member for Dagenham took the trouble to go and listen to that speech, probably because he does not have his policy worked out and is probably trying to get some ideas to see how it is done.
      The amendment should be rejected. Labour Governments of the 1960s and 1970s implemented policies that brought the steel industry near to bankruptcy. The Conservative Government of the 1980s have brought the industry back to profitability. It is now time to secure that profitablility by ensuring that the industry is privatised as quickly as possible.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: We should remember what we are talking about when we discuss these amendments. The Bill will turn the British Steel Corporation into a plc wholly owned by the Government. That could go ahead with the ownership remaining with the Government, and that is what we are arguing for in the amendments. There are very good
      870
      arguments for that, and many of them have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
      It is worth remembering that British Steel's present prosperity is a direct result of the investment that was made during public ownership. Scunthorpe would have gone the way of Corby if it had not been for the Anchor project and the massive investment in the early 1970s under public ownership. We must face the question whether that same kind of massive investment and modernisation programme will continue in private ownership, or whether the temptation will be to take the profits while they are good and while the exchange rate is to the benefit of BSC. There may be a temptation to take the money while BSC is going through a boom and then, when the industry goes down again, to forget about it.
      People who have worked in the steel industry all their lives and have been through the changes when it was privately owned and state-owned have told me that, when the industry was nationalised, investment was in the form of new machinery. They said that when it was denationalised, all it got was a new coat of paint and money was not invested as it should have been. We all want to see a prosperous and competitive steel industry. We do not want to see such a national asset being sold at a loss to Britain and to the taxpayers. That is exactly what we will get under the terms of the Bill.
      We have not addressed the problem of the billions of pounds of public money that have gone into the steel industry since the beginning of the 1980s. In reply to a question, the Minister said that since 1979, over £5 billion of taxpayers' money has gone into the industry to help it to restructure and modernise. Are we completely to forget about that money? Now that we have seen the fruits of that investment, are we simply to throw it away while there is an opportunity to receive some dividends, some return in terms of the profits that the steel industry is making? Those profits should go to the Exchequer to repay the taxpayers for all the money that has gone to the industry.
      Steel is a strategic industry, important to the well-being of our nation. Britain is a manufacturing nation but we may well be swamped by imports and lose that status. It is important that steel is given the kind of security that a state-owned company enjoys.
      I am prepared to accept that there were weaknesses in the Morrison form of nationalisation. I am not saying that we cannot look at different approaches to public ownership that will give the people who work in the industries a real say and a stake in them. I am not saying that a free-standing company should have a great deal of direct interference in its day-to-day running. Such a company should operate on a commercial basis.
      Even under the Bill, the company would remain in public ownership and the money that has gone into it could be retrieved through the profits that the industry is now making. There is no logic in selling off British Steel to the private sector and thinking that there will be increased competition, because that will simply produce a monopoly. The sale of other former public companies, such as British Telecom and British Gas, to the private sector has not improved the service to consumers. In the case of British Telecom, the quality of service has deteriorated. There is no guarantee that the benefits to the consumer will be enhanced by selling the British Steel Corporation to the private sector.
      Mr. Tim Janman: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about competition. Does he accept that 40 per cent. of steel products sold in the United Kingdom are imported and that there is plenty of competition in Europe that British Steel must face, which will act as an incentive to give good quality service to customers?
      Mr. Morley: I am not sure that the answer to our economic problems is to increase imports. I would rather see competition among United Kingdom plants, rather than rely upon imports.
      We shall go into a unified market in 1992. Our industries already suffer the disadvantage of high energy costs compared with our European rivals. The BSC is by no means one of the largest steel-producing companies in Europe, so it runs the risk of unfair competition which will undermine its position and, as a result, this country's position as a steel-producing nation.
      Public ownership protects the steel industry from its cycles. When the going has been good, the private sector has taken money out of the industry, but, when the going has been difficult, it has cleared off and left the state to pick up the pieces. After rebuilding our steel industry and making it one of the best in the world, the Government are prepared to throw it to the wolves, to wash their hands of it and to destroy what has been built up with public money and support.
      Mr. Fallon: The trouble with Opposition Members is that they try to have things both ways. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and, in the earlier debate, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) claimed that the successful steel operations in their constituencies were due to the massive investment programme of the last Labour Government. If that is true, the failure of the steel operations in Corby and Consett must also be due to that programme. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways.
      I have always thought that Mr. Speaker was a generous man, but he has been more than generous in his selection of the amendments, because it is clear that amendment No. 2 comes close to being a wrecking amendment. The Labour party says that, even if the British Steel Corporation is allocated in share capital, the shares should not be sold: they should be retained for ever in public ownership. That is quite clearly a nonsensical approach for three reasons.
      First, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) admitted, future and continuing large-scale investment will be required in the industry. He suggested that that could be financed from gilts, but, if that is the case, steel would always be competing against other equally massive investment in key public services, such as education and health, which are also financed from gilts and public borrowing. Steel would therefore always be competing, perhaps at a disadvantage, with other claims on investment from the public sector.
      Secondly, if the shares are retained in public ownership, the British Steel Corporation will be far less responsive to its customers' and shareholders' needs. In new clause 1, Opposition Members specifically advocate taking account of customers' and shareholders' wishes. Those wishes may well be considered, but, if the shares are retained in public ownership, they will always be less important than the wishes of Ministers, particularly of the Treasury Ministers.
      Dr. Reid: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, as British Telecom is now in the private sector, it is more responsive and pays more attention and gives better service to its customers?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Fallon: Yes, certainly. British Telecom and Oftel do nothing but write to Members of Parliament about all the improvements that they are making and planning. If the improvements are of the scale that they describe, one wonders what the service was like under public ownership. There is therefore no real strength in that argument.
      Thirdly, if the BSC is retained in the public sector, it will be placed at a strong competitive disadvantage to other companies in the European and world market place which are privately owned or which Governments intend to be privately owned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has reminded us, such privatisation is envisaged by both Conservative and Socialist Governments.
      The amendment seeks to preserve the status quo. If the shares are publicly owned, there is not much point in privatising the BSC. The amendment advocates no change in British Steel and it shows, above all, no confidence in either the management or the work force to make a success of the industry in the market.
      Mr. Foot: As I have listened to the debate, I have been more and more amazed at the prospect that a Minister from the Welsh Office is to reply to it. The Minister of State, Welsh Office is the only Minister to have listened to the debate, so I presume that he will answer for the Government. That is a pretty amazing state of affairs. I have the greatest affection for the hon. Gentleman, as everyone in Wales knows, but we do not regard him as a great spokesman about steel. Is he going to come to the Dispatch Box and say that it was wrong to nationalise the steel industry in Wales?
      What will happen to the Llanwern works? There would have been no such works without public ownership. When the works was set up and hundreds of millions of pounds invested in it, it was called the Spencer works. Aneurin Bevan suggested that it was better to call it the Spencer works because Sir Henry Spencer had backed it throughout. He advocated public ownership and knew that only public money could sustain the industry on the proper scale. He would have been gratified by the scale of the success of the Llanwern works over recent years, but he would have been horrified that a Welsh Office spokesman should have dared to come to the Dispatch Box to seek to justify throwing this great industry, built up by huge public funds and effort, back into private hands, when it had been built up solely by public investment and public foresight. If it had not been for that, there would have been no works at Llanwern.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) have put the case magnificently that the steel industry is a long-term industry. It must have a chance of long-term planning. That was the situation in Llanwern. It had some difficulties for two or three years, but Henry Spencer said that we must back it over a period. That is what the steel industry needs.
      I recall vividly when the Government took the wretched decision to appoint Ian MacGregor to run the steel industry. The fact that he had ruined the coal industry was

      873
      bad enough. I remember my first private conversation with him and I believe that it is perfectly all right to make the facts public now. He said to me, "You must recognise that we are not bound by the undertakings of the British Steel Corporation." I said, "But the whole point about the British Steel Corporation is that it must be bound by its previous obligations to the work force and the community at large." Eventually, for a while, we forced him to carry out the obligations that his predecessors had undertaken; that was extremely important for the industry.
      Ian MacGregor wanted to wriggle out of the obligations, and under his leadership many commitments to my constituents and others were broken—shamefully so in some cases—and thereby the corporation thought that it did not have to carry out its obligations to the communities. Ian MacGregor was absolutely opposed to the plan of building up other industries and for the steel industry to play a major part in that development. The Labour Government had given that undertaking, but he wanted to wriggle out of it.
      It is absolutely appalling that the Minister of State, Welsh Office should come to the Dispatch Box to throw the industry back into private ownership without knowing what the outcome will be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said, no one can foresee the world situation for steel over the next five or 10 years. It is shameful and shocking that the Government should decide now to put at risk an industry which has been through such pain and agony.
      I say this in the interests of the whole steel industry, in which the whole nation has a special interest. As I said earlier, I speak in the interests of each steel plant. We want firm commitments about investment over the next five or 10 years. We should have a Minister at the Dispatch Box who is capable of giving firm commitments. If the industry is to be privatised, such firm commitments cannot be given from the Disptach Box. That is why we are opposed to the privatisation. If the Minister wants to do a service to Wales, he should tear up his prepared speech and say "No, we will not do this." He has experience of steel matters. He had better get an underling from another Department to do the dirty work.
      The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was sufficiently honest to admit at the beginning of this debate that he was using the amendment to debate the basic principle. Therefore, we heard the age-old argument of public ownership versus privatisation. We covered this ground thoroughly on Second Reading, and we touched on it in Committee.
      During the Second Reading my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out the Government's position clearly when he said:
      "The Government believe that good commercial enterprises should be in the private sector because they thrive better there. They are free of Treasury control, free of ministerial control and further away from political lobbying which raises problems now or in future."— [Official Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 170.]
      I am aware of the connection of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) with steel. He may not know about mine. I was present at the opening of the Llanwern works in the early 1960s, and I remember Sir Henry Spencer. They used so much blue paint at Llanwern that it was called Spencer Blue. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not remember as clearly as I do that the
      874
      talk at the time was that the opening of the Llanwern works would mean the end of steel making at Ebbw Vale. It did not mean that for many years thereafter. Was it not left to a Labour Government, towards the end of their term in office, to close down steel making at Ebbw Vale and in Cardiff? That was very much in prospect towards the end of that Labour Government's term of office.
      Mr. Foot: The Minister should get his facts straight. The Minister responsible for the proposal to close the heavy end of steel making at Ebbw Vale was his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Wales. The Minister had better be careful about what he says.
      Mr. Roberts: I am fairly sure of my facts. It was only a matter of time and of allowing the general election to pass before the decisions were implemented. The Labour Government had been forced into the position where they recognised that the rundown at Ebbw Vale and in Cardiff had to take place.
      I want to consider the Government's justification for privatisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) said, we believe that the steel industry will perform better in the private sector. The Government are not alone in that belief. The BSC wants that. If hon. Members care to look at the report and accounts published in July last year, they will discover in the penultimate paragraph that the chairman states:
      "The board believes that a return to the private sector would bring clear commercial advantages to the corporation."
      Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Roberts: No, I want to finish this point. I shall give way later.
      The chairman of BSC said that in the context of all the challenges that BSC must face in the near future. BSC is facing the challenges for the future with some confidence, and the Government share that confidence. Having listened to Opposition Members today and in Committee, it seems that they base their views entirely on their worst fears and believe that the steel industry will be better protected if it is in public ownership.
      The record of British Steel in public ownership is not as the Opposition would make out. I have a copy of an excellent document written by Elizabeth Cotterell, called "The Giant with the Feet of Clay: the British Steel Industry 1945–1981." This very good document describes some of the delays and damage caused during the period of public ownership.
      We have not discussed the amendment in detail. However, it is clear that it is our intention that we should sell at least the majority of shares that we hold in the successor company following vesting. If a minority shareholding is retained, it will not be because the Government consider it necessary to retain a formal interest in the successor campany; nor, in those circumstances, would the Government seek to exercise any influence over the company's policy. Once again I reiterate our firm belief that we believe that the industry will react better to the requirements of he market place when it is in the private sector.
      8.30 pm
      The amendments are designed to preserve a specific Government shareholding in the successor company. That is completely at odds with our policy and it would certainly

      875
      be wrong to enshrine such restraints in statute. These issues were thoroughly discussed in Committee, and the broader questions were debated on Second Reading. We accept that the steel industry is important, but it does not follow that the Government must retain control over it to protect the national interest. British Steel's history shows that Government intervention is often not beneficial either to the commercial success of the company or, in the longer term, to the national interest.
      I recall debates in the House in 1973—and reference was made to this in Committee—when a great argument raged across the Floor of the House on how much steel should be produced. The then Government were talking of 38 million tons, whereas the Opposition were talking of 42 million tons or thereabouts. We all know what volume of steel production was reached within a few years after that time. In other words, all of us, on both sides of the House, were wrong. So much for our deep political knowledge and judgment of the steel industry.
      This is an enabling Bill, and privatisation will take place subject to market conditions. We have always made that clear. The taxpayer will have his reward through the return to the Treasury from the sale of shares. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) that the return from the proceeds of the sale is likely to be far greater than any return from dividends over the years.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister is a poet or a bard, and he made a reply appropriate to a poet or a bard. It was not an economist's reply, nor was it a politician's reply. It was essentially doggerel. There was no mobilisation of any argument. Apart from the Minister's repetition of a few cliches, I heard no justification for taking the British Steel Corporation, which the Minister has told the House is so successful, transforming it into a shell company, and flogging it off. What gains will materialise from such an action? Can those gains be quantified? What prospects lie ahead if that is done?
      We claim—and the history of steel shows this to be true—that there is an inherent tendency in private ownership to take the maximum return on investment and to draw the maximum dividends, but not to make the new investment in capacity and plant that is necessary for the industry to remain competitive. The tendency is not to build new plants, but to pay dividends out of capital or out of a failure to invest. That is the whole history of the steel industry. What will make that different now that the Government are again putting the steel industry into the hands of the self-same investing community that produced that record of neglect in the past? What will turn British Steel into a dynamic industry when it is privatised this time? There has been no indication at all from the Government.
      One change is that the investors will be internationally diversified. British Steel will represent only a small proportion of their investment and will be something that they can write off. They will have no interest in the continued well-being of British Steel, provided it pays dividends. Once those investors have enjoyed a return on their capital they will be able to write it off after 20 years and put their money into another steel industry somewhere else. British Steel will be just one of the eggs in their basket. The danger is that they do not have any concern for the national interest of the kind which the Government have,
      876
      and which the elected representatives of the people can have in influencing the Government through the House. That is the argument for public control, and it is one that has not been answered.
      The only justification that the Government can provide for privatisation is that the Opposition are against it. That is the equivalent of a thug who has been arrested for attacking an old lady demanding of the policeman, "What is your philosophy about crime? What are you going to do to stop crime?", while not recognising that his own actions were wrong. The Minister's only arguments have come in the form of a few statements from British Steel executives. Of course they are in favour of privatisation, because they will get rid of Treasury control, with all its restrictions, and of interference by Ministers who they believe know nothing about the industry. They will also be able to pay themselves more money. In that situation, I would be in favour of privatisation. However, we in this Chamber must take account of the nation's interests and ensure the survival of a healthy manufacturing economy. We must also concern ourselves with the production of steel as cheaply and as abundantly as possible, to act as a basis for that industry.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman does an injustice to the management of BSC when he ascribes to it those reasons for being in favour of privatisation. I am sure that he would wish to take account of the entire contents of the chairman's review, in which his statement in favour of privatisation occurs. He would then see that the BSC board is in favour of privatisation because it believes that the steel industry will do better.
      Mr. Mitchell: The Government have been telling the House how well British Steel has been doing under public ownership, and that the whole basis of its success has been the investment made, the reorganisation undertaken, and the shedding of labour that has been carried through under state ownership. When the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) said that private ownership means success, and that public ownership means failure, his assertion is in direct defiance of all the facts. There is in the 16 May issue of Metal Bulletin a table of results for EEC steelmakers. The only major success is that of British Steel, which is publicly owned, with a profit of 286 million ecu for 1987. The privately-owned German steel maker, Klockner, made a loss of 39 million ecu. Thyssen lost 107 million ecu. Hoechst made a profit of only 24 million ecu, and both Irish Steel and Danish Steel made losses. Private steel makers are losing money, but British Steel is successful, and has been made successful by public ownership. The Government want to throw that away, and that is irresponsible of them to do so in the fashion that they propose.
      The Government are irresponsible. They are a Government who have presided over years of oil wealth and have thrown that away. They have thrown away the nation's opportunity and are now selling off the nation's assets at knockdown prices—grabbing a quick window of opportunity to get the best price that they can, irrespective of the consequences for the industry and the problems that will confront the national economy later. It is Government by irresponsibility, and we shall vote against it.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 246.

      Division No. 308]

      [8.37 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Allen, Graham

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Anderson, Donald

      Henderson, Doug

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Holland, Stuart

      Ashton, Joe

      Home Robertson, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Hoyle, Doug

      Battle, John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bell, Stuart

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

      Illsley, Eric

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ingram, Adam

      Blair, Tony

      Janner, Greville

      Boyes, Roland

      John, Brynmor

      Bradley, Keith

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Lambie, David

      Buchan, Norman

      Lamond, James

      Buckley, George J.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Caborn, Richard

      Leighton, Ron

      Callaghan, Jim

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lewis, Terry

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Litherland, Robert

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Clay, Bob

      McAllion, John

      Clelland, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McCartney, Ian

      Cohen, Harry

      McFall, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Corbett, Robin

      McKelvey, William

      Cousins, Jim

      McLeish, Henry

      Cox, Tom

      McNamara, Kevin

      Crowther, Stan

      McTaggart, Bob

      Cummings, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marek, Dr John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Darling, Alistair

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphiily)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Dewar, Donald

      Maxton, John

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Douglas, Dick

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Eastham, Ken

      Morley, Elliott

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mullin, Chris

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Murphy, Paul

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

      Nellist, Dave

      Flannery, Martin

      O'Brien, William

      Flynn, Paul

      O'Neill, Martin

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Parry, Robert

      Foster, Derek

      Patchett, Terry

      Foulkes, George

      Pendry, Tom

      Fraser, John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Prescott, John

      Galloway, George

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Radice, Giles

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Randall, Stuart

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Redmond, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Reid, Dr John

      Gordon, Mildred

      Richardson, Jo

      Graham, Thomas

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Robertson, George

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Grocott, Bruce

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hardy, Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      878

      Salmond, Alex

      Vaz, Keith

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wall, Pat

      Sheerman, Barry

      Walley, Joan

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Warded, Gareth (Gower)

      Short, Clare

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

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

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Soley, Clive

      Wilson, Brian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Winnick, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Stott, Roger

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, Gavin

      Wray, Jimmy

      Straw, Jack

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Turner, Dennis

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Allason, Rupert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Alton, David

      Cope, John

      Amess, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Amos, Alan

      Couchman, James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cran, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Ashby, David

      Day, Stephen

      Atkins, Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      Atkinson, David

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dicks, Terry

      Baldry, Tony

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Dover, Den

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dunn, Bob

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Beith, A. J.

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evennett, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fallon, Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Farr, Sir John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Favell, Tony

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Blackburn, Dr John Q.

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Boswell, Tim

      Forman, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Forth, Eric

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Franks, Cecil

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Freeman, Roger

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      French, Douglas

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fry, Peter

      Brazier, Julian

      Gale, Roger

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Gardiner, George

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

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

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gow, Ian

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burt, Alistair

      Gregory, Conal

      Butcher, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Butterfill, John

      Grist, Ian

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Ground, Patrick

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Grylls, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hannam, John

      Chope, Christopher

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

      Churchill, Mr

      Harris, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifie)

      Hayward, Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Conway, Derek

      Heddle, John

      879

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Paice, James

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hill, James

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Holt, Richard

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Raffan, Keith

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rowe, Andrew

      Irvine, Michael

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Irving, Charles

      Ryder, Richard

      Jack, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jackson, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Janman, Tim

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Jessel, Toby

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Speller, Tony

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Stern, Michael

      Kilfedder, James

      Stevens, Lewis

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Knapman, Roger

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Sumberg, David

      Knowles, Michael

      Summerson, Hugo

      Knox, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lang, Ian

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Lightbown, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lilley, Peter

      Thorne, Neil

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lord, Michael

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Tracey, Richard

      Maclean, David

      Tredinnick, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Trippier, David

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Trotter, Neville

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Madel, David

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Malins, Humfrey

      Walden, George

      Mans, Keith

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Maples, John

      Wallace, James

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Watts, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Wheeler, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Whitney, Ray

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mills, Iain

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Moate, Roger

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Wolfson, Mark

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Wood, Timothy

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Mudd, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Neubert, Michael

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Mr. Alan Howarth

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 19, at end insert
      'and must be a company in which there shall be designated a special share which shall have the effect in terms of voting at an ordinary meeting of representing 50·01 per cent. of the shares and which shall be held by the Secretary of State for the following purposes—

      (a) ensuring that all directors of the successor company are British citizens;

      (b) restricting the proportion of shares held by non-British citizens or institutions to 15 per cent. of the paid-up capital of the company;

      880

      (c) protecting the successor company from being taken over by another person or body; and

      (d) the restriction of any individual shareholder or their nominee to no more than 5 per cent. of the paid-up share capital of the company;

      and the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament on the use of the golden share designated under this subsection.'.
      This amendment relates to retaining Government influence over the privatised British Steel Corporation. Even if the Government are so irresponsible as to want to divest themselves of ownership through a state corporation, they should still retain some influence over the new company and set out certain priorities in the form of a golden share. That is clearly a faute de mieux, in the sense that we prefer the corporation to be publicly owned and amenable to national interests through public ownership—that is the best way of doing that—and, in default, there should be a golden share.
      From the Minister's own agnostic position on Second Reading, it is clear that he did not think of including a golden share in the proposals. It is clear also that, through our arguments in Committee, we have brought the Government round. In Committee, there was little Government movement. Perhaps it was because the Ministers did not know much about steel or the Bill. But, during our discussions, we managed to secure one concession—and there will be a golden share in British Steel plc. We rate that as a success, but it is no more than a recognition by the Government of their responsibility to privatised industry. We are glad about that concession, but we want the Minister to put some flesh on it and tell us exactly what the Government envisage in the golden share. We envisage the range of powers that is specified in our amendment. The first is
      "that all directors … are British citizens."
      It restricts
      "the proportion of shares held by non-British citizens or institutions to 15 per cent.".
      In other words, we do not want to get into a British Petroleum problem.
      The amendment protects
      "the successor company from being taken over by another person or body."
      Clearly, it could be in danger of that. If there is no investment and industrial strength is not maintained, it restricts
      "any individual shareholder or their nominee to no more than 5 per cent. of the paid-up share capital of the company."
      More important, it requires the Secretary of State to
      "report to Parliament on the use of the golden share designated under this subsection."
      That is the golden share as we would like it. We wait to hear how the Minister would define it. There can and should be no doubt about the principle of the golden share. The 23 July 1985 minutes of Her Majesty's Treasury Official Committee on Nationalised Industry Policy, which is an unclassified document on special rights shares, show that that body agreed:
      "In some privatisations, there will be no need for reserve powers. But in certain cases, the Government needs to retain specific limited powers over the future ownership or control or conduct of a privatised company. Powers have been taken for example to prevent foreign control where this is judged to be undesirable, to block take-overs during a limited period while the company fully establishes itself in the private sector, and to veto any material disposition of assets. The exact powers required will need to be determined by the circumstances of each case, but they should always be limited to the minimum necessary."

      881
      In British Steel, the minimum necessary is substantial, because it is a crucial industry. We want the industry to be run as closely in accord with the national interest as a privatised industry—a plc—can be. That is why we have opted for the form of words in our amendment.
      If the Minister does not think that British Steel is important, strategic or crucial enough to the economy to justify that full range of powers, it is incumbent on him to tell us why he rejects them and how the dangers that they safeguard against can be avoided if they are not specified in the golden share.
      Clearly there is scope for discussion about the golden share. The golden share should be written into the legislation. That seems to be an essential safeguard. I assume that the Government's approach will be to write it into the articles of the company. That is not as effective as putting it into the Bill. If a case goes to court and a judge rules that the equal rights of shareholders are overruled or obviated by the existence of a golden share, the nature of the operation could be endangered. That is always a possibility. To safeguard against that, legislation will have priority and will be fully and comprehensively binding in a way in which the company's articles will not. That is why we prefer to have this in the legislation.
      Let us examine what is in the golden share. The contents of golden shares have varied from privatised company to privatised company. There is no pattern. I should have thought that it was incumbent on the Government to set out some basic pattern of requirements to be imposed on privatised companies. The Government have certainly had enough practical experience to set out certain basic rules in the form of a golden share and what it should be about. I ask hon. Members to look at experience. For instance, the golden share of the British Airports Authority provides that there will be no individual shareholding of more than 15 per cent. It entrenches the ownership of major airports with the British Airports Authority. In British Aerospace, there is no foreign stake over 15 per cent. The directors are British, and there is one Government director. British Airways has no special share, but no individual stake over 15 per cent. and no foreign holding over 25 per cent. are allowed. In British Telecom, there is no stake above 15 per cent. The chief executive must be British and the Government have the right to appoint directors. There is a patchwork quilt of provisions.
      Steel is so crucial that we should have the maximum possible provision and safeguards in the golden share. There are real dangers. It is important to assert the national interest, in whatever form it can be asserted, through a golden share held by the Government. I was pleased to hear the Minister announce that there is a possibility that the Government will maintain a shareholding. Clearly we welcome that. We prefer them to maintain as big a shareholding as possible and for as long as possible—certainly until Labour returns to power, when we shall know what action to take with the shareholding.
      The golden share is a different provision—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State is checking what was said in the previous debate. In Committee, he envisaged a 25 per cent. Government shareholding in BSC. I hope that he will not whittle away at the figure and cause that shareholding to vanish like a mirage. That shareholding was important in building up our vote on amendment No. 2. I notice that the Government's
      882
      majority fell abruptly. Either their supporters do not have faith in the privatisation proposals or we are gathering new
      strength, perhaps as a consequence of the Minister's commitment in the last debate.
      Since the 1920s, we have not had a totally unregulated market in steel, without any Government involvement or state responsibility for the market's overall shape. Over the years, Government aspirations about public versus private ownership have changed like a zigzag. The Conservative party came into office hostile to public ownership, but the Government increased it massively by encouraging the British Steel Corporation in the early 1980s to drive all the competition out of business. Dunford and Hatfield was the classic example. Private steel producers which had prospered and made profits under Labour—we had a different attitude towards the private sector—were driven out of business by BSC under this Government. In effect, a Government committed to privatisation were closing down the private sector. The Government then took another zigzag with the Phoenix hive-offs, in which British Steel retains a stake.
      9 pm
      Now, in another zigzag, the Government are to turn this dominant public limited company loose on the market without control or supervision, let or hindrance. There will not even be effective controls by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The procedures have been speeded up and will probably be weakened. How effective will those procedures be as a control on any monopolistic tendencies implicit in British Steel's performance? I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs when he intended to publish the M MC's report on various nationalised industries, including BSC. Having given me a holding answer, because the question so disturbed him and the Government's actions were so obscure that he was not able to find the answer immediately, the hon. Gentleman said:
      "The report was delivered to the Secretary of State in 1986."
      No date was given, but it was almost certainly the beginning of 1986. The hon. Gentleman did not even give the month. He said:
      "The delay in publication has been caused by the need to consider very carefully a request by the British Steel Corporation that the Secretary of State should exercise his powers under section 17 of the Competition Act 1980 to make a number of excisions to the published report in order to avoid prejudicing the interests of the corporation."—[Official Report, 3 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 373]
      What are the Government hiding? What was cut out of the report and why can it not be published? Is the report so
      damaging about the privatisation prospects of the British Steel Corporation that it will deter investors?
      If that is effective supervision of a nationalised company by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, it is clear that the privatised company will be turned loose with no effective control over it. That is why we want the Government to have a golden share. The fact that the Government have bungled the golden share over Britoil does not invalidate the golden share. It might invalidate its use by the Government, but it does not invalidate the principle of retaining a vestige of influence and setting the company in the right direction. The fact that the EEC has doubts about it does not invalidate the golden share. My guess is that the Government now wish that they had a golden share in BP. That is the line argued by The Independent, which, on 5 May 1988, said:

      883
      "In simple truth, the Government has run into difficulty with BP because it was never envisaged that such a situation could arise."
      That was a reference to the Kuwaiti investment, which is bigger than our Government's stake in BP. Kuwait, a member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, has more influence and control over BP than our Government. If the Government had provided themselves with the instrument which we provide for them in the amendment, that situation with BP could not have arisen.
      Before the marines begin to abseil down the front of the British Steel building, unveiling the slogan "Three and threepence," as they did on BP, let us take a sensible precaution. Any Government with wisdom would maintain the vestige of public influence, national control, and point it in the direction of public involvement and interest in what will be a powerful private competitor.
      Mr. Crowther: We are all probably aware that the Government have issued a press statement today, setting out what they will write into the articles of association. I think it would have been more courteous if they had let hon. Members know at the same time as they informed the press.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I did not intervene during the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) when he made the same point. The press statement actually repeats the text of an answer to a parliamentary question. We followed the convention of not issuing it to the press until Parliament had been told. Our intention was that the debate on the amendment should be better informed, which could be achieved by giving advance notice of the terms of the special share that we were proposing. Whatever else we can be accused of—the hon. Member may be about to accuse us of all kinds of things—discourtesy to the House is not one of them.
      Mr. Crowther: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy saying that the answer is in Hansard today?
      Mr. Clarke: No, it is not. We followed the usual convention. Parliamentary questions are always answered at 3.30 pm, and press releases can be given after that. Parliamentary questions are available, as the hon. Member knows, and, if one goes to the right place in the House, one can obtain a copy of today's answers.
      Mr. Crowther: I do not think that that is satisfactory. Most hon. Members will not have had the opportunity of seeing the written answer until later.
      A representative of the press told me what is in the answer. As I understand it, in the first place it is intended that the Government retain a golden share in British Steel. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy will tell me if I am wrong, but they are intending to limit share ownership by any individual to 15 per cent. However, whether there is a limitation on foreign ownership—
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke indicated dissent.
      Mr. Crowther: I see that the Chancellor of the Duchy shakes his head. That is what fills me with dismay. I thought that there was to be no limitation. However, I understood that the Government may have been agreeable to writing that limitation in. If they are not prepared to
      884
      write it into the articles of association, that makes the matter worse. However, even if they had done that, I would not have found that adequate. That limitation on foreign ownership needs to be written into the legislation, which is what the amendment is all about. If we are going to protect the national interest, it is essential that this amendment is carried. The amendment deals with both those matters.
      The golden share principle is fine, so long as the golden share is held by a Government who are really concerned about the national interest. I confess that I am not confident that the Government have any concern for the national interest. That is also why we need to write it into the Bill. In order to avoid uncertainty about the future ownership of the industry, a limitation on foreign ownership with no time limit needs to be written into the Bill. I believe that even the golden share principle may be limited to five years. That will be a five-year limit on the modest provisions which are now proposed.
      We know, of course, that the Government are intending to push the British Steel Corporation into the private sector as soon as possible. The great danger is that this privatised company will enter into a cut-throat price war in Europe when the production quotas are lifted at the end of next month. It is now fairly clear that about 90 per cent. of all steel products in the Community will be outside the quotas. At the same time, the West Germans are still alleging—wrongly in my view—that the British steel industry is receiving Government subsidies. If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows something about that that I do not know, I shall be pleased to hear it, because as far as I know there are now no Government subsidies for the steel industry—
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has invited me to intervene and I am glad to say that I agree with him on this point. I understand that some German companies are complaining about the capital write-offs that took place in the past which they claim were unfair subsidies of the British steel industry against their steel industry. Those so-called capital write-offs were cleared by the British Government with the Commission and accepted by the Commission some years ago. We agree with the European Commission that the German complaints are completely unjustified. British Steel's present position has been fairly won in the market place and reflects great credit on all those in the corporation.
      Mr. Crowther: I am happy to have that assurance. However, what worries me is that the Germans may well regard their allegations—false though they may be—as a good excuse for increasing the German Government's existing subsidies which assist their industry. I admit that those subsidies are indirect, but they are nevertheless substantial.
      Because of the continuing excess capacity outside Britain, which will continue for some time despite the impending closure of the Krupp works at Rheinhausen, an attempted takeover of the British Steel Corporation from another country—probably Germany—is becoming more and more probable. I am worried by that because, from the German point of view, it would make sense. Also, American steel producers which, according to a recent report, are now operating at 90 per cent. of capacity, may be looking for a way of buying into the European

      885
      Community in much the same way as some Swiss companies are trying it on in the chocolate industry. That is another serious danger.
      I am not concerned only about the British Steel Corporation itself. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) 1 am worried because the BSC stilll owns 50 per cent. of the shares in United Engineering Steels in our area. That company used to be mostly the British Steel special steels group. It is the biggest engineering steel producer in Europe. It is a successful company which, last year, made over 2 million liquid tonnes of steel, mostly in Rotherham. It made a pre-tax profit of over £36 million on sales of £577 million. It is the kind of operation that might well be attractive to predators who will think that they may get a foothold in that company by buying BSC shares. Again, that causes great concern. My constituents, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth, who worked for United Engineering Steels are entitled to some assurance about the future ownership of the company in which they work.
      I emphasise that it is not some sort of narrow chauvinistic nationalism that makes people like me worry about such matters. It is the simple conviction that Britain, British industry and the people who work in British industry still count for something in this world. They are entitled to a fair crack of the whip and to believe that the British Government are on their side, although we have seen little evidence of that recently. That may be an old-fashioned view, but it was the view of the Conservative party until it started to abandon all its traditional principles under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, who apparently thinks that a combination of empty rhetoric and wild gestures is an adequate substitute for the real policies which would allow British manufacturers to compete on equal terms with the rest of the world, instead of having to fight with their hands tied behind their backs.
      At present, the British economy is more dominated by foreign-owned companies than that of any other country in western Europe. That is not something that we can be proud of as a nation. I am certainly not against foreign companies investing in new factories in Britain and creating new jobs, but I am very much against foreign companies buying British firms in order to manipulate them for their own purposes. If that were to happen to the British Steel Corporation, it would be an absolute disaster.
      The Government proposals for handing over the Rover Group to British Aerospace contain no restriction whatever to prevent British Aerospace, on the expiration of five years, from selling the Rover business to anyone anywhere in the world who might be interested in buying it.
      I believe that it is not a flight of fancy to suggest that in the foreseeable future vehicle manufacture, as distinct from vehicle assembly, could be coming to an end in this country. I do not want to see the steel industry, the most basic of all our industries, placed in the same hazardous position. The only way to make sure that that does not happen is to approve this amendment. If Government Members wish to demonstrate their patriotism tonight, they will vote for it.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Hardy:I am delighted to follow my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham
      886
      (Mr. Crowther), because he has quite properly drawn attention to the very real need for concern about the position in south Yorkshire of the larger part of United Engineering Steels. The Government have not been very helpful in dispelling the anxieties felt by the people working there, who have contributed to establishing world records, creating profits and providing Britain with a strategically important industry.
      I was extremely sorry that in the last debate I was unable to intervene as I had hoped to during the speech by the Minister of State, Welsh Office, because it would have reduced the length of his speech. However, I can make the point now and remain entirely in order. It refers to the shareholding.
      The Welsh Minister said—and I am sure that the Minister, in winding up this debate, may say—that the board of the British Steel Corporation is eager to see privatisation. He gave the impression, indeed, that it is more eager than the Government, because the Minister was prepared to wait until the climate was right, while Sir Robert Scholey and his friends appear to have wanted it yesterday whether the climate was appropriate or not. The reason may be that they feel that the precedents established in other privatisations mean that they will do very well out of it.
      I wanted to tell the Minister, since I am an amateur historian—I stress the word "amateur"—that my observation of privatisations over the last few years shows that the Government have been applying the rules that were applied in the Nelsonian navy in terms of the distribution of prize money to the distribution of free shares in private industry. The arrangements for the privatisation of British Telecom, British Petroleum or any of the others seems to be closely in accord with the distribution of prize money earned by the flagships, the frigates and so on in the 18th and early 19th centuries, if not before.
      The distribution of shares to people in higher positions is clearly a matter of great public interest. I am grateful that my attention has been drawn to the publication of the articles of association and the details of the share arrangements. I have only received a copy in the last two or three minutes. My constituents will be most moved by the fact that they are being offered £70-worth of free shares, plus a further £2-worth of shares for each year of service. Sir Robert Scholey must have been in the industry for about 40 years, which suggests that he will be given £150-worth of shares. Some of my constituents who have worked there only 10 years will receive £90-worth. That is not an impressive way of involving people in their privatised concern.
      Will the basis of distribution of free shares in this document apply throughout the industry from the chairman to the apprentice? I am a little worried that the document states that BSC pensioners applying for shares will be allowed certain facilities. Will United Engineering Steels' pensioners—those who have retired since UES was established and who may have had 30 or more years' service with the corporation before that Phoenix manifestation—have that facility extended to them?
      The Government have ignored the national interest. A few months ago, together with other south Yorkshire Members, I met the Engineering Employers Federation. We were astonished to learn that British industry could now provide armour plating from only two sources. The Ministry of Defence had become extremely worried about

      887
      this diminution of our strategic capacity and it invited Thyssen of Germany to tender for the engineering steel required for our defence purposes. We established that under no circumstances would the Germans allow any other country, not even an ally or another member of the European Common Market, to tender for military requirements. That suggests how low our Government's concern has been for our strategic interests.
      That is not the only reason why I support the amendment. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State present and he will know what I am about to say. The amendment refers to takeovers. I have no great faith that all captains of British industry are fit and proper people to run the industry upon which the country depends and on which many of our constituents depend for their livelihood.
      Two years ago I hesitated before I joined the demand for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission when a company called Guinness took over a firm, Bells, which owned Canning Town glass works in my constituency—one of the most effective glassworks in Europe. Before I decided to join that demand, I wrote to Guinness to establish its intentions in respect of my constituency. I wrote two letters to the then chief executive and I was given firm assurances about its intentions. Guinness did not wait five years, which is why I am worried about a five-year golden share and why we need the protection which the amendment would afford.
      The workers put their backs into the new company, demonstrated their success and more than passed the targets which the company set. The company gave such strong assurances that the ratepayers in my area gave it grants for additional work to improve the facilities at the plant. Towards the end of last year, the company announced that it was moving the administrative jobs, but it assured me that production would be untouched. Then in January came the decision to close the plant. Almost 500 jobs in Dearne valley, perhaps the area of highest unemployment, were destroyed.
      When I complained, the chairman of Guinness announced that the company had never given me an assurance. Fortunately, I could present his letters which I also showed to the Under-Secretary of State. He knew that the company had behaved extremely badly when my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and I went to see him. That is one section of the captains of British industry on which we cannot depend for our national interest.
      The Minister pointed out that it is not the Government's policy to intervene in these matters, and we know that all too well. We have very good cause to know it in areas like mine. It will not be in areas like mine where a large proportion of shares in BSC or those resulting from any other privatisation will be distributed. This will be grasped more readily in the areas that have been doing very well. Concern was expressed about the green belt in the south last night; that is the sort of area I am referring to.
      I believe that the amendment is entirely justified. It protects the interests of communities that have contributed to the successful condition of British Steel. It gazes realistically at the position of British commerce and business today. Perhaps those who now direct large sectors
      888
      of that industry might be more appropriately placed, if not at the tables of 10 Downing street then in the Old Bailey. I am not prepared to see the interests of my constituents sacrificed to the whim of those who will trade with only the shortest term consideration and my hon. Friends are to be congratulated on tabling the amendment.
      When we tabled an amendment to the Gas Bill—now the Gas Act 1986—we proposed merely that the chairman or chief executive should be a British citizen. I was called a chauvinist when I moved that amendment in Standing Committee. The Minister mocked and attacked the suggestion, until I pointed out that we had taken the amendment literally from the Act that established British Telecommunications. I am glad that we are not being so modest tonight as we were in that Committee. I am delighted that we are suggesting that the directors of the successor company to BSC should be British citizens. If we had not proposed such an amendment, and if the Government do not accept it, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham becomes valid.
      I have great anxieties about who will own the British steel industry in less than five years. Certainly I believe that there is a danger from the Germans, who know how effective our steel industry is, or that the Japanese may well look at the industry. Knowing what a soft touch we are, perhaps the next time that Nestle and Suchard decide that they want to buy a British business, they may decide to demonstrate their interest in diversity and buy steel as well as chocolate in Yorkshire. That decision would be as logical as many made by British industry.
      The amendment is valid. It should commend itself to every hon. Member who is interested in maintaining a strategic industrial capacity. Certainly I believe that it would be welcomed by those people who have made sure that British Steel is a successful industry, worth more than £2,000 million, which is the rather optimistic price that the Government will seek, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
      By the time that the Government have carried out a few more dawn raids in Brussels, the price might have to come down—who knows?—but certainly it will be sold at far less than its value. The people who will be betrayed are those who contributed to its value in the first place.
      Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: In supporting amendment No. 5, we are trying to provide some protection for British Steel as a major United Kingdom industry, so that it functions in the interests of its past and present employees, its customers, and the United Kingdom economy as a whole. That is not for exports, but for the many firms that feed into British Steel. That is very important, both nationally and regionally. Many secondary and tertiary industries on Teesside are dependent on British Steel, and any change in the strength and market of British Steel would have dire effects on those industries.
      By the amendment we are trying to make sure that the golden share is enshrined in a formal, constitutional way within the statute. As we have seen from the press releases that we have just obtained, it will exist for only five years. Why five years? Did the Minister pick that figure by luck, or by design? I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will explain and justify that period when he responds to the debate.

      889
      9.30 pm
      The protection afforded by the golden share is important, and would be even more important if we had a decent Government. The 50·01 per cent. share gives us the chance of providing certain protections that are essential for the future of British Steel. First, it would provide parliamentary accountability, which is essential to the development of a major United Kingdom industry such as this. Secondly, it would maintain some formal links between Government Departments—especially the DTI—and the sponsorship of this major industry. Thirdly, it would provide additional shareholder protection. The golden share would help to inhibit price fluctuations caused by speculation. Fourthly, it would offer protection for non-shareholders. As with previous privatisations, the assets could be sold at substantial discounts. The golden share would prevent such assets being sold to overseas buyers and it would also prevent asset-stripping. These are all important reasons for protecting the industry as it moves forward into privatisation.
      Other important elements must not be ignored. One is the importance of keeping British Steel as an integrated whole. Without such integration there will be problems with new products, marketing and developing new processes. Research and development—particularly on Teesside—and new capacity and facilities will not come about without protecting the nature of the integrated company and without the five plants remaining together. Integration is important also because it would mean that resource allocation and management decisions would be kept in the United Kingdom.
      I hope that this protection will mean that other goods for the industry will be procured in the United Kingdom, and that research and development and the patents and licences that result from them would flow into the United Kingdom rather than out of it. The future development of the industry is important to my constituents in Redcar and to other hon. Members' constituents who depend on British Steel and on the secondary and tertiary industries which in turn depend on the company remaining integrated, not broken up.
      Information technology is a good example of what happens when an industry moves to branch plants. It is bad for direct and indirect employment, for future competitiveness and for other United Kingdom manufacturers. I am sure the Minister knows of the report on software in information technology, which showed the sorts of dangers that would ensue for British Steel—the problems of technological dependency, partial supply and non-supply. We are worried that such problems would afflict the industry without the integration of its several plants spread around the country.
      The golden share protects the integrity of the corporation. Without it the investment and confidence that are needed for the future of the industry will not exist. If the amendment is not accepted, I and my hon. Friends are worried that financial predators such as we saw in the Guinness and Westland affairs—or in dawn raids by Nestle or Suchard—will feature in the future of British Steel, which would be a crime. For eight years we have suffered on Teesside, and without this amendment our future there looks bleak.
      Mr. Morley: The amendment is a major step forward in what the Bill is attempting to do. It would give the Government the best of both worlds. We could argue that
      890
      on the one hand they have a free standing company which operates without commercial restraint, and on the other they have the golden share and the option to make sure that whoever controls the company and is involved in it has some responsibility. Responsibilities are involved, such as the responsibility to my community. If the steel industry was removed from my constituency, it would take the very heart out of the constituency.
      The Government have been consistent on these issues, as we have seen with Suchard and Rowntree, where they have shown not the slightest concern, but many hon. Members on the Government Benches have shown concern. I hope that they will show concern tonight by supporting the amendment and giving security not only to the steel industry but to the many communities which rely upon steel.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I wish, first, to answer a couple of points with which I shall not deal at length in my reply to the debate. I took note of the point made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about employee shares. We shall return to that later in a debate on a suitable amendment. I accept that he is interested in what has been announced today in answer to a parliamentary question on employee shares. At this stage I can assure him that the availability of shares to employees will be on an equal footing with management throughout the rest of the company. Management will have no special rights.
      I also know of the hon. Gentleman's great concern about the circumstances in which Guinness took over the company which owned Canning Town glass works because my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has discussed the case with me. Obviously this is not the time to discuss that further. I do not think that it is right to generalise, as the hon. Gentleman did, about all takeovers.
      The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) also raised a point, which I shall not deal with at length, about the need to keep British Steel as an integrated whole. I wish that she had been here earlier for the debate on new clause 1 which arose out of a desire of certain of her hon. Friends to see the company broken up when it is privatised. I should like to pray her in aid in saying that, whatever else happens to British Steel, at the moment it is in the national interest that it is privatised as one unit and not broken up.
      The debate was really about special shares. First, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (M r. Mitchell), as usual, on carrying the heat and burden of the day on the Bill. I regret that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has not returned. He teased me earlier by saying that I would vanish to have a large meal and a cigar. I have had the cigar, but I have not had the meal. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is having a good meal, wherever he is.
      Apart from his leg pull, the hon. Gentleman accused me, as did the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), of discourtesy to the House by giving details of the special share in a press notice this afternoon. I think we followed the usual convention in this place: that no announcement is made to the press until an announcement has been made to the House. There was a parliamentary question today, answered at 3.30 pm. I believe that hon. Members can always browse through the day's answers in the Library when they come in at half-past three. The parliamentary answer was followed by a press notice. I am

      891
      glad that it came to the notice of both hon. Gentlemen, which means that they know the nature of the special share which we propose.
      We begin at least with agreement. The Government have accepted—as I said on Second Reading that we were considering, and as my hon. Friend said in Committee—the case for a special share. As the hon. Member for Rotherham has discovered, we propose to put in the articles of the company a provision which will restrict individual shareholdings in the company to a maximum of 15 per cent. of the equity and to retain that special or golden share for a period of five years.
      In several of the privatisations that the Government have taken through, we have included varying provisions for special or golden shares. As the hon. Gentleman said, no pattern has emerged because we have held that each industrial situation and each company should be judged on its merits. Our policy is as far as possible to put privatised companies into the position of any private sector company.
      To varying degrees, in different terms and with different companies, we have had a look at the situation and have decided that, usually for a limited period, some sort of restraint is required on the ability of outside companies to make bids for the acquisition of other companies. In terms of British Steel, we have come up with the formulation that I have described. I shall shortly explain why we have done that. Our suggestion does not match the Opposition amendment that we are discussing. I suppose that it differs in one very significant respect because what we propose will not discriminate between British holders of equity and overseas owners of equity. We see no case for doing so in the case of British Steel because we see no defence or strategic interest in British Steel. It is a Bismarckian view to regard steel as one of the key defence industries. Many private sector steel companies have no restrictions on foreign ownership.
      Mr. Crowther: I am astonished that the Minister can say that the steel industry, of all industries, has no strategic importance. Can he tell us any type of weapon that does not have steel in it?
      Mr. Clarke: In terms of modern warfare, electronics is probably more important than steel and more difficult to get in the required quality, whereas the world is somewhat awash with steel of varying qualities. I am not a defence expert and the hon. Gentleman may be ahead of me in that respect, but I think that he is thinking in terms of the Franco-Prussian war rather than in terms of today's warfare.
      I have recently detected to a growing extent that the Opposition are going through one of their fits of slightly anti-foreign fervour when they speak about industrial policy. The Conservative party is the patriotic party of Britain and we demonstrate that quite frequently. The Labour party goes into occasional fits of chauvinism where suddenly everyone across the Channel is some sort of dread threat to British industry. In this case, I do not think that we should go as far as the Opposition want us to go and place restrictions on foreign ownership or say that no director should be a non-British citizen. It is quite absurd to say that there should not be an American, let alone a
      892
      European, director. It is absurd to say that one should have to produce a passport before one can become a director and that shareholdings should be restricted.
      This is a somewhat unsuitable time for the Labour party to go through one of these anti-foreigner fits, because we are presently contemplating the implications for British industry of 1992 and the European single market. We wish to see, perhaps, much stronger Europewide companies that can compete with the Japanese and the Americans, and this is not the time to impose fancy restrictions about foreign shareholdings. Presumably such restrictions would apply to citizens of the Irish Republic and Germany and to French companies.
      The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) has not agreed with a great deal of what I have said about the Bill. He quite rightly touched on the possibilities of Europewide integration in the steel industry. He contemplated his hobby horse of a Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell company perhaps linking up with Europeans. British Steel has made it clear that it is not opposed to overseas participation in the equity of the company. I think that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South and I agree that as a private company British Steel may well contemplate some overseas acquisitions and buy into the European steel industry in order to strengthen its position in the European market.
      Whatever else we are looking at in the special share, we should not be looking at a tight little national, British holding and we should not be averse to all overseas holdings or overseas equity investment on the scale that the Opposition amendment would seek to rule out. If we are contemplating a British company taking shareholdings in Europe, we cannot possibly start laying down legislative or other restrictions on European shareholdings in Britain. It is a mistake to discriminate against foreigners whether it applies to the nationality of the directors or to overseas holdings or anything else. As I said, there is some agreement between us because upon consideration we have accepted the case for having a special share in British Steel.
      We have time-limited the share because we contemplate that British Steel will eventually be a private sector company like any other and should be open to all the commercial pressures that we believe improve a company's performance. Among the pressures to which management should be subject is the ordinary need to compete for market share and to achieve a decent return on capital by producing the right products and selling them in the market place, but, if performance falls, the threat of possible acquisition by people who believe that they can improve the performance of the company and who appeal to the shareholders with the prospect of acquiring the company and improving its performance is a perfectly legitimate commercial pressure.
      I do not believe that all mergers are undesirable. Occasionally, the House goes into a fit to try to restrain them. Managers are usually against takeovers of their companies. If I were the manager of a company, I would want to resist anything other than a welcome acquisition of my company, because my position might be threatened. The pay and taxation of British management have now become extremely attractive and high rewards are available for high performance, although managers who take those rewards are not entitled to consider themselves as having a job for life, free from their shareholders being able to look to someone else who might acquire the

      893
      company and improve the management performance, if that person thinks that he can do better. In most cases, those privatised companies should be open to the same perfectly desirable pressures.
      We have opted for the special share because we believe that too early a bid might be disruptive. It is fair to give a reasonable time for the company to become established as a private sector company before it is opened to those pressures. We are privatising British Steel at a time when there is still excess capacity throughout the European market. Some other European countries must face up to the need to shed unprofitable excess capacity which is no longer producing products that can be sold. We cannot return to a stable market until that has been done. We wish to protect ourselves against the prospects of the acquisition of British Steel by someone seeking to acquire it for the purpose of closing down capacity. That is a perfectly legitimate point, and another reason for having a time-limited anti-takeover provision.
      The hon. Member for Redcar asked why we had chosen five years. There is no right time. We hope that eventually British Steel will act in the market like any other private sector company. Within five years, I very much hope that the excess capacity problem will have been resolved, and I believe that five years is long enough to give what might be described as a fledgling company to establish itself in the market place and to get rid of the risks of purely predatory bids designed to cut capacity.
      Dr. Bray: Will the Minister make clear the apparent limitation of the special share that he is proposing? Will he confirm, first, that the Government are able to agree to a person holding more than 15 per cent? They can agree to that at any time, so there is only the possibility that they might block a takeover bid. Secondly, will he confirm that the special shareholder will have no other rights in respect of other provisions in the articles or in respect of voting and that, in other words, it is solely a possible blocking function in respect of a person holding more than 15 per cent?
      Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, but I shall not go into that in detail now. It may be a further point of division between us.
      On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we do not intend to use the special share for the purpose of intervening in the company's commercial decisions. That is a case of division between the Government and, for example, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who believes that the Government should continue to exercise an influence. We do not intend to do that through our policy.
      With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, certainly there is only a right to use the blocking mechanism. If the Government chose not to exercise that right, we would be answerable to the House for our decision if for some reason a larger than 15 per cent. holding was not contrary to the national interests or the interests of steel consumers or employees. The hon. Gentleman's description was quite right.
      Finally, I want to consider why we have not included the special share in the Bill but are merely undertaking via a parliamentary answer to include it in the articles of association. I hope that hon. Members will agree that that
      894
      is a technical point. A parliamentary reply to a question is binding and we intend to include the special share in the articles of association.
      The suggestion was raised in Committee that the golden share might give rise to litigation. No doubt we have all taken legal advice. However, anything can give rise to litigation, as lawyers are always happy to say. The prospects of litigation of the kind that hon. Members fear is slight. People who take shares in the private sector company when it is floated will be aware that they are taking shares in a company within which there is a special share. I am advised that they would have no prospect of redress if subsequently they tried to claim that the use of the special share was contrary to the overriding interest of the company to act in the interests of the shareholders.
      There is at least some agreement between the Government and the Opposition on this amendment. The disagreements are about foreign holdings and foreign management. We see no reason to be against that in principle, but we see a need to protect the company against takeover while it is a fledgling industry. We see a need to protect the company while there is an excess capacity problem and the risk that competitors will buy the company to close it down. At least we have gone part way towards meeting the Opposition. I await the Opposition's response. Perhaps we will end on a note of happy accord.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: If the Minister calls that moving part way, I am not sure what he would call long-distance running. The Minister's response was pathetic. It is no wonder that he had to trail his parliamentary answer this afternoon—which was itself a shabby device—so that we should not be too stunned by incredulity at the inadequacy of his comments. To assume that we were thronging the Library at 3.30 pm to skim through the parliamentary answers is an excuse designed to disguise the total shabbiness of the manoeuvre of leaking information in that way.
      It is always possible to tell when something nefarious is afoot. It is leaked in a written answer to a stooge question asked by a page boy in this particular case—[Interruption.] Ministers could have given us information in Committee. They dared not do that. They held cut grandiose prospects of a golden share with real meaning, because they knew that if they told us the reality they would have to face long barracking opposition in Committee rather than the co-operation that they received. They knew that they would have to face much more hostility.
      As defined in the Bill, the golden share is practically useless. It goes no way towards meeting the proposals that we have put forward. The limitations that the Minister revealed about the golden share in response to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) are pathetic.
      It is not that the mountains of labour have produced a ridiculous mouse. The mouse does not even have a squeak. It is a pathetic creature. When we consider the golden share, we must bear in mind the nature of the world into which the BSC will be turned loose as a public limited company. It will not be sold to Sid like British Telecom or British Gas. Sid is not in the market. I imagine that Sid's hands are firmly in his pockets, if he has any sense.
      The Minister clearly does not want to sell the company to the small shareholder. It is also clear from the parliamentary answer that he does not envisage much

      895
      employee participation. The gesture made to employees in the parliamentary answer is insulting. Seventy pounds worth of free shares and a further £2 of shares for each year of service is insulting as a gesture to those who have worked in the industry, seen it slimmed down and their jobs threatened. Nothing is offered to those who have sacrificed their jobs in the massive rundown of the industry that has taken place under this Government.
      That share offer, which we shall be discussing tomorrow, is an insult. However, it is clear that a small shareholder company or an employer participation company is not envisaged. It will be a company for the big boys, turned loose for the big investors—the top I per cent. of the population, the institutions, and possibly, because the steel industry is an incestuous world, its competitors, too. We want to guard against that. In an area where big investors will be operating and in which British Steel will not have a broad shareholding base—which is what the Government wanted for British Telecom—there is a danger that it will fall prey to the wrong people. That is why we want the safeguards in our amendment.
      Steel is a tough and peculiar industry. It is conventional to distance oneself from competitors by an occasional punch in the ribs and a sally of exports into competitors' markets. It is also conventional to take shareholdings in one's rivals, to damp down competition and to maintain cartel-like relationships. The danger is that competitors will take a stake in British Steel—particularly European competitors, because they are the closest and those with which British Steel is in most intense competition for its markets.
      It is our contention that control of British Steel should remain in this country. Only British investors and the Government of this country have the interests of the nation in mind. It will be in the interests of others to take a stake in British Steel, perhaps to increase the company's prices, to dampen the competition that it poses and to reduce its exports. It may be their intention not to invest in British Steel but to run it down. Foreign shareholders do not want a healthy foreign competitor, and if they take a stake in British Steel it will be with those intentions in mind. We want to safeguard against that situation by means of the golden share.
      It is also possible that foreign shareholders will wish to take a stake in British Steel for financial reasons. It will be possible for them to demand the maximum return and maximum dividends on the minimum investment, and to require that British Steel is run in such a way as to cream off the market rather than to build up the industrial strength of this country.
      Contrary to what was said by the Minister, there is also a defence interest. By weakening the industrial capacity of this country, the Government have practically eliminated our ability to fight a war or a sustained conflict. They have decimated engineering and shipbuilding and done much damage to our steel-making capacity. It comes ill from such a Government to say that steel is not essential in the fighting of any conflict or in any other military endeavour. Steel is the very sinews of war. It would have been impossible to undertake even the Falklands conflict without it.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have already made the point to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) about the dated nature of his argument. Defence sales represent about 5 per cent. of British Steel's turnover. The Ministry of Defence could decide, for purposes of tendering, to extend competition to German firms, for instance, because it must be remembered that the Germans are on our side now. West Germany is a friendly nation.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am glad that the Minister is able to give me that permanent guarantee, and I look forward to exercising it in the future. Special steels in particular—it is a highly specialised field—are essential to any defence capability. For that capability to slip outside the control of this country will mean a loss of national sovereignty and of power. We cannot fight a sustained conflict without a steel industry. We want that industry to be sustained under British control and British investment. It must not become prey to competitors in the way that is likely to occur unless the special share is written into the Bill.
      We want British Steel to produce to capacity as part of British manufacturing industry. Steel is a cyclical industry. If it is producing to capacity, money pours out of its ears, but if it is producing under capacity, it becomes a bottomless pit into which one must throw money. That is one risk, but the risk also is that under this Government British Steel faces a very hard future until we have a Labour Government in the 1990s dedicated to rebuilding Britain's manufacturing and industrial strength. That Labour Government will want a powerful, independent, British steel industry to produce the sinews of our manufacturing strength. That is why we shall pursue the amendment in the Division Lobbies.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 240.

      Division No. 309]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clelland, David

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Cohen, Harry

      Alton, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Anderson, Donald

      Corbett, Robin

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cox, Tom

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Crowther, Stan

      Ashton, Joe

      Cummings, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Barron, Kevin

      Darling, Alistair

      Battle, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Beckett, Margaret

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

      Beith, A. J.

      Dewar, Donald

      Bell, Stuart

      Dixon, Don

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

      Dobson, Frank

      Blair, Tony

      Doran, Frank

      Boateng, Paul

      Douglas, Dick

      Boyes, Roland

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bradley, Keith

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Eadie, Alexander

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Eastham, Ken

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Buchan, Norman

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Buckley, George J.

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

      Caborn, Richard

      Flannery, Martin

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foster, Derek

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Foulkes, George

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Fraser, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Clay, Bob

      Galbraith, Sam

      897

      Galloway, George

      Morley, Elliott

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mullin, Chris

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Murphy, Paul

      Gordon, Mildred

      Nellist, Dave

      Graham, Thomas

      O'Brien, William

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Parry, Robert

      Grocott, Bruce

      Patchett, Terry

      Hardy, Peter

      Pendry, Tom

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Pike, Peter L.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Henderson, Doug

      Prescott, John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Holland, Stuart

      Radice, Giles

      Home Robertson, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Hood, Jimmy

      Redmond, Martin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Hoyle, Doug

      Reid, Dr John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Richardson, Jo

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Robertson, George

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Illsley, Eric

      Rooker, Jeff

      Ingram, Adam

      Ruddock, Joan

      Janner, Greville

      Salmond, Alex

      John, Brynmor

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Short, Clare

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kennedy, Charles

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

      Kirkwood, Archy

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

      Lambie, David

      Soley, Clive

      Lamond, James

      Spearing, Nigel

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Leighton, Ron

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Stott, Roger

      Lewis, Terry

      Strang, Gavin

      Litherland, Robert

      Straw, Jack

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McAllion, John

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Turner, Dennis

      McCartney, Ian

      Vaz, Keith

      McFall, John

      Wall, Pat

      McKelvey, William

      Wallace, James

      McLeish, Henry

      Walley, Joan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      McTaggart, Bob

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Marek, Dr John

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Martlew, Eric

      Wilson, Brian

      Maxton, John

      Winnick, David

      Meale, Alan

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Michael, Alun

      Worthington, Tony

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Allason, Rupert

      Batiste, Spencer

      Amess, David

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Amos, Alan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bendall, Vivian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Ashby, David

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Atkins, Robert

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Atkinson, David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Baldry, Tony

      Boswell, Tim

      898

      Bottomley, Peter

      Ground, Patrick

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Grylls, Michael

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bowis, John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hannam, John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

      Brazier, Julian

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Harris, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Haselhurst, Alan

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

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hayward, Robert

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Heddle, John

      Burns, Simon

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' HE)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Butcher, John

      Hill, James

      Butterfill, John

      Holt, Richard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Carrington, Matthew

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

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Cash, William

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Irvine, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Irving, Charles

      Colvin, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Jackson, Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Janman, Tim

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jessel, Toby

      Cope, John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Cran, James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kilfedder, James

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Devlin, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knowles, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Knox, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Durant, Tony

      Lang, Ian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lilley, Peter

      Evennett, David

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Farr, Sir John

      Lord, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      McCrindle, Robert

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Maclean, David

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Forman, Nigel

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Madel, David

      Forth, Eric

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Malins, Humfrey

      Franks, Cecil

      Mans, Keith

      Freeman, Roger

      Maples, John

      French, Douglas

      Marland, Paul

      Gale, Roger

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gardiner, George

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gill, Christopher

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Miller, Hal

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mills, Iain

      Gow, Ian

      Moate, Roger

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Gregory, Conal

      Moss, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mudd, David

      Grist, Ian

      Neubert, Michael

      899

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Paice, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thorne, Neil

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Price, Sir David

      Tracey, Richard

      Raffan, Keith

      Tredinnick, David

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Trippier, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Trotter, Neville

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rowe, Andrew

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Walden, George

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Warren, Kenneth

      Speller, Tony

      Watts, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wheeler, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Whitney, Ray

      Stern, Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Sumberg, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mr. Richard Ryder.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Ordered,
    ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the British Steel Bill and the Matrimonial Proceedings (Transfers) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    British Steel Bill
    As amended (in the Standing Committee) again considered.
    Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

  Joint Research Centre and the EUREKA Programme
  10.12
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9454/87 and 5616/88 on the Joint Research Centre and 10845/86 on EUREKA and Community Science and Technology; and supports the Government's aims of raising the quality and relevance of the work at the Joint Research Centre and of using EUREKA to help British industry become more competitive in world markets.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion refers to European Community document No. 5616/88. The Scrutiny Committee has not looked at that document, which recently arrived at Whitehall. The explanatory memorandum was issued within the past two or three days. Had the Scrutiny Committee been able to see the document last Wednesday it might well have concluded that this matter did not materially affect the course of the debate, but the debate on the document occurs a little too soon. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that and on the timetable of the debate in relation to the decision in Brussels, with which it may well be connected.
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I should like to raise a similar matter in connection with this document. There is at least one other document which the Scrutiny Committee has recommended should be considered by the House—that on the mutual recognition of higher education diplomas. That matter will be decided within a short time by the European Council and has been recommended for debate, yet we have not been given the opportunity to discuss it. This seems to be an odd juxtaposition of business.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Minister has heard what has been said. The motion is in order.
  Mr. Butcher: It may be helpful if I deal immediately with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) before going into the main body of my speech.
  European Community documents Nos. 9454/87 and 5616/88 deal with the Joint Research Centre. The first document forms the original basis for the debate on the JRC. I am aware that the second document, 5616/88, has not yet been considered by the European Legislation Committee. I apologise for the fact that we have not given the Committee time to give us the benefit of its advice on this second document, which contains slightly amended proposals on the JRC. It was only recently provided by the Commission. After careful consideration, we did not consider that it merited postponement of the debate, in view of the pressure on the Parliamentary timetable and, more important, so that we could have the view of the House well in advance of the next Research Council meeting, which will be on 29 June, when further negotiations are scheduled.

  901
  We shall be delighted to receive any further observations of the Committee well in advance of that date, if that is its wish. The House has exercised its right in the highest form by debating these two issues this evening. I assure the hon. Member for Newham, South that my hon. Friends and I will carefully examine the record of this evening's exchanges. We will find it helpful to have that in advance of our negotiations on 29 June.
  Mr. Haselhurst: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, but he will understand the perplexity of members of the European Legislation Committee when there is uneven treatment by the Government of measures that are put forward. We are not ungrateful for the fact that the House has been given the opportunity to discuss this matter, but it is odd that it should be discussed before the Select Committee has seen the document, especially when there are the measures to which I referred on a point of order which we recommended for debate but which have not been considered.
  Mr. Butcher: I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend in another Department the subject matter on which my hon. Friend would like a debate. However, as I said in my response to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), there was a delay in the documents coming from the Commission. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explained the complication and the difficulties of the time table in a letter to the Committee. I readily conceded that under more ideal circumstances this should not happen, and we will take into account the views expressed for by the House. As requested, we have supplied the day for the debate. I hope the House will consider that I have observed the courtesies in that explanation to the hon. Gentleman and that I can now proceed to explain what these two issues are all about.
  Mr. William Cash: I am also a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation. Although we understand the position as expressed by my hon. Friend, the fact remains that, as we move nearer to the implementation of the internal market, with the increased use of article 100A and the accelerated procedure that that must involve, there will clearly be a greater need for closer observation of the requirements that have been laid down by resolution of the House. Further, there is a strong case for the changes in the terms of reference of the Committee to ensure that, in the avant-project stage,. there is greater opportunity for consideration of those matters that cannot be met exclusively by other Parliaments. The Committee needs to be fully involved at an earlier stage. I hope my hon. Friend will accept that as a short interruption, but one that I regard as highly important.
  Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I do not disagree with a word of what he has said. There is the additional factor of the sheer volume of measures, directives and papers that are now emerging. This means that all Whitehall Departments must be vigilant in ensuring that the Scrutiny Committee and, if it so recommends, the House have ample opportunities to look at those well in advance, if necessary, of decisions being made.
  As I explained earlier, we are dealing with two issues tonight which bring together two very different ventures which in some ways characterise the old and the new approaches to European collaboration in research and
  902
  development. What both have in common is that they need to remain flexible and attuned to Europe's needs. It is illuminating to compare and contrast the two.
  The first is the European Community's Joint Research Centre. It is the Community's own public laboratory, financed by the Community member states, with the European Commission bearing responsibility for its overall management. Long-established, it seems increasingly to have lost its way and is now failing to respond to the Community's needs. The Commission's proposals seek to correct that state of affairs.
  EUREKA, on the other hand, is a very much newer and different venture. It brings together European industrial partners, both from within the Community and outside. It avoids bureaucratic central control. Responsibility for initiatives rests with the industrial participants themselves and flexibility of response is very much the keynote of its success. The Commission document addresses the specific aspect of co-operation between EUREKA and the European Community.
  The JRC is a considerable undertaking, with four laboratories in different member states of the Community—Ispra in Italy, Karlsruhe in the Federal Republic of Germany, Geel in Belgium, and Petten in the Netherlands.
  The JRC's last four-year research programme, covering the years 1984 to 1987, showed a total staff complement of 2,260, of whom about three quarters were at the largest laboratory at Ispra and with a central management team in Brussels. Total expenditure was some 700 million ecu, roughly 26 per cent. of the Community's total R and D expenditure at that time.
  It is not possible to understand the problems that we are facing at the JRC today without going a little further back into its history. It was established in 1957 for the joint conduct in the European Community of nuclear research for peaceful purposes. In the 1950s nuclear power was young science and the many important subsequent developments in the safe generation of nuclear energy were still in the future. By the late 1980s the nuclear industry is, by any standards, mature and the nuclear research community in all countries has developed with it.
  At the JRC, however, one might be forgiven for thinking that time has stood still. It is true that the range of its activities has widened, but as recently as the period 1984 to 1987, 60 per cent. of the JRC's research programme remained in nuclear fission and reactor studies, with a further 7 per cent. concerned with nuclear fusion. Non-nuclear energy studies accounted for a further 6 per cent. Some 14 per cent. was concentrated on the environment and only another 14 per cent. was devoted to research into industrial technologies.
  In short, the JRC has not diversified its activities as have comparable public laboratories in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. It has not stayed in step with the rest of the Community's R and D effort, which is directed ever more to improving the competitive position of European industry.
  That is not acceptable for what, under the Commission's proposal, amounts to nearly 1 billion ecu of expenditure—or £700 million—at the JRC between 1988 and 1991. We are, therefore, looking to the JRC to earn an increasing share of its expenditure from external customers and to accomplish more from the still substantial financial resources that would continue to be provided by the Community's framework programme. Despite growth in external earnings, those resources are expected to amount

  903
  to about 700 million ecu—£500 million—or some 13 per cent. of the framework programme. Only the ESPRIT programme of 1·6 million ecu is larger. The United Kingdom has been outspoken in its criticisms and in pointing out that this unhappy situation cannot continue, and we are now far from alone in making that judgment.
  Last year a panel of distinguished European industrialists prepared a report which was sharply critical of the JRC. They advocated major reform. They urged faster movement towards a larger proportion of external contracts for customers outside the Commission. Other Community member states have similarly stressed the need and the Joint Research Centre's own board of governors—which is at present more an advisory body than a governing board in the true sense.
  I am glad to say that in its proposal the Commission faces the need for change. It provides a good basis for further discussion, even though it does not go as far as we believe is required. Above all, we need to make faster progress and to see a greater sense of urgency on the Commission's part.
  We accept that change at the JRC cannot happen overnight, but the problems have been allowed to slip for too long. Our public laboratories in this country started long ago to adopt a more commercial approach to their work. The JRC has to face change which may be more harsh than if it had been tackled earlier. Now is the moment when the JRC must be given clear guidelines for the future.
  The Commission has a key responsibility. The Single European Act highlighted its role in the management of the Community's joint R and D effort. It should make no mistake. The JRC, representing such a large proportion of that total effort, will demonstrate whether or not it is prepared to discharge that responsibility effectively.
  It is our intention to work rapidly towards the conclusion of an agreement with the Commission, the European Parliament and other member states which will set the targets for a Joint Research Centre that will increasingly show real vitality and responsiveness to customers' needs.
  We shall expect the Joint Research Centre to go after more demanding targets for growth in external contracts and to accept tighter financial targets overall. We are looking for a target that by 1991 at least 20 per cent. of the JRC's turnover will come from work for public or private customers external to the Commission. This is a demanding target, but not an unreasonable one. Only in this way can we be sure that the stills at the JRC will be more widely tested as well as becoming more widely available.
  We shall expect clear-cut principles governing the JRC"s relationship to the customers for its work. These customers must include the various directorates general of the European Commission, which must be free to turn to laboratories other than the JRC if they consider their research needs would be better met elsewhere.
  We shall expect a more rapid turnover of staff. Some members of staff may wish to leave. New blood will be required as well. The JRC must have the right staff with the right disciplines. Its staff costs must come down.
  We shall expect the JRC management to be given clearer responsibilities, to pay more heed to the advice of
  904
  customers and experts from Community member states, and to demonstrate the ability to improve the quality of JRC research in areas where it has been deficient.
  We shall expect the executive role of the board of management to be strengthened too.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a member of the indirectly elected European Parliament Budget Committee who on several occasions has been to Ispra, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the root of the matter is Italian law and all its difficulties? The Minister says that we must have a turnover. It is difficult to get any kind of turnover once one accepts that Italian law operates, at any rate in relation to local employees. Having tried, as a Member of the European Parliament, to negotiate with the Italian trade unions, let me say that it is extremely difficult to get things changed as the Minister is suggesting.
  Mr. Butcher: If tonight we were looking for a model of the sort of operation and apparatus that we should like to see, we need not go further than an establishment not too far from the constituencies of the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray)—the National Engineering Laboratory. It and other research establishments have responded positively to the freer movement that is now taking place in engineering disciplines. They are responding to the market, looking for external contracts and are being successful.
  I do not wish to go into the question of Italian practices. On many occasions we have debated Spanish practices. The question of employment conditions in Italy as they affect research-based workers must be addressed within the new disciplines that we are putting before the House tonight. In rehearsing our negotiating stance, those who will pursue the negotiations are aware of these questions. Perhaps they do not have such vivid experience as the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that his point will not be lost on those who speak for us in the third week of June.
  The United Kingdom wants to see in the JRC a modern, worthwhile, scientific institution. We want to see relevant research programmes, effective management, and an efficient operation. I hope that this will not be the last chance to get it.
  EUREKA is an initiative presenting unique opportunities and challenges to British and European industry, as I shall briefly explain to the House. Established in 1985, with considerable United Kingdom influence, EUREKA's goal is to help Europe compete with the rest of the world and to win markets for advanced technology goods and services. This can be achieved only by strengthening European and United Kingdom industrial productivity and competitiveness, and by exploiting the single market as a springboard for worldwide sales. EUREKA'S purpose, therefore, is to foster and facilitate pan-European collaboration in high-risk, technical projects. But the choice of projects is left to industry—the so-called "bottom-up" approach.
  Fostering projects does not create wealth. Profits come only from successful exploitation in the market place. EUREKA aims at achieving that outcome through a flexible, collaborative framework within the 19 member countries. The driving force comes from industry, with national Administrations and the Commission playing an important role, making sure that the economic conditions are right and that the European market is ready for exploitation.

  905
  What does EUREKA provide in the way of incentives for industry to take up the challenge of pan-European collaboration? First, it provides a network of national EUREKA offices for bringing projects and partners together. Secondly, and most important, it provides supportive measures. Put simply, these are steps taken by Governments towards improving a project's commercial prospects; for example, the adoption of a new common standard or regulatory measure. Lastly, EUREKA offers political commitment from all 19 member countries and the Commission, which is a member in its own right, to removing obstacles to collaboration, and ultimately commercial exploitation.
  The real hallmark of EUREKA is the nature of its projects, which are industry led and market driven. Participants are free to manage them as they wish with the minimum of red tape. The projects can be in any area of advanced technology and can cover the full spectrum of research and development. There is no central bureaucracy for the participants to deal with, no single pool of funding with conditions attached that the participants must meet, no preconceived strategies or limitations imposed on them, no prescribed EUREKA contract restricting their freedom to negotiate, and no regulations on the way participants establish and run their projects.
  I have already said that EUREKA is not simply a funding mechanism. Firms wishing to make their own private financial arrangements are free to participate in and benefit from EUREKA, just as much as those being publicly funded by their national Governments. Each member country is free to make its own funding provisions for her national participants.
  This, then, is the theory of EUREKA in outline. But is it working? The answer so far is clearly yes, for there are now more than 160 agreed projects, involving a total estimated investment cost of nearly £3 billion. Most projects have a duration spanning two to five years. Most of them are therefore still at the early stages, but the signs already point to these projects having a major impact in the future. Just over half these projects involve estimated costs of under £7 million. In another third, project costs lie between £7 million and £35 million, and for the remainder the costs are still bigger, with four projects exceeding a forecast spend of £70 million. Even more pleasingly, British participants are involved in one third, or 56 of these projects, 14 being United Kingdom-led and having an estimated total investment cost of £1·1 billion.
  To give the House a flavour of the project mix so far, about 35 per cent. are in information technology, 18 per cent. in robotics and manufacturing, 13 per cent. in biotechnology, 12 per cent. in new materials and the rest mostly cover lasers, energy, telecommunications and the environment. Specific examples involving the United Kingdom are HDTV which is a European competitor to the Japanese and American versions of the next generation of TV for the 1990s, EUROLASER or the application of lasers to industrial production technology, and FAMOS, or new flexible, automated manufacturing systems.
  Through that outline description of EUREKA I hope that I have helped the House to understand better what makes EUREKA so special and the reasons why it has a priority role in my Department's research and technology initiative. It ensures that United Kingdom firms form part of a stronger European technological capability through
  906
  industry-led projects with European partners, and that United Kingdom firms are well placed to take advantage of the completion of the single market.
  As the motion states, my Department's aim is to use EUREKA to help British industry become more competitive in world markets. Through EUREKA our innovators can combine strengths and share risks with their counterparts in Europe, free to profit from their undoubted talents and enterprise, through the critical mass and synergy which characterise all EUREKA projects. The rest of Europe is taking up the EUREKA challenge, and British firms must do the same if they are not to miss the boat.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in addition to the advantages that he has enumerated, there is evidence from those who have attended debates in the European Parliament, as I have done, of the coming together, perhaps for the first time., of our parliamentary colleagues in the European Parliament and ourselves in looking to opportunities in the regions and in our constituencies? Collaboration between European and Westminster parliamentarians can provide the basis for an active role m furthering the process that my hon. Friend has been outlining tonight.
  Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The additional advantage that accrues to these projects is that they extend outside the 12 or 13 countries within the Community.
  I know that our colleagues in the House who have strong connections with Europe have mainly become great supporters of EUREKA, not least because at the beginning it was seen as a counterbalance to the growing strength of American research and development work in certain key technologies. It is to the credit of those who saw EUREKA as a major opportunity—I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) here today—that the programme has moved so fast and so many excellent projects have been brought forward already.
  From what I have said, the House will be clear that EUREKA is quite different from other collaborative programmes, such as Community research and development, of which the JRC is a part. EUREKA is not in competition with these other programmes. It complements them and provides a major route for exploiting the pool of raw technology coming through from these other programmes. This applies particularly to the exploitation of the fruits of the Community's research programmes, which point leads me to the third document, 10845/86, concerning links between EUREKA and Community science and technology.
  The Government's view is that these links will become clearer through following the case-by-case approach, as the Research Council concluded in December 1986. Since then, there has been very little progress. However, l am pleased to inform the House that, following the most recent meeting of the Research Council on 11 April 1988, the Commission will be bringing forward new proposals for clarifying these matters.
  Mr. Dalyell: What, in the Government's view, is the reason for the delay since 1986?
  Mr. Butcher: The various partners have been anxious that the EUREKA programme should be complementary

  907
  to other programmes. There has been a continuing discussion about the relationship of ESPRIT, BRITE and other aspects of the framework programme. If there has been crab-like progress in the interim, that is because Ministers from different countries may have wanted value for money and non-duplication of resources. That is my assessment of one of the major factors. The Government's view is that these links will become clearer by following the case-by-case approach. There seems to be no dissension about the fact that that process has served us well.
  We wish these proposals to recognise that EUREKA is indeed a natural route for exploiting the results of Community R and D, and also that some of the R and D needs identified by work under EUREKA could be more appropriately carried out under a Community programme. The best way forward remains the step-by-step approach that we have advocated from the beginning. Only by close collaboration between projects, EUREKA officials and the Commission can the right decisions be made, consistent with EUREKA's bottom-up philosophy.
  In view of what I have said, this debate is most timely. With regard to both the JRC and EUREKA, our basic aims are value for money and to help British industry become more competitive in world markets. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
  10.41 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: The House is indebted to the Select Committee on European Legislation for juxtaposing these documents. I fully understand its members' complaints about not having had time to consider one of them, but I should have thought that a more justifiable general complaint was that the House was generally far too dilatory about considering the papers that the Select Committee recommends to it. The Committee has certainly made helpful observations about the documents.
  We support the Government's intention to tighten up the management of the joint research centres. They need to be more clearly pointed at objectives and integrated with industry. They need to update their range of concerns to bring them into line with those which industry and society face.
  However, I find no great contribution in the Government's approach to positive thinking about what the joint research centres should be doing. For instance, if the Government were thinking positively about the jobs that the centres need to do, their thinking could not be encompassed by the present framework of the joint research centres.
  Let us consider one piece of work that should clearly be done nowadays on a European basis: the maintaining of absolute standards of mass, length, time and so on. Historically, that has been perhaps the principal mission of the National Physical Laboratory in this country. We devote an inadequate and incorrectly scaled effort to that area. It is not justifiable to do it on a national basis. It becomes expensive if one gets involved in hydrogen masers, and so on, which are of great interest for radio telescopes, radio astronomy work, and co-ordinating and synchronising signals across the diameter of the earth and
  908
  out to the satellites. It is not exactly the sort of thing that is done on a tiny budget to measured time standards in the National Physical Laboratory.
  If Europe as a whole is to do sensible work on the management of time standards, it must encompass the frontiers of research on the one hand and working down through the different levels of application to the grass roots implementation of standard services to industry on the other. The National Physical Laboratory used to do that. It is beyond the scope of the budget it can hope for today, but it would be reasonable to ask the joint research centres to do it, although I am not thinking necessarily of any existing joint research centres. It might be sensible to enlarge the framework of scientific and technical activity which is covered by the joint research centres.
  If the Government were willing to put positive thinking into the work programme, they would find it much easier to deal with some of the intractable problems which I am sure they are faced with in ESPRIT and elsewhere in the JRCs. If the Government appear to be on the side of the people with whom they are working, and if they share their technical interest and the view that they have an essential contribution to make to industry and society, it is more likely that those people will be on the Government's side and will be willing to accept the major changes which are needed in their work and organisation.
  I ask the Government, not just from a British point of view, to consider the traditions of the great national laboratories in Germany and France and ask what benefits we can gain from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in France and the Max Planck institutes in Germany. The Government should ask how the work of the JRCs fits into the wider context of what Europe should be covering in science. I can well understand the Government and the Commission running a mile at the thought of subjecting a wider range of scientific activity to the present management and structure of the JRCs, but that is not the necessary end point of the freer thinking which the Government should initiate.
  To put the different parts of the picture into a pattern, on EUREKA it is bottom up, industry-led and market-driven, but basically it is a familiar pattern of technological support to the many schemes which we have had in this country. Those who know how to operate them know how to put in applications; they know the procedure in departments and they get their proposals through. Approval is not automatic, nor is there an overall, coherent industrial programme of application lying behind it.
  The Government may say that its very strength is that it is intended to be industry-led, market-driven, bottom up and all that, but it can result in an extraordinary jumble of variable-quality work without necessarily achieving the increase in technological competitiveness which we seek, say, in electronic components or in mechanical engineering so that Europe can fully match the best that is available in the United States in professional equipment or in Japan in consumer products.
  The Select Committee on European Legislation and the European Commission point us to the need for examining the relationship between EUREKA and the collaborative programme of the European Community generally—ESPRIT, RACE, BRITE and so on. In this, there is a quite different approach in that there is, for example in RACE a clear perception not only of the sort of technology developments that will take place in telecommunications,

  909
  but of the developments that will take place in standards and applications. Clear developments are already under way in important software areas, and to their credit the Government support and recognise those in other ways.
  BRITE takes traditional technologies and industries and begins to explore the immense potential for the upgrading of the technology used in many rather down-to-earth industries. ESPRIT is reaching a significant volume of activity and should offer the prospects of major initiatives. I hope that those initiatives will be followed up by industry.
  The joint research centres are being looked at rather narrowly as a revamping of a particular research organisation which is perhaps rather dead on its feet. EUREKA is very much a first come, first served programme that is industry-led and market-driven, but it has no special industrial logic. Then there are the specific technology area of programmes such as ESPRIT, RACE, BRITE and so on. They have industrial logic and a clear technology strategy.
  The reason for a certain sense of dissatisfaction about the overall pattern in Britain is that the Government do not offer any overall strategy for industrial and technological development. They rather positively turn their face against that. It is not simply that no clear picture is emerging in Britain for developments for broad band, space fusion and so on, but that the basic underlying logic is not clear. The Government follow the general principle of non-intervention and say that the free market must provide.
  In the early days after 1979, the Government started to develop a clear understanding that there are some things that industry could not do well or could not do at all and on which the Government needed to take a positive
  910
  initiative. I attribute a good deal of that initiative to the influence of Duncan Davies who, as chief scientist in the Department of Trade and industry, had a good deal of influence upon Lord Keith Joseph. I understand that directly from Mr. Davies. That pattern has not been carried through to the enterprise initiative or whatever it is called—the one in which the arrow comes up one's backside—in the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is a harpoon.
  Dr. Bray: I am grateful for that explanation.
  We urgently need a statement about the Government's overall science and technology policy. That cannot wait until the next election. It must have urgent attention or we will lose desperately important time. The statement should embrace a Government reply to the strategy document of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the practical, down-to-earth concerns about the supply of scientists and engineers and the support developments needed in the education system and the school curriculum.
  Once in place, that overall strategic plan for the application of science and technology would enable us to make a positive contribution to European science and technology. It would also enable us to take a positive approach to the joint research councils and build them up into the genuine European science framework that Europe justifies and requires. It would enable us to integrate EUREKA with the much more positively mission-orientated approach offered by the other programmes. It could begin to get into Europe as a whole the sort of technological initiatives that we badly need and that our European partners, in their own interests, would like to join us in furthering.
  10.55 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I wish to say a few words about the joint research centres, particularly the centre at Ispra.
  The commentary by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs on the documents represents a reasonable behind-the-scenes achievement by the Government in their negotiations, but it shows that there is still a great deal more work to be done. Bearing in mind the difficulties to be surmounted, particularly the obdurate nature of the relevant commissioner, I do not want to underestimate the magnitude of the Government's task. However, the performance of the establishment at Ispra in recent years has been nothing less than a scandal because it has conducted a series of irrelevant programmes. During the time that I was involved in the Department of Trade and Industry, I could never find anyone in any Government or in the appropriate circles in Brussels who could say what the organisation was supposed to be doing and to try to change its tack proved to be absolutely impossible.
  The panel of industrialists referred to in the Government's commentary reported on the future role of the joint research centre and recommended
  "a much larger customer orientation and a re-structuring of the largest JRC establishment at Ispra in Italy. In its proposals the Commission recognise the need for change and have taken account of some of the principles set out by the Panel. However, a large part of the customer orientation will consist of work for other Commission Directorates."
  We see here the sadness and reservation in the words of the officials drafting the text—for example, that the Commission has taken account only of
  "some of the principles set out by the Panel."
  The document continues:
  "Work for genuinely external parties is expected to increase from about 10 per cent. at present to only 14 per cent. by 1991."
  As the Department fairly says:
  "In negotiations so far we have been pressing for this target to be raised to 20 per cent."
  I pay tribute to what the Government have been able to achieve so far, but the task is enormous. We should all like to see the various programmes improved, but, in view of waste of this order—hundreds of millions of units of account—it becomes scandalous. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) mentioned his experience in dealing with the Italian trade unions. As he well knows, that is all part of the solidity and intractability of the situation. The people involved, whether Italian nationals or not, are completely locked into a series of programmes. It is verging on the obscene at a time when there is great pressure on the budget and we would like to see money released and used for other purposes.
  I hope that the steps reported to the House tonight for a new structure for all the joint research centres will lead to an improvement and a dramatic change at Ispra. My hon. Friend the Minister, in his introductory remarks, mentioned the problems that even the board of governors has experienced. I know, from talking to the chief scientific adviser to the Government, that the governors have a great advisory role. They can submit a report and make suggestions, yet the joint research centre at Ispra carries on exactly as before.
  912
  All those things must change. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to maintain the pressure. A series of first steps have been reported to us tonight, largely taken as a result of the pressure that this country and others have brought to bear. In the time that I represented the United Kingdom at the Research Council, I did not find another Minister representing any of our partners—it was not a case of Britain being isolated in that respect—who know what Ispra was doing. Therefore, there was total unanimity about that.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will maintain the pressure and regard what is being reported to the House tonight as the start. I welcome what my hon. Friend has told us tonight about EUREKA. The United Kingdom played a full part in getting that series of programmes into a relevant format. Department of Industry and Foreign Office officials worked extremely hard on that and continue to do so. I believe that the Commission has never particularly liked or welcomed EUREKA programmes. They are a little maverick and involve awkward people from outside the Community. Although the memorandum has some pleasant things to say about EUREKA, in the overlap sections there are other comments about the various programmes that are duplicated—as is their tendency.
  I add those comments about EUREKA while welcoming what my hon. Friend said about the programme. I urge him to keep up the pressure.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: There are obviously two aspects to the motion before the House. I hope that it is acceptable for me to qualify my comments by introducing a slightly jarring note about the clear general acceptance of criticism of the system, the need for reform and for the British Government to take a positive role in pushing for that reform. I do not dispute the need for that. However, the Government are not formulating a clear direction where they believe things should be going. I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is a lack of confidence in the Government's domestic approach to research and science in general. Against that background, there is legitimate suspicion about the Government's objective in terms of the pressure that they are bringing to bear in the Community.
  That is borne out in the motion. As has been accepted, the joint research centre needs to be reformed, targeted and given specific direction. The explanatory memorandum states:
  "The JRC's activities are relevant to the creation of the single market"—
  something that will concern us all—
  "to the improvement of the Community's industrial competitiveness, to the protection of the environment and to the enhancement of safety."
  I wonder why the Government's motion refers only to helping
  "British industry become more competitive in world markets"
  and excludes the relevant references to other factors. Is that because the Government have decided that research projects have no business doing anything other than promoting competitiveness?
  I am not disputing the desire for competitiveness. However, I believe that the other objectives are also important, relevant and worth supporting. I should like

  913
  the Minister to tell us whether he agrees with me, or whether the exclusion of those factors from the motion is significant.
  Reference has been made to the need to push research according to market or near-market considerations. It has been obvious for a long time that the Government have a warmth for EUREKA rather than for the joint research centre for that reason. That is perhaps understandable and consistent. I have no objection to attempts aimed at ensuring commercial relevance and research taking account of its applicability and commercial accountability. However, does the Minister accept that too much pressure in those areas can prejudice useful follow-up research?
  That aspect is of particular concern to the scientific community when it sees that pure research is being squeezed out of the system at the same time. My understanding is that researchers complain that they are prevented from following up opportunities which may lead in interesting directions because they do not have immediate commercial relevance. I am worried that the general thrust of the Government's contribution seems to militate against such work.
  Will the Minister tell the House how he believes the EUREKA projects can usefully be assessed and evaluated? Reading the documents, one sees figures on the number of projects and how much money is involved, but it is not clear how useful those projects are. Reference has been made to duplication and overlap, but, leaving that aside, is there not a method for evaluating how valuable research has been and what kind of results have been produced?
  In the Alvey programme, the Government have gone for fairly rigorous testing and have subsequently ordered cuts. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have any constructive proposals for evaluation.
  Arising from that—perhaps this is putting the matter too simply, but the Minister will know about this more than I do—fears have been expressed about instances where two large companies, which operate from different locations in two European countries, get together and qualify for a research project that really does not provide anything new or dynamic. If so, the present system of evaluation is neither useful nor valid. The Government could make some valid input by making constructive proposals for dealing with such situations.
  Will the Minister tell the House how smaller companies can cut themselves in? If the situation is as I have described, it is clear that larger companies with larger research organisations, and having a greater degree of sophistication, find out fairly rapidly how to milk the system, whereas small companies, which do not have the same guidance and opportunities, are shut out. I can only say in a very mundane way that, having experience of working for small or medium-size companies in my own area—in the days when they existed—which sought access to funding under European or British Government innovation projects, it is apparent that the sophisticated companies corner the market and that small companies are squeezed out. It would be nice to see the Government pressing for a role for small companies and helping to secure a greater share of relevant funding.
  I have asked one or two quesions which I hope will be considered relevant. I believe that if this debate is to follow through constructively, the Government—I do not wish to stray beyond the bounds of order—must give us a clear
  914
  idea of their own science and research policy, over and above trying to ensure near market or market commercial accountability.
  Many people in this country are proud of the fact that Britain has a good research record, but they are worried that our application of that research is not always as good as it could be and that the pressure applied by the Government will not solve the problem. They believe that applying that pressure will result in the quality and volume of pure research being squeezed, without any noticeable increase in the successful application of research to the country's advantage.
  I look forward to the Minister's replies with interest. I hope that the Government will steer future debates more clearly, showing that their lead is not a purely negative one about waste and duplication, but a slightly more positive one on accountability, how small businesses are becoming involved, what our clear objectives are and how we can ensure that the EC and the wider European interests gel on track in a coherent direction. It would be nice to see the Government giving a lead rather than just carping about the cost of what is being produced.
  11.10 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Government inherited one almighty mess in relation to Ispra. The whole Ispra project started on the wrong foot, because it never had any clear scientific object or mission. It was a sop to the Italians for not getting the research facilities to which they thought they were entitled. It was a national partition of the European cake. That is almost the worst possible basis for starting any kind of scientific union.
  In brackets, I might say something pretty awful. We can thank our lucky stars that, thanks to Commissioner Brunner and to a number of hon. Members of all parities, Conservative and Labour—I and colleagues played our part in this—we prevented the Joint European Torus project from going to Ispra. I say here and now that if fusion had gone to Ispra, the kind of advances that have been made at Culham simply would not have taken place. Commissioner Brunner was right to say that it should be either at a German site or in Britain, where there is a determined engineering capacity.
  I listened to Italians such as Senator Noë and Mr. de la Briotta in the European Parliament going on and on about Ispra. It was deeply unsatisfactory, but, having said that, I am sanguine as to what can be done about it. I do not say that I have news for the Minister—I think that he understands the position full well—but there are such things as contracts. That is why I interrupted in relation to Italian law. The Italians have cast-iron contracts. The Milanese lawyers have done a wonderful job for them, and the Minister will find that they are contracts for life. Unless something can be done about all this, root and branch, I do not see what progress can be made and what turnover of people can possibly be achieved.
  My information is rather secondhand. It used to be firsthand. Before the debate I made inquiries, and I understand that things have not changed greatly from the old days. What will be done about the whole basis of contract, because no progress will be make at Ispra unless something is done about it?
  Incidentally, that may be part of the difference between Ispra on the one hand and Karlsruhe on the other, which,

  915
  from the occasional visit, I thought was rather good, and perhaps Petten and Geel. Do the same gloomy predictions occur in the other three?
  I ask, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked, what is their function and what does the Minister see as their object? They were doing what seemed to be quite good work on sunlight and heating, but it was pretty small scale and I am told that better work is done elsewhere. The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) has recent ministerial experience, and he asked the same question.
  What is now seen as a sensible objective? Is there any future in some joint European effort on radioactive decommissioning, radioactive waste management and, in particular, super-compaction of solid waste? The Government have not said that that is best done at Ispra. Incidentally, it may be done better at Dounreay. Nevertheless, with this type of objective, it is sensible to ask whether it should be done on a European scale. I should like more clearly to hear what ideas the Government have on the constructive things that Ispra, Petten, Geel and Karlsruhe can do.
  Paragraph 14 of document 9454/87 states:
  "The United Kingdom would like closer links between JRC programmes and other Community programmes in similar areas. The proposals for enhanced powers for the Board of Governors are welcome, though the details have yet to be clarified and it is necessary that other structural changes at the JRC should operate in the interests of clear management responsibility."
  As has been said, the board of governors does not have a great say. I wonder what is really meant by
  "other Community programmes in similar areas".
  Can flesh and blood be put on those words? What exactly are we getting at? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) wishes to speak, and I must allow time for the Minister to reply to the questions that have been asked of him.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I shall raise two points in relation to EUREKA. The Minister described the EUREKA document as clearly showing that EUREKA is successful on two grounds. He said that we are getting our share of it, that it does not follow bureaucratic principles, that it has the solid, good, old-fashioned virtue of a step-by-step approach and no red tape, and that it is bottoms-up. They were all good, sound phrases, borrowed from a Daily Express editorial of 30 years ago. They do not demonstrate whether EUREKA will perform in terms of the objectives of an industrial and technological policy of reducing the gap that has emerged between Japan and, to a lesser extent, the United States of America and the disparate countries of Europe, because EUREKA covers several countries outside the European Community.
  We want to know how EUREKA will achieve objectives, not merely that it will not fall into the trap of over-bureaucratisation that we can see in Ispra and, to a much lesser extent, in the administrative systems that the Commission must impose on directly funded research programmes such as ESPRIT, BRITE, RACE, and so on. We want an assurance that it will not fall into those traps and that it will achieve something. The right question is not whether we are getting a share of EUREKA but
  916
  whether it will produce results. Surely the dangers are just the same as those with RACE, ESPRIT, BRITE and other directly funded Commission programmes. They do extremely little for regions, small firms and the encouragement of enterprise.
  For too long we have suffered—EUREKA is likely to suffer in the same way—from being dominated by large firms. I refer to the national champions—the firms that are in with the powers-that-be. In this country, in electronics it is GEC and, occasionally, ICL and Plessey. In Germany it is Siemens, and in Holland it is Philips. Those firms already have the cash, and they are already well in with their Governments. They get much public sector funding, and they have no problems in getting private sector funding. They participate in EUREKA in the same way. Because of the way in which Davignon set up the ESPRIT programme, they were the first firms to get in with ESPRIT.
  Ludicrously and paradoxically, firms with enormous cash mountains—such as GEC with well over £1 billion— are given cash. Apparently, such firms do not have enough cash to carry out research and development in collaboration with industrial partners. That is nonsense. The firms which have a desire to take risks—unlike, say, GEC—and which do not have cash should be given cash. Firms such as GEC with plenty of cash should be encouraged to take risks.
  EUREKA operates on a national champion to national champion basis. It says, "GEC will please talk to Siemens. Philips will please talk to Thomson. Olivetti will please to talk to Philips and, preferably, Thomson." Cash-rich firms which wish primarily to protect their market share in Europe, rather than to catch up with the Japanese in world markets, will inevitably be the participants in EUREKA. They are the powers-that-be. They get in first. They get the invitations to the big conferences in the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre and in Hanover. They will dominate—not the small firms in the regions and the firms willing to take risks and make the breakthroughs.
  What would happen if the Government had a science and technology policy which they tried to relate to EUREKA and the other European sources of public funds to encourage research and development? The Government may want to look beyond the silicon chip to the next generation of materials, such as gallium arsenide, which can do the job much faster. They may try to link the University Grants Committee funding for pre-competitive research and development, which is carried out with encouragement from ESPRIT, with the collaboration at industrial level on development rather than research, through EUREKA. They may also want to look at those firms undertaking significant work.
  Over the past year, firms such as GEC and Plessey have been engaged in a massive quarrel over whether Britain will have a modern properly funded gallium arsenide foundry. The whole idea has been squashed, despite enormous efforts by the Department of Trade and Industry to get the two companies to work together. Smaller firms still at the venture capital stage, such as those involved in plasma technology in Bristol and electro-tech instrument development in south Wales, have made great efforts. In collaboration with University college, Cardiff and the university of Wales institute of science and technology in Cardiff, they are getting on with the job and doing the type of work on which the Minister would like

  917
  to be able to report to the House. EUREKA and other Community programmes are intended to assist in that work.
  Small firms which are still in the venture capital stage and universities such as Cardiff, which do not get big favours from the UGC and are outside the main stream of collaborative research, are willing to take risks and to reduce the gap in micro-electronic technology between Britain and Japan. Those firms are most unlikely to get funds from EUREKA on a big scale and to do well out of ESPRIT. They do not have the clout with the powers-that-be.
  How will the Minister correct the fundamental flaw which has occurred with ESPRIT, RACE and others and which is likely to occur with EUREKA? The small firms that are genuinely not averse to risk and the universities that are not in the golden triangle are cut out. How will the Minister ensure that the small firms and the universities in the regions get their proper share? This is needed if Britain is to catch up with Japan in science and technology. Jobs should flow from that catching up.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Butcher: I thank all those who have spoken in the debate, during which considerable agreement has emerged. I shall do my best, in the time available, to deal with the various requests for information.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) wished to know the stage that negotiations had reached and where we see our position to be. I am sure that he would not expect me to say in fine detail exactly how we will pursue our objectives, but it is right to restate what we are doing in those negotiations.
  The last JRC programme ran out at the end of 1987. An informal discussion on the Commission's proposal for a new programme was held last December at the Research Council, and there was a substantive discussion at the 11 April Research Council. The European Parliament has also examined the proposal, and it should be possible for the Council to reach a common position at its next meeting on 29 June.
  The main outstanding issues relate to aspects of management and staffing policy. I shall come in detail to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) and the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). However, en passant, I say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow that we support his contention that the search for best practice now has to be on a pan-European basis.
  If, for example, I am looking for examples of best practice in the higher education institution in engineering, I should look at Aachen. I know that some of the more enlightened engineers in this country see Aachen as a model that has critical mass, expertise, and delivers teaching in volume of the highest quality, but, in addition, it is a major research centre. If the hon. Gentleman decodes some of the remarks made by Ministers from the Dispatch Box in recent months, he may see the beginnings of a policy that we believe will learn from the Aachen experience.
  Having said that, we also have to learn from the Ispra experience. The root of the matter has been identified in two speeches tonight as being Italian law operating in favour of local employees. I do not wish to turn this into
  918
  a political debate, so I shall not go into too much detail about the role of trade unions in Italy. However, at the start of the JRC, the staff conditions of our Commission employees were determined by the Commission, and the trade unions have been resisting the introduction of flexibility. That has not been helpful to the JRC's scientific vitality. We believe that the trade unions, too, are increasingly aware of the need for change. It is primarily for the Commission to tackle this obstruction to scientific change.
  The United Kingdom would like agreement on the following changes to JRC's staff conditions: a greater rate of annual turnover of staff, including the entry of younger scientists, with skills appropriate to JRC's future needs; more staffing to be on the basis of secondment to and from national institutions rather than on a permanent basis; a programme of compulsory retirements, which is necessary to achieve those ends; and a reduction of the cost of the JRC on the Community budget. The Commission has produced a working paper on staffing policy. It includes proposals for a reduced number of' permanent staff, reservation of posts for visiting scientists and the transfer of some service staff out of JRC budgets, consistent with the practice elsewhere in the Commission.
  The Commission assures us that the necessary flexibility in staffing policy is available under the present legal base of JRC. We are willing to examine the possibilities within the present framework, but we do not rule out the need for a more radical change if pressure is unsatisfactory.
  In case Opposition Members think that we are in a draconian gung-ho mood arid are seeking redundancies, I refer them to my opening speech, when I said that we need new blood. Further, without naming sites in the United Kingdom, at our own research establishments we are familiar with the problem of staff who have been in their positions for perhaps a quarter of a century. They are comfortable in their programmes, which have been rolling for a long time, and would bitterly resent the accusation that somehow they should examine how it is that they have been deploying their intellectual resources over this period of time on programmes which perhaps need some adjustment, and perhaps reassignment to other branches within their research establishment.
  Ispra is that writ large, but with some peculiarly domestic Italian questions that need resolving. For reasons which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton will understand, it is not advisable for me tonight to engage in a tirade against that. I simply state the criteria on which we shall judge the efficacy of the Commission in making its arrangements for its employees. I suspect that there will be consensus among Ministers at the next Council meeting on the sorts of things that we want to see achieved.
  Mr. Dalyell: In the New Scientist of 29 October, under the byline of Debora Mackenzie, a table was published showing that 350 staff are between 51 and 55 years of age, that between the ages of 56 and 60 there are just under 200, and that between the ages of 46 and 50 there are 250—I suspect that the table is familiar to the Minister—with just 10 or so between the ages of 21 and 25. Is the age range really as cock-eyed as that?
  Mr. Butcher: I do not have immediate access to figures to confirm or deny that point. However, those who have observed the Ispra phenomenon have remarked on the

  919
  way in which the staff are deployed. I stated earlier that we in the United Kingdom are vividly aware that staffing is top-heavy and that it may be subject to hardening of the arteries in both a metaphorical sense and, perhaps, among many of the staff. However, we are on to that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton asked us to keep up the pressure, and of course we shall.
  Perhaps this should not have been a debate in which we examined the Government's general domestic research policy, but Opposition Members have tempted me to make one or two comments on that. It is interesting to note that what is going on in Europe in the framework programme and in the EUREKA programme is mirrored by what is happening in the United Kingdom. We have said clearly that, as a Government, observing an industrial sector that is now making healthy profits, it will be for companies to make their own commercial judgments in their own way now that they can luxuriate in investment, and their own R and D decisions.
  Given the changed trading conditions—if this is not a strategy, it is a matter for debate, and I believe that it is simply an observation on changed conditions—it is correct for public sector money, whether employed by the Department of Trade and Industry or by the Department of Education and Science, to move upstream and away from near-market exploitation. We have been discussing that very concept tonight. This is not a strategy in the way in which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would recognise a strategy. However, it is clearly stated in several of the objectives in our White Paper and it is articulated in the pattern of spending which the House can examine carefully, because it has been placed before the House.
  We can look, for example, at LINK, to meet the higher education links with outside industry, at EUREKA, at our DTI-sponsored programmes on advanced technologies, on things such as SMART—the small firms merit award for research and technology—at our exceptional projects and at things within sectors such as launch aid. We already have a number of programmes moving forward on key enabling technologies. The IT programeme rolls at £85 million over the next five years, building on Alvey, which was well assessed. Although Alvey has had its critics, any objective evaluation of it will show that it produced the goods and the results. The question now is the one raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West: will industry have the sense to exploit those technologies and not simply leave behind another collection of fundamental ideas which others may exploit?
  Higher education institutions are participating in EUREKA, as are small and medium-sized enterprises, to a significant extent, so the point that was made in that connection is not lost on us. I hope that there will be an occasion, should the House wish, when we can look more closely at the Government's current emphasis on research and development policy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton suspected that the Commission never liked EUREKA and tended to overstate its overlaps with the Community's own research and development policy. I can only tell my right hon. Friend that he is absolutely right. I did not regard his speech as cynical. I thought that he made an observation on a real phenomenon.
  920
  As for the profiles of the programmes within the various sites, at Ispra we have reactor safety, industrial hazards, fusion research, non-nuclear energy, environmental protection and remote sensing. At Karlsruhe they are undertaking research in the nuclear fuel cycle. At Geel in Belgium they are producing nuclear measurements and reference materials. At Petten in the Netherlands they are dealing with reactor studies and high temperature materials. In Brussels there is an administration of 20. That is the central administration and is not to be confused with the administrative function in the REs.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked what we wished to see by way of new emphases within those facilities. In my opening remarks I said we felt it regrettable that, for example, the environmental programmes were running at about 14 per cent. Hence much work remains to be done there. We feel that their briefs could be expanded, but we must encourage them to seek custom, and in the first instance that custom will have to take advantage of the expertise that exists in-house. As with operations such as NEL and NPL, what they have in situ will bring along their first customers, but we hope that many of those will be industrial and private sector, although the Commission may put some work to them.
  I have referred to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is not true to say that we are talking only about large firms in the programmes. Many small firms are involved in EUREKA, ESPRIT and BRITE. They are involved in at least 40 per cent. of the projects across those programmes.
  I was asked about evaluation—about how we are to assess EUREKA—and whether it is simply to be reliant on numbers of projects or the amount spent. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West highlighted a point of crucial importance. In the past, Governments—I am talking generically—have measured success either by the amount spent or by whether those who benefited from projects stated themselves to be content.
  If a research or other body has just received a large sum of money, it will be reasonably content. We have had difficulty—as a task of Government generally—in measuring the output of any Whitehall Department's spending. We find it easy to measure input, taking into account the number of staff deployed, the amount of cash and the degree of effort but as soon as one asks what has been achieved, one gets different replies. We are aware of this and my Department is perfecting the science of measuring output against expenditure on the commitment of man and woman years.
  It is early days yet for EUREKA. The projects are industry-led and are funded primarily from the private sector. It is up to industry to assess the value, although, in the final analysis, the market will make the assessment, remembering that all the projects are allegedly near-market projects.
  I was asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow what we meant by closer links between the JRC and Community programmes in similar areas. The JRC has activities in materials, environment and energy, and we hope that these will be kept in step with other efforts within the framework programme.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Minister has been courteous in answering my questions and I am not complaining, but what about the decommissioning of radioactive waste? Is there a future there?
  Mr. Butcher: The short answer must be yes, because it would appear that in several member states this has become a political as well as an industrial question. My personal view is that the search for safer fuels is of equal importance. That does not mean that I shall impose my bias into these arrangements, but the decommissioning question remains, if the House will excuse the metaphor, a live one.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) pointed to the lack of confidence in the Government's science policies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science told the House of the increase of 15 per cent. in the science Vote since 1979. That is not enough for some scientists. There are wild accusations that we are no longer supporting basic and commercial research, and it is alleged that our sole criterion for supporting research is whether it will achieve a measured result in the market in the short term. That is a wholly unfair allegation. We have shifted the emphasis of science and technology policy in the right direction. If industry in its current state of profitability cannot bring forward appropriate development projects that are near to the market it will not be the Government's fault. We have delivered the framework within which it can do that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9454/87 and 5616/88 on the Joint Research Centre and 10845/86 on EUREKA and Community Science and Technology; and supports the Government's aims of raising the quality and relevance of the work at the Joint Research Centre and of using EUREKA to help British industry become more competitive in world markets.

  Joint Research Centre and the EUREKA Programme
    Matrimonial Proceedings (Transfers) Bill [Lords]
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Bristol Channel (Waste Disposal)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Tony Speller: It is with great pleasure that I see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his place for this debate, not least because it shows the gravity with which the Government view the whole position.
  First, I should state what I am not seeking to do in this debate. I am not seeking some sort of anti-nuclear crusade, not least because I have a great respect for the CEGB, the quality of engineering and the ability of the nuclear inspectorate. Secondly, I am not seeking to attack Hinkley Point by some water-borne assault. It has existed for many years and has an excellent record. Thirdly, it is fair to say that my great interest in alternative energy is not intended to be anti-nuclear.
  After all, provided that all goes right, nuclear energy is the cleanest non-pollutant energy source, outside the range of wind, wave and solar power. Nuclear energy causes no acid rain, does no damage to the ionosphere and does not push lead into the faces of small children on our streets from car exhausts. This debate comes about from the accident of a rural and tourism Member of Parliament deeply concerned simply about three beaches that do not meet EEC standards: no more and no less.
  The Bristol channel runs from the River Severn to the Irish sea, with south Wales on its right, and Somerset, north Devon and north Cornwall on the left. Since obtaining this debate I have been overwhelmed by the instant response of others who, like me, are worried about the quality of the Bristol channel—or, rather, the water within it. Too many authorities control pollution and dumping. Although my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says that the Department of the Environment co-ordinates all these works, I have not found that to be the case.
  When I saw detailed answers about the type of pollution that was occurring, I asked the Prime Minister about co-ordination, as well as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Welsh Office, for the Welsh side of the channel, and the Department of the Environment regarding sewage and other deposits, and of course the Department of Transport, in relation to the water-borne sewage coming from coastal vessels moving up and down our side of the channel.
  Some of the answers conflict strongly, but I must thank all the Ministries concerned, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, for speedy and accurate answers. The only Department that has not answered my questions, despite the role allegedly placed upon it by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is the Department of the Environment, which has had the co-ordinating job—in other words the co-ordinators unfortunately have lost their co-ordinants. Individual Departments can tell me what is happening, but not the co-ordinator. I am not filled with confidence in the Department.
  The Bristol channel is seaside for those who live in north Devon; it is ever-present, as one crosses Exmoor, and as one comes into my constituency. There is the water, which we call the sea. I have known it well since I was a child. It is the place where one builds sandcastles. plays in

  923
  the water, and later swims, surfs and goes water-skiing. There is fishing and trawling of course; all are pleasures of clean water, or so we thought.
  I sought simply to find out why the water is no longer what it has been and why we were not putting it to rights; I suspected that raw sewage outlets along the coastline were the cause. The results were as fascinating as they were unfortunate. I was astounded to find, from some very honest answers from MAFF, that we have a number of industrial sites, or sewage deposit sites. I had known, frankly, that the great and super city of Bristol, and the city of Cardiff, through their water authorities, dump their sewage sludge a mere 11 miles off the coast of Ilfracombe.
  I knew through a councillor friend of mine, Councillor David Spears of Ilfracombe, who is a fisherman, that there was an application from Port Talbot to dump 7 million tonnes of what is nicely called "capital spoil", again 11 miles north east of Ilfracombe. On top of this, MAFF told me that there were two minor liquid low-level radioactive outlets, one from Hinkley Point and another from Amersham International off the River Taff. I do not believe for a second that any one of those sources causes total pollution.
  Then the information grew worse. In seeking to find out just what goes into the Bristol channel, I asked that marvellously honest body, the Welsh Office. It answered simply that there are all the things that I knew about already, and by the way, there are 27 other outlets whereby low-level nuclear waste is indirectly dumped in the Bristol channel.
  So I had information from the Ministry of Agriculture, and learned more about the two nuclear sources—Hinkley on the Devon side and Amersham on the Welsh side—and the 27 other outlets, as well as sewage dumping, from the Welsh and English sides. There are no heroes or villains in this, just people going about their work, quietly polluting the waterways on the doorstep of north Devon. There are the industries of Port Talbot, and so it goes on, and on.
  Then I asked my friends in the coastguard service and the Royal Air Force about maritime pollution. The Ministry of Transport said with superb openness that it is quite legal to pump out the tanks of a ship in the channel, and that one may discharge gash, or rubbish, there. Rubbish from ships and cleanings from tanks—all goes into this narrow waterway that we in north Devon call the seaside. This grew from a simple problem of finding out how the water authorities work.
  I owe every credit to the water authorities. The South-West water authority is spending much money and doing very well in cleaning up sewage. I am sure that the Welsh authority and Wessex Water are doing the same. It is not the individuals who are polluting our waterways; a major hole is being caused, not by any of the pinpricks, but by the totality of water authorities, the industrial, agricultural, and agrichemical concerns and all the rest of them.
  We come to a very simple question: why do I find dead sea birds and plastic rubbish when I wander along the shores of my constituency? I find not the romantic things of the days of Sir Walter Raleigh, which could be looked at with excitement, but useless plastic rubbish. All of it is man-made and man-deposited because no one is obliged not to do it. That is the essence of my problem.
  924
  We are not much better on land. Dog owners—I am one—allow their dogs to foul the beach for children to sit in. Councils are getting better and beginning to enforce byelaws, but there is still pollution on the beaches. Our small local authorities still allow outfalls to be tucked away under the sands and to spill raw sewage into the sea for the pleasure of surface and submariners and all who enjoy fishing.
  The beautiful island of Lundy, just off my constituency, is the site of a maritime nature reserve and I am proud to have been instrumental in making it so. It is surrounded not by lobsters, however, but by the debris of civilisation. No one is forbidden to put it there, which means that everyone is allowed to. I was surprised to find that ships are allowed to pollute the area, but not with oil. So they pollute with oil after dark. Oil slicks appear on the beaches in my area, and, I am sure, across the water in Wales. Irridescent pools of oily water appear from ships dumping in the channel.
  So we have an incredible collection of debris all along our coastline. I do not seek to apportion blame to any authority or Ministry. This is not a case of villains; it is a case of everyone exercising rights given by statute or regulation, but the total result is that what should be a pleasant open stretch of beautiful water is polluted. As one approaches my part of the world, one comes across the top of Exmoor and sees the Bristol channel in the foreground and Wales in the background. It is a beautiful sight and equally beautiful from the other side. However, it is no longer a pleasure to walk or bathe there. I am a walker, bather and sailor in that area. The hulls of people's boats get coated with human excrement. Human debris, too, figures in the pollution of the coastal waters.
  No one in particular is at fault; all of us are at fault. The Welsh Office told me all about its problems. I asked about the capital spoil from Port Talbot, but no one appeared to know about it. Officials said it was dredging from the harbour. That is fine; but Port Talbot has been a fine industrial area and I am not sure that the dredgings are as pure as one might expect sand to be. No one minds; one applies for a grant.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will not tell me that he has granted permission to dump 7 million tonnes in this narrow, shallow channel—a super-tanker carries 100,000 tonnes, by comparison. The material may not be dirty—I do not suggest that it is—but it seems odd. Why can they dump 11 miles off Ilfracombe? It is not a personal affront to me. That is the nearest point at which people can say that the dumped waste will go out to sea. But the Bristol channel does not work that way. Waste does not just all go out and come in—it swirls around. There are bays on the Welsh side, and on the Devon and Somerset side. What is put in the water does not exit on the tide. I wish it did. Some does, but some goes around and around. We are damaging the lives and pleasure of our people.
  I am grateful for being granted this debate. I do not seek villains. I am only saying—perhaps tediously—that three of the beaches in my area do not meet EEC standards. We should be grateful to the EEC; we condemn it often, but it has given us standards that I want my beaches to meet. All the things I have mentioned, taken together, are causing the trouble and pollution. My right hon. Friend has told me in parliamentary answers that he would be happy to bathe in our waters. God bless him, and I hope he enjoys it. It is a beautiful place and I am sure he

  925
  will come to no harm. But, with all these different authorities allowing dumpings, it seems strange to assume that ultimately no harm will be done.
  I suspect that I speak not just for my own area but for the whole country. For centuries we have used the sea as our cesspit on the assumption that the sea would clear it out. In our case it is no longer working. My right hon. Friend may say, as he has told me in answer to questions, that there is no apparent problem for fishing stocks. I must tell him there are problems. The fishing stocks have gone. The fishing stocks which were there in my youth are not there any more. My fishermen, not primed by me, say that they get boils from the water of the channel. The sub-aqua clubs tell me that there are problems when they are swimming; the surf clubs say the same thing. Everyone tells me that we are allowing our environment to be more and more polluted.
  I have asked the questions of all the individual Departments. All I could find out was that no one was exceeding his authority or doing anything he should not do, but all of us in total are doing what we should not do—damaging the environment of our beautiful country. All of us are proud of our own areas. Whether from Devon, as I am, or from Wales or Scotland, we all love our country, but, through nobody's apparent fault, the environment is being destroyed. Yet industrial refuse, nuclear waste and sewage sludge must go somewhere. In the south-west they go from other people's doorsteps into my constituency. That is not fair. It is causing aggravation—which brings us to this debate.
  I ask my right hon. Friend for simple assurances. I am told that the Department of the Environment co-ordinates. That amazes me because that is the one Department which has not the ability or the will to answer a priority written question. Every other Department does—Agriculture, the Welsh Office and Transport, but not Environment. How can I have faith in a Department which is said to co-ordinate, when it cannot answer simple questions such as how many sewage outlets or permits there are? I do not believe that the Department knows.
  My right hon. Friend is not responsible for that Department. His Department is responsible for the cleanliness of water and the agriculture side of things. I pay the Department credit for the work it does, but it seems wrong that all this waste is deposited in the Bristol channel. I will list it all for the last time—sewage sludge from the big cities of Wales and the west country, capital spoil, tippings and dredgings from the great industrial ports, nuclear waste from Hinkley Point, nuclear waste from Amersham International up the River Taff—it must be fun being a swan on the river—and 27 other indirect nuclear waste deposits on the Welsh side alone.
  I have had no answer, alas, for the English side of the water. The Department of the Environment is to write to me as soon as possible. That will be as soon as possible after the debate is over and is in Hansard, one suspects. When the battle is over, the gentlemen of England, now abed, may think themselves accursed they were not here, but they are wise not to say their piece because they would damn themselves out of their parliamentary questions and answers.
  On the agricultural side I say very little, but we know that agrichemicals leach into our waters. Some of it is the fault of the agricultural system and some is the fault of the water authorities being underfunded in the past. But all in all, from the shipping on the top of the water to the sewage
  926
  at the bottom, we are doing great damage to the nation. We must get together and say that what we did in the 19th century out of ignorance we may not continue at the end of the 20th century out of knowledge, nor in the 21st century when, I trust, the environment will be at the top of our agenda.
  11.58 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Glimmer): First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) for raising the subject which, as he rightly says, is not only of interest to him and to his constituency but to any of us who represent coastal areas. My constituency has 54 miles of coast., the nuclear power station at Sizewell A, a new one to come at Sizewell Band the proposal to build anotherat SizewellC, so I hope he will accept that, apart from my ministerial responsibility, I have a personal, local responsibility which makes me sympathetic to the issues that he has raised.
  I should like to begin where my hon. Friend ended by saying that in the 20th century we must not do out of knowledge what in the 19th century we did out of ignorance. I am happy to say that we have learnt and that what we now allow to be dumped in the sea is different from what would have been dumped in the 19th century.
  I recognise my hon. Friend's desire to tread the narrow path between worrying people unnecessarily and making sure that the programme arid policy of the Government are sufficiently structured to protect people. That is a difficult path for an hon. Member to tread because he must not make people feel that something is wrong with the beaches while at the same' time he must protect the beaches. I see the balance that my hon. Friend has to maintain, and he maintained it admirably in his speech.
  My hon. Friend spoke about co-ordination. He should draw some confidence from the fact that it is largely the scientists in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who provide the basis for the work that is done. The scientific staff in my Ministry assess the potential effect of pipeline discharges, for example, on the marine environment. My hon. Friend mentioned dumping in the sea from Wales. The Welsh Office is deeply involved in trying to solve such problems and my Ministry is its agent in this work, thus ensuring that the effects of dumping from Wales are taken into the equation.
  My hon. Friend made an important point when he spoke about the equation. We must ask ourselves whether, when we add together all the things that happen, we get an unacceptable result, even though the individual things being done are acceptable. When the adding together takes place, it is the scientists in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who play the vital role.
  In the Bristol channel area, there is a specific way of doing this because, as my hon. Friend rightly says, this area is of considerable concern as it is bordered by the great industrial areas of Wales. It is an important tourist interest and an historic waterway. For those reasons we have a special group of interested authorities which co-ordinate the assessment work in this area—the Severn estuary technical working group—and it includes representatives of MAFF, the water authorities, the Water Research Centre and Plymouth marine laboratory. These bodies each present the results of their monitoring work to the group which thus ensures that a detailed picture of 'the quality of the estuary and Bristol channel is available.

  927
  My hon. Friend need not worry about the co-ordination aspect. It is co-ordinated overall at ministerial level by the Department of the Environment. In the specific area that he spoke about, we have gone to particular trouble to cover this in the special working group. That group is of a technical kind and it covers precisely the problems that my hon. Friend rightly adumbrated. As he said, the problems that we have here are affected not only by the quality and type of waste that is put into the sea, but by the movement, the ebb and flow, of the sea. In this area the ebb and flow is much more complex than in other areas. That must be considered as well, and my hon. Friend was right to draw that to our attention.
  The reason for choosing a dumping site 11 miles off Ilfracombe, to which my hon. Friend refers, was not intended as a personal insult to my hon. Friend; nor was it chosen because it was the nearest place at which we could get away with such dumping, which perhaps my hon. Friend implied. The site was carefully chosen because we know the way in which the sea operates in that area. Its mechanism does what we intend it to do: it satisfactorily cleanses the area.
  I want to face head on the problem that my hon. Friend has placed before us. In this world we ask for all the benefits and advantages of a modern society, such as being able to turn on energy at the flick of a switch, of being able to drive to the lovely holiday beaches in his constituency and of being able to be warm in winter and cool in summer. We cannot expect to have all those things and the jobs in the industries that sustain them unless we accept that they produce waste that has to be dealt with somehow.
  I think that my hon. Friend would be the first to recognise that we must make sure that the waste that we produce does not pollute the environment. However, he is wrong to suggest that the sea has no part to play in the removal of waste. We must ensure that we do not put in the sea waste that cannot be purified or disposed of. If we treated the sea as our communal cesspool, we would do great damage to the environment and to future generations. We take considerable care about those decisions.
  Let me give my hon. Friend two examples of the care that we take. First, when I receive a new application, I consider it carefully, but, even in circumstances in which I believe that it is right to grant it, I seek to find an alternative way of reducing other inputs to the sea. I try to strike a balance to ensure that the total is, if anything, less than it was before. I always try to use it as the pressure point for reducing the use of the sea for the removal of waste, and I have found that approach very satisfactory.
  Secondly, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the decision of the North sea conference, which was a great success and in which Britain took a major part. My hon. Friend referred to throwing things off a ship and getting rid of oil in the sea. We must draw a distinction here. People do things illegally and we then have to deal with the question of enforcement. They do other things legally, but we nevertheless have to deal with the problem of stopping them doing those things. I hope that our enforcement policy will increasingly enable us to ensure that ships do not do what they have done in the past—flush out their oil
  928
  tanks illegally, late at night, when no one is around. The evidence shows that that is a decreasing activity and that our policing has helped in that direction.
  However, we must improve as well as enforce the rules. I took a small part in ensuring that the British Government joined others in agreeing to much tougher rules about the use of the sea as a garbage pail for ships, whose crews appeared to think that they had a right to throw into it anything that they liked because it was waste produced on the ship. That is unacceptable and we have done a great deal to change that. The countries of northern Europe will now stop that and regulations are being prepared, as my hon. Friend knows from the reply that he received from the Department of Transport. That is a major improvement which will depend on the efficacy of the regulations and on the way in which we impose them.
  Mr. Speller: The answer that I have received from the Department of Transport simply says that it is not in itself an offence for ships to clean their tanks in the Bristol channel or, at present, to discharge ship's garbage into the sea, although regulations are being prepared. Can my hon. Friend tell me when those regulations will be in force and who will enforce them?
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must understand that those regulations will be in force as rapidly as possible because we gave an undertaking at the London conference. I cannot tell him exactly when they will be laid, but it will be as soon as possible. The responsibility for enforcement of the regulations will be spread between Departments, although the Department of Transport will have the primary responsibility. However, as other Departments have opportunities to watch out for these things, we all try to work together.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that, although it is not as unitary a system as he would wish, our fisheries patrol vessels, coastguards and local sea fisheries committees play their part in notifying the tell-tale signs that those incidents have occurred. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we catch people not simply in flagrante delicto, but also after the incident, when we can see what has happened. There are various ways of going about that, and I assure him that we are most concerned that the system works effectively. I have not yet considered or given a ruling on the question of the dumping of material from Port Talbot. We are discussing that issue, and I give an undertaking that I will look at the matter extremely carefully.
  The two licences currently issued for sewage sludge—one each to the Wessex and Welsh water authorities—apply to material that is already carefully refined. That is why it is put in the sea, and 96 per cent. of it is water. That would not have happened in the 19th century. I hope that my hon. Friend will remind his constituents of the enormous advances that have been made since then. In the 19th century, raw sewage was dumped into the sea, but we purify it seriously now. My hon. Friend should be happy that we monitor very carefully what enters the water. He should also be pleased that 70 per cent. of the sludge from Wessex is spread on land and does not enter the water. We are constantly trying to find alternatives where they are available.
  I want to refer briefly to the apparent inconsistency to which my hon. Friend referred. I am sure that he will not mind if I say that if he asks a slightly different question of

  929
  two people he may get a slightly different answer. When he asked the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what we gave licences for, we told him; and I hope he will be kind enough to acknowledge that we were very honest in our reply. We gave him full details. However, if he asked the Welsh Office what it granted licences for, he must accept that the Welsh Office would include licences for extremely small amounts of waste such as radioactive material from hospitals. Such licences are not granted by my Ministry. Therefore, the figures tie up as long as my hon. Friend remembers what the question is in the first
  930
  place. Nothing was hidden in either case, and full details were given to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will acquit us of not co-ordinating this properly.
  We have very tough controls on what is put into the sea. More important than that, it is our intention and the fact—
  The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  UK-EEC (Balance of Trade)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the growing imbalance in manufacturing trade between the United Kingdom and the EEC; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The EC is our largest market which takes about half of our exports. The removal of remaining barriers to trade by 1992 will offer British exporters a single market of over 320 million people. The Government are encouraging British business to prepare itself to take full advantage of this.

  Turkey (Human Rights)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have received any request from the Soviet Union for human rights violations in Turkey to be considered in future international arms reductions negotiations; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Retirement Pension
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received seeking the introduction of measures to ensure equal treatment for men and women in respect of the age of eligibility for the basic state retirement pension; what response she has made; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive such representations from time to time, most recently from the Campaign for Equal State Pension Ages. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security has today replied to the campaign.

  Abortion (Amendment) Bill
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received with respect to allowing parliamentary time for completion of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received with respect to the allocation of parliamentary time for completion of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received with respect to the allocation of parliamentary time for completion of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

  The Prime Minister
  1 have received many such representations, including some from hon. Members.

  Engagements
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Racism (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General how many successful prosecutions there have been for incitement to racial hatred in(a) the past 20 years and (b) the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Since 1979 there have been 43 successful prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred. Of these, 16 successful prosecutions have occurred in the past five years. The figures in respect of prosecutions prior to 1979 are not kept separately and could be discovered only at disproportionate cost.

  Extraditions (Irish Republic)
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Attorney-General what undertakings as to additional prosecutions against persons extradited from the Irish Republic for alleged political offences and as to the application of the speciality rule have been given to the Government of the Irish Republic following its accession to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism.

  The Attorney-General
  No such undertakings have been given to the Government of the Irish Republic following the entry into force of the Irish Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act 1987.

DEFENCE

  Chemical Weapons (Animal Rights)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the issue of animal rights in relation to chemical weapons experiments will be discussed with the Soviet delegation visiting Porton Down chemical defence establishment later this month.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on 5 May at columns 544–45.

  Exercise Flintlock
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military facilities in the United Kingdom were used by, or in support of, United States special forces units participating in the recent Flintlock exercise; what was the purpose of this exercise, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Exercise Flintlock which is an annual exercise designed to provide mutually beneficial training for allied personnel in airborne operations, communications and ground tactical operations, is still in progress. In line with long-standing practice, elements of the United States armed forces have been deployed this year to RAF Sculthorpe, RAF West Raynham, RAF Watton and to the military training area at Stanford.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will inform the House of any agreement made so far at his meetings with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues concerning the deployment of sea-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Consideration of nuclear force adjustment options is continuing within NATO; Ministers have taken no specific procurement or deployment decisions.

  RAF Hawk (Crash)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the crash of an RAF Hawk trainer plane near Newgale, Pembrokeshire, on Friday 13 May.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to my letter to him dated 13 May.

  Deployment Outback 88
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the ships of the Royal Navy task group deployment Outback 88 will exercise with the Brunei armed forces during their visit to Brunei.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. Ships from the RN task group will take part in a combined tri-service exercise, Setia Kawan, with elements of the Royal Brunei armed forces. In addition to the RN ships, the United Kingdom forces taking part will comprise a brigade headquarters, a battalion group from Hong Kong and the Gurkha battalion stationed in Brunei, as well as RAF air transport aircraft.

  Gibraltar (Shootings)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will permit British service personnel invited to give evidence to the Gibraltar coroner at the inquest into the killings of Irish Republican Army members to give evidence; and if such personnel will be legally represented;

  (2) how many British service personnel have been interviewed on behalf of the Gibraltar coroner prior to the inquest into the recent killings of Irish Republican Army members; where those personnel were interviewed; and where they are stationed;

  (3) what contact the Gibraltar coroner conducting an inquest into the killings of Irish Republican Army members has had with him; what information the coroner
  370
  has sought about British service personnel; and if the coroner has sought permission to interview such personnel or to require such personnel to give evidence at the inquest.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 12 May 1988]: The Ministry of Defence will co-operate with the coroner's inquest. Any interested parties in a coroner's court may be legally represented if they wish. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 5 May at column 544. A number of service personnel have been interviewed in the course of the police inquiries. I am not prepared to give any further details at this stage.

  INF Treaty
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received seeking further reduction in the number of nuclear weapons on British soil and in British territorial waters, following the ratification of INF treaty; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 13 May 1988]Various groups opposed to NATO defence policy have undertaken a lobbying campaign, including the use of stock wording and bulk-produced cards, for further reductions in nuclear weapons in Britain following the INF treaty. Such representations have been acknowledged. The United Kingdom and its NATO allies are committed to maintaining a mix of adequate and effective conventional and nuclear forces in Europe in order to continue to deter aggression and maintain peace. Complementing this element of its policy, the Alliance has a clear set of further arms control priorities following the INF treaty: a 50 per cent. reduction in United States and Soviet strategic offensive weapons; an agreement covering conventional forces in Europe; and a global chemical weapons ban.

WALES

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proposals he has to reduce the waiting list for non-urgent cases in Clwyd hospitals; what additional funds he will make available to the National Health Service in Clwyd; and what proposals he has to reduce the waiting list for non-urgent cases in Clwyd;

  (2) what proposals he has to reduce the waiting list for (a) general operations, (b) orthopaedic operations and (c) ear, nose and throat treatment in Clwyd;

  (3) what proposals he has to reduce the waiting list for out-patient treatment in Clwyd.

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

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

  Clwyd Health Authority
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to meet Clwyd health authority to discuss the situation in the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend will be meeting all chairmen of health authorities next month.

  Health Service (Gwent)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Gwent area health authority concerning the situation in the Health Service.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 12 May 1988]: My right hon. Friend met all health authority chairmen in November 1987 and arrangments have been made for a further such meeting to be held in June this year. In addition, he also met the chairman of Gwent. Mid Glamorgan, West Glamorgan and East Dyfed on Friday last to discuss health issues relating to the south Wales valleys.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation: and what items he discussed.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend is in regular touch with the chairman of the BBC on a wide range of broadcasting matters.

  Asylum
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the procedures for dealing with asylum applications at a port of entry, proposed by the British Refugee Council in January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The British Refugee Council produced a code of practice for port asylum applications last November. This was discussed at a meeting I held with a delegation from the BRC on 7 December 1987. Much of the code is consistent with our existing practice, but the Government cannot accept its proposal of an appeal system in port cases.

  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the breakdown of the nationalities of the 23,000 people refused leave to enter the United Kingdom at ports in 1986; in what capacity they sought leave to enter the United Kingdom; and how many subsequently applied for asylum.

  Mr. Renton
  A total of 23,100 passengers (excluding European Community nationals) were refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom during 1986. Their nationalities are given in table 1 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom 1986" (Cm 166) copies of which are in the Library. No information is available centrally about the basis on which these passengers sought leave to enter, or of the numbers who subsequently applied for asylum, and such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sri Lankan Tamils
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankan Tamils have been refused entry to the United Kingdom after being refused asylum during the past 12 months; to which countries they were removed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not available centrally. Statistics of the total numbers of grants and refusals of refugee status by nationality are published annually in the Home Office statistical bulletins "Refugee Statistics: United Kingdom", 13/87 for the 1986 edition, copies of which are available in the Library. The bulletin for 1987 should be available early next month.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the Data Protection Registrar in relation to the new police national computer.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The replacement police national computer will initially hold only the information held on the current system, and no further discussions with the Data Protection Registrar are necessary. The registrar will be consulted when plans for new applications are further advanced.

  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces in England and Wales have the highest and lowest crime clear-up rates, respectively, in the latest year for which figures are a available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) on 11 May at column 116.

  Taxi Drivers (Protection)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the steps he is taking to provide adequate protection for taxi drivers against attacks by members of the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that he considers that the presence of a partition between the driving position and the passenger compartment in a licensed taxi provides a considerable degree of protection from assault. Later models also have a central locking facility for all doors. A Department of Transport standing committee is considering the problem of violence towards road transport staff. The police are represented on that committee and an invitation has been extended to the taxi trade to take part in its deliberations

  Detention
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what provisions are made for people applying for asylum whose claims of torture have been substantiated but who are still being kept in detention;
  373
  (2) if he will make a statement on the criteria used for the detention of children under the Immigration Act powers;

  (3) what provisions have been made for children at Harmondsworth and other detention centres;

  (4) what provisions are made for pregnant women at Harmondsworth and other detention centres.

  Mr. Renton
  All detention is kept to a minimum. Family groups including children or children travelling alone are detained, like others, only when they are unlikely to respect the terms of temporary admission or until alternative arrangements can be made. In the case of children travelling alone, the practice is for such arrangements to be made through social service departments of local authorities. Both family accommodation and separate rooms under suitable supervision are available.

  Medical advice is routinely sought when women are known to be pregnant. Surgeries are held daily at Harmondsworth, and provisions exist for medical consultation there and elsewhere at any time. Female members of staff are specifically entrusted with the care and welfare of women and children.

  Where it is found necessary to maintain detention in the case of a person whose claim of torture had been substantiated, medical help is of course available whenever needed, as it is for all detainees.

  Channel Ferries (Dispute)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been charged from 1 May to date for(a) obstructing and (b) conspiring to obstruct the loading of passengers and freight on to the Channel ferries at Dover.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Kent that, up to 16 May, one person had been charged with obstruction of the public highway. Any alleged case of obstruction within the docks area is a matter for the Dover harbour board.

  Extradition
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is proposed to introduce legislation to amend existing extradition arrangements with the Irish Republic in response to the changes made recently by the Irish Republic.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans at present to do so.

  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons extradited from the Irish Republic to(a) Great Britain and (b) Northern Ireland, respectively, since the passing of reciprocal legislation by the United Kingdom an the Irish Republic in 1965 have not been subsequently prosecuted;

  (2) how many person extradited from the Irish Republic to the United Kingdom under the terms of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 have been subsequently acquitted as a result of insufficient evidence.

  Mr. John Patten
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Makerd Rajaran Abhyankar
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to accelerate the consideration of the nationality application of Mr. Makerd Rajaran Abhyankar of 8 Argyle road, London, N18, in the light of the need of his employers, Messrs. Amstrad plc of Southend, to use his engineering skills in Europe, details of which have been sent to him.

  Mr. Renton
  I have not yet received the details referred to by my hon. Friend but Mr. Abhyankar's request for priority will be considered when we receive it. However, I must point out that we have over 268,000 outstanding citizenship applications in the Home Office and we are unable to give priority except in urgent compassionate circumstances, where naturalisation is necessary for an applicant's job, or where he needs to travel urgently for his career or business and cannot obtain documentation from his own authorities.

  Passports
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries have so far agreed to accept travellers using expired United Kingdom passports or British visitors passports under the emergency arrangements announced on 31 March to help reduce delays at the passport offices; what is the extent of the present delays; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Countries accepting uncancelled United Kingdom passports expired within the last five years and British Visitor's Passports

  Period of Acceptance

  Country

  From

  To

  Comments

  United States of America

  15 April 1988

  15 June 1988

  Visas required

  Hong Kong

  1 April 1988

  30 September 1988

  Bahamas

  1 April 1988

  30 September 1988

  Antigua and Barbuda

  1 April 1988

  30 September 1988

  Belgium

  8 April 1988

  30 September 1988

  BVPs regularly accepted

  Greece

  1 April 1988

  30 September 1988

  Luxembourg

  8 April 1988

  30 September 1988

  Netherlands

  8 April 1988

  30 September 1988

  West Germany1

  18 April 1988

  30 September 1988

  Yugoslavia

  1 April 1988

  30 September 1988

  Visas required with BVPs

  1 Passports must show national status of British citizen or be endorsed to confirm that the holder has a right of abode in the United Kingdom.

  Israel has agreed to accept expired passports (but not BVPs) up to 30 September 1988.

  Delay times for correctly-completed, non-urgent passport applications

  Passport office

  Delay (working days)

  London

  51

  Glasgow

  33

  Peterborough

  30

  Newport

  19

  Liverpool

  15

  At the small Belfast office, which caters only for Northern Ireland residents, a turnround time of four working days is being maintained.

  Urgent applications are given priority at all the passport offices. In addition, blocks of applications are

  375
  being transferred on a regular basis from the hardest-pressed London office to Liverpool to help reduce the long delay in clearing applications posted to London.

  Firearms
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now publish details of the buy-in scheme in respect of firearms whose prohibition is proposed in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The proposed "buy-in" scheme would operate for a period of three months from the date on which the relevant provisions came into force. Transitional arrangements would be introduced to allow continuing possession of the firearms involved during that period.

  Payments under the scheme would be made to persons in respect of firearms which would become prohibited under the Bill and which were lawfully held by them on a firearm or shotgun certificate on or before 22 September 1987, when my right hon. Friend announced the Government's intentions in a speech to the Association of Police Superintendents. Certificate holders who acquired such firearms after that date because of a previous binding contract to purchase would also be accommodated where evidence of the contract could be produced. In addition, such holders who acquired them before and sold them after 22 September 1987 would be eligible upon production of evidence of sale.

  Claimants would be required to complete a claim form obtainable from a police station or rifle or pistol club and to surrender the qualifying firearm(s). They would also have to produce the relevant firearm or shotgun certificate to the issuing police force, and police records would be noted accordingly.

  We expect that most claims would be for self-loading rifles. For these, two options would be available. Claimants could apply for a fixed sum payment of £150. This figure takes account of the price which self-loading rifles of the Kalashnikov and equivalent models would have fetched at auction before my right hon. Friend's announcement of 22 September 1987. Alternatively, for the small number of firearms of considerably higher value, claimants could provide evidence of the purchase price or insurance value. Payment under this option would be 50 per cent. of the average retail value of the firearm in the summer of 1987. This formula is designed to produce the amount which in general an individual might reasonably expect to have obtained on the sale of the item at auction in the summer of 1987. Claimants who sold self-loading rifles after 22 September 1987 would be paid the difference between the sum received from the sale and the sum determined by an application under whichever of the two options were to be exercised.

  In respect of all other firearms which would become prohibited, payment would be available only under the second option, and where accompanied by the relevant documentary evidence.

  Any case that could not be reasonably determined by the application of these arrangements would be considered at the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or in Scotland at the discretion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  We have proposed the scheme because of the unique circumstances involved: namely, that individuals would be
  376
  prohibited from holding firearms which they were previously authorised to hold by the issue of a firearm or shotgun certificate and which have lost most or all of their market value. It cannot be regarded as any sort of precedent.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals for an amnesty for firearms held illegally.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Scotland propose that an amnesty be held for one month from 1 September this year. Planning is nearing completion; further details will be announced nearer the launch date.

  Broadcasting Standards Council
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made to meet the expenditure of the proposed Broadcasting Standards Council.

  Mr. Hurd
  Parliamentary approval to this new service has been sought in the Supply Estimates for 1988–89 (Class, XI, Vote 3—HC 339). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £130,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the contingencies funds.

  Institute of Psychiatry (Experiments)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons experiments in(a) food deprivation, (b) chronic consumption of alcohol and (c) brain lesions are still being conducted at the Maudsley laboratory of the institute of psychiatry; and when he expects such experiments to cease.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]I wrote to the hon. Member on 19 April. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library.

  Panamanian Consulate
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to whether the Panamanian consulate in Tudor street, London EC4, was searched by police officers following the bomb threat made on 2 March; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the Panamanian ambassador was consulted with regard to police officers searching the consulate premises following the bomb threat made on 2 March; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the nature of the response given by the security guards on the premises of the Panamanian consulate following the bomb alert, to the advice that, in accordance with normal practice, the decision as to whether the consulate should be evacuated and searched, with police assistance, rested with them;

  (4) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to why people other than security guards already in the building were permitted by the police into the premises of the Panamanian consulate following the bomb threat communicated to New Scotland Yard at 11.2 pm on 2 March.
  377
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]The Panamanian consulate was not searched by police officers following the bomb threat on 2 March because no request was made by the security guards on the premises for such action to be taken. The Panamanian ambassador was not consulted since it was for the security guards concerned to decide how to respond to police advice, and they subsequently elected to leave the consulate of their own volition. After the security guards had vacated the premises, a number of people who have been inside the consulate earlier that day peacefully re-entered the building using keys in their possession. The police officers who remained on duty outside the consulate had no reason on the information available to them to seek to deny entry.

  Radio Surveillance Equipment
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used by his Department when determining whether to grant licences to users of radio surveillance equipment.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are three main criteria which are applied to decisions about licensing radio surveillance equipment:

  (1) Does it meet the necessary equipment performance requirements laid down by the Department?

  (2) Are the necessary frequencies available?

  (3) Is the equipment to be used for a legal purpose?

  10 Downing Street (Security)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans further to review security at 10 Downing street; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Security at 10 Downing street is kept under constant review. A number of measures have been taken recently and other steps are being actively considered.

ENVIRONMENT

  Vacant Land (Bristol)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 485, he will give details of the location and area of the 1,312 acres of vacant land owned by Bristol city council.

  Mr. Trippier
  The location and area of unused and underused land owned by Bristol city council are as follows:

  Location

  Area in acres

  Smoke Lane, Avonmouth

  15·00

  Wedmore Vale, Bedminster

  1·19

  South-West of Kingsweston Lane, Avonmouth

  19·50

  North-East of Kingsweston Lane, Avonmouth

  103·00

  Canon's Marsh, St. Augustine's

  16·40

  Victoria Street, Temple

  2·00

  Hengrove Park, Whitchurch

  3·32

  Whitchurch Lane/Hawkfield Road, Hartcliffe

  2·76

  Whitchurch Lane, Whitchurch

  13·40

  St. Mary's Road/Ermine Way, Shirehampton

  2·32

  Grumwell Close, Shirehampton

  1·12

  Gatehouse Avenue, Hartcliffe

  3·78

  Rear of 133/203 Hazelbury Road, Knowle

  1·78

  378

  Location

  Area in acres

  Craydon Road, Stockwood

  3·35

  Whittock Road, Stockwood

  4·10

  Wharnecliffe Gardens, Whitchurch

  6·86

  Airport Road/Tarnock Avenue, Hengrove

  1·04

  Sanctuary Gardens, Sneyd Park

  1·21

  Northumberland House Estate, Henleaze

  4·47

  Frenchay Park Road, Frenchay

  10·61

  Bamfield/Briery Leaze Road, Whitchurch

  9·44

  Shaldon Road, Lockleaze

  3·20

  West Town Road, Avonmouth

  4·10

  Station Road, Shirehampton

  3·95

  King Road Avenue, Avonmouth

  1·60

  Severn Road adjoining Seabank Gasworks, Chittening

  19·00

  Severn Road, Chittening

  33·20

  Chittening Road (West) Chittening

  4·30

  Chittening Road (East), Chittening

  24·80

  Smoke Lane/Chittening Station, Chittening

  10·80

  St. Andrew's Road, Avonmouth

  8·67

  Callington Road, Brislington

  5·90

  Sheene Road, Bedminster

  1·18

  Rockingham Bridge, Avonmouth

  5·00

  Severn Road/Rockingham Bridge, Avonmouth

  8·00

  Foreshore (Chittening Wharf)

  50·40

  Foreshore (Stup Pill to Mitchells Pill)

  50·10

  Foreshore (Holesmouth)

  203·00

  Markham Close, Shirehampton

  4·18

  North of Graving Dock, Avonmouth

  8·00

  Victoria Road, Avonmouth

  2·76

  Beaconsfield Street/Canterbury Street

  1·18

  St. Anne's Road, St. Anne's

  4·00

  Strawberry Lane, Crews Hole Road

  1·16

  Adjoining Royal Portbury Dock, Portbury

  627·00

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation specifically to prohibit any information collected for benefit purposes being disclosed to the community charge officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  No. As I told the House on 20 April, at column 840, it is intended to allow the names and addresses of income support claimants to be passed to the community charges registration officer.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to ensure that persons requested to supply information to community charge registration officers are informed that the requirement to do so within 21 days of the request does not mean that they are compelled to comply with any request to return the form immediately or within a few days of receipt.

  Mr. Howard
  Regulations will provide that persons requested to supply information to community charge registration officers will have 21 days in which to do so. It will be for registration officers to decide the procedures for collecting information, but these must observe the statutory time limit.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities currently operate direct labour organisations involved in the subsidised production of doors and windows; and if he will list them in the Official Report.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is not held centrally.

  Wetlands
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the criteria and guidelines for the identification of wetlands of international importance for listing under the Ramsar convention which were adopted by the third conference of contracting parties to the convention at Regina, Canada, in June 1987; and what is the extent to which the criteria and guidelines will be adopted in identifying wetlands of international importance in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 May 1988, c. 128] The guidelines, regarding whether a wetland could be considered for selection under criterion 1 are; if

  (a) it is an example of a type rare or unusual in the appropriate biogeographical region; or

  (b) it is a particularly good representative example of a wetland characteristic of the appropriate region; or

  (c) it is a particularly good representative of a common type where the site also qualifies for consideration under criteria 2a, 2b or 2c; or

  (d) it is representative of a type by virtue of being part of a complex of high quality wetland habitats. A wetland of national value could be considered of international importance, if it has a substantial hydrological, biological or ecological role in the functioning of an international river basin or coastal system; or

  (e) in developing countries, it is a wetland which, because of its outstanding hydrological, biological or ecological role, is of substantial socio-economic and cultural value within the framework of sustainable use and habitat conservation.

  Waterfowl indicative of wetland values, productivity or diversity under criterion 3b, include divers (loons), grebes, pelicans, storks, ibises, spoonbills, herons, flamingos, swans, geese, ducks, cranes, rails and coots, waders (shorebirds), gulls and terns.

  The NCC has adopted these criteria and guidelines fully when identifying sites for submission either to my Department or to the Scottish Office.

  The Regina conference recommended that a working group should be established in order to examine ways in which the criteria and guidelines for identifying wetlands of international importance might be further elaborated, in order to improve the worldwide application of the convention. It is expected that a report and draft recommendations will be issued to contracting parties in time for them to be discussed at the next conference of contracting parties in 1990.

  Garden Festival (Stoke on Trent)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the full set of accounts of the national garden festival, Stoke-on-Trent.

  Mr. Trippier
  A private company, NGF'86 (Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire) Ltd. was formed by the two local authorities concerned, to design, build and operate the festival. The accounts of the company up to 31 March 1986 have already been filed at the companies registration office, in accordance with the Companies Act 1985. The company has been put into members' voluntary liquidation, and final accounts will be filed in due course as part of the liquidation procedure.

ENERGY

  Dounreay (Sodium Fires)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of any sodium fires at Dounreay in the period between 1976 and 1988.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Fast Breeder Reactors
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is the current estimated cost of a commercial demonstration fast breeder reactor;

  (2) what are his current cost projections for electricity generated by fast breeder reactors in pence per kilowatt hours; what are the assumptions behind such cost projections; and if he will publish details of any recent cost evaluations which are publicly available.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Estimates of fast reactor costs are in the energy technology support unit report ETSU-R-43, published in 1987, which is in the Library of the House.

  Sellafield (Chimney)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about what plans are in hand, and the proposed time scale, for pulling down the chimney at Sellafield which was involved in the 1957 fire.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is the responsibility of British Nuclear Fuels plc. Work on the chimneys forms part of the programme of work being undertaken jointly by BNFL and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy authority which was announced by the chairman of the UKAEA on 5 October 1987. A copy of his statement has been placed in the Library.

  Windscale (AGR)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress, time scale, and costs, for the decommissioning of the 100 MW advanced gas-cooled reactor at Windscale.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Decommissioning began in 1982 and has progressed according to a programme aimed at achieving a green field site by 1996. About £20 million has been spent or committed to date and a further £30 million (at current costs) is estimated to be required for completion (excluding ultimate disposal of intermediate level waste). The Department is discussing with the UKAEA the implications for the programme of CEGB's decision to withdraw its funding.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much plutonium produced at Calder and Chapelcross reactors has been sent for use in the United States of America for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 11 March 1988 at column 362.

  Power Stations (Reject Heat)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the use being made of reject heat from power stations for commercial fish farming or horticulture at(a) coastal power stations and (b) inland power stations; what information he has to how many such farms pay a 10 per cent. royalty charge on turnover to the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what increase the Central Electricity Generating Board have received in such royalty payments.

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

  Public Sector Companies (Foreign Shareholding)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list all the public sector United Kingdom companies in which Transnuklear of Hanau, Federal Republic of Germany, has a corporate share involvement; and if he will set out the percentage share involvement by Transnuklear;

  (2) if he will list all the public section United Kingdom companies in which NUKEM Gmbh of Hanau, Federal Republic of Germany, has a corporate shareholding and set out the percentage share involvement by NUKEM.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1988, c. 652.]: I understand that neither Transnuklear nor Nukem Gmbh has any shareholding in any United Kingdom public sector company.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Western European Union
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, at the next Council of Ministers of the Western European Union, he will take steps to require the administration of the Union to prepare a study of the factors to be taken into account in assessing the burden-sharing incumbent upon each member of the alliance for ensuring joint security, and to communicate this study to the assembly in Paris.

  Mr. Mellor
  The issue of burden-sharing is already under discussion within the WEU. Whether any report that is produced is submitted to the Assembly is a matter which will require the unanimous agreement of WEU member states. However, we will bear the Assembly's interest in burden-sharing very much in mind.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the negotiations on the accession of Portugal and Spain to the modified Brussels treaty and on their effective participation in the Western European Security system.

  Mr. Mellor
  Discussions with both Spain and Portugal on their possible accession to the WEU will open in The Hague on 26 May. Good progress has already been made in the discussions between Spain and NATO on a Spanish military contribution to the common defence.

  Paraguay
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations 382
  he has made to the Paraguayan Government regarding the arrest of the opposition leader Domingo Laino on 12 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 12 May Her Majesty's ambassador expressed our concern about the arrest of Sr Laino and several colleagues to the Paraguayan authorities. Sr Laino was released on 14 May.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Superbadge Limited
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what grants have been made to Superbadge Ltd., Crowther industrial estate, Washington, Tyne and Wear, by his Department.

  Mr. Atkins
  An offer of £383,000 regional selective assistance (comprising project grant and training grant) was made to Superbadge Ltd. in 1985. In addition, £156,000 revised regional development grant has been paid.

  Note The figure for regional selective assistance relates to details of offers published in British Business. The figure for regional development grant relates to details of payments published in British Business.

  Mobile Radio Licence
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why the cost of a private mobile radio licence has been increased to £120 for 1988.

  Mr. Butcher
  The charging band for one to five mobile stations has been merged with the six to 10 mobile stations band (fee £120) to reflect the irreducible cost of frequency assignments for small systems. Previously licensees with six to 10 mobiles were effectively subsidising those with one to five mobile stations.

  Inner Cities (Disabled People)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what co-ordinating machinery he intends to establish to ensure that full account of the needs of disabled people is taken in all plans concerning the revitalisation of the inner cities;

  (2) how he plans to ensure full access provision for disabled people in the revitalisation of the inner cities when new buildings are erected and existing buildings refurbished;

  (3) which disability organisations have made representations concerning his plans for revitalisation of the inner cities; and what replies he has sent.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received representations from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR) concerning plans for inner city regeneration, stressing the need for inner city development to take account of the needs of the disabled and the important contribution they can make. RADAR has set out its views in a paper "Disabled People and the Inner Cities" which has been circulated to Departments' regional offices and the Government's city action teams and inner city task forces which are responsible for supporting initiatives and projects at local level. The Government take account of the needs of the disabled in planning development projects in which they have an interest and
  383
  several Departments, including the Departments of the Environment. of Health and Social Security and of Transport are in regular touch with disability organisations. Their needs are also reflected in the provisions on access for disabled people contained in building regulations. I have no plans to set up separate co-ordinating machinery.

  British Steel Corporation
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what special arrangements will be made to enable the employees of the British Steel Corporation to receive shares in the forthcoming privatisation of the British Steel Corporation.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government welcome the involvement of employees through employee share arrangements in buying shares in privatised companies at the time of flotation. We believe that this has been of considerable benefit both to the employees and the companies concerned. It is our intention therefore to make available the following special arrangements, for United Kingdom employees of the British Steel Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries:

  (i) employees will each be offered £70 worth of free shares plus a further £2 of shares for every year of service with the corporation. An employee with 15 years' service could therefore be eligible to receive, free of charge, £100 worth of shares;

  (ii) employees will also be offered 2 free shares for each one bought at the full share price on a matching basis, up to a maximum value in free shares of £330. An employee buying £165 worth of shares would thus receive shares worth in total £495;

  (iii) employees will be able to buy shares, up to a maximum value of £2,200, at a discount of 10 per cent. on the full share price;

  (iv) employees and BSC pensioners applying for shares at the full share price, will be treated on a priority basis over the general public, up to a limit of £10,000 worth of shares per individual.

  The free and matching shares will be available to United Kingdom employees who satisfy certain minimum qualification periods on length of employment and hours worked per week. The discount and priority shares will be available to all United Kingdom employees. All these arrangements will be subject to an overall limit of 10 per cent. of the shares on offer in the flotation. The exact number of shares will be determined once the share price is decided.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements will be made in respect of a special share for the privatisation of British Steel.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The British Steel Bill currently before Parliament makes provision for the assets and liabilities of the British Steel Corporation to be transferred to a successor company. It is the Government's intention that the articles of that successor company should contain a provision which would restrict individual shareholdings in the company to a maximum of 15 per cent. of the equity. This provision would be protected by a "special share" in the company to be held by the Government. The arrangement would thus ensure that the successor company could not be taken over without the agreement of the Government as special shareholder.

  It is the Government's intention that these arrangements would last for five years from the date of
  384
  privatisation. The special shareholder would have no other rights in respect of other provisions in the articles or in respect of voting.

  Commodity Prices
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, for each year from 1970, as an index, with 1970 = 100, average real prices for the following commodities (a) cotton, (b) metal, (c) wool, (d) coffee and (e) all non-food agricultural products.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]There is no unique deflator to convert commodity prices to real terms. The available information is in the table, based on prices in US dollars.

  World export prices of selected primary commodities

  1970 = 1001

  Cotton

  Non-ferrous metals

  Wool

  Coffee

  Non-food agricultural products

  1970

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1971

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1972

  122

  87

  164

  98

  122

  1973

  197

  121

  353

  125

  196

  1974

  233

  152

  238

  134

  222

  1975

  192

  120

  204

  147

  196

  1976

  259

  127

  208

  282

  207

  1977

  249

  136

  223

  493

  230

  1978

  245

  147

  232

  321

  244

  1979

  261

  194

  268

  341

  294

  1980

  306

  216

  304

  337

  309

  1981

  282

  190

  319

  270

  285

  1982

  237

  165

  296

  263

  252

  1983

  265

  167

  268

  263

  269

  1984

  269

  162

  257

  283

  285

  1985

  229

  154

  182

  273

  229

  1986

  187

  151

  179

  384

  232

  1 Based on prices in $US.

  n.a. = not readily available.

  Source: United Nations.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Post-16 Provision
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss future arrangements for post-16 provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss future arrangements for post-16 provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss post-16 provision. However, he is always willing to receive representations from the association on that or any other issue.

  School Meals
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children were in receipt of free school meals in 1987.
  385
  Mr. Dunn
  In October 1987, the latest date for which data are available, some 1,100,000 pupils, or 17·7 per cent. of those in attendance at maintained schools in England, received free shool meals.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of children taking school meals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of children taking school meals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  In October 1987, the latest date for which data are available, some 3,091,000 pupils, or 49·8 per cent. of those in attendance at maintained schools in England, took school meals.

  Research
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what changes there have been in the balance of research supported by his Department and by other Departments in recent years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Expenditure on research by the Department, mainly through the research councils and the University Grants Committee, in the current financial year is estimated at about 28·5 per cent. of total expenditure on research by all Government Departments. In 1979–80, it was about 27 per cent. There has therefore been a small increase.

  Education Reform Bill
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about those aspects of the Education Reform Bill which deal with higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  Many representations have been received. Copies of those from organisations in response to the various consultative documents are in the Library.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is in a position to provide more detail of the proposed methods of testing under the provisions of the Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is now in a position to provide more detail of the proposed method of testing under the provisions of the Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Not yet.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the effect the Education Reform Bill will have on grammar schools with regard to curriculum and enrolment.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations and queries from grammar schools concerning the effects of the Education Reform Bill. The national curriculum proposals will allow all schools the flexibility to meet the particular needs of their 386
  pupils, including the most able. The proposals on open enrolment will not affect the nature of the intake to grammar schools, as the relief safeguarding the selective character of such schools under the Education Act 1980 will remain in force.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the president of the Royal Society to discuss research funding.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has not had an official meeting with the president of the Royal Society to discuss research funding. I have. We have, of course, taken note of the points made by Sir George Porter in his recent Richard Dimbleby lecture on science.

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the Medical Research Council.

  Mr. Jackson
  I last met the council on 5 February 1988, and am planning to visit the M RC's national institute for medical research on 30 June. My right hon. Friend is hoping to meet representatives of the MRC before the summer recess.

  University of Wales
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of the governing bodies of the university of Wales; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Jackson
  On 29 January 1987, when matters relating to the funding of the university were discussed.

  Religious Education
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what comparative study he has made of the suitability of the agreed syallabus obtaining in various local education authority areas, in the light of public concern at the ignorance among young people of the Bible and Christianity; what report he has received of the extent to which the statutory collective act of worship is observed or neglected; and if he will institute an appropriate inquiry into the current state of religious education.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend does not have details of all current locally agreed syllabuses; but he is not persuaded on the evidence available to him that any are unsuitable, and the evidence suggests that the vast majority give Christianity a central place. There is evidence that some schools fail to provide collective worship as required by the present law. Where such matters are brought to my right hon. Friend's attention by complaint or otherwise, they are followed up by the Department; in 1987 seven complaints were received. The Education Reform Bill contains a number of measures to strengthen the position of religious education in the schools curriculum, and to update the law on collective worship as recommended by the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee. My right hon. Friend has no plans to institute any inquiry.
  387
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the future of religious education in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A large number of letters have been received, from hon. Members and others. These expressed concern at the exclusion of religious education from the national curriculum, and about a lack of Christian content in the subject. The Education Reform Bill has been amended in another place to strengthen the position of religious education in schools; the Christian content of religious education will be considered further in the other place at a later stage of the Bill.

  Advisory Board for the Research Councils
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes next to meet the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend and I met the advisory board on 25 November 1987, and we have met its chairman on a number of occasions since. Further meetings will be arranged as and when necessary.

  Special Schools (Transport)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that pupils of special schools are not prevented from attending school by industrial action affecting special school transport in London.

  Mr. Dunn
  The strike action by a small number of the Inner London education authority's managerial staff, which affected the school meals and transport services of schools, including special schools, between 21 April and 26 April, has been called off. Negotiations with the National Association of Local Government Officers have resumed on the Inner London education authority's plan to improve the efficiency of its fleet transport service.

  Pupils (Attendance Levels)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has received from education authorities about the attendance levels of pupils aged 15 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Local education authorities are not required to submit information about school attendance levels to my right hon. Friend. In consequence, there are no centrally-held statistics on the attendance rates of pupils aged 15 years.

  Her Majesty's Inspector is this year undertaking specific exercises to examine good practice in fostering high rates of attendance. The Department intends to draw on Her Majesty's Inspector's findings for a circular which will follow up circular 2/86 on school attendance and education welfare services.

  Village Schools
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps he is taking to safeguard the future of village schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks).

  Church of England Secondary Education
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about his policy towards the role of Church of England secondary education in relation to local education authority secondary education.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend values the work done by the Church of England schools within the maintained sector in co-operation with local education authorities.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the National Union of Students to discuss the implementation of the proposed community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

  Further Education
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any proposals to improve the staying-on rate in education after the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any proposals to improve the staying-on rate in education after the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) on 19 April 1988 at columns 391–92.

  Inner London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the future of education in inner London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the effect of transferring statutory education in inner London from the Inner London education authority to inner London boroughs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend earlier this afternoon to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore).

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the draft guidance to London boroughs on the transfer of education services following the abolition of the Inner London education authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The draft guidance to boroughs was published on 26 April. We await the considered views of those bodies who have received copies.

  Pupils (Tests)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received opposing his proposals for the compulsory testing of pupils from(a) pupils, (b) parents and (c) teachers.

  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from members of the teaching profession about assessment and testing under the provisions of the Education Reform Bill.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have received some 9,000 representations from individuals and organisations mentioning some aspect of national assessment and testing. Many of these do not indicate their background or their particular views on the Government's proposals. About half of a small sample of responses analysed appear to be from parents, a quarter from teachers, and a negligible proportion from pupils.

  English Teaching
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take in the light of responses received on the proposals in the Kingman report on the teaching of English.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any further proposals to improve the teaching of English grammar in the light of responses to the Kingman report.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) earlier today.

  Grants and Awards (Recipients)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what statistical record he keeps of subsequent career moves by recipients of research council grants and awards.

  Mr. Jackson
  None centrally. The research councils collect data about the first employment destinations of their award holders.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on his Department's policy towards encouraging wider access to higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have received many such representations. The Government remain committed to the widening of access to higher education as set out in "Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge" (Cm. 114).

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about whether the national curriculum is designed with sufficient flexibility to ensure adequate preparation for pupils in the 14 to 16 years age range; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A number of replies to our consultation document stressed the need for flexibility for this age 390
  group. The proposals in the Education Reform Bill will secure this flexibility in a number of ways: by enabling the national curriculum in those years to be offered in 70 per cent. of the time available, by providing for attainment targets and programmes of study or guidelines for foundation subjects which can be met in a variety of ways, and by giving the Secretary of State the power to make regulations modifying or disapplying elements of the national curriculum pupils for whom this is appropriate.

  University Funding
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations about the future funding of universities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have received many such representations which have helped to shape the university funding provisions in the Education Reform Bill.

  Teacher Morale
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any proposals to improve teacher morale, following the report of the interim advisory committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend announced on 19 April that he proposed to accept the recommendations on pay rates in the report of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay and conditions. He is now considering the representations that have been made to him about the report.

  Assessment and Testing
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the supplementary report of the task group on assessment and testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) on 19 April at columns 665–66.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total salary bill incurred in the payment of teachers in England and Wales in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Based on the returns of expenditure made to the Department of the Environment by local authorities the overall expenditure on the salaries of teachers in nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in England in the financial year 1986–87, the latest year for which actual figures are available, was £5,764 million. The figure includes the employers' contributions towards national insurance and superannuation but excludes Crombie and premature retirement compensation payments.

  Information relating to Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the establishment of grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has now received just over 1,000 letters about his proposals for grant-maintained schools, together with a variety of less formal representations. A number of these expressed interest in acquiring grant-maintained status for a particular school.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest percentage of children in nursery education in England and Wales; and if Her Majesty's Government have any plans to offer nursery education to all children.

  Mr. Dunn
  In January 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, 23 per cent. of three to four-year-old children in England were in nursery schools and nursery classes. Information about Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. As to the remainder of my hon. Friend's question, I refer him to my reply to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on 19 January at column 805.

  Harrow (In-service Education)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has reached a conclusion on possible additional Government assistance, following the report of Her Majesty's inspectors, for the provision of in-service education in the London borough of Harrow.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The most recent Her Majesty's inspectorate report that refers to in-service training in the London borough of Harrow is concerned with business education in the borough and was based on a survey carried out in autumn 1986. Since then the Government have introduced the local education authority training grant scheme which supports expenditure by local education authorities on in-service training. In 1988–89 grant will be available to support £207 million of expenditure, including £757,000 of expenditure by the London borough of Harrow.

  Academic Freedom
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss the safeguarding of academic freedom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the Committee of University Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss academic freedom.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss the safeguarding of academic freedom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend and I have met the vice chancellors to discuss their two main concerns about 392
  academic freedom. The first, that academic freedom in higher education institutions should not be at risk from interference by the Government, has been met by Government amendments to clauses 115 to 117 of the Education Reform Bill in a way that has been welcomed. Their other concern is that individual academics should not be victimised by other academics on account of their views. The Bill contains very substantial safeguards on this including a requirement for the commissioners to establish a proper appeals procedure in cases of dismissal and, by removing the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor, provides access to the courts for actions concerning wrongful dismissal. Those will be strengthened by the amendment we intend to table to the Bill requiring the commissioners to establish grievance procedures. Even so, the Government are willing to consider what further appropriate protection might be provided and discussions to that end are continuing with the vice chancellors.

  Science Curriculum Working Group
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish a further report of the science curriculum working group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The science curriculum working group has been asked to submit its recommendations for attainment targets and programmes of study in a final report to be submitted to my right hon. Friend by 30 June 1988. I envisage that this report will be published and that, together with any comments by my right hon. Friend, it will form the basis for consultation through the National Curriculum Council as regards England.

  Research Expenditure
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest estimate he has of academic and academically related research expenditure in the United Kingdom as a percentage of gross domestic product and the comparable figures in France and Germany.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on 15 March 1988 at column 537.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the progress of city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 15 March at column 530.

  Drug Abuse and Alcohol Consumption
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the extent to which increased truancy and problems of discipline among secondary pupils are attributable to drug abuse and alcohol consumption; and what measures his Department is taking, and plans to take, to counter such activity among school children.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information available to us from Her Majesty's Inspectorate's reports, and from research, has
  393
  not suggested that either of these matters is a major factor in truancy or indiscipline. We shall be looking to the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools to recommend action to promote good discipline.

  Initiatives taken by the Department to counter drug abuse and alcohol consumption include funding for the appointment of drugs education co-ordinators in each local education authority in England at a cost of £6·7 million over three years; the allocation of £2 million per year since 1987 for teacher training in drug related problems; research funding; the funding of pamphlets and other materials; and encouragement to schools to promote health education as a necessary element in both the primary and secondary school curriculum.

  GCSE
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that employers understand the changes inherent in the new GCSE and their implications for educational standards.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My Department has conducted a major campaign over the last year to inform employers about GCSE and the contribution the new examination will make to the Government's policies for raising educational standards.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the arrangements that have been made for the marking of GCSE papers this summer.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The GCSE examining groups are responsible for marking GCSE examination papers and for awarding GCSE grades in a manner consistent with the GCSE national criteria. The Secondary Examinations Council and Her Majesty's Inspectorate will be attending a selection of the group's meetings concerned with the awarding of GCSE grades.

  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the European Community survey on pay and conditions for teachers in the European Community countries to be published.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We understand that the European Commission will shortly be distributing copies of this survey to HMSO bookshops.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the report of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley).

  Maintenance Awards
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the cost, for 1988–89, of deeming all students as independent, at the age of 21 years instead of 25 years, for the purpose of calculating maintenance awards.
  394
  Mr. Jackson
  Approximately £90 million, on the basis of the Government's latest projections of student numbers and assuming that the age distribution remains broadly unchanged.

  Science Base (Strategy)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to reply to the advisory board for the research councils' report to him on strategy for the science base.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend expects to make a considered statement later this year on the Government's policy objectives for the science base and the steps we will be taking to achieve them, taking account of the ABRC's recommendations and the comments on these from the higher education and scientific communities.

  Universities and Polytechnics (Funding)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of future funding of research in universities and polytechnics by private sources; and how this affects his plans for financial support from public sources.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have encouraged higher education institutions to develop their externally funded research and consultancy, and welcome the rapid increase that has taken place. However, in keeping with our assurance that this is institutions' private business, we have no estimate for future growth and we take no account of this income in our public expenditure planning.

SCOTLAND

  Conservative Party Committee on Industry
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Conservative party committee on industry, chaired by Sir James Gulliver, has met within his Department; and on whose authority.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Conservative party committee chaired by Sir James Gulliver has never met within the Scottish Office.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken, in relation to the community charge and the first data protection principle, to satisfy himself that his Department follows the advice from the Data Protection Registrar in his guideline number 4, paragraph 1.4; and what steps are to be taken by his Department to adhere to that advice.

  Mr. Lang
  Compliance with the Data Protection Act 1984 and the data protection principles is a matter for individual community charges registration officers and local authorities.

  Cervical Tests
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to have information on the waiting time for cervical test results in each laboratory in every health board in Scotland; and if the information will be made public.
  395
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards are being consulted with a view to the production of these statistics for each laboratory on a quarterly basis. Arrangements will be made to publish the information as quickly as practicable after its receipt.

  Pre-Five Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he has considered multi-disciplinary training for those employed in the care of under-fives; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he has any plans to improve staffing levels, conditions of services, and career prospects for staff in pre-five services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Staffing levels in pre-fives services and the conditions of service, career prospects and training of staff who work in them are matters for regional and islands councils to decide.

  Under-Fives (Health)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage good health habits in the under-fives.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The primary responsibility for developing healthy habits in young children rests with their parents. We encourage parents to have their infant children immunised against childhood infectious diseases and health education information is directed towards parents on this and other general aspects of child health. All health professionals, doctors, nurses and health visitors play an important part in delivering health messages to parents.

  Ante-Natal Clinics
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to assist mothers who have difficulties in attending ante-natal clinics.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Assistance with travel costs is already available to mothers attending ante-natal clinics at a maternity unit administered by a hospital if their income is inadequate.

  Child Development
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on recent research into the value of involving parents in their child's development, both at home and in the nursery setting; and if he has any policy proposals in response to these.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not clear what recent research the hon. Member has in mind. If she can be more specific I shall be happy to respond.

  Childminding
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to improve the quality of childminding services by practical advice, support and training to childminders.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the Nurseries and Childminders Regulation Act 1948 local authorities are responsible for the registration of childminders, in order 396
  to ensure certain standards of provision. My right hon. and learned Friend has for a number of years made grants under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to the National Child Minding Association, to help improve the quality and training of childminders and the service it provides. For 1988–89 he has offered the association substantial additional grant towards the funding of a development officer post for Scotland.

  Toy Libraries
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make funds available for toy libraries in areas of priority treatment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In addition to the assistance which he provides towards local authority expenditure on social work through rate support grant, my right hon. and learned Friend provides grants under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to the voluntary organisation Playmatters which promotes toy libraries. Under the urban programme projects in eligible areas may qualify for assistance.

  Health Boards (Finance)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the financial position of each Scottish health board as of 31 March.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Precise information on the level of spending by health boards in 1987–88 against their approved cash limits will not be available centrally until boards submit copies of their statutory accounts at the beginning of July.

  Health Service (Performance-related Pay)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount of performance-related pay awarded to each general manager and unit general manager in the Scottish Health Service in 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The payments made to individual managers are confidential between him and their employing authority.

  Deaf Children
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation requiring local health authorities to supply information about voluntary organisations which can give help and support to deaf children and their parents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I do not consider that such legislation is required, since Scottish local authorities responsible for social work services are already under a statutory duty to provide disabled people with such information on services provided by themselves or other organisations as is in their possession.

  Severe Mental Handicap
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to take steps to alter the definition of severe mental handicap in respect of the community charge, in the light of the review of the term taking place in England and Wales.
  397
  Mr. Lang
  The review which is currently taking place is being undertaken on a Great Britain basis. Any change in the definition of severe mental handicap for the purposes of exemption from the personal community charge would apply to England and Wales and Scotland.

  Autistic Children
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions are being made in the national curriculum to ensure that the special needs of autistic children will be adequately met.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 May 1988]: The Government's policies for curriculum and assessment will take into account the educational requirements of children identified and recorded as having special educational needs.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farms (Sellafield)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what radiation and other checks are carried out on the produce of the tenant farms next to, and in the vicinity of the Sellafield nuclear power plant; and to what extent the final destination of the produce is monitored.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food operates a programme of regular routine monitoring around all of the major licensed nuclear sites in England and Wales. As part of this terrestrial radioactivity monitoring programme, milk, crop and animal samples are regularly taken from the vicinity of the Sellafield site. Monitoring of individual dietary intakes is undertaken both locally and in other parts of the country to confirm that no dietary pathways are being overlooked.

  In addition to the Ministry's monitoring programme, checks are also undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board, the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and by British Nuclear Fuels plc, the plant operators.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) why the European Economic Community Commission has introduced restrictions on the import of apples; whether he was consulted on these restrictions; and what assessment he has made of the implications of these restrictions for the general agreement on tariffs and trade;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the impact on apple prices and consumer choice of the restrictions placed by the European Economic Community Commission on further imports;

  (3) if the European Economic Community will offer compensation to the owners of apples which were in transit to Europe on the day the European Economic Community imposed restrictions on imports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: The EC Commission has acted under article 29(2) of regulation 1035/72 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables which allows it to act on its own initiative if it considers that imports from third
  398
  countries cause or threaten to cause serious disturbance on the Community market. The Commission is not obliged to consult member states on such matters and did not do so, on the ground that urgent action was necessary. The compatibility of these restrictions with the GATT will be investigated within the framework of that organisation by a GATT panel and I would not wish to speculate on the outcome. Our view is that the overall impact of these restrictions on apple prices and consumer choice will be limited. Even with these restrictions, imports from third countries are likely to be at the same or somewhat higher levels this year than last. However, I am concerned that member states did not have an opportunity to weigh possible effects on trade and markets in advance of the decision, and our views on this have been made clear in the Community. I appreciate the problems faced by the traders who bought apples in good faith but have not been able to obtain licences as a result of the ban, and representations have been made to the Commission on this specific point. However, I do not think that this is an appropriate case for compensation from United Kingdom funds.

THE ARTS

  Science Museum
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has received any representations about the level of his Department's funding for the science museum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has received any representations about the level of his Department's funding for the science museum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received no such representations.

  Last December I announced the grant-in-aid allocations for the next three years for the Science museum and the other national museums and galleries that I sponsor. The Science museum's grant in aid for running costs and purchase grant is £11·422 million in the present financial year. Comparing like with like, this is an increase in real terms of some 26 per cent. since 1979–80.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicles (Fuel Consumption)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average fuel consumption for automobiles in the United Kingdom in 1973, 1976, 1979, 1982, 1985 and 1988; what are the fuel consumption projects for 1990, 1995 and the year 2000; whether he has any proposals to set fuel consumption targets for automobile and other vehicles; and whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy for energy efficiency in the transport sector.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is as follows:
  399

  Registered average fuel consumption of new cars sold

  Miles per gallon

  1979

  31·38

  1982

  34·66

  1985

  37·53

  11987

  38·1

  1 The latest year available.

  Data for earlier years is not available. Nor are detailed projections.

  The Department considers that technology advances will make possible a further 50 per cent. improvement in cars generally by 2010. There are no proposals to set fuel consumption targets.

  The Government believe that energy efficiency in the transport sector is best promoted by allowing the free operation of market forces. We aim to remove obstacles which might prevent this from happening.

  The Department of Transport and the Department of Energy promote the benefits of cost-effective energy management in the area of commercial transport, including guidance to consumers.

  Seat Belts (Coaches)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to announce the results of his Department's investigation into the possibility of extending the requirements to install safety belts on seats most at risk in existing motor coaches.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is conflicting technical advice from the Consumers' Association, and the Bus and Coach Council. We have asked the two organsations to consider the matter jointly and to produce a paper for the Department.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the cost of requiring passenger seat belts to be fitted to all new motor coaches.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The coach manufacturers put the cost of fitting two-point seat belts to all the seats on a 57-seat coach at approximately £1,000 to £1,500.

  Country

  Operator

  Aircraft type and period

  Reasons

  Sudan

  Sudan Airways

  Three B707 1 April 1988 to 18 May 1988

  Extension to previous exemption

  Uganda

  Uganda Airlines

  One B707 10 March 1988 (one flight)

  DC 10 in maintenance

  United States of America

  Pincervale Ltd

  One GII 21 March 1988 to 30 August 1988

  Limited business use. Compliant aircraft on order

  Rumania

  TAROM

  One IL62 27 March 1988 (one flight)

  Hardship to passengers

  Zambia

  Zambia Airways

  One B707 27 to 28 March 1988 (2 flights)

  DC 10 out of service

  Lebanon

  Middle East Airlines

  One B707 31 March 1988 to 1 April 1988 (one flight)

  Hardship to passengers

  Kenya

  Kenya Airways

  One B707 2 and 7 April 1988 (two flights)

  Hardship to passengers

  Lebanon

  Middle East Airlines

  One B707 9 April 1988 (one flight)

  Complaint aircraft not available due to technical problems

  United States of America

  Advance Machine Company

  One GII 15 to 24 April 1988 (three flights)

  Limited business use. Compliant aircraft on order

  Coaches (Shatterproof Glass)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the cost of requiring shatterproof glass to be fitted in all new motor coaches.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The majority of new coaches are fitted with laminated glass windscreens with the remainder of the glazing being of toughened glass. Toughened glass may shatter on impact. It does not break into dangerous particles.

  The additional cost of laminated glass for all the glazing requirements would be in the range £500 to £600 for a single deck coach and round £1,200 for a double deck coach.

  Coach Safety
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Bus and Coach Council to discuss improvements in coach safety.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In June.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the amount of extra revenue that would be received in the current financial year if there were no evasion of vehicle excise duty.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The amount of revenue lost from VED evasion in the United Kingdom during the 1987–88 financial year is estimated to be £108 million. No estimates for 1988–89 are yet available.

  Heathrow Airport (Noise)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the end of the special exemption allowing noisy jets to fly into Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There has been no "special exemption". The criteria for granting exemptions remain as set out in my answer on 19 February at columns 748–50. Since then a further 17 applications have been refused and the following exemptions (which do not relate to a specific airport) granted:
  401

  Country

  Operator

  Aircraft type and period

  Reasons

  Lebanon

  Middle East Airlines

  One B707 1 May 1988 (one flight)

  Compliant aircraft not available due to technical problems

  Kenya

  Kenya Airways

  One B707 6 May 1988 (two flights)

  Compliant aircraft not available due to technical problems

  United States of America

  Crown Controls Corporation

  One GII 11 to 14 May 1988 (one flight)

  Hushkit delay

  Lebanon

  Middle East Airlines

  One B707 14 to 15 May 1988 (one flight)

  Compliant aircraft not available due to technical problems

  United States of America

  Airwaves Corporation

  One GII 15 to 19 May 1988 (one flight)

  Hushkit delay

  United States of America

  Union Pacific Corporation

  One GII 14 to 20 May 1988 (three flights)

  Compliant aircraft on order

  A further 23 maintenance flights have also been exempted.

  British Rail (Diesels)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to announce his decision on British Rail's proposal to order 100 class 60 diesel locomotives for its freight sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I have today given approval to British Rail for the purchase of 100 class 60 freight locomotives at a cost of some £120 million. This demonstrates again the Government's willingness to approve worthwhile investment in the railways.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that adequate seismic monitoring has been conducted to establish the nature and extent of possible subterranean disturbances which could affect the structure of the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received from Dr. Richard Haworth, chief geophysicist of the geophysical survey on geological structures, when considering the Channel tunnel; what consideration was given to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: Dr. Howarth approached my Department in December 1985, asking whether there had been any investigation into the susceptibility of the Channel tunnel fixed link to earth tremors, and offering the services of the British Geological Survey to investigate the seismic risk associated with the Link and to monitor seismicity. He was told of the advice from the British Geological Survey prior to the 1975 Channel tunnel project, the way this information had been passed to the Channel Tunnel Group, and the coverage of seismic risks in the group's proposal.

  It is for Eurotunnel to assemble and assess data, including data on earthquakes and the geophysical features of the region, on which to base the design of the Channel tunnel, its ancillary infrastructure and its equipment. The Channel Tunnel Safety Authority is considering outline design proposals from Eurotunnel for the entire project and satisfying itself that all risks and safety aspects have been properly taken into account, including earthquakes. All these design proposals are being scrutinised and commented on by the independent maitre d'oeuvre. The authority has been considering
  402
  commissioning independent specialist advice on seismic aspects of Eurotunnel's proposals, but not considering commissioning seismic monitoring.

  Lorries (Weight)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the estimated cost of strengthening bridges and widening roads were the maximum weight of lorries increased to(a) to 40 tonnes and (b) 44 tonnes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 May 1988]: The bridge census and sample survey report of March last year estimated that it would cost about £750 million to strengthen road bridges to meet the standards of the Department's bridge assessment code, which covers 40 and 44-tonne vehicles with 10·5 tonne drive axles.

  Strengthening to meet the higher EC standard, for a 40-tonne vehicle with 11·5 tonne drive axle, would increase this cost a little. No additional expenditure should be needed to widen roads solely for heavier lorries.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Spending Power (Statistics)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish tables similar to the tax benefit model table showing the net weekly spending power for each of(a) a single person, (b) a married couple with no children, (c) a couple with a child aged 11 years, (d) a couple with two children aged eight and 11 years, (e) a couple with three children aged, eight, 11 and 15 years, (f) a couple with four children aged three, eight, 11 and 15 years with weekly earnings of (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £100, (vi) £110, (vii) £120, (viii) £130, (ix) £140, (x) £150, (xi) £160, (xii) £170, and (xiii) £180 under the new system implemented in April, together with net weekly spending power in the first weeks of unemployment when the individuals concerned are classified as long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is provided in the tables. It should be noted that the results are hypothetical in two senses. First, the results are based on average local authority housing charges and do not reflect the wide variety of rents and domestic rates that people actually pay. Second, average housing charges have been uprated to 1988–89 using assumptions set out in "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits," October 1987. Income tax has been assessed on a post-Budget basis.
  403

  New tax and benefit system from April 1988 Single person aged 25 and over

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  N.I.

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·0

  2·48

  3·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  5·46

  8·45

  2·11

  5·85

  31·85

  70·00

  4·98

  4·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  1·82

  8·45

  0·99

  5·85

  32·69

  80·00

  7·48

  5·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  36·68

  90·00

  9·98

  6·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  43·48

  100·00

  12·48

  7·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  50·28

  110·00

  14·98

  9·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  54·88

  120·00

  17·48

  10·80

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  61·48

  130·00

  19·98

  11·70

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  68·08

  140·00

  22·48

  12·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  74·68

  150·00

  24·98

  13·50

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  81·28

  160·00

  27·48

  14·40

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  87·88

  170·00

  29·98

  15·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  94·48

  180·00

  32·48

  16·20

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  101·08

  New tax and benefit system from April 1988 Married couple

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  N.I.

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  15·94

  8·45

  5·34

  5·85

  48·04

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  13·57

  8·45

  4·61

  5·85

  53·04

  80·00

  0·31

  5·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15 94

  7·73

  8·45

  2·81

  5·85

  54·39

  90·00

  2·81

  6·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  3·31

  8·45

  1·45

  5·85

  55·41

  100·00

  5·31

  7·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  57·45

  110·00

  7·81

  9·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  62·05

  120·00

  10·31

  10·80

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  68·65

  130·00

  12·81

  11·70

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  75·25

  140·00

  15·31

  12·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  81·85

  150·00

  17·81

  13·50

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  88·45

  160·00

  20·31

  14·40

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  95·05

  170·00

  22·81

  15·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  101·65

  180·00

  25·31

  16·20

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  108·25

  New tax and benefit system from April 1988 Married couple with one child aged 11

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  N.I.

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  39·62

  7·25

  17·82

  4·71

  9·28

  1·97

  5·85

  77·60

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  33·95

  7·25

  17·82

  3·13

  9·28

  1·48

  5·85

  77·96

  80·00

  0·31

  5·60

  27·65

  7·25

  17·82

  1·38

  9·28

  0·94

  5·85

  78·36

  90·00

  2·81

  6·30

  22·89

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·53

  5·85

  78·61

  100·00

  5·31

  7·00

  18·13

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  80·12

  110·00

  7·81

  9·90

  14·91

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  81·50

  120·00

  10·31

  10·80

  10·29

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  83·48

  130·00

  12·81

  11·70

  5·67

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  85·46

  140·00

  15·31

  12·60

  1·05

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  87·44

  150·00

  17·81

  13·50

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  92·99

  160·00

  20·31

  14·40

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  99·59

  170·00

  22·81

  15·30

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  106·19

  180·00

  25·31

  16·20

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  112·79

  New tax and benefit system from April 1988 Married couple with two children aged 8 and 11

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  N.I.

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  45·67

  14·50

  19·12

  4·36

  9·80

  1·87

  5·85

  88·63

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  40·00

  14·50

  19·12

  2·78

  9·80

  1·39

  5·85

  89·00

  80·00

  0·31

  5·60

  33·70

  14·50

  19·12

  1·02

  9·80

  0·85

  5·85

  89·39

  90·00

  2·81

  6·30

  28·94

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  89·56

  100·00

  5·31

  7·00

  24·18

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  91·60

  110·00

  7·81

  9·90

  20·96

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  92·98

  404 405

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  N.I.

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  120·00

  10·31

  10·80

  16·34

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  94·96

  130·00

  12·81

  11·70

  11·72

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  96·94

  140·00

  15·31

  12·60

  7·10

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  98·92

  150·00

  17·81

  13·50

  2·48

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  100·90

  160·00

  20·31

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  105·02

  170·00

  22·81

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  111·62

  180·00

  25·31

  16·20

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  118·22

  New Tax and Benefit system from April 1988 Married couple with three children aged 8, 11 and 15

  Gross Earnings

  Tax

  N.I.

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  57·07

  21·75

  19·12

  2·70

  9·80

  1·36

  5·85

  105·11

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  51·40

  21·75

  19·12

  1·12

  9·80

  0·88

  5·85

  105·48

  80·00

  0·31

  5·60

  45·10

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  106·17

  90·00

  2·81

  6·30

  40·34

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  108·21

  100·00

  5·31

  7·00

  35·58

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  110·25

  110·00

  7·81

  9·90

  32·36

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  111·63

  120·00

  10·31

  10·80

  27·74

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  113·61

  130·00

  12·81

  11·70

  23·12

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  115·59

  140·00

  15·31

  12·60

  18·50

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  117·57

  150·00

  17·81

  13·50

  13·88

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  119·55

  160·00

  20·31

  14·40

  9·26

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  121·53

  170·00

  22·81

  15·30

  4·64

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  123·51

  180·00

  25·31

  16·20

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  125·47

  New Tax and Benefit system from April 1988 Married couple with four children aged 3, 8, 11 and 15

  Gross Earnings

  Tax

  N.I.

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  63·12

  29·00

  19·12

  1·04

  9·80

  0·85

  5·85

  116·24

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  57·45

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5 85

  116·78

  80·00

  0·31

  5·60

  51·15

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  119·47

  90·00

  2·81

  6·30

  46·39

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  121·51

  100·00

  5·31

  7·00

  41·63

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  123·55

  110·00

  7·81

  9·90

  38·41

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  124·93

  120·00

  10·31

  10·80

  33·79

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  126·91

  130·00

  12·81

  11·70

  29·17

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  128·89

  140·00

  15·31

  12·60

  24·55

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  130·87

  150·00

  17·81

  13·50

  19·93

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  132·85

  160·00

  20·31

  14·40

  15·31

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  134·83

  170·00

  22·81

  15·30

  10·69

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  136·81

  180·00

  25·31

  16·20

  6·07

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  138·79

  New Tax and Benefit System from April 1988 Head of Family Classified as Long-Term Unemployed

  Family Type

  Net Weekly Spending Power on Income Support (£)

  Single Person

  30·29

  Married Couple

  48·34

  Married Couple One Child Aged 11

  72·97

  Married Couple Two Children Aged 8 and 11

  86·17

  Married Couple Three Children Aged 8, 11 and 15

  104·82

  Married Couple Four Children Aged 3, 8, 11 and 15

  117·40

  Pensioners (Canada)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the reason why British pensioners living in Canada receive no pension uprating;

  (2) if he has approached the Canadian Government recently to ascertain if it is prepared to enter into a social security agreement with Britain to provide for the future payment of pension increases to British pensioners living there.

  Mr. Scott
  The last occasion on which the United Kingdom Government asked the Canadian Government if they would be prepared to enter into a social security agreement with Britain to include the future payment of pension increases to British pensioners living in Canada was in 1972. At that time the Canadian Government were unable to enter into negotiations. Since then informal
  407
  discussions have taken place between officials from time to time. However, the substantial costs involved have prevented the United Kingdom from providing for the payment of pension increases.

  Retail Prices Index (Error)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many pensioners in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole lost financially as a result of the Government's recent error in calculating the retail prices index.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that 10,000 pensioners in Scotland and 130,000 in Great Britain were undercompensated for the error in the retail prices index as a result of having more than one benefit paid on a single order book. Of nearly 10 million pensioners, the vast majority were fully compensated for the error.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate, on the basis of the latest figures available, the average cost to public funds of a normal birth at(a) hospital and (b) home.

  Mrs. Currie
  The estimated gross current health and personal social services expenditure per birth in 1985–86 was around £1,220. Separate costs for a normal birth at(a) home and (b) hospital are not available although we expect information about the average costs for all hospital births and home births will become available in 1989.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the cost to his Department of increased payments of housing beneft arising from the deregulation of rents under the Housing (Scotland) Bill; and what calculations he has made concerning the application of new criteria restricting benefit payments to people who live in unnecessarily large or unnecessarily expensive accommodation.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is not possible to make such estimates with any degree of precision, especially as the detailed arrangements are still under consideration.

  Telephone Exchange for the Deaf
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services 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. Scott
  It was made clear to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, when awarding a grant for 1987–88 and 1988–89 relating to the telephone exchange for the deaf, that this was for two years only and that when the grant expired it would be for the institute to find alternative sources of funding.

  Married Couples (Pension)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for 408
  Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) 22 April, Official Report, column 602, if he will give the figure for the married couple's pension on the same basis.

  Mr. Scott
  If the basic retirement pension had been increased in line with the overall increase in earnings between November 1978 and September 1987, the end of the period measured for the April 1988 uprating, the level of pension in April 1988 would be £75·35 for a couple.

  Pensions (Housing Benefit)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many additional pensioners will become eligible for housing benefit as a result of the increase in the capital limit to £8,000.

  Mr. Portillo
  An estimated 100,000 people, mostly pensioners, will be brought back within the scope of housing benefit as a result of increasing the capital cut-off point to £8,000.

  Sheep (Radiation)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions following the Chernobyl accident of April 1986, National Health Service whole body monitors were used to monitor the level of radiation in dead sheep; and at what hospitals this took place.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am advised that the Department is unaware of any such use of NHS whole-body monitors.

  Electorate (Broxbourne)
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will set out a table showing the 1988 electorate for each ward in the borough of Broxbourne.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:

  Borough of Broxbourne

  Ward Name

  Parliamentary electorate on the 1988 register

  Hoddesdon North

  5,002

  Rye Park

  4,671

  Hoddesdon Town

  4,839

  Broxbourne

  5,621

  Wormley/Turnford

  4,695

  Cheshunt North

  4,955

  Cheshunt Central

  3,680

  Theobalds

  4,281

  Waltham Cross North

  3,218

  Waltham Cross South

  3,891

  Bury Green

  5,752

  Rosedale

  2,697

  Flamstead End

  4,833

  Goff's Oak

  3,540

  Marriages
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many marriages took place in the United Kingdom in 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  For 1985 and 1986 the numbers were 393,000 and 394,000, respectively. The figure for 1987 is not yet available.

  Electorate (Non-metropolitan Counties)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the 20 English non-metropolitan counties which have shown the greatest percentage growth in electorate since 1978; and what have been the percentage growth and actual figures in each case.

  Non-metropolitan county

  Total electors

  Difference

  1978

  1988

  Actual

  Percentage growth

  Buckinghamshire

  377,325

  467,696

  90,371

  24

  Cambridgeshire

  404,023

  481,690

  77,667

  19

  Wiltshire

  359,905

  425,945

  66,040

  18

  Shropshire

  260,741

  307,120

  46,379

  18

  Northamptonshire

  369,929

  430,161

  60,232

  16

  Somerset

  307,941

  357,607

  49,666

  16

  Hereford and Worcester

  446,687

  517,499

  70,812

  16

  Lincolnshire

  389,806

  450,138

  60,332

  15

  Dorset

  450,002

  518,161

  68,159

  15

  Berkshire

  473,307

  544,491

  71,184

  15

  Hampshire

  1,029,882

  1,184,705

  154,823

  15

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  314,386

  361,455

  47,069

  15

  West Sussex

  490,420

  557,173

  66,753

  14

  Suffolk

  418,613

  475,274

  56,661

  14

  Oxfordshire

  369,547

  419,416

  49,869

  13

  Norfolk

  509,203

  576,844

  67,641

  13

  Bedfordshire

  342,481

  387,697

  45,216

  13

  Gloucestershire

  363,944

  408,090

  44,146

  12

  Essex

  1,065,353

  1,189,298

  123,945

  12

  North Yorkshire

  491,313

  548,233

  56,920

  12

  Hospitals (Beds)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidelines his Department uses in assessing the bed size of new general hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the number of beds. It is for health authorities to determine the number of beds required to meet planned levels of service provision. There are no restrictions on the size of a new district general hospital. Proposals for major capital investments are required by departmental guidance to be tested by option appraisal and submitted for approval by the Department where costs exceed £5 million. Proposals exceeding £10 million require Treasury approval. The option selected must represent best value for money taking account of local needs and circumstances.

  Paupers' Funerals
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many paupers' funerals there have been in each of the past 20 years; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not available centrally.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will amend the regulations on mobility allowance, so that recipients of mobility allowance continue to receive this after the age of 75 years.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 10 May at column 82.
  410
  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assumptions were used on staffing levels, and the distribution of staff on the new clinical grading structure, in estimating the total cost of implementing the Nurses' and Midwives' Pay Review Body report.

  Mr. Newton
  Estimates of the total cost of implementing the recommendations of the review body for nursing staff, midwives and health visitors were based on the assumption that existing staff would be distributed to the new grading structure on the basis of existing duties and responsibilities.

  National Health Service (40th Anniversary)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans his Department has to mark the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Moore
  As with the marking of previous National Health Service anniversaries, the main activity will be concentrated at local level. To commemorate the anniversary I shall, however, be hosting a reception to which long-serving National Health Service staff in some of the less prominent areas of work will be invited in recognition of their contribution to the service over the past four decades.

  Social Security (Appeals)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for social security tribunal appeals(a) the number of appeals outstanding in the United Kingdom, (b) the number of appeals outstanding in Scotland, (c) the approximate time it has taken for

  411
  appeals which are being heard this week to be processed from the date of receipt, (d) how long it will take for all outstanding appeals to be processed in the United Kingdom and (e) how long it will take for all outstanding appeals to be processed in Scotland; and if, in each case, he will give, where possible, the appeal by category of claim.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest available administrative statistics on social security appeal tribunals for Great Britain relate to appeals heard in the second quarter of 1987. At June 1987 there were 107,307 appeals in Great

  Great Britain in the Second Quarter of 1987

  No. of Appeals Outstanding

  No. of Appeals Heard

  Average Time Between Lodgement and Hearing (weeks)

  Benefit type

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  All Types

  85,760

  21,547

  107,307

  6,396

  38,705

  21·6

  20·3

  Attendance Allowance

  64

  7

  71

  3

  31

  25·8

  30·5

  Child Benefit

  816

  71

  887

  61

  579

  36·5

  24·4

  Disablement Benefit

  973

  70

  1,043

  89

  437

  31·3

  32·9

  Family Income Supplement

  686

  55

  741

  3·4

  343

  20·1

  19·3

  Guardians Allowance

  12

  —

  12

  2

  10

  37·3

  23·7

  Industrial Death Benefit

  29

  1

  30

  1

  16

  32·0

  28·9

  Invalid Care Allowance

  212

  18

  230

  6

  115

  17·0

  19·9

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,462

  102

  1,564

  110

  846

  23·5

  26·1

  Maternity Benefit (Pre April 1987)

  76

  3

  79

  4

  56

  27·4

  19·0

  Maternity Allowance (From April 1987)

  6

  —

  6

  —

  2

  —

  29·9

  Mobility Allowance

  315

  41

  356

  29

  358

  25·1

  19·1

  One Parent Benefit

  6

  —

  6

  1

  5

  43·9

  31·5

  Retirement Pension

  274

  8

  282

  6

  137

  40·5

  27·5

  Severe Disablement Benefit

  90

  21

  111

  9

  32

  20·7

  25·7

  Sickness Benefit

  370

  21

  391

  20

  275

  24·7

  23·8

  Social Fund:

  Funeral Payments

  40

  1

  41

  —

  5

  —

  17·0

  Maternity Payments

  32

  9

  41

  —

  4

  —

  10·5

  Statutory Sick Pay

  14

  —

  14

  —

  8

  —

  17·6

  Supplementary Benefit

  Single Payments

  25,760

  5,636

  31,396

  4,559

  22,348

  20·5

  19·1

  Other Payments

  11,744

  1,761

  13,505

  1,015

  7,708

  24·3

  22·1

  Unemployment Benefit

  8,521

  1,022

  9,543

  484

  5,142

  23·3

  19·6

  Widows Benefit

  81

  2

  83

  1

  75

  18·6

  36·1

  Workmens Compensation:

  Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis

  6

  1

  7

  1

  6

  13·3

  13·0

  Not Known

  33,815

  12,675

  46,490

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Others

  356

  22

  378

  11

  167

  14·7

  29·2

  Note: Some 43 per cent. of the statistical record did not indicate the benefit type; it is thought that the great majority of these relate to supplementary benefit weekly and single payment.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in view of the further outbreak of Legionnaire's disease at the BBC, what steps are being taken to make regular bacteriological monitoring and treatment of cooling towers compulsory.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act places a duty on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that employees and others who may be affected are not exposed to risks to their health. The Department's advice to health authorities is that in the absence of a quick test regular bacteriological monitoring is not appropriate unless legionella is suspected as a source 412
  Britain awaiting a hearing and the average time from lodgement of an appeal to the hearing in that quarter was 20·3 weeks. For the same period in Scotland there were 21,547 appeals awaiting a hearing and the average time from lodgement of an appeal to the hearing was 21·6 weeks. Appeals outstanding at June 1987 are shown in the table for each social security benefit for Scotland, England and Wales and Great Britain together with the average time between lodgement and hearing in each case.

  I regret that it is not feasible to estimate the length of time it will take for all outstanding appeals in Great Britain and Scotland to be heard.

  of infection. Together with the Health and Safety Executive and a number of professinal bodies we have issued guidance on the cleaning and disinfection of cooling towers which emphasises the need for regular maintenance.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations his Department has received from Dr. Adrian Stokes, chairman of the executive committee of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, about disregarding savings
  413
  of mobility allowance for the purposes of income support; what reply he has sent; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department received a letter from Dr. Stokes and I have replied that the normal capital rules will apply to savings of mobility allowance. This means that up to £6,000, equivalent to five years' savings at the current rate of mobility allowance, can be held without disqualifying a person from receiving income support. I have said elsewhere that I am prepared to look at any particular case of difficulty.

  Birmingham Children's Hospital
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many planned heart operations requiring intensive care unit support have taken place at the Birmingham children's hospital since 1 March; how many children remain on the waiting list requiring immediate treatment; where the job advertisements for ISU nursing staff have appeared; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that, between 1 March and 16 May, 60 heart procedures that required post-operative intensive care were undertaken at the Birmingham children's hospital. At the end of April, 21 children were judged by clinicians to require heart surgery within the next eight weeks. Jobs for intensive care nursing staff have been advertised in the nursing press including the Nursing Times, and through job forums held in various locations.

  The most urgent category within the waiting list, excluding emergency cases which cannot of course be predicted, is children judged by clinicians to require surgery within one month. During April, 10 such children were identified, all of whom have been treated.

  11985

  1986

  1987

  Number of donations tested for HIV antibody

  611,694

  2,633,862

  2,594,964

  Number of donations found HIV antibody positive

  14

  54

  24

  Number of people who gave an HIV antibody positive donation and who could not be contacted

  None

  1

  2

  1October to December only.

  The current average cost to the blood transfusion service of an HIV antibody test (including the cost of the test kit and overheads) is estimated at 90p per donation. Other tests routinely undertaken are those for hepatitis B surface antigen, syphilis, blood grouping and the level of haemoglobin. Precise costings for these tests are not held centrally.

  Factor VIII
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the United Kingdom consumption of factor VIII in 1974 and all subsequent years for which the figures are available; and what has been(a) the annual production level of factor VIII from the original and new

  Child Benefit
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the value in real terms of child benefit at April 1988 in relation to its value at April 1979 based on the movement in the general index of retail prices during that period.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available as the general index of retail prices at April 1988 has not yet been published.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of treating the youth training allowance as earned income for the purposes of housing benefit entitlement.

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

  Blood Transfusion Service (HIV Tests)
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people have had their blood tested for HIV, by the blood transfusion service, in the United Kingdom in each year from 1985; how many people were found to be positive and how many were then contacted; what is the current average cost to the transfusion service of an HIV test; and what other tests are also routinely undertaken and at what cost.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]: All blood donations have been tested for antibody to HIV since October 1985. In the rare event that the test is positive the donor is contacted and offered counselling. The figures are shown in the table.

  blood products laboratory, Elstree, over the same period and (b) the capital investment and revenue commitment for United Kingdom production of factor VIII during this period.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]: The blood products laboratory (Elstree) currently supplies only England and Wales. Scotland has its own facility which also serves Northern Ireland. Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Where information is not held, or is not held in the form requested, this is indicated in the notes.
  415

  Calendar Year

  Consumption of Factor VIII in England and Wales1 (millions of international units)

  Production of Factor VIII by the Blood Products Laboratory (millions of international units)

  Financial Year

  Capital expenditure on Blood Products Laboratories (£ millions)4

  Revenue expenditure on Blood Products Laboratories (£ millions)4

  1974

  25·2

  2·4

  74–75

  —

  0·5

  1975

  27·7

  2·9

  75–76

  —

  0·8

  1976

  16·5

  6·1

  76–77

  —

  0·7

  1977

  26·5

  11·8

  77–78

  —

  0·9

  1978

  32·2

  14·7

  78–79

  —

  1·2

  1979

  39·3

  14·9

  79–80

  —

  1·6

  1980

  44·7

  11·9

  80–81

  —

  2·7

  1981

  53·3

  19·8

  81–82

  —

  53·0

  1982

  63·2

  21·6

  82–83

  1·2

  3·6

  1983

  59·9

  30·1

  83–84

  6·1

  5·0

  1984

  71·8

  27·4

  84–85

  16·6

  6·3

  1985

  662

  221

  85–86

  12·6

  5·8

  1986

  77·9

  22·5

  86–87

  14·8

  8·3

  1987

  n/a

  20·3

  87–88

  69·0

  610·0

  1988

  n/a

  356·5

  88–89

  65·0

  612·6

  Notes:

  1 Figures until 1984 include a small amount consumed in Northern Ireland.

  2 Figures for haemciphilia 'A' patients only.

  3 Production prior to 1988 was in the original laboratory; 1988 production is in the new laboratory. The figure for 1988 is an estimate and reflects the lower levels of production achieved early in the year which have now been surpassed.

  4 (a) For years prior to 1982–83 capital and revenue are not separable and all expenditure is included under revenue;

  (b) Expenditure on factor VIII is not separately identifiable;

  (c) Expenditure on associated blood laboratories is included from 1979–80 to 1982–83.

  (d) From 1983–84 the expenditure is for the whole of the Central Blood Laboratories Authority.

  5 Estimated.

  6 Allocated cash limits.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax Thresholds
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide tax thresholds(a) for a single person,

  Tax year

  Single person

  Married man without children

  Income tax threshold at current prices £

  Threshold as percentage of average earnings per cent.

  Income tax threshold at current prices £

  Threshold as percentage of average earnings per cent.

  1958–59

  193

  23·8

  322

  39·7

  1963–64

  285

  29·8

  440

  46·0

  1968–69

  283

  21·7

  437

  33·5

  1973–74

  595

  26·4

  775

  34·3

  1978–79

  985

  20·4

  1,535

  31·8

  1983–84

  1,785

  20·1

  2,795

  31·4

  1988–89

  2,605

  20·5

  4,095

  32·2

  Average earnings are those for men in all occupations paid at adult rates who work a full week and whose pay is unaffected by absence. This figure is projected to 1988–89 in accordance with the assumptions given to the Government Actuary for reviewing national insurance contributions in paragraph 3·02 of the Autumn Statement 1987.

  Income Tax
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were paying income tax, detailed at each tax banding, during tax year 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  On the basis of the Budget proposals for income tax, it is estimated that 19·7 million
  416
  and (b) for a married couple as a percentage of average earnings for each of the years 1958, 1963,1968,1973,1978, 1983 and 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is in the table:

  single people and married couples will be liable to income tax at the basic rate only and 1·2 million will be liable at the higher tax rate of 40p.

  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the revenue effect of cutting the top rates of income tax to a single higher rate of 40 per cent.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the revenue effect of cutting the top rates of income tax to a single higher rate of 40 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Table 4.1 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report gives the latest estimates.
  417
  The abolition of rates above 40 per cent. is expected to reduce income tax receipts by £965 million in 1988–89 and £2,070 million in 1989–90 compared with an indexed base.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning changes in the income tax regime arising from the Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 April to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) at column 230.

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

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many higher rates of income tax have been eliminated since 1979.

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

  Single People

  Married Couples

  Single People and Married Couples

  million

  percentage1

  million

  percentage1

  million

  percentage1

  Not liable to income tax

  9·20

  28

  2·50

  8

  11·70

  36

  Liable to income tax at the basic rate only

  9·40

  29

  10·30

  32

  19·70

  60

  Liable to income tax at the higher rate

  0·25

  1

  1·00

  3

  1·25

  4

  1 Percentage of all single people and married couples.

  I regret that corresponding information for counties and English regions is not available. Estimates of the number of taxpayers in 1985–86, the latest year for which regional information is available are given in the table.

  Number of taxpayers in 1985–86

  Thousands

  Region

  Liable at basic rate3

  Liable at higher rates4

  All tax units1

  Single

  Married

  All tax units1

  Single

  Married

  North

  1,000

  410

  580

  30

  5

  25

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  1,570

  650

  920

  55

  10

  45

  North West

  2,070

  990

  1,080

  75

  10

  65

  East Midlands

  1,310

  590

  710

  40

  5

  35

  West Midlands

  1,700

  810

  890

  60

  10

  50

  East Anglia

  660

  290

  370

  35

  5

  30

  South East

  6,200

  3,370

  2,830

  480

  85

  395

  South West

  1,490

  690

  800

  70

  10

  55

  Wales

  800

  360

  440

  30

  5

  25

  Scotland

  1,690

  770

  920

  75

  10

  65

  Northern Ireland

  430

  210

  220

  20

  5

  15

  United Kingdom2

  19,210

  9,280

  9,930

  970

  160

  815

  1 Married couples count as one unit.

  2 Includes members of the Forces and Merchant Navy and a small number of civil servants serving abroad who have not been allocated to regions.

  3 Excludes taxpayers who are only liable to composite rate tax.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking any extension of the clauses of the Finance Bill to either the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in this respect.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.
  418
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate by county and English region the number of adults who, as a result of tax changes outlined in the Budget, will(a) pay no income tax, (b) pay income tax at the lower rate and (c) pay income tax at the higher rate; and if he will express these numbers as a percentage of the adult population.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 13 April 1988]: As a result of the income tax changes in the Budget, it is estimated that 750,000 fewer adults will be liable to income tax and about 270,000 fewer single people and married couples will be liable to income tax at the higher rate than if allowances and thresholds had remained at 1987–88 levels.

  The table gives provisional estimates of taxpayers in the United Kingdom in 1988–89 following the Budget.

  Budget (Select Committee Report)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make the Government's formal response to the fourth report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on the Budget, House of Commons Paper No. 400 of Session 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government hope to respond to the Committee's recommendations shortly.

  Building Industry (Tax Returns)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about tax returns in the building industry.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Individuals and companies in the building industry are required by statute to make tax returns in the same way as in other industries. Contractors are also required to make returns of payments to sub-contractors and of deductions from payments they make to uncertificated sub-contractors.

  Forestry (Tax Exemptions)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking revision of his policy of allowing tax exemptions for forestry to continue during a transitional period for landowners with prior planting approval; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We have received no representations of this nature.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many family units with annual gross earnings of £20,000 to £25,000 and £25,000 and above receive child benefit; and what is the value of these payments for each income group;

  (2) how many family units who pay higher rate income tax receive child benefit; and how much these payments cost.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates for 1988–89 are as follows:

  Number of tax units receiving child benefit (thousands)

  Cost of child benefit (£ million)

  Earned income:

  £20,000 to £25,000

  600

  400

  £25,000 and over

  690

  470

  Higher rate taxpayers

  500

  350

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

  Range of earnings1 where income tax2 and national insurance contribution3 form a smaller proportion of gross earnings in 1988–89 than in 1978–79 under the assumptions in the footnotes below

  Range of earnings1

  Family type

  Up to

  Other ranges

  Over

  Single

  £ per week

  40

  47–69

  94–104

  128

  Percentage of average earnings5

  to

  19–28

  39–42

  53

  Married couple both working4—no children

  £ per week

  68

  77–10

  120–174

  318

  Percentage of average earnings5

  16

  19–25

  30–42

  79

  420
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The main rate of corporation tax was 52 per cent. for the financial year commencing 1 April 1979. The proposed rate for 1988–89 is 35 per cent.

  Taxes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the weekly income tax payment for(a) a single man on average earnings and (b) a married man with two children aged five and eight years on average earnings and with no other sources of income, at 1988 prices, on the basis of those income tax rates prevailing in 1978 with personal allowances uprated in line with rises in the retail price index; and what are the figures in each case following the implementation of the tax proposals contained in the 1988 Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The table shows the weekly income tax payments of a single man and a married man on average earnings under the tax regime proposed in the 1988 Budget and under the 1978–79 regime indexed. to 1988–89 levels according to the statutory formula. Since child tax allowances were being phased out in 1978–79 they have been excluded from the calculation of the indexed regime. Children do not affect a taxpayer's tax liability in 1988–89, but a married man with two children would. be entitled to £14·50 per week in child benefit.

  Average earnings are those for full-time males paid at adult rates whose pay is unaffected by absence and are estimated at £244·70 per week in 1988–89.

  Weekly income tax liability at average earnings (£)

  Indexed

  Single

  Married man

  1978–79

  64·66

  57·11

  1988–89

  48·65

  41·49

  Difference

  16·01

  15·62

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the manner of his reply of 1 May 1987,Official Report, columns 291–93, he will update. to take account of the 1988 Budget, the information on tax and national insurance for different income ranges and household types.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 5 May, 1988]: The first table gives the ranges of earnings where income tax and national insurance contributions form a smaller proportion of gross earnings in 1988–89 than in 1978–79 for various family types. The second table gives the number of single people and married couples whose main source of income is earnings and whose total income is in the ranges specified in the previous table.
  421

  Range of earnings1

  Family type

  Up to

  Other ranges

  Over

  Husband only working—no children

  £ per week

  40

  47–69

  165

  Percentage of average earnings5

  16

  19–28

  68

  —Two children

  £ per week

  40

  47–80

  209

  Percentage of average earnings5

  16

  19–33

  86

  —Four children

  £ per week

  40

  47–84

  283

  Percentage of average earnings5

  16

  19–34

  116

  1 In each of the ranges of percentages of average earnings shown, tax plus national insurance contribution is a smaller proportion of earnings in 1988–89 than in 1978–79. The income levels in £ per week are at 1988–89 levels, rounded to the nearest £1. It is assumed that the taxpayer has no investment income and no relief or allowance other than the appropriate personal allowance.

  2 Less child benefit, where appropriate.

  3 At contracted-in rates.

  4 On the assumption that husband and wife each have the same multiple of the appropriate all occupations figure for average earnings (full-time males and females respective).

  5 Average earnings of full-time males (all occupations) are £92·80 in 1978–79 and £244·70 in 1988–89, for females £59·60 and £161·80 respectively.

  6 Percentage of joint income.

  Single people and married couples liable to income tax whose main sources of income is earnings from employment

  Family type

  1988–89 Range of income1 £ per week

  Numbers '000

  Single

  Up to 40

  0

  41–46

  0

  47–69

  610

  70–93

  920

  94–104

  460

  105–128

  1,080

  Over 128

  4,480

  Married

  Both working

  Up to 68

  0

  69–76

  0

  77–103

  10

  104–119

  220

  120–174

  2,050

  175–318

  870

  Over 318

  2,900

  One working

  Up to 40

  0

  41–46

  0

  47–69

  0

  70–165

  620

  Over 165

  2,930

  1 The income levels are those for single people and childless married couples at which, if income were all earned, tax and NIC would be the same proportion of earnings in 1978–79 and 1988–89 (see previous table). Reliable estimates which take account of the numbers of children in each family are not possible.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report the tax-unit and tax cut statistics for the income ranges £5,000 to £7,500, £7,500 to £10,000, £50,000 to £70,000, and over £70,000, in the same manner as the reply on 19 April, Official Report, columns 419–20.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer, 5 May 1988]: Estimates for the income ranges requested are as follows. The table shows the estimates of reductions in income tax liabilities at 1988–89 income levels, of the proposed 1988–89 allowances, thresholds and rates, compared with an indexed 1978–79 regime. For the comparison, the 1978–79 allowances and thresholds have been indexed in line with the increase in the retail price index between
  422
  December 1977 and December 1987. As child tax allowances were being phased out in 1978–79, they have been excluded from the comparison.

  Range of income in 1988–891

  Number of units paying tax in 1988–89

  Reductions in income tax compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  £

  (Million)

  Amount (£ Million)

  Average per tax unit (£)

  5,000–7,500

  3·70

  1,030

  2270

  7,500–10,000

  3·30

  1,460

  2440

  50,000–70,000

  0·15

  1,250

  9,160

  Over 70,000

  0·10

  3,530

  37,550

  1 All information is in terms of tax units, that is, married couples are counted as one unit and their incomes combined.

  2 By reference to the estimated numbers who would be liable to pay tax under the indexed 1978–79 regime; this number is some 1,100,000 greater than the numbers expected to pay tax in 1988–89, some 175,000 in the range £5,000 to £7,500, and 25,000 in the range £7,500 to £10,000.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report the table of real changes in the various categories of tax between 1978–79 and 1988–89, using the same format of his reply given on 1 May 1987, Official Report, column 295.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 March 1988 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), at columns 97–8.

  Wheat Prices
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the figures for the world price of wheat which were used in compiling his Department's economic progress report, February 1988, with particular reference to chart 1—price adjustments gap: cereals; and what is the basis for the statement that in the European Community farmers are paid three times world prices for wheat, barley etc.

  Mr. Lilley
  As stated in the economic progress report article, the charts containing estimates of the price
  423
  adjustment gap for various agricultural products were taken from "The Political Economy of International Agricultural Policy Reform" published by the Department of Primary Industry, Australia (Canberra 1986) which gives details of estimated representative world food prices.

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the information in his reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about

  50 per cent. of average male earnings (£122·35 a week in 1988–89)

  Single

  Married no children

  Married both working

  Married 2 Children

  £ per week

  £ per week1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88prices

  Percent. of gross income

  1978–79

  Income tax

  7·91

  15·90

  17·0

  4·42

  8·88

  9·5

  0·00

  0·00

  0·0

  3·26

  6·55

  6·3

  NIC

  3·02

  6·07

  6·5

  3·02

  6·07

  6·5

  3·02

  6·07

  6·5

  3·02

  6·07

  5·9

  Total

  10·93

  21·97

  23·6

  7·44

  14·95

  16·0

  3·02

  6·07

  6·5

  6·28

  12·62

  12·2

  1987–88

  Income tax

  18·43

  18·43

  16·0

  11·32

  11·32

  9·9

  0·00

  0·00

  0·0

  11·32

  11·32

  8·7

  NIC

  10·34

  10·34

  9·0

  10·34

  10·34

  9·0

  7·12

  7·12

  6·2

  10·34

  10·34

  8·0

  Total

  28·77

  28·77

  25·0

  21·66

  21·66

  18·9

  7·12

  7·12

  6·2

  21·66

  21·66

  16·7

  1988–89

  Income tax

  18·06

  17·37

  14·8

  10·90

  10·48

  8·9

  0·00

  0·00

  0·0

  10·90

  10·48

  8·0

  NIC

  11·01

  10·59

  9·0

  11·01

  10·59

  9·0

  7·59

  7·30

  6·2

  11·01

  10·59

  8·0

  Total

  29·07

  27·95

  23·8

  21·91

  21·07

  17·9

  7·59

  7·30

  6·2

  21·91

  21·07

  16·0

  75 per cent. of average male earnings (£183·52 a week in 1988–89)

  Single

  Married no children

  Married both working

  Married 2 Children

  £ per week

  £per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £per week

  £per week 1987–88prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £per week

  £per week 1987–88prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88prices

  Percent. of gross income

  1978–79

  Income Tax

  15·56

  31·27

  22·4

  12·07

  24·26

  17·3

  5·28

  10·61

  7·6

  10·80

  21·70

  14·5

  NIC

  4·52

  9·08

  6·5

  4·52

  9·08

  6·5

  4·52

  9·08

  6·5

  4·52

  9·08

  6·0

  VAT

  1·80

  3·62

  2·6

  1·67

  3·35

  2·4

  2·02

  4·07

  2·9

  1·82

  3·67

  2·4

  Other indirect

  6·24

  12·54

  9·0

  7·19

  14·46

  10·3

  8·27

  16·63

  11·9

  7·00

  14·07

  9·4

  Total of above

  28·12

  56·51

  40·4

  25·45

  51·15

  36·6

  20·10

  40·39

  28·9

  24·14

  48·52

  32·3

  Domestic rates

  2·38

  4·79

  3·4

  2·35

  4·72

  3·4

  2·89

  5·80

  4·1

  2·37

  4·76

  3·2

  Total

  30·50

  61·30

  43·8

  27·80

  55·87

  39·9

  22·98

  46·219

  33·0

  26·51

  53·28

  35·5

  1987–88

  Income Tax

  33·94

  33·94

  19·7

  26·83

  26·83

  15·6

  14·24

  14·24

  8·3

  26·83

  26·83

  14·4

  NIC

  15·51

  15·51

  9·0

  15·51

  15·51

  9·0

  14·13

  14·13

  8·2

  15·51

  15·51

  8·3

  VAT

  8·33

  8·33

  4·8

  7·72

  7·72

  4·5

  8·88

  8·88

  5·2

  7·88

  7·88

  4·2

  Other indirect

  14·06

  14·06

  8·2

  15·76

  15·76

  9·1

  18·37

  18·37

  10·7

  15·69

  15·69

  8·4

  Total of above

  71·84

  71·84

  41·7

  65·82

  65·82

  38·2

  55·62

  55·62

  32·3

  65·91

  65·91

  35·3

  Domestic rates

  6·98

  6·98

  4·0

  6·85

  6·85

  4·0

  8·45

  8·45

  4·9

  6·83

  6·83

  3·7

  Total

  78·82

  78·82

  45·7

  72·67

  72·67

  42·2

  64·07

  64·07

  37·2

  72·74

  72·74

  38·9

  1988–89

  Income Tax

  33·36

  32·08

  18·2

  26·19

  25·18

  14·3

  13·67

  13·14

  7·4

  26·19

  25·18

  13·2

  NIC

  16·52

  15·88

  9·0

  16·52

  15·88

  9·0

  15·05

  14·47

  8·2

  16·52

  15·88

  8·3

  VAT

  9·27

  8·91

  5·0

  8·57

  8·24

  4·7

  9·76

  9·38

  5·3

  8·67

  8·33

  4·4

  Other indirect

  15·06

  14·48

  8·2

  16·83

  16·18

  9·2

  19·42

  18·68

  10·6

  16·62

  15·98

  8·4

  Total of above

  74·20

  71·35

  40·4

  68·11

  65·49

  37·1

  57·90

  55·67

  31·5

  67·99

  65·38

  34·3

  Domestic rates

  8·00

  7·69

  4·4

  7·81

  7·51

  4·3

  9·58

  9·21

  5·2

  7·76

  7·46

  3·9

  Total

  82·20

  79·04

  44·8

  75·92

  73·00

  41·4

  67·48

  64·89

  36·8

  75·75

  72·84

  38·3

  424
  personal taxation of 27 March 1987, Official Report, columns 312–340, and 1 May 1987, Official Report, columns 291–294, to include the years 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: The figures are given in the tables. For the intervening years I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on 27 March 1987, at columns 312–40. For the second part of his question I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) today.
  425

  100 per cent. of average male earnings (£244·70 a week in 1988–89)

  Single

  Married no children

  Married both working

  Married 2 Children

  £ per week

  £per week1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £per week

  £per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £per week

  £per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Percent. of gross income

  1978–79

  Income tax

  23·22

  46·67

  25·0

  19·73

  39·65

  21·3

  12·32

  24·76

  13·3

  18·46

  37·10

  18·8

  NIC

  6·03

  12·12

  6·5

  6·03

  12·12

  6·5

  6·03

  12·12

  6·5

  6·03

  12·12

  6·2

  VAT

  2·48

  4·98

  2·7

  2·38

  4·79

  2·6

  2·79

  5·62

  3·0

  2·44

  4·91

  2·5

  Other indirect

  7·59

  15·24

  8·2

  8·55

  17·19

  9·2

  9·57

  19·23

  10·3

  7·98

  16·03

  8·1

  Total of above

  39·31

  79·01

  42·4

  36·70

  73·75

  39·5

  30·71

  61·72

  33·1

  34·91

  70·16

  35·6

  Domestic rates

  2·87

  5·77

  3·1

  2·70

  5·43

  2·9

  30·8

  6·18

  3·3

  2·79

  5·60

  2·8

  Total

  42·18

  84·78

  45·5

  39·40

  79·18

  42·5

  33·79

  67·91

  36·4

  37·70

  75·76

  38·5

  1987–88

  Income tax

  49·45

  49·45

  21·5

  42·34

  42·34

  18·4

  29·75

  29·75

  12·9

  42·34

  42·34

  17·3

  NIC

  20·68

  20·68

  9·0

  20·68

  20·68

  9·0

  18·84

  18·84

  8·2

  20·68

  20·68

  8·5

  VAT

  11·18

  11·18

  4·9

  10·82

  10·82

  4·7

  12·28

  12·28

  5·3

  11·39

  11·39

  4·7

  Other indirect

  17·50

  17·50

  7·6

  19·20

  19·20

  8·4

  21·48

  21·48

  9·3

  18·41

  18·41

  7·5

  Total of above

  98·81

  98·81

  43·0

  93·04

  93·04

  40·5

  82·36

  82·36

  35·8

  92·82

  92·82

  38·0

  Domestic rates

  8·48

  8·48

  3·7

  7·94

  7·94

  3·5

  9·01

  9·01

  3·9

  8·12

  8·12

  3·3

  Total

  107·29

  107·29

  46·7

  100·98

  100·98

  43·9

  91·37

  91·37

  39·8

  100·94

  100·94

  41·3

  1988–89

  Income tax

  48·65

  46·78

  19·9

  41·49

  39·89

  17·0

  28·96

  27·85

  11·8

  41·49

  39·89

  16·0

  NIC

  22·02

  21·17

  9·0

  22·02

  21·17

  9·0

  20·07

  19·30

  8·2

  22·02

  21·17

  8·5

  VAT

  12·45

  11·97

  5·1

  12·04

  11·58

  4·9

  13·57

  13·04

  5·5

  12·60

  12·11

  4·9

  Other indirect

  18·78

  18·06

  7·7

  20·56

  19·77

  8·4

  22·79

  21·91

  9·3

  19·56

  18·80

  7·5

  Total of above

  101·91

  97·99

  41·6

  96·12

  92·42

  39·3

  85·39

  82·10

  34·9

  95·66

  91·99

  36·9

  Domestic rates

  9·74

  9·37

  4·0

  9·08

  8·73

  3·7

  10·24

  9·85

  4·2

  9·25

  8·90

  3·6

  Total

  111·65

  107·36

  45·6

  105·19

  101·15

  43·0

  95·63

  91·95

  39·1

  104·92

  100·88

  40·5

  150 per cent. of average male earnings (£367·05 a week in 1988–89)

  Single

  Married no children

  Married both working

  Married 2 Children

  £ per week

  £per week1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £per week

  £per week1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £per week

  £per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Percent. of gross income

  1978–79

  Income tax

  38·53

  77·43

  27·7

  35·04

  70·42

  25·2

  27·64

  55·55

  19·9

  33·77

  67·87

  23·4

  NIC

  7·80

  15·68

  5·6

  7·80

  15·68

  5·6

  9·05

  18·19

  6·5

  7·80

  15·68

  5·4

  VAT

  3·89

  7·82

  2·8

  3·88

  7·80

  2·8

  4·27

  8·58

  3·1

  3·74

  7·52

  2·6

  Other indirect

  10·40

  20·90

  7·5

  11·39

  22·90

  8·2

  12·05

  24·21

  8·7

  10·01

  20·13

  6·9

  Total of above

  60·62

  121·83

  43·5

  58·11

  116·79

  41·7

  53·01

  106·53

  38·1

  55·33

  111·19

  38·3

  Domestic rates

  3·89

  7·83

  2·8

  3·44

  6·92

  2·5

  3·44

  6·92

  2·5

  3·66

  7·36

  2·5

  Total

  64·51

  129·66

  46·3

  61·56

  123·72

  44·2

  56·45

  113·44

  40·6

  58·99

  118·55

  40·9

  1987–88

  Income tax

  80·48

  80·48

  23·3

  73·36

  73·36

  21·3

  60·77

  60·77

  17·6

  73·36

  73··36

  20·4

  NIC

  26·55

  26·55

  7·7

  26·55

  26·55

  7·7

  31·02

  31·02

  9·0

  26·55

  26·55

  7·4

  VAT

  17·21

  17·21

  5·0

  17·39

  17·39

  5·0

  18·83

  18·83

  5·5

  18·83

  18·83

  5·2

  Other indirect

  24·80

  24·80

  7·2

  26·49

  26·49

  7·7

  27·48

  27·48

  8·0

  24·18

  24·18

  6·7

  Total of above

  149·05

  149·05

  43·2

  143·80

  143·80

  41·7

  138·11

  138·11

  40·1

  142·92

  142·92

  39·8

  Domestic rates

  11·67

  11·67

  3·4

  10·25

  10·25

  3·0

  10·11

  10·11

  2·9

  10·85

  10·85

  3·0

  Total

  160·72

  160·72

  46·6

  154·05

  154·05

  44·7

  148·21

  148·21

  43·0

  153·77

  153·77

  42·8

  1988–89

  Income tax

  79·24

  76·19

  21·6

  72·07

  69·30

  19·6

  59·55

  57·26

  16·2

  72·07

  69·30

  18·9

  NIC

  27·45

  26·39

  7·5

  27·45

  26·39

  7·5

  33·03

  31·76

  9·0

  27·45

  26·39

  7·2

  VAT

  19·27

  18·53

  5·2

  19·46

  18·71

  5·3

  20·91

  20·11

  5·7

  21·00

  20·19

  5·5

  Other indirect

  26·75

  25·72

  7·3

  28·56

  27·46

  7·8

  29·28

  28·15

  8·0

  25·84

  24·85

  6·8

  Total of above

  152·70

  146·83

  41·6

  147·54

  141·87

  40·2

  142·77

  137·28

  38·9

  146·36

  140·74

  38·4

  Domestic rates

  13·48

  12·96

  3·7

  11·79

  11·34

  3·2

  11·51

  11·07

  3·1

  12·45

  11·98

  3·3

  Total

  166·18

  159·79

  45·3

  159·33

  153·20

  43·4

  154·29

  148·35

  42·0

  158·82

  152·71

  41·6

  426 427

  200 per cent. of average male earnings (£489·40 a week in 1988–89)

  Single

  Married no children

  Married both working

  Married 2 Children

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  1978–79

  Income tax

  54·74

  110·01

  29·5

  50·51

  101·51

  27·2

  42·95

  86·32

  23·1

  49·08

  98·64

  25·7

  NIC

  7·80

  15·68

  4·2

  7·80

  15·68

  4·2

  12·06

  24·24

  6·5

  7·80

  15·68

  4·1

  Total

  62·54

  125·69

  33·7

  58·31

  117·19

  31·4

  55·01

  110·55

  29·6

  56·88

  114·31

  29·8

  1987–88

  Income tax

  121·47

  121·47

  26·4

  109·90

  109·90

  23·9

  91·80

  91·80

  20·0

  109·90

  109·90

  23·2

  NIC

  26·55

  26·55

  5·8

  26·55

  26·55

  5·8

  41·36

  41·36

  9·0

  26·55

  26·55

  5·6

  Total

  148·02

  148·02

  32·2

  136·45

  136·45

  29·7

  133·16

  133·16

  29·0

  136·45

  136·45

  28·8

  1988–89

  Income tax

  120·05

  115·43

  24·5

  108·59

  104·42

  22·2

  90·14

  86·67

  18·4

  108·59

  104·42

  21·5

  NIC

  27·45

  26·39

  5·6

  27·45

  26·39

  5·6

  44·05

  42·36

  9·0

  27·45

  26·39

  5·4

  Total

  147·50

  141·83

  30·1

  136·04

  130·81

  27·8

  134·19

  129·03

  27·4

  136·04

  130·81

  27·0

  300 per cent. of average male earnings (£734·10 a week in 1988–89)

  Single

  Married no children

  Married both working

  Married 2 Children

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  1978–79

  Income tax

  102·89

  206·78

  37·0

  96·54

  194·02

  34·7

  770·6

  154·87

  27·7

  94·23

  189·38

  33·2

  NIC

  7·80

  15·68

  2·8

  7·80

  15·68

  2·8

  15·04

  30·23

  5·4

  7·80

  15·68

  2·8

  Total

  110·69

  222·46

  39·8

  104·34

  209·69

  37·5

  92·10

  185·10

  33·1

  102·03

  205·05

  36·0

  1987–88

  Income tax

  232·71

  232·71

  33·8

  219·42

  219·42

  31·8

  163·92

  163·92

  23·8

  219·42

  219·42

  31·2

  NIC

  26·55

  26·55

  3·9

  26·55

  26·55

  3·9

  51·37

  51·37

  7·5

  26·55

  26·55

  3·8

  Total

  259·26

  259·26

  37·6

  245·97

  245·97

  35·7

  215·29

  215·29

  31·2

  245·97

  245·97

  34·9

  1988–89

  Income tax

  217·93

  209·55

  29·7

  206·47

  198·53

  28·1

  161·36

  155·16

  22·0

  206·47

  198·53

  27·6

  NIC

  27·45

  26·39

  3·7

  27·45

  26·39

  3·7

  53·88

  51·81

  7·3

  27·45

  26·39

  3·7

  Total

  245·38

  235·95

  33·4

  233·92

  224·93

  31·9

  215·24

  206·97

  29·3

  233·92

  224·93

  31·2

  500 per cent. of average male earnings (£1,223·50 a week in 1988–89)

  Single

  Married no children

  Married both working

  Married 2 Children

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  1978–79

  Income tax

  234·37

  471·02

  50·5

  226·44

  455·08

  48·8

  157·63

  316·79

  340

  223·55

  449·27

  47·7

  NIC

  7·80

  15·68

  1·7

  7·80

  15·68

  1·7

  15·60

  31·35

  3·4

  7·80

  15·68

  1·7

  Total

  242·17

  486·69

  52·2

  234·24

  470·76

  50·5

  173·23

  348·14

  37·3

  231·35

  464·95

  49·3

  1987–88

  Income tax

  501·00

  501·00

  43·6

  485·19

  485·19

  42·2

  354·18

  354·18

  30·8

  485·19

  485·19

  41·7

  NIC

  26·55

  26·55

  2·3

  26·55

  26·55

  2·3

  531·0

  531·0

  4·6

  26·55

  26·55

  2·3

  Total

  527·55

  527·55

  45·9

  511·74

  511·74

  44·5

  407·28

  407·28

  35·4

  511·74

  511·74

  44·0

  1988–89

  Income tax

  413·69

  397·79

  33·8

  402·23

  386·77

  32·9

  337·98

  324·99

  27·6

  402·23

  386·77

  32·5

  NIC

  27·45

  26·39

  2·2

  27·45

  26·39

  2·2

  54·90

  52·79

  4·5

  27·45

  26·39

  2·2

  Total

  441·14

  424·18

  36·1

  429·68

  413·16

  35·1

  392·88

  377·78

  32·1

  429·68

  413·16

  34·7

  428 429

  700 per cent. of average male earnings (£1,712·90 a week in 1988–89)

  Single

  Married no children

  Married both working

  Married 2 Children

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  1978–79

  Income tax

  387·10

  777·96

  59·6

  378·32

  760·32

  58·2

  270·44

  543·51

  41·6

  375·13

  753·91

  57·3

  NIC

  7·80

  15·68

  1·2

  7·80

  15·68

  1·2

  15·60

  31·35

  2·4

  7·80

  15·68

  1·2

  Total

  394·90

  793·64

  60·8

  386·12

  775·99

  59·4

  286·04

  574·86

  44·0

  382·93

  769·58

  58·5

  1987–88

  Income tax

  776·76

  776·76

  48·3

  760·95

  760·95

  47·3

  600·31

  600·31

  37·3

  760·95

  760·95

  46·9

  NIC

  26·55

  26·55

  1·7

  26·55

  26·55

  1·7

  53·10

  53·10

  3·3

  26·55

  26·55

  1·6

  Total

  803·31

  803·31

  49·9

  787·50

  787·50

  49·0

  653·41

  653·41

  40·6

  787·50

  787·50

  48·5

  1988–89

  Income tax

  609·45

  586·02

  35·6

  586·99

  575·00

  34·9

  533·74

  513·22

  31·2

  597·99

  575·00

  34·6

  NIC

  27·45

  26·39

  1·6

  27·45

  26·39

  1·6

  54·90

  52·79

  3·2

  27·45

  26·39

  1·6

  Total

  636·90

  612·42

  37·2

  625·44

  601·40

  36·5

  588·64

  566·01

  34·4

  625·44

  601·40

  36·2

  1,0000 per cent. of average male earnings (£2,447·00 a week in 1988–89)

  Single

  Married no children

  Married both working

  Married 2 Children

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  1978–79

  Income tax

  618·17

  1,242·35

  66·6

  609·39

  1,224·70

  65·7

  475·02

  954·66

  51·2

  606·20

  1,218·29

  65·0

  National insurance contributions

  7·80

  15·68

  0·8

  7·80

  15·68

  0·8

  15·60

  31·35

  1·7

  7·80

  15·68

  0·8

  TOTAL

  625·97

  1,258·03

  67·5

  617·19

  1,240·38

  66·5

  490·62

  986·01

  52·9

  614·00

  1,233·97

  65·8

  1987–88

  Income tax

  1,190·40

  1,190·40

  51·8

  1,174·59

  1,174·59

  51·1

  1,001·99

  1,001·99

  43·6

  1,174·59

  1,174·59

  50·8

  National insurance contributions

  26·55

  26·55

  1·2

  26·55

  26·55

  1·2

  53·10

  53·10

  2·3

  26·55

  26·55

  1·1

  TOTAL

  1,216·95

  1,216·95

  53·0

  1,210·14

  1,201·14

  52·3

  1,055·09

  1,055·09

  45·9

  1,201·14

  1,201·14

  51·9

  1988–89

  Income tax

  903·09

  868·37

  36·9

  891·63

  857·35

  36·4

  827·38

  795·57

  33·8

  891·63

  857·35

  36·2

  National insurance contributions

  27·45

  26·39

  1·1

  27·45

  26·39

  1·1

  54·90

  52·79

  2·2

  27·45

  26·39

  1·1

  TOTAL

  930·54

  894·77

  38·0

  919·08

  883·75

  37·6

  882·28

  848·36

  36·1

  919·08

  883·75

  37·3

  2,000 per cent. of average male earnings (£4,894·00 a week in 1988–89)

  Single

  Married no children

  Married both working

  Married 2 Children

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  £ per week

  £ per week 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. of gross income

  1978–79

  Income tax

  1,388·41

  2,790·32

  74·8

  1,379·63

  2,772·67

  74·3

  1,236·34

  2,484·70

  66·6

  1,376·44

  2,766·26

  74·0

  NIC

  7·80

  15·68

  0·4

  7·80

  15·68

  0·4

  15·60

  31·35

  0·8

  7·80

  15·68

  0·4

  Total

  1,396·21

  2,805·99

  75·2

  1,387·43

  2,788·35

  74·8

  1,251·94

  2,516·05

  67·5

  1,384·24

  2,781·94

  74·4

  1987–88

  Income tax

  2,569·20

  2,569·20

  55·9

  2,553·39

  2,553·39

  55·6

  2,380·79

  2,380·79

  51·8

  2,553·39

  2,533·39

  55·4

  NIC

  26·55

  26·55

  0·6

  26·55

  26·55

  0·6

  53·10

  53·10

  1·2

  26·55

  26·55

  0·6

  Total

  2,595·75

  2,595·75

  56·5

  2,579·94

  2,579·94

  56·1

  2,433·89

  2,433·89

  53·0

  2,579·94

  2,579·94

  56·0

  1988–89

  Income tax

  1,881·89

  1,809·54

  38·5

  1,870·43

  1,798·52

  38·2

  1,806·18

  1,736·74

  36·9

  1,870·43

  1,798·52

  38·1

  NIC

  27·45

  26·39

  0·6

  27·45

  26·39

  0·6

  54·90

  52·79

  1·1

  27·45

  26·39

  0·6

  Total

  1,909·34

  1,835·94

  39·0

  1,897·88

  1,824·92

  38·8

  1,861·08

  1,789·53

  38·0

  1,897·88

  1,824·92

  38·7

  Notes to tables:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the tax units have no other tax reliefs apart from the standard allowances. Earners, including working wives, are assumed to pay class I national insurance contributions at the contracted in rate. The figures for national insurance contributions are financial year averages.

  2. Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. The levels of average earnings in each year are as follows: 1978–79, £92·80 per week; 1987–88, £229·80 per week (assuming growth of 7½ per cent. on 1986–87); 1988–89, £244·70 per week
  430

  431
  (assuming growth of 6½ per cent. on 1987–88.

  3. The two-earner married couple are assumed to have joint earnings of the various multiples of average earnings. In calculating disposable income it is assumed that the joint earnings are split between husband and wife in the ratio 60:40.

  4. For the married couple with two children, the percentage column expresses taxes, and so on, as percentages of gross earnings plus child benefit. For this purpose financial year averages are used for child benefit.

  5. The estimates of indirect taxes are derived from the 1985 family expenditure survey and are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. Estimates cannot reliably be made outside the income range for which figures are shown. There are also quite wide variations in spending patterns between households with similar incomes and compositions and, because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between the estimates obtained from different family expenditure surveys.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if, with reference to tables 1 and 2 of the Budget press release on independent taxation of husband and wife, he will give the basis on which tax liability under current arrangements has been allocated to a wife's income for the purposes of determining the reduction on the new arrangements;

  (2) how family unearned income is allocated between husband and wife for the purposes of computing wife's income in table 1 of the Budget press release on independent taxation of husband and wife.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]: Estimates of individuals with reduced income tax liability and their average reductions following the introduction of independent taxation used data from the survey of personal incomes for 1985–86 which was projected to 1990–91 in line with Treasury economic forecasts. The survey collects data from tax offices for husbands and wives separately and for each source of income. The tax liability on the wife's income under the current arrangements was calculated as the difference between the tax liability on the couple's total income and the liability on the husband's income only. It was assumed that all reliefs claimed were used against the husband's income.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the capital gains tax paid by tax units on marginal rates of income tax of(a) 60 per cent., (b) 55 per cent., (c) 50 per cent. and (d) 45 per cent. in 1987–88 and the projected capital gains tax receipts for each of these categories in 1988–89 together with the amount forgone as a result of the 1988–89 budget changes.

  Shares of income tax payers' total income before and after tax

  Financial Year

  Total income before tax

  Total income after tax

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  Bottom 60 per cent.

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  Bottom 60 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  1978–79

  30·4

  29

  40·0

  39

  26·5

  32

  34·4

  42

  1983–84

  48·6

  27

  64·1

  35

  42·6

  29

  55·4

  38

  1984–85

  53·0

  27

  69·6

  35

  46·8

  29

  60·7

  37

  1985–861

  59·0

  26

  77·5

  35

  52·2

  29

  67·8

  37

  1986–871 2

  62·5

  26

  82·4

  34

  55·4

  28

  72·2

  37

  1987–881 2

  67·0

  26

  88·5

  34

  59·7

  28

  78·0

  36

  1 Provisional: includes estimates of occupational pension contributions and investment income not reported to tax offices.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of income will be paid in tax by the top 1 per cent., 5 per cent,. 10 per cent., and the bottom 50 per cent. of tax payers in 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: Estimates are as follows:
  432
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: The latest information available relates to capital gains realised by individuals and trusts in 1985–86 and is not sufficient to permit analyses at the levels of detail requested. Based on preliminary (and still provisional) analyses of that information the capital gains tax payable by individuals with an income tax marginal rate of 40 per cent. or more in 1985–86 on capital gains realised by them in 1985–86 is estimated to be about £650 million. Under the 1988 Budget proposals, it is projected that the capital gains tax payable on gains realised in 1988–89 by individuals with a marginal income tax rate in 1988–89 of 40 per cent. will be about £800 million. The amount of capital gains tax on such gains forgone from these individuals as a result of the changes proposed in the 1988 Budget is estimated to be about £50 million. The figures for 1988–89 take into account tax on gains which may have been realised in 1987–88 following Budget day but which would otherwise have been realised in 1988–89.

  Taxation Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for the bottom(a) 60 per cent. and (b) 50 per cent. of taxpayers (i) the total amount of income before tax and (ii) the total amount of income after tax for each of the years 1978–79 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: Estimates are given in the table for 1978–79 and 1983–84 to 1987–88. Information for other years could only be provided at disproportionate cost. All estimates are based on information reported to tax offices and collected through the annual surveys of personal incomes. For years before 1985–86, estimates exclude employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and some investment income on which tax is deducted at source.

  Percentile of taxpayers1

  Percentage of income paid in tax

  Top 1 per cent.

  31·5

  Top 5 per cent.

  25·9

  Top 10 per cent.

  23·1

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  10·1

  1 Single people and married couples.

  Tax Units
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax units in 1988–89 will be on 10 times average earnings or more.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: In 1988–89 it is estimated that 120,000 tax units will have total income of more than five times average earnings—£63,600 per year. It is assumed that average earnings are those for men in all occupations who work a full week and whose pay is unaffected by absence (estimated at £244·70 per week in 1988–89). I regret that a reliable estimate of the number of tax units with total income of more than 10 times average earnings is not available as estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes.

  Capital Gains
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the accumulated value of unrealised gains between 1965 and 1982 which will now not be liable to taxation as a result of the Budget change.

  Reductions in income lax liabilities in 1988–89 compared with the indexed 1978–79 tax regime

  Source of income tax reduction(+)/increase(-)

  Upper 50 per cent.1

  Lower 50 per cent.1

  Amount £ million

  Average per tax unit2 £ per year

  Amount £ million

  Average per tax unit2 £ per year

  Increase in personal allowances

  3,270

  310

  1,930

  180

  Abolition of reduced rate band

  -1,760

  -170

  -1,190

  -110

  Decrease in basic rate

  9,190

  880

  2,630

  250

  Increase in higher rate threshold

  400

  40

  —

  —

  Abolition of higher rates above 40 per cent.

  4,410

  420

  —

  —

  Abolition of Investment Income Surcharge

  1,120

  110

  20

  2

  Total

  16,610

  1,590

  3,380

  320

  In the table, the effect of each change has been calculated on the assumption that each of the previous changes has already been made.

  1 Based on 20·9 million single people and married couples expected to pay tax in 1988–89 and excluding a further 1,100,000 who would pay tax under the revalorised 1978–79 regime. All information is in terms of tax units i.e. married couples are counted as one and their incomes combined.

  2 By reference to the numbers paying tax in 1988–89.

  Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give the number of divorced and separated parents where the partner in receipt of maintenance payments has an income, including maintenance payments, that currently falls below the tax threshold where the partner making the payment pays tax at(a) the basic rate and (b) higher rates than the basic rate;

  (2) if he will give the total amount of tax relief at present granted on the maintenance payments made by separated or divorced partners at (a) basic rates and (b) higher rates of tax to partners who at present have incomes including maintenance payments that fall below the tax threshold.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers, 29 April 1988]: I regret that information is not available in the form requested. Once a husband and wife are separated or divorced, they are regarded as separate tax units. Tax relief for maintenance payments is claimed by over 500,000 people of whom about four fifths are divorced or separated. About 100,000 are higher rate tax payers.
  434
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers, 29 April 1988]: I regret that information is not available.

  Tax Liability
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) of 18 December 1987,Official Report, columns 871–72, to give figures for the year 1988–89 on tax liability.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: Estimates are given in the table for the upper 50 per cent. and lower 50 per cent. of taxpaying single people and married couples analysed by total income liable to tax. The table shows the reduction in income tax liabilities, in a full year at 1988–89 income levels, under the 1988–89 income tax regime compared with the 1978–79 regime indexed to 1988–89 levels by reference to the statutory formula.

  The total cost of tax relief in respect of maintenance payments in 1987–88 is estimated at £175 million. Of this, £35 million is at rates in excess of the basic rate.

  Income and Corporation Taxes Act
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer in 1988–89 of substituting in section 257(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 one half for two thirds.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 May 1988]: The full year cost at 1988–89 income levels of substituting one half for two thirds in section 257(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 would be around £4 million. The number of single people and married couples in the band of income where age allowance is withdrawn would increase from 130,000 to 160,000.

  Pensioners' Allowance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what would be the cost of raising the married man's personal allowance to £10,000 for pensioners;

  (2) what would be the cost of raising the personal allowance to £7,300 for all single pensioners.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 4 May 1988]: The full year cost, at 1988–89 levels of income, of raising the age allowances to £7,300 for single people and to £10,000 for married couples would be about £580 million and £620 million respectively. The estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  Car Benefit Tax
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the equivalent in real terms of the salary at which car benefit tax becomes payable if the salary level of £8,500 in 1976 terms were translated to 1988 terms.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: The earnings threshold at which the benefit of a company car provided for private use becomes taxable was £5,000 in 1976–77. If this threshold had been indexed in line with inflation according to the statutory formula for increasing personal allowances and thresholds, the threshold in 1988–89 would be £13,960. A salary level of £8,500 in 1976–77 would, if indexed in the same manner, be increased to £23,720 in 1988–89.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount accruable to the Exchequer as a result of car benefit tax in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: The income tax liability in each of the years 1984–85 to 1988–89 arising from the scale changes for the private use of company cars is shown in the table.

  £ million

  1984–85

  180

  1985–86

  210

  1986–87

  1260

  1987–88

  1310

  1988–89

  1540

  1 Provisional

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking legislation to raise the tax threshold at which car benefit tax becomes payable; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 6 May 1988]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations suggesting an increase in the earnings threshold at which the company car scale charges and the charges on other benefits-in-kind are payable. The Government's view, which has been reflected in response to such representations, is that since in principle remuneration in kind should be treated in exactly the same way as cash remuneration irrespective of the level of the employee's earnings an increase in the threshold would not be justified.

  Finance (No. 2) Bill (Notes on Clauses)
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps, when any notes on clauses on the Finance (No. 2) Bill 1988 are published, to make them available to interested members of the public.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 6 May 1988]: No. These notes are designed for Members examining the Finance Bill in Committee. They serve a transitory purpose only and are not intended as a permanent record. The general public is already well served by press releases issued on Budget day and on publication of the Finance Bill. The Treasury's clause-by-clause summary of the Bill was reprinted in the Financial Times on 15 April.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total revenue received each year from tax levied on employer subsidised child care; and from parents in how many workplace nurseries the Inland Revenue collects the tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]: Firm estimates are not available, but it is thought that there are about 50 employer-subsidised nurseries providing around 2,000 places and that the tax charged on this benefit might be of the order of £1 million per year.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Cleaners
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many vacant cleaning posts there were on 13 May as a result of illness and people leaving voluntarily in the Palace of Westminster; what is the establishment for such posts; how many posts are actually filled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  On 13 May the complement of posts for cleaning staff employed by the House of Commons Commission was 88. On that day there were 74 staff in post of whom none was sick. The difference represents the number of unfilled vacancies due to the steady turnover of staff and is in part compensated for by paid overtime.

  Telephones (Cleaning)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what provision is made for regularly cleaning telephones in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Telephones in public areas of the Palace of Westminster are cleaned once every month under arrangements made by the communications manager. Cleaning of telephones of Members, their staff and of staff of the House is a personal responsibility and cleaning sachets are available for this purpose.

  Vending Machine (Upper Waiting Hall)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council why the vending machine in the Upper Waiting Hall is closed during recesses; and when was the last occasion on which the machine was rigorously cleaned.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The vending machine in the Upper Waiting Hall is provided for the use of Members and
  437
  others attending Committees meeting on days when the House is sitting; as such it is not considered necessary for it to operate during recesses. The machine's supply mechanism is automatically cleansed with boiling water twice a day. If the hon. Lady has a particular complaint in mind, may I suggest that, in the first instance, she contacts the general manager of the Refreshment Department, who has direct responsibility for this machine.

EMPLOYMENT

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will provide details for each for the 11 offices where the new restart questionnaire is being tested of how many of those referred to adjudication officers have been suspended from benefit; how long each had been claiming benefit; and how many of those suspended from claiming benefit were referred by means other than a restart interview;

  (2) if he will provide details for each of the 11 offices testing the new restart questionnaire of the number of people referred to adjudication officers in March because of doubts about their availability for work; and if he will provide the fullest possible breakdown of those so referred by age and sex of those so referred with details of how long the individuals concerned had been claiming benefit.

  Mr. Lee
  No one is referred, as the result of a restart interview, directly to an adjudication officer.

  When a question arises at a restart interview about a person's availability for work, the case is referred to the unemployment benefit office. This is then examined by officials and, where appropriate, referred to the adjudication officer for a decision on entitlement.

  These referrals are not recorded separately from other availability referrals to adjudication officers. The detailed information requested could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  A change in procedures announced by the Government in January has meant that claimants with current benefit claims, as in the case of restart clients, will continue to receive benefits while their availability for work is being considered. New regulations, to take effect from 2 May, will extend the same concession to people receiving unemployment benefit.

  Information on the number of people referred in the month of March from the 11 restart launch offices to an unemployment benefit office because of a question about their availability for work is shown in the table.

  Numbers referred to unemployment benefit offices because of doubts over availability

  Office

  March 1988

  Billingham

  21

  Dundee

  30

  Ealing

  65

  Huddersfield

  24

  Leicester

  201

  Plymouth

  68

  Port Talbot

  45

  Preston

  58

  Stoke

  98

  Watford

  22

  Wimbledon

  140

  438
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish up-to-date figures for both the Birmingham and Solihull and Coventry and Warwickshire areas showing how many unemployed people have, since the introduction of the restart initiative(a) been called for a restart interview, (b) attended a restart interview, (c) had their benefit disallowed for failing to attend a restart interview, (d) been referred to a claimant adviser as a result of a restart interview and (e) been referred to a disablement resettlement officer as a result of a restart interview, together with a breakdown of these figures to show outcomes for each three-month or similar time period.

  Mr. Lee
  The figures requested in(a) to (e) are given in the table. We do not know how many of those interviewed ultimately end up in a job or other menu opportunity as a result of the interview.

  Restart Interviews

  1 July 1986 to 25 March 1988

  Birmingham and Solihull

  a. Called for Restart interview

  161,426

  b. Attended a Restart interview

  125,267

  c. Had their Benefit disallowed for failing to attend interview

  598

  d. Referred to Claimant Adviser

  5,566

  e. Referred to DRO

  3,352

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  a. Called for Restart interview

  73,455

  b. Attended a Restart interview

  54,970

  c. Had their Benefit disallowed for failing to attend interview

  174

  d. Referred to Claimant Adviser

  2,131

  e. Referred to DRO

  1,133

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish up-to-date figures for both the Birmingham and Solihull and Coventry and Warwickshire areas, showing the outcome of interviews conducted under the restart scheme, covering the period from the introduction of the scheme, in the same format used in the reply given on 6 November 1986,Official Report, columns 523–24, together with a breakdown of these figures to show outcomes for each three-month or similar time period.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of people interviewed under the restart programme and the numbers referred to the various menu items between 1 July 1986 and 25 March 1988 are shown in the table. We do not know how many of those interviewed ultimately end up in a job or other opportunity as a result of the restart interview.

  Restart counselling

  1 July 1986 to 25 March 1988

  Birmingham and Solihull

  Counselled

  125,267

  Submitted to Jobs

  9,420

  Submitted to Community Programme

  9,488

  Submitted to Jobclubs

  8,024

  Referred to EAS

  4,549

  Allocated to Restart Course

  9,090

  Referred to Training (including NJTS)

  23,761

  Submitted to VPP or Voluntary Work

  2,653

  Referred to ERC

  294

  439

  1 July 1986 to 25 March 1988

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Counselled

  54,970

  Submitted to Jobs

  3,649

  Submitted to Community Programme

  5,613

  Submitted to Jobclubs

  3,706

  Referred to EAS

  1,894

  Allocated to Restart Course

  4,195

  Referred to Training (including NJTS)

  9,363

  Submitted to VPP or Voluntary Work

  1,157

  Referred to ERC

  214

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish up-to-date figures for both the Birmingham and Solihull and Coventry and Warwickshire areas, showing the outcome of interviews conducted under the restart scheme, in the same format used in table 3 of annex 1 of the MSC directors report presented to the Manpower Services Commission at its meeting in October 1987, MSC/87/24, together with a breakdown of these figures to show outcomes for each three-month or similar time period.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of people interviewed under the restart programme and the numbers referred to the various menu items are shown in the table.

  We do not know how many of those ultimately end up in a job or training programme.

  Restart counselling

  1 July 1986 to 25 March 1988

  Number

  per cent.

  Birmingham and Solihull

  Jobseekers contacted

  161,426

  and interviewed

  125,267

  Received an offer

  111,738

  89

  Agreed to follow up offer

  87,582

  70

  Referred to a job

  9,420

  8

  Referred to Community Programme

  9,488

  8

  Allocated to Restart Courses

  9,090

  7

  Referred to New Job Training Scheme

  7,209

  6

  Referred to other training

  16,552

  13

  Referred to Jobclubs

  8,024

  6

  Agreed to follow up other options (CA, Specialist services and EAS, etc.)

  43,091

  34

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Jobseekers contacted

  73,455

  and interviewed

  54,970

  Received an offer

  49,703

  90

  Agreed to follow up offer

  39,596

  72

  Referred to a job

  3,649

  7

  Referred to Community Programme

  5,613

  10

  Allocated to Restart Courses

  4,195

  8

  Referred to New Job Training Scheme

  3,539

  6

  Referred to other training

  5,824

  11

  Referred to Jobclubs

  3,706

  7

  Agreed to follow up other options (CA, Specialist services and EAS, etc.)

  15,569

  32

  Employment Training Programme
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether fees paid to assessing agents on the employment training programme will take account of any extra cost of assessing people with special or complex needs.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Where either specialised or further assessment is required, this will be made available through 440
  the employment rehabilitation service (ERC) or, where appropriate, through a specialist training manager who can offer this facility. The funding that ERCs or training managers receive will take account of any additional assessment provision they mount. It should also be noted that special help is available to assist training agents to accommodate people with special or complex needs, in the form of a communicator service for the deaf (CSD) and personal reader service for the blind (PRSB).

  Training for Employment
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he is making to ensure disabled people will get full benefit from the new training for employment scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Features of employment training designed particularly to help people with disabilities include exemption from the normal eligibility condition of six months duration of unemployment; access to specialised assessment, where appropriate, through the employment rehabilitation service; extended introduction for those who need a gradual introduction to full-time training; additional payments to meet the costs of special training needs when the provision is necessarily more expensive; access to special aids, and communication services for the sensorily handicapped; and residential training where needs can best be met in this way.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provisions he has made for the part-time employment of disabled persons in the new training for employment scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Participants on employment training will be trainees, not employees. A period of extended introduction will be available for people, including some people with disabilities, who need a period of preparation before they are able to take advantage of full-time training. Extended introduction will be for up to 10 weeks and individuals will be able to attend part-time initially.

  Further consideration is being given to the issue of part-time participation in the mainstream of employment training.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he will take to ensure that voluntary organisations that provide services to disabled people under the community programme will be able to maintain those programmes following the introduction of the training for employment scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At least 170,000 of the 300,000 places on employment training will offer practical training on projects. Employment training will build on the strengths of the existing programmes, including projects providing services for disabled people. Local staff of the Manpower Services Commission will be doing all they can in coming months to help community programme providers and others to develop their activities so that they can meet the training requirements of the new programme.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) registered disabled persons

  441
  and (b) disabled persons were seeking employment at jobcentres for each of the standard regions in 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  8 March 1985

  4 April 1986

  3 April 1987

  Region

  (a)1

  (b)2

  (a)1

  (b)2

  (a)1

  (b)2

  Northern

  —3

  —3

  2,643

  6,804

  2,806

  7,184

  North East

  2,492

  6,411

  —3

  —3

  —3

  —3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,591

  6,543

  1,975

  4,954

  2,123

  5,126

  East Midlands

  1,639

  3,631

  2,650

  5,587

  1,330

  3,021

  South East

  —3

  —3

  4,397

  9,454

  3,650

  8,293

  Southern

  3,677

  7,725

  —3

  —3

  —3

  —3

  Eastern

  3,269

  6,763

  —3

  —3

  —3

  —3

  London

  —3

  —3

  1,711

  3,842

  1,533

  3,381

  London North

  1,399

  3,340

  —3

  —3

  —3

  —3

  London South and West

  924

  2,412

  —3

  —3

  —3

  —3

  South West

  2,116

  4,908

  1,806

  4,338

  1,652

  4,391

  Wales

  2,864

  7,284

  2,371

  6,192

  2,431

  6,830

  West Midlands

  2,646

  5,991

  2,220

  5,086

  2,112

  4,703

  North West

  8,228

  15,973

  6,647

  13,066

  5,697

  11,349

  Scotland

  3,705

  9,640

  3,177

  8,360

  3,029

  8,537

  1 People with disabilities who were registered at jobcentres as seeking work and who were registered as disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944.

  2 People with disabilities who were registered at jobcentres as seeking work (including those in column (a).

  3 Regional boundary changes.

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide figures for 1985, 1986 and 1987 and for each standard region of the number of sheltered placement scheme places(a) approved and (b) occupied.

  Financial year 1985–86

  Financial year 1986–87

  Financial year 1987–88

  Employment service region

  Places occupied at 31 March 1986

  Approved ceiling at 31 March 1987

  Places occupied at 31 March 1987

  Approved ceiling at 31 March 1988

  Places occupied at 31 March 1988

  South East

  448

  491

  476

  669

  650

  London

  124

  226

  168

  319

  259

  South West

  311

  422

  376

  490

  472

  West Midlands

  1306

  338

  328

  491

  450

  East Midlands and Eastern

  363

  359

  522

  479

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  134

  227

  209

  322

  306

  North West

  219

  344

  300

  423

  376

  Northern

  58

  93

  72

  120

  99

  Wales

  88

  178

  149

  239

  240

  Scotland

  146

  281

  247

  379

  389

  1 The figure of 306 occupied places relates to the whole of the former midlands region.

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of people who have left the job training scheme with a vocational qualification and express this also as a percentage of all people leaving the scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available. The Manpower Services Commission has commissioned a follow-up survey which will give information on qualifications. The results will be available shortly.

  Hantergantick Quarry
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether prosecutions are to be undertaken
  442
  Mr. Lee
  I regret that this information is not available in the form requested but the numbers of people with disabilities registered for work at jobcentres on 8 March 1985, 4 April 1986 and 3 April 1987 were as follows:

  Mr. Lee
  Information is not available in the form requested. Information on numbers of places occupied in each employment service region against the number each region had authority to fill in the 1986–87 and 1987–88 financial years is as set out. Occupancy figures as at the end of the financial year 1985–86 are also given. Regions were not given a specified number of places to fill until 1986–87.

  against the owners at Hantergantick quarry, St. Bernard under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, arising from an accident occurring on 25 August 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive is considering whether to prosecute.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Playgroup Staff
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what training and education is provided to playgroup staff in each of the education and library board areas in Northern Ireland by the Department of Education;
  443
  (2) what training and education is provided to playgroup staff in each of the health and social services board areas in Northern Ireland by the Department of Health and Social Services.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department does not provide training and education to playgroup staff. It does, however, grant aid the Northern Ireland Pre-School Playgroups Association (NIPPA), whose functions include the provision of advice, training and support for these staff. In conjunction with NIPPA, local colleges of further education run courses for playgroup staff, parents and volunteers. Since 1985, NIPPA has also been running tutor training programmes for experienced leaders of playgroups and mother and toddler groups. In addition, the staff of health and social services boards' playgroups can attend courses offered by the boards as part of their in-service training programmes.

  Pre-school Playgroups
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial or other assistance is given to pre-school playgroups by(a) each area health and social services board in Northern Ireland and (b) each education and library board in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on 25 February 1988, at column 329.

  Mother and Toddler Groups
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mother and toddler groups operate in Northern Ireland; and what financial assistance is offered to them and by whom.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on 25 February 1988, at columns 328–29.

  Under-fives Initiative
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to introduce an under-fives initiative in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Social services for the under-fives form an integral part of the Government's overall preventive strategy in child care, the development of which is identified as a specific objective in the "Regional Strategy for 1987–1992", published by the Department of Health and Social Services in August last year.

  Progress toward this objective is being achieved through the detailed operational plans drawn up annually by the health and social services boards in the light of local needs, priorities and available resources. Although I have no plans to introduce a specific under-fives initiative in Northern Ireland, the Department of Health and Social Services has this year made £6,500 available for a scheme offering small, non-recurrent grants to local voluntary groups who provide services for the under-fives. This is slightly more, in per capita terms, than the corresponding small grants scheme in England and Wales.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in the light of the recent survey of the level of awareness of the risks of acquiring AIDS among students in Northern Ireland, he will reassess his health education policy in the Province.

  Mr. Needham
  AIDS public education policy in the Province is subject to continuous review in the light of the findings of attitude and awareness surveys which are carried out from time to time. In line with this approach the results of the study referred to by my hon. Friend are being taken into account by the Department of Health and Social Services and health and social services boards in planning future health education measures required both locally and for the Province as a whole.

  Tourism
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been provided for the promotion and development of tourism in Northern Ireland from European Economic Community funds in each year since 1973; and to what extent such funds have been additional to Her Majesty's Government's expenditure.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 3 May 1988]: The following amounts have been received from the European Community for the promotion and development of tourism in Northern Ireland.

  Financial year

  Total £ million

  1973–74

  —

  1974–75

  —

  1975–76

  —

  1976–77

  0·506

  1977–78

  0·175

  1978–79

  0·087

  1979–80

  —

  1980–81

  0·021

  1981–82

  0·156

  1982–83

  0·262

  1983–84

  0·274

  1984–85

  1·166

  1985–86

  2·758

  1986–87

  4·561

  1987–88

  10·739

  TOTAL

  210·705

  1 Provisional.

  2 The total includes £3·46 million receipts under the special programme for the border areas during the period 1983–88.

  The overall level of EC receipts is taken into account in the Government's decisions on public expenditure allocations, and their availability enables public expenditure to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

  European Community Payments
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money Northern Ireland has received from the European regional development fund in each financial year from 1 January 1973; how much of these receipts each year represented a cash addition to the Northern Ireland economy; and how much was used to offset Government expenditure on Northern Ireland.
  445
  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 3 May 1988]: The following amounts were received from the European regional development fund:

  Financial year

  Total £ million

  1973–74

  —

  1974–75

  —

  1975–76

  2·9

  1976–77

  7·2

  1977–78

  6·4

  1978–79

  4·0

  1979–80

  16·0

  1980–81

  21·0

  1981–82

  16·4

  1982–83

  18·0

  1983–84

  13·5

  1984–85

  16·9

  1985–86

  18·4

  1986–87

  23·2

  1987–88

  145·9

  TOTAL

  2209·8

  1 Provisional outturn.

  2 The figures show total European regional development fund receipts brought to account in Northern Ireland. It should be noted that awards totalling £10·5 million were decommitted by the European Commission on failed industrial projects.

  European regional development fund assistance is earned by industrial and infrastructure projects, and by programmes combining elements of both. Receipts for infrastructure projects undertaken by non-central Government bodies are passed on to them and represent a direct benefit to those bodies by enabling them to reduce their capital indebtedness.

  Receipts for infrastructure projects undertaken by central Government and for industrial projects are paid into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. All the receipts are subject to normal European Commission audit arrangments.

  The overall level of receipts is taken into account in the Government's decisions on public expenditure allocations, and their availability enables public expenditure to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money in Northern Ireland has been allocated from the European social fund in each financial year since 1 January 1973; how much of these receipts were paid to the private sector and how much to the public sector; how much each year represented a cash addition to the Northern Ireland economy; and how much was used to offset Government expenditure on Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 3 May 1988]: The following amounts were received from the European social fund:

  Financial year

  Private sector £ million

  Public sector £ million

  Total £ million

  1973–74

  —

  —

  —

  1974–75

  —

  3·36

  3·36

  1975–76

  0·01

  —

  0·01

  1976–77

  0·12

  6·31

  6·43

  1977–78

  0·35

  7·17

  7·52

  1978–79

  0·42

  14·53

  14·95

  1979–80

  0·57

  14·39

  14·96

  1980–81

  2·00

  21·01

  23·01

  446

  Financial year

  Private sector £ million

  Public sector £ million

  Total £ million

  1981–82

  2·62

  22·36

  24·98

  1982–83

  5·52

  29·72

  35·24

  1983–84

  7·38

  30·62

  38·00

  1984–85

  9·70

  28·26

  37·96

  1985–86

  1·81

  23·15

  24·96

  1986–87

  8·66

  44·65

  53·31

  1987–88

  17·31

  150·58

  157·89

  Totals

  46·47

  296·11

  342·58

  1 Provisional outturn.

  Receipts earned by the private sector and by non-central Government public sector bodies are paid to the claimant. The receipts represent cash additions to the recipients. Receipts earned by central Government are paid into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. All ESF receipts are subject to EC audit arrangements.

  The overall level of receipts is taken into account in the Government decisions on public expenditure allocations, and their availability enables public expenditure to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money Northern Ireland has received in each financial year from 1 January 1973, from the European Economic Community apart from payments under the European regional development fund, the European social fund and the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund guidance section.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 3 May 1988]: The following amounts have been identified as being received in Northern Ireland from EC sources other than three structural funds:

  Financial year

  Total £ million

  1973–74

  —

  1974–75

  —

  1975–76

  —

  1976–77

  —

  1977–78

  —

  1978–79

  0·6

  1979–80

  0·8

  1980–81

  0·7

  1981–82

  0·2

  1982–83

  1·4

  1983–84

  24·3

  1984–85

  23·7

  1985–86

  27·1

  1986–87

  2·7

  1987–88

  127·5

  Total

  109·0

  1 Provisional outturn.

  These figures contain two main elements. First, some £57·9 million of receipts received under the special urban renewal regulation, which provided assistance for infrastructure projects in the Belfast area. Second, certain receipts, totalling some £47·9 million, from the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. While the bulk of guarantee section receipts are disbursed centrally by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and details of payments are not generally maintained at regional level, accounting responsibility for certain of the schemes was transferred to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland in

  447
  1987–88. Accordingly, the table includes these amounts as well as payments under the calf premium scheme which, being unique to Northern Ireland, is also accounted for by the Department and which appeared in 1982–83.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money Northern Ireland has received in each financial year up to 31 December 1987 from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund guidance section; how much of these receipts were paid to the private sector and how much to the public sector; how much of these receipts represented a cash addition to the Northern Ireland economy; and how much each year was used to offset Government expenditure on Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 3 May 1988]: The following amounts were received from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund guidance section:

  Individual capital projects

  Financial year

  Private sector

  Public sector1

  Other guidance schemes private sector2

  £ million total

  1974–75

  —

  —

  0·25

  0·25

  1975–76

  0·45

  —

  0·21

  0·66

  1976–77

  1·87

  0·31

  0·27

  2·45

  1977–78

  1·28

  0·31

  1·28

  2·87

  1978–79

  0·70

  0·24

  2·46

  3·40

  1979–80

  1·27

  0·20

  3·21

  4·68

  1980–81

  1·91

  1·05

  3·35

  6·31

  1981–82

  1·43

  0·13

  4·69

  6·25

  1982–83

  2·47

  0·99

  3·30

  6·76

  1983–84

  1·59

  0·38

  14·65

  16·62

  1984–85

  0·95

  0·28

  13·29

  14·52

  1985–86

  3·56

  0·03

  11·83

  15·42

  1986–87

  2·58

  0·11

  5·96

  8·65

  1987–88

  33·29

  3—

  36·44

  9·73

  Totals

  23·35

  4·03

  71·19

  98·57

  1 Includes the Milk Marketing Board, which is not financed from public funds although it is a statutory body.

  2 Includes reference to the approximate share of total expenditure in Northern Ireland on various structural schemes which were applied throughout the United Kingdom.

  3 Provisional outturn.

  In addition, £443,000 has been received by the public sector for socio-economic training.

  All these receipts represent cash additions to the recipients and are subject to normal European Community audit arrangements.

  The overall level of receipts is taken into account in the Government's decisions on public expenditure allocations and their availability enables public expenditure to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

  European Community
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much Northern Ireland's share of 448
  the United Kingdom's payment into the European Economic Community was from 1 January 1973 to 31 December 1987; how much Northern Ireland's share of the receipts was; how much of these receipts each year represented a cash addition to the Northern Ireland economy; and how much was used to offset Government expenditure on Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: It is not possible to determine Northern Ireland's actual share of the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Community because payments are made on a national and not a regional basis. Similarly it is not possible to identify the full extent of receipts from the Community. However, a Northern Ireland attributed share of the contribution to the EC does exist as an accounting mechanism necessary because of the operation of a separate Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The attributed share does not count as an item of expenditure within the Northern Ireland public expenditure programme and has therefore no bearing on the level of public expenditure in the Province.

  Figures for the notional attribution of part of Northern Ireland's share of the United Kingdom's payments and for those areas where the receipts are identified are as follows:

  Financial year

  Attributed share (part) £ million

  Identified receipts £ million

  1973–74

  1·0

  —

  1974–75

  5·6

  3·6

  1975–76

  7·9

  3·6

  1976–77

  12·7

  16·0

  1977–78

  16·0

  16·8

  1978–79

  23·9

  23·0

  1979–80

  28·1

  36·5

  1980–81

  28·2

  51·0

  1981–82

  50·3

  47·8

  1982–83

  65·6

  61·4

  1983–84

  65·6

  92·4

  1984–85

  67·9

  93·1

  1985–86

  74·4

  85·9

  1986–87

  1100·2

  87·9

  1987–88

  1104·7

  2141·0

  Total

  652·1

  3760·0

  1 Attributed share figures for the last two years are provisional estimates which will be revised when final details of tax revenues are determined.

  2 Provisional outturn, which includes EAGGF guarantee section receipts for which the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland assumed accounting responsibility in 1987–88.

  3 This comprises total identified EC receipts in Northern Ireland, including those from outside the main EC funds.

  All receipts represent cash additions to the recipients and are subject to normal European Community audit arrangements.

  The overall level of receipts is taken into account in the Government's decisions on public expenditure allocations and their availability enables public expenditure to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

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.

Hazardous Waste: Importation
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking or intend to take to control the importation of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, at present the import of special waste is controlled through a consignment note raised when the shipment is landed in the United Kingdom. It is intended to lay regulations in Parliament before the Summer Recess to implement the EC Directive on the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste which will strengthen these provisions.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that forthcoming reply and ask him to accept from me that there is widespread concern about this matter. There have been allegations that our regulations are among the slackest in Western Europe. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will pursue this matter with the utmost urgency. Perhaps I may have his assurance that it will be so dealt with.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I assure the noble Earl and the House that our standards are not the slackest in Europe. We take great care, and it is up to the waste disposal authority to ensure that the standards are maintained and implemented in accordance with the legislation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the authority is subject to the planning laws of this country and to the activities of local planning authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is right, in that when an application is made to dispose of waste by landfill, then there is the planning aspect to be taken into account.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House how in 1981 we imported 40,000 tonnes of toxic waste, and yet in 1986 to 1987 this has risen to 400,000 tonnes? Can the Minister explain why some countries find it preferable and cheaper to export their waste to this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the import of special waste in 1986 was 3.5 per cent. of the United Kingdom special waste arising. That is 53,000 tonnes which was imported. It is a specialist industry. We
178
have a great deal of experience and are exporting a specialist and knowledgeable way of handling it.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, are the figures which the Minister is giving us exclusive or inclusive of nuclear waste?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, exclusive.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are now reports of imported hazardous waste going to landfill with co-disposal? Is the noble Earl also aware that a committee of this House strongly recommended that imported hazardous waste should not go to landfill? Further, is he aware that that waste will now have to be monitored for at least 25 years by local authorities at the expense of the ratepayer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if there are allegations that imported waste is going straight to landfill without being treated, and if any of your Lordships bring such allegations to my attention, that is something I shall look into.

Construction Industry: Apprentice Training
2.40 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the Construction Industry Training Board to report on the training of apprentices for the industry.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, Ministers received a report last week on the board's action plan on skill shortages which included news that in the last financial year it had recruited 22,000 first year YTS trainees (the majority of whom will be apprentices) under its own managing agency, exceeding the target agreed with Ministers last year.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am grateful for that reply as are other people involved in the building industry, both in the public and private sectors? However, he must be aware of the number of bodies involved in the building industry which have expressed deep concern about the future provision of skilled men in the industry, and that there may not be sufficient to carry out the necessary redevelopment programmes in our cities. May I ask the Minister whether the Government will keep the matter under review, to prevent any slip backwards in what looks like a very welcome progression towards the objectives which we so desire?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on skill shortages, evidence suggests that the shortages are concentrated in certain occupations and areas of the country. For example in London and the South East the CITB is researching particular problems of attracting youngsters into construction and will be reporting this summer.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us who have experience of these matters happen to know that the CITB is an example of what a training board should be about? Its work in the past has been quite dramatic and brilliant. Can the Minister tell me how close are the links between the CITB and the Manpower Services Commission? What sort of co-operation is there, and what plans are there to extend what the CITB is doing across the country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the CITB is one of half a dozen or so industry training boards and the main driving force behind the CITB are the employers in the industry concerned. However, the Government are playing their part by providing some £150 million towards the costs of the YTS scheme to which I have referred.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the accident rates in the construction industry are unacceptably high? Does he not also agree that adequate training could make some contribution towards diminishing those statistics? Can he give the House an assurance that health and safety training will have a special place in training in this industry?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree, of course, that the industry is no place for untrained cowboys. That is why the role of the CITB is so important. I welcome the favourable comments that have been made about the board's activities.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when his ministerial colleague, Mr. David Trippier, met members of the Federation of Master Builders earlier this year, he warmly applauded their idea that apprentices should be apprenticed to the industry and not to individual companies? Will the Minister comment on that? Further, will the Minister acknowledge that many of the skilled employees in the construction industry are now self-employed? What is the Minister doing to encourage larger companies to assist in the training of more skilled workpeople?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the main impetus behind the training needed for this industry, as it is for others, comes from the employers themselves through the medium of this training board. Clearly their activities have not been without success—witness the encouraging figures I was able to report earlier.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister must be aware that doubts have been expressed about the training schemes under the CITB and YTS which are of only two years' duration. Those involved in the industry have expressed the view that, in order to produce a finished product that period is on the short side. They feel that three years would be more in keeping with producing a skilled operative. Will the Minister keep that situation under review and, if necessary, make a change when time and resources allow?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is, of course, important that whatever training is provided is
180
relevant to the needs of the industry concerned. The length of training is not the only factor to be taken into account. It is also important that the young people concerned acquire the right skills.

The Independent Living Fund
2.45 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in setting up the Independent Living Fund to help severely disabled people deal with problems arising from the operation of the Social Security Act 1986.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the fund's eligibility criteria were announced on 31st March. The trust deed is in the final stages of preparation and will be sent to the Charity Commissioners for registration imminently. We hope that the fund will be formally constituted within a few weeks. An announcement will of course be made when that has been achieved.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that this is a very unsatisfactory situation? The Government have been warned virtually since 1985, when they first produced the Green Paper on social security reform, of the problems of the severely disabled, and in February last they finally announced the proposal for the Independent Living Fund. It was supposed to have been in action since 11th April, but here we are in May and we still do not know when this fund is to start operating. Will the Minister tell the House whether the severely disabled people who would have been eligible for grants from 11th April—and who, incidentally, will receive a lot less in benefit under the new Act than they would have done before 11th April, and are relying on this fund to make up the difference—
Noble Lords: Order! Too long!
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether those disabled persons are being helped and, if so, how?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I do not accept that this is an unsatisfactory situation. The Government recognised that after 11th April there would be a small number of newly severely disabled people who would fit into the categories and who would not receive the same pro rata amount of benefit from the social security changes as they would have done had they become disabled before that date.
The interim arrangements for the fund might interest the noble Lord. The number of application forms sent out to named individuals was 102, and the number of completed application forms so far returned is 48. A number of social worker visits to the applicants have been arranged, and two reports have been received from them. That is the information as of last night. Moreover, we have now authorised the first payments under the interim arrangements, which will be back-dated to 11th April.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a very responsible and heavy task for the Disablement Income Group, which I helped to found in the mid-1960s? While the group is to be congratulated on having accepted it, is my noble friend satisfied that it has the framework of organisation to deal with applications without assistance, and also set up any appeal system that may be necessary?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I of course pay great tribute to my noble friend for his involvement in setting up the Disablement Income Group. However, I have to say that the scheme will not be run by it. The trust will be totally independent. The DIG's role is to be involved in setting up the trust, and we are extremely grateful to that organisation for its advice in so doing. There will of course be DIG-nominated trustees, but the day-to-day administration will be carried out by the trust fund's executive arm.
As regards appeals, I have no doubt that although the day-to-day management will be carried out by the executive arm the trustees will not only want to review but will need to review some of the applications. Certainly they will need to review the interim awards, which, as I said, have commenced.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that various groups such as the Disabled Drivers Association, with which I am associated, and the Disablement Income Group believe that much help could be forthcoming from a source which is not immediately recognisable and which may not be within their writ; namely, the Health Visitors Association? That organisation is extremely well-informed about these matters and can give much advice arising from their professional activities as nurses. Will it be possible for the Minister to consult Mrs. Shirley Goodwin, the general secretary of the HVA, who would be only too pleased, I am sure, to help in any way that she can?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, naturally I shall consider this. We held informal discussions with a number of organisations, including the Disablement Income Group, when we were thinking about this scheme and about how the problem might best be resolved. During the course of these discussions DIG offered to assist in setting up the fund and we were delighted to accept its offer.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, has the Minister seen the very complicated and formidable form which would-be applicants have to fill in if they succeed in discovering the existence of this fund? It is not surprising that fewer than half have been received. Is not such a complicated form in itself a deterrent, and could not the trustees be encouraged to think of something a little simpler?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. I accept that with all social security and allied benefit application forms there is a vast range of questions that are sometimes rather complicated to answer. There is a well-tried procedure for help with filling out such forms from social security offices. As regards publicising the fund, the 102 people to whom I referred have clearly been able to make contact with
182
the interim set-up. It may help the noble Lord if I say that in the first instance people should apply by letter to Room 520, New Court, Carey Street, London WC2, where officials of the department will assess them, with the help of professional advice from social workers.
Lord Banks: My Lords, is it correct that the Independent Living Fund is a temporary measure? If that is so, how long do the Government envisage that the temporary period will last? What do they have in mind to replace it on a permanent basis?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since we have only recently set the fund up, it is a little early to talk about replacement. However, I confirm that it is temporary and we anticipate that its time limit will be between three and five years.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that, in view of the slowness that we all appreciate we have to suffer from the lawyers, there will be back pay for people whose payments are delayed? Can he also tell the House a little more about the status of the trustees? I know that he cannot name them yet, but will there be an honorarium for them'? Can the Minister also say something further about the executive arm to which he referred? Will it be comprised of civil servants, and how will they be recruited and paid? I ask these questions because there is a genuine interest on all sides of the House in the success of this fund.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, the payments will be back-dated to the appropriate time. As regards the case to which I have just referred, that occurred on 11th April, but if someone becomes disabled on 13th May it will be necessary to backdate until then. I can certainly confirm that this will be done. With regard to the arrangements for the trustees, that will be a matter for them when they are appointed.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether it is true, as has been reported, that, if a severely disabled person employs someone living in for the sole purpose of enabling the disabled person to live independently and if that employee subsequently has to pay the community charge, the fund will regard such an arrangement as a legitimate ground for a claim? If that is true, will he assure the House that adequate funds will be made available for that laudable purpose?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a rather hypothetical question and it will depend upon the precise details of each case. As I have understood the noble Lord's question, there is no earthly reason why application to the fund should not be made in such a case. Whether that fits in with their criteria will be for the trustees to decide.
Lord Carter: My Lords, would the Minister be kind enough to give a date when he expects the Independent Living Fund to be in operation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. With the best will in the world, and knowing the speed of lawyers and the Charity Commission, though I expect them to action this with as much speed as conceivably possible, I am unable to give a date.

Council House Sales: Receipts
2.55 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total of capital receipts by local authorities from the sale of dwellings in the latest financial year, and how much of this they were allowed to spend on building new rented dwellings.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise for the length of this Answer. The latest estimate of English local authorities' capital receipts from sale of dwellings is £1·6 billion in 1987–88; 20 per cent. of this, and 20 per cent. of unused receipts from earlier years, can be spent on capital expenditure, including building new rented dwellings. In addition, 30 per cent. of most other capital receipts from the latest year and earlier years, together with borrowing and any revenue financing, can also be used to finance capital expenditure. In 1988–89 local authorities are forecast to be able to spend £2·1 billion of housing receipts from this and earlier years, compared to the £1·9 billion they are forecast to generate this year.
Lord Jay: My Lords, what good reason can there be for preventing local authorities spending if they wish all their capital receipts on building new houses to rent, which everyone agrees are acutely needed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, under the present system the local authorities will benefit, rather than using the method which the noble Lord suggests. I am sure that the House is aware from earlier answers, that it is central to our economic strategy that total spending by local authorities, like other kinds of public spending, should be kept within planned levels.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the remainder of the capital receipts was made available for local authorities to get on with the job of building more houses and renovating those that have deteriorated because of lack of financial resources, that may well prevent the Government having to set up the Housing Action Trust, which they intend to do? It may be very expensive to run and it is merely replacing the local authority function with something else which will be an unelected body.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning the renovation of houses because that is equally as important as the building of new ones. As I said in my earlier answer, there is very little difference between what local authorities could spend this year from the money they generated in comparison with the existing system. In fact, they are rather better off.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that it costs about £11,000 a year to house people in bed and breakfast accommodation, which is often
184
squalid and unsatisfactory? Would it not be far better to allow the local authorities to spend the money which should be at their disposal? It would cost much less—perhaps £5,000 to £7,000—than the £11,000 which is being currently spent to house people in bed and breakfast accommodation. Is it not a fact that the Government are guilty of bad housekeeping in a big way?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. However, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that we have provided additional resources totalling £53 million for specific allocations for homelessness over the past six months.
Lord Walston: Can the noble Earl tell us what happens to the remaining 80 per cent. which is not allowed to be spent by local authorities? Is it in fact spent by the Government, loaned by the Government to someone else who then spends it or is it simply put under the bed so that the money will not increase inflationary pressure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, some of the receipts can be spent by the local authorities in the same year on other matters. However, as time progresses local authorities can spend 20 per cent. of the balance which they have not yet spent from previous years.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the 20 per cent. restriction each year is applied uniformly across the country when in fact in London homelessness is much greater and housing and land costs are also much greater, whereas the sales of council houses and flats are fewer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lord, it is for that, among other reasons, that of the moneys we have made available in the special allocation for homelessness, out of the £25 million that we announced in December, £13·6 million will be specifically for London. I do not have a figure for the additional £28 million which was announced on 24th March, but I shall let the right reverend Prelate know as soon as a decision is made.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will no doubt know that many noble Lords strongly support the Government's policy of enabling councils to sell their property to sitting tenants. However, is it not economics gone stark raving mad when, having agreed that policy, the Government then will not allow the councils to build more housing for rent for those people who need it? It is absolutely barmy.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord understands that local authority expenditure is taken into account in public expenditure overall. Therefore there is a need to exercise the restraints presently in existence.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, following the points just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, do not the noble Earl and the Government realise that restricting the number of houses that local authorities can build merely puts pressure on the housing

185
market? That is one of the reasons why the house price spiral has now got right out of hand and threatens to be a danger to the Government's credit policy.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no; that is not the case. The noble Lord's reasoning can be faulted. He has also ignored the fact that there is renovation as well as new building.

Business of the House
3 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 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour. During the adjournment the Third Reading of the Eastbourne Harbour Bill and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1988 will be taken.

Environment and Safety Information Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Petition: Education in Inner London
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg leave to present a Petition from parents, students, governors, head teachers, principals and staff of schools, colleges, youth clubs and other institutions of the Inner London Education Authority. The Petition prays that this House will seek a full review of provision of education in inner London before any alteration is made to the existing unitary arrangements.
Petition presented.

Scottish Development Agency (Oban South Pier) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Education Reform Bill
3.5 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 141 [Abolition of ILEA.]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 269 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 269A.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 269:
Page 136, line 19, leave out ("On 1st April 1990") and insert ("Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) below, the Secretary of State may by order provide that on a date to be appointed")
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 269 standing in my name, that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and also the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 270A, 271 and 272.
On Second Reading concern was expressed from all sides of the Chamber that the proposals for the abolition of the ILEA were hasty and ill thought-out. Their late introduction into the Bill, at Committee stage in another place, meant that they were denied the consultation and public scrutiny accorded to other chapters of the Bill. Further, the subject of abolition did not figure in the Conservative Party manifesto.
The Government's original idea of permitting boroughs to opt out of ILEA, while retaining a reserve power to abolish it once eight boroughs had tried to do so, was an unsatisfactory compromise. But then to be bounced straight into total abolition by two senior former Ministers, addressing a public largely outside London, merely turned infirmity of purpose into abandonment of any rational policy towards the multiple educational problems of inner London. The vast majority of Members who signed the Early Day Motion in another place were not London MPs either.
In those circumstances it is small wonder that the parents, who had not been consulted, should have organised their own ballot which delivered an absolute majority of 51·6 per cent. of those entitled to vote; and a majority of 94·3 per cent. of votes cast against the proposal. Vigorous attempts have been made to discredit the vote, largely on the grounds that it was financed in part by the Labour-controlled Association of London Authorities. However, it was the parents themselves who found by far the greater part of the money. I understand that a large amount of the ALA's contribution is likely to be repaid. Given that the Secretary of State, when approached, did not offer any money—despite the Government's proper attachment to ballotting for many purposes—it seems to me that the method of fund raising chosen was perfectly legitimate.
I can only say that I am an ILEA parent; that I voted in the ballot; that the question was designed by the Electoral Reform Society, not by ILEA; that I received no political propaganda, Labour or otherwise, and that the outcome strikes me as near to a genuine expression of a majority opinion as one

187
could reasonably hope to obtain in the absence of statutory support.
Before I turn to the amendment itself, there are a few points I should like to stress with all the power at my command. We do not seek either to whitewash ILEA or to maintain it intact at any cost in its present form. Like most large bodies, ILEA has strengths and weaknesses. One of the latter is excessive bureaucracy. There was also a period when the politicians were totally dominated by the unions and unable, or unwilling, to redeploy teachers or manage a budget in a responsible way. Further, there were the poor exam results, although it is only fair to make some allowance for socio-economic factors in that regard. Then there were the fringe organisations, funded by ILEA, which, frankly, did the authority no good and which I am sure will be referred to in the debate this afternoon.
However, having said that, we must preserve some sense of balance and not allow policy to be dictated by the Evening Standard, the Daily Mail or, indeed, by the flurry of pamphleteering to which most of us have been subjected in the past few days.
Over the past year or so there have been distinct signs that ILEA has, none too soon, begun to put its house in order. As an ILEA parent—although I have some reservations on teaching, especially on the subject of history which I have mentioned in this place before—I have nothing but praise for ILEA's courageous and successful policy of racial integration. For example, my own son is far more at home with the multi-racial community in which he will live his life than he would have been had he gone to a prominent public school. He accepts that fact himself and indeed is proud of it; that is a plus.
Then there are other strengths and centres of excellence. I refer especially to music; to special needs education; to learning and resources branch; to further education; to the careers and youth services and to adult education. All of those aspects, according to virtually all informed opinion, will be seriously curtailed by the Bill in its present form. Nevertheless, important though all those specialities are, what should concern us most of all is the effect on the generality of children of primary and secondary-school age.
The crucial question is surely: can the boroughs cope within the time allowed and with the Government's apparent financial assumptions? I mean not just some of the boroughs, but all the boroughs. Here a whole cacophony of voices is raised, with some Conservative MPs taking completely different sides. The Member for Battersea, Mr. John Bowis, who is an abolitionist with a vengeance, has written a lively pamphlet which I am sure some noble Lords have received. It is called "ILEA, the Closing Chapter". Unfortunately, he spoils his own case by referring to children flooding into ILEA:
"from Brent and Haringey and similar boroughs run by extreme Left regimes where the parents have obviously felt that even ILEA is a better fate for their children than the awful prospect of schools in their own borough".
Again, unfortunately, most inner London boroughs are much more like Brent and Haringey than, say,
188
Croydon, or Harrow. London parents are very well aware of that, as is evidenced by the vote to which I have referred.
Diametrically on the opposite side to Mr. Bowis is Mr. Gerald Bowden, the Conservative Member for Dulwich, who told the House of Commons on 28th March that Southwark's services and finances were in such a mess that it would be utterly irresponsible to require Southwark to take on the education of children within the borough. We can all, I am sure, think of other boroughs to which much the same applies. I am aware that Westminster and Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea are keen to become LEAs in their own right and might cope well enough for their own children. But there is also a distinct possibility that they will raise barriers against children from other boroughs. Westminster's prospectus refers to the need to look at such questions as:
"Whether to slow down the inflow of people from outside Westminster".
This looks suspiciously like incipient protectionism and thus a diminution of the choice conferred by the present high degree of cross-boundary movement.
Then there are very serious worries about the level of funding of education in inner London as a whole which seems set to decrease by some 40 per cent. over the four-year transitional period, if the Government have their way and if the poll tax is not to rise to intolerable levels.
ILEA may have overspent on administration and been weak on redeployment. By better management it might perhaps have cut its costs by 10 or 15 per cent. But to suggest that efficient and equitable education could be delivered for 40 per cent. less than at present is frankly to enter Cloud-cuckoo-land. It is hardly surprising therefore that there are mounting fears that the standards, whose improvement is one of the main stated purposes of the Bill, will not be improved. Rather the opposite. This is the fear expressed by the education officers and by the head teachers and other professional bodies.
If their views are discounted as biased, coming as they do from education interests or within the educational establishment, let us turn instead to the Conservative Education Association which says:
"We are reluctantly drawn to the conclusion that, taking the educational service in London as a whole, standards … will fall as a result of Government policy. While standards in parts of the service may rise in some areas, this will be at the cost of standards falling elsewhere and to a greater extent".
To meet these mounting concerns, there are a number of projects in the air, among them a unitary authority for certain services, particularly those which are natural candidates for cross-boundary treatment, such as orchestras and careers, special needs and adult education. There is also the idea of groupings of adjacent or contiguous boroughs which have a high percentage of cross-border traffic.
Some of these suggestions may commend themselves to noble Lords. But rather than try ourselves to design, on the hoof, between the Committee and the final stages of the Bill, and with the same haste of which we accuse the Government, some kind of slimline ILEA or other residuary body or bodies, to protect our own favoured specialities, my co-sponsors of this amendment and I believe that

189
it would be far better to follow the course outlined in our amendments.
I turn now to the amendments themselves. I repeat that I am speaking not only to Amendment No. 269 but also to Amendments Nos. 270A, 271 and 272 which all hang together. We do not seek to delete the abolition clause but to make it subject to the safeguard that a proper assessment is carried out of the best future structure and organisation of education for inner London. This is therefore not just another internal review of ILEA but a requirement for a rational survey of the options, in view of the battle of pamphlets to which I have already referred.
Amendment No. 269 is the paving amendment; Amendment No. 270 sets up a panel of assessors. I wish to point out here, in case any noble Lord should be worried about damaging and demoralising delays and indecision, that the report must be delivered at the latest by 1st April 1989. That is only a month or so after the boroughs have been told to submit their plans and a full year before the abolition date proposed in the Bill.
Amendment No. 271 gives the Secretary of State power to appoint the panel, including the chairman, but requires the consultation by the panel with all interested parties which has been so noticeably lacking from this chapter of the Bill. In effect it restores the consultation process, but within the strict time limit that I have mentioned. If the Secretary of State decides not to activate the abolition clause, Amendment No. 272 empowers him to propose any alternative arrangements that he sees fit. In either case, he must submit his decision to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That is the combined effect of these four linked amendments.
I do not think that this is an unduly protracted or cumbersome procedure. There is a strict time limit built into it, and I cannot stress that too strongly. We also want an early decision on the future pattern of education at all levels in inner London. But we want it to be taken in a way that will confer greater legitimacy on it than the Bill will achieve, and that secures the support not only of three or four boroughs but of a large majority of inner Londoners. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: Within the diocese of Southwark there are 63 Church schools lying within the five boroughs of the Inner London Education Authority. When the question of opting-out was proposed originally both for schools and for boroughs and then subsequently it was decided to abolish ILEA itself, the views of parents, staff and governors of Church schools were sought. The vast majority of those consulted were and are entirely opposed to the abolition of ILEA. Never have I received so many letters, petitions and the like from church councils, school governors, PTAs and many individuals.
The reasons for this are not far to seek and do not imply, as has already been made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, a blanket approval for everything ILEA has done, nor for some of the views
190
expressed from time to time by ILEA councils and others.
Let me enumerate these reasons briefly because they lie at the back of much that we shall be talking about this afternoon. I think that fundamental is the fact that there has been a unitary authority for 120 years; never has that been challenged by any report so far to any significant extent. There has been a good, wide-ranging inspectorate; training facilities for teachers; generous resources for library equipment; extra help for schools where many children do not speak English as a first language; an excellent child guidance service; a very good adult education service, often described as "second to none"; one of the best nursery class ratios in the country; sports and music facilities; a very good youth service; and of course, on the whole, very good staff/pupil ratios, both at secondary and primary levels. Often overlooked is the fact that there is quite a lot of help for special needs. For instance, known to me personally are teachers in mental hospitals, teachers for bodies like the Rainer Foundation, which do very special and important work with disturbed and untrained youngsters.
With all that in mind, it is not surprising that this has cost more than the provision of education has cost in some of the outer London boroughs. Let us take Bexley which provides nursery education, I believe, for just over 1 per cent. of the child population; or indeed Merton, a small borough in the diocese where the ratio of teachers to pupils is much less good and where by and large there is less support to schools and teachers over a whole range of activities.
In outer London boroughs there is a higher proportion of children who go to independent schools which certainly eases the burden on the ratepayer and often reduces potential parental concern and interest. But that is not to say that ILEA has been as cost efficient as it could have been. It is very difficult to weigh the socio-economic factors, and I am certainly not in a position to do that accurately, but there are particular problems about working in inner London which cannot be overlooked; for instance, the cost of repairs to school buildings and the fact that it is difficult to attract good teachers to work there. It is now extremely difficult to attract head teachers, even, because of the cost of housing and other factors. All this has certainly had its effect.
It is not generally realised yet that ILEA is already rate-capped, and it is generally expected that by 1990 the costs of ILEA will not be much different per pupil from those of the average outer London borough. What difference this will then make to the service to be provided no one can yet tell. The immediate effect is to accentuate the decline in morale and the flight of teachers from the capital.
Strictly speaking—and this is why I want to make this point—it is not necessary to abolish ILEA simply in order to reduce costs. That is a process which is already well under way; and that, of course, was one of the reasons given for its abolition. The case must therefore rest on other grounds; notably, of course, the desire to improve standards at secondary level

191
and to break up another large institution which has at times been politically difficult, even irresponsible.
But what will be the consequences of the abolition and of doing it in such haste? I stress the size of the task. It is often said that the GLC has gone and that people ask who has noticed its departure. I see one or two nods on my right. Indeed that may be true, but the difference is enormous. Take, for instance, one borough in the diocese—the London borough of Southwark. Its budget will double, and that is about average for all the London boroughs known to me. Education accounts for around 50 per cent. or a little more of their budgets. This compares with a total extra cost of about 20 per cent. which was imposed on the boroughs when the GLC went, and much of that was for fairly routine services which it was not difficult for them to take on board and provide.
Further, we are talking mainly about rate-capped boroughs, although not all of them are rate-capped. When they become education authorities they will be faced with huge new tasks. As has already been pointed out, some of them are not finding it too easy to cope with those they already have. They will also be asked to take on a whole range of cross-borough services which are supposed to be picked up by the boroughs according to location or shared on a voluntary basis. That is a tricky recipe at the best of times for getting a thing well done. All that is to be set out in a development plan and outlined by October and then set down in more firm terms by February.
The draft guidance gives relatively little help. It indicates what has to be done and it certainly raises the questions, but it is for these reasons and many others that there is enormous anxiety. I want to stress to the Committee that there is enormous anxiety about how this transfer of responsibility will happen and how it will be managed. As somebody said to me, we are looking into an abyss. The National Association of Head Teachers wrote recently:
"The financial effects of all the legislation now going through Parliament—education, poll tax and housing—could be disastrous for the provision of services in inner London".
I am sure that the association did not write that lightheartedly.
At the same time I recognise that the Government's mind has been made up and clearly expressed in another place. We have to face that fact. Although outright opposition to abolition is what most of my correspondents have requested, often in the strongest terms, it is clear that what we are actually faced with is the need to find a way to protect the many good things which ILEA does so well and at least some of the undoubted benefits of treating inner London as one area with particular needs which have been met so well by the unitary nature of London education over the past 120 years. This amendment, standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, will go some way to relieve that anxiety because it will give a breathing space in which to address the issues more adequately than certainly the draft guidance does.
I suspect that some of the civil servants at the DES are (dare I say it?) extremely worried about the implementation of this part of the Bill. To pass this
192
amendment will not only give expression to that profound unease which now exists but will give a little time in which to work out how certain services can be sustained, how we are going to make sure that sufficient finance is available, how best to co-operate between boroughs, and whether there are ways of providing a more unitary approach for particular needs.
Yet having said that, I cannot escape a parallel unease about the danger of delay. I suppose that if I were a careful politician (which I am not) I would hesitate to say that kind of thing publicly. But I have to say it out of a deep concern about the future of children's education in London. Already it is clear that administrative staff in ILEA and teachers in schools are leaving. They are the people who have shown tremendous commitment to London's children. But they seem to be saying that they have had enough. So I am fearful of delay even though the delay proposed by this amendment is very short.
Therefore I should like to ask the Minister whether she can give us some firm and specific indications that positive steps can and will be taken to preserve, for instance, the first-class cross-borough services such as adult education and special schools, and many others, in order that what has been built up over the years—and it takes time to do it—will not be allowed to fall apart as it were almost overnight. Can the Minister indicate an awareness of the scale of this reorganisation? It is enormous. There are the particular difficulties of inner London and of the authorities that will have to cope with those difficulties. How will the department help those authorities that are already in difficulty to provide an adequate service?
Without such assurances, and whatever the reasons why those difficulties exist, I cannot do other than vote for this amendment as a means of expressing this very deep unease which has been shown to me by so many people over the past few months—and, of course, we shall hear much more about it this afternoon.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: No doubt the three signatories to this amendment each has his own reasons for supporting it. My own reasons are slightly different from those of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken. Speaking for myself, I face the abolition of ILEA with considerable equanimity. But the point that I wish to try to emphasise, and which came out from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is that this amendment is entirely favourable to the Government. In no way does it challenge their resolve to abolish ILEA. It recognises that in another place the Government were forced to move rather more speedily towards that objective than they had in mind when they first drafted the Bill. The amendment is drafted to give the Government the opportunity to make that detailed assessment of the capacities of the boroughs to take on their new responsibilities. After all, they will be doubling their staff and not far from doubling their budgets. It also enables the boroughs to discover just how many ILEA sites they will be

193
taking over and how many cross-borough activities and facilities exist.
Last week, a group of Cross-Bench Peers had the pleasure of meeting the leaders of the three Conservative boroughs in London—Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth. The representatives of the boroughs said to us that the boroughs and ILEA could sort out those problems by themselves and that they would co-operate regardless of political persuasion. However, they made one proviso. I could not help thinking, as I listened to them, that the proviso was the same as that which crossed Macbeth's mind when he was pondering Duncan's murder:
"If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly".
They said, "If you give ILEA the impression, however faint, that there is a chance that it will be reprieved, then it will refuse to co-operate and the transfer of power will be painful and prolonged". There is a lot in that.
I have no doubt that those words will be hanging on the lips of the Minister at the moment when she comes to reply. However, before she counters with it, I must ask whether she or anyone in the Government knows the full extent of cross-borough services which ILEA offers. Does she know all the institutions, some of them in the private sector, to which ILEA gives a subvention in return for teaching? Does she know all the sites which the ILEA owns? What will happen to those sites when they are transferred to the boroughs and become saleable assets—very tempting assets to councils well endowed with entrepreneurial ambitions?
It is not Macbeth but rather Lady Macbeth who comes to mind when I look at the Minister. Will she say to herself at the carve-up, as Lady Macbeth did when she was sleepwalking:
"Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him"?
Does she know the extraordinary extent of those activities? I forbear to read out the whole list. However, there are an incredible number of schools which are involved in cross-borough activities. There are many activities, such as hospital tuition units and special education inspectorates. How are all those activities to be fitted in? Do we believe that, when the boroughs get together, they can provide the same services? What will happen, for example, to a well-known private art school, the City and Guilds in South London, when ILEA subventions are withdrawn?
As I said, the amendment is designed to help the Government and reassure those who are the recipients of ILEA largesse that whatever they do, their activities will get fair consideration and will not be simply brushed aside because they do not fit into the budget and activites of a borough. I know that the Government have that in mind.
The morale of many teachers in adult education and special education schools must surely be in the minds of the Government as well. So is the state of mind of ILEA administrators. Many of them are dedicated people who have given good service to
194
London. It may be that some of the activities of ILEA should be curtailed and culled. I think that an independent inquiry would give a better answer than that which will come out of horse-trading between the boroughs.
During the Committee stage of the Bill, I have been puzzled by the behaviour of the Government. I well understand their desire to stand firm on opting out. It is quite right that there should be no surrender on the matter of compulsory subjects in the curriculum. However, the doggedness that has been extended to every single word and phrase in the Bill has been remarkable.
Why are the Government so inflexible? Are they worried that people will doubt their virility, or (since I see the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, sitting there, and she may accuse me of a sexist remark) are they worried that people will doubt their steely femininity? Last night, at a very late hour, Peers from every side of the Committee were arguing in favour of a proposal that two students rather than one should be members of higher education bodies. Peers were astonished at the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—such a reasonable man—stonewalled again and again. In the end, all that he could say was that he might bring the matter to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I put it to the Minister that the amendment is comparable to Amendment No. 241A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, last night.
What is the situation which we are discussing? It is this. The Government found themselve forced to take precipitate action during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. That happens in the best-regulated families. Here we have a chance not to go back on the basic decision but rather to sort out the consequences of that decision. I speak for myself when I say that I do not put as much store as some of my fellow signatories to the amendment on the part of the amendment which deals with the assessors. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the spirit of the amendment and put forward a proposal for an independent inquiry. I hope that she will not declare that the amendment is an illegitimate baby. If she does, I shall make the time-honoured excuse of the nurse in "Midshipman Easy":
"It was only a very little one".
I implore the Minister not to smother this very little amendment.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps it will be helpful to the Committee if I intervene at this stage. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will speak at the end of the debate on this group of amendments. He will then respond to many specific points which have been raised in the course of our discussions. However, I believe that it will be useful at this point for me to remind the Committee of some of the background to the Government's proposals and say something about their implications and what action has been taken. I hope that that will go some way towards meeting the appeal made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Annan.

195
The Government have put forward their proposals for two reasons. The first is out of concern over the educational standards achieved by ILEA in important aspects of its provision. The second is the fact that ILEA's persistently high levels of expenditure place an unacceptable burden on the local people who have to fund the service.
Let me be quite clear. I do not want to belittle the real achievements of ILEA. For example, HMI has expressed a high opinion of aspects of further education and adult education. I might add that if that provision had not been good, there would have been something terribly amiss, given the fact that it costs the ratepayer so much—more than three times the cost of the provision made by any other LEA in the case of adult education. But for the moment I want to concentrate on the schools, which are after all the area of education of most concern to parents and employers. If a child's years of compulsory schooling—and perhaps especially the last few years—are unsatisfactory, that is a loss that it is hard to regain.
The evidence from HMI is that ILEA's nursery provision is good; that its primary schools are no more than middling, and that its secondary schools, taken as a whole, are poor. The figures are well known: HMI has found that 40 per cent. of classes in secondary schools are unsatisfactory or poor. So despite all the money spent, children in inner London are likely to suffer a declining standard of education as they go through the school system. At the heart of that system, the point at which the effectiveness of the whole system is judged, are the secondary schools; and it is here that ILEA has simply been failing the children of inner London.
I want to concentrate on the positive way in which we can build an improved service in inner London, retaining what is good from what exists at present. But I fear that I have to emphasise to the Committee the urgency of the Government's case. I think that it is particularly important to remember that in relation to the amendments which affect the time-scale.
In the final year of compulsory education the level of absenteeism, for whatever reason, is almost 30 per cent. across ILEA as a whole. In some schools it is much worse. More than 20 per cent. of young people in inner London leave school without any qualifications whatsoever. Barely 15 per cent. of school-leavers achieve the equivalent of five or more O-levels. Those results, I fear, underline the figure in the recent Gallup Poll, which showed that 54 per cent. of inner London parents would send their children to independent schools if they could afford it. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the standards achieved by ILEA.
We are told on the one hand that those weaknesses are endemic in inner London and that even the simple prevention of further deterioration requires continued high expenditure. On the other hand we are told that the weaknesses can be removed given a little more time. But ILEA has been reprieved time and again, and yet no improvement has come about. It is now more than seven years since my noble friend Lord Carlisle demanded that the authority set its house in order. Since then there have been reports,
196
inquiries and guidance galore. But in the classroom, which is what matters, all too little has changed.
Turning now to the question of ILEA's costs, we shall no doubt be told, and we have been told, about the costs of the Metropolitan Police or the fact that education in London has historically always been more expensive than elsewhere. Such statements may offer excuses but they do not provide reasons. However one looks at it, ILEA's expenditure is vastly out of line compared with other inner city authorities having to make provision to meet similar types of problem.
One could perhaps understand some disparity between inner London's costs and those of the rest of the country. But teaching staff costs for metropolitan districts average about £530 a child, for the outer London boroughs £590 and for ILEA £730. For primary support staff the comparable figures are £110, £130 and for ILEA £230. For secondary schools support staff costs, the figures are £120, £160 and for ILEA £370. For central administration and inspection the figures per head of population are £.13, £17 and for ILEA £36. Those figures shed an interesting light on the notion of economies of scale, about which the defenders of ILEA are so vocal.
ILEA has repeatedly failed to improve either its educational or its financial performance. Other metropolitan districts and the outer London boroughs have shown what can be achieved, both educationally and financially, by a smaller authority. Even some of the outer London boroughs which have achieved a certain notoriety for one reason or another manage to perform better than ILEA.
Of course to break with an organisation which has grown up over a long period of time is inevitably painful. It would be wrong to minimise the difficulties. But on its record there is no evidence whatsoever that the retention of ILEA will improve the educational prospects of young people in inner London or ease the financial burden on local people. If we timidly shirk our responsibility at this point we shall be failing hundreds of thousands of young people in inner London. That is not something which can be lightly contemplated.
I should like now to remind the Committee of the action that has been taken so far. As soon as the policy now embodied in the Bill was announced, we set up an Inner London Unit within the Department of Education to help boroughs plan the transfer. My right honourable friend has held preliminary discussions with virtually all the boroughs, and DES officials have had very detailed meetings with some of them.
Three weeks ago the DES issued draft guidance to the boroughs (to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred) on the development plans that they will have to publish by the end of next February, setting out in some detail the way in which they propose to take on education responsibilities. That draft is intended to form the basis of full discussions with all the boroughs and with ILEA—and indeed with other interested parties, including the Churches—over the next few months, so that a final and more comprehensive version may be issued as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The

197
draft received the accolade of criticism from ILEA itself for being simultaneously too detailed and insufficiently detailed. I suspect that means that, for a preliminary draft, we have got it about right. But we are listening to the comments and we can improve the draft with the co-operation of all those concerned with educational provision in inner London.
I should like to remind the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has already done, that at least three boroughs—Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea—are now well advanced in their planning to become local education authorities in April 1990. They have held public meetings, consultation with schools and colleges, issued consultative documents and policy statements, appointed advisers and in some cases education officers designate, and have begun to draw up in outline their development plans. Many Members of the Committee will have seen the helpful leaflet published last week by Wandsworth. That sets out clearly the progress it has made and demolishes any of the arguments of those who believe that the boroughs are not capable of their new responsibilities.
Tower Hamlets, under Liberal control, and the City of London are catching up fast with the Conservative boroughs. What others have done, the Labour-controlled boroughs can do also. They have as long to prepare for their new responsibilities as the outer London boroughs following the London Government Act 1963. They are, however, awaiting a signal from your Lordships that they will indeed receive those new responsibilities. It is vital in the interest of the pupils, students and staff of inner London that that signal is given clearly today to remove any lingering doubts and uncertainty, which can only be damaging.
There is of course no dispute that full discussion, careful planning and review are needed in relation to many aspects of provision before the detailed arrangements can be settled. That is indeed why we issued the draft guidance a few weeks ago and why the Government have made available a specific grant of £13 million over the next two years to help the boroughs prepare for their new responsibilities. That money will be used to appoint consultants, to make preliminary appointments to the education department, to consult local people, to draw up the development plan and in short to set in hand the wide range of action necessary as a preliminary to becoming a local education authority.
That action by the Government is in line with the advice of the Controller of the Audit Commission, who has pointed out the need for the boroughs to put their new management structures in place as quickly as possible and to take advice from outside help, including external consultants, in doing so. I take encouragement from his words:
"There is a refreshing breeze of reality blowing through London's town halls but there is an enormous amount of hard work ahead if London is once again to have local administration of which it can be proud".
As I have said on other occasions, I very much hope that Members opposite will use their best endeavours in their contacts with local councils in
198
inner London to impress on them the need to take this task seriously.
I said earlier that I wanted to demonstrate that the problems which some Members of the Committee have foreseen and raised questions on in relation to particular aspects of ILEA's provision can be resolved. We are making progress in the following respects.
Many within this Chamber and beyond have praised the quality of much of ILEA's adult education. The Government accept that the adult education service makes a valuable contribution in inner London. We believe however that there is no reason why the bulk of adult education should not be effectively organised on a borough basis. That is what happens in every other metropolitan area of the country, and there is really no reason why, in inner London, what is essentially a very local service, responding to local needs, should not be locally organised. That may mean some rejigging of the boundaries of adult education institutes, and discussions will plainly need to be held about that, but there need be no major upheaval. This argument comes across strongly in the Wandsworth leaflet, to which I have referred.
However, where inner London is different from other areas is in having several high quality adult education institutions which carry out a high proportion of advanced work and which have a national reputation. Three of the most important of these—Morley College, the Working Men's College and the Mary Ward Centre—are independent establishments, two of which receive at present a significant proportion of their funding in grant from ILEA. The City Lit, though a maintained institution, is often linked with the other three. Each of these colleges makes a vitally important contribution to adult education in London—and indeed, much more widely. We accept that the future of these colleges must be safeguarded beyond doubt. After 1990, the assisted colleges will of course be able to realise their independence more fully. They will be able to revise their system of fees in a way that ILEA has prevented them from doing and they will be free to seek private sponsorship. The department will be encouraging them to look at those possibilities.
Plainly, any changes cannot be made overnight, and my right honourable friend will therefore be prepared to direct the London Residuary Body to pay grants to the colleges as necessary to maintain an effective level of funding. By the time the London Residuary Body itself has been wound up, we would expect the colleges to be much closer to being self-financing. However I want to make it quite clear that, to the extent necessary, the Government will be prepared to continue to provide financial support to these institutions to ensure that they can maintain their present high standards. Such support will of course be dependent on evidence that the colleges have genuinely made every effort to increase their income from other sources.
The City Lit, as a maintained college, is in a different situation. But its record is no less distinguished than that of the assisted colleges. We have been reminded that it houses the Centre for the Deaf. The Government believe that central funding

199
will be required for the City Lit also. Its main premises are located in Camden, and we shall be discussing with that borough what arrangements would be best. But it may be that it would be appropriate for responsibility for the City Lit also to pass to the LRB while arrangements are made for it to be treated on a par with the assisted colleges to which I have referred.
All this means that the future of adult education in inner London—both the mainstream work in the adult education institutes and the more specialised work in the assisted colleges—is secure. The Government stand squarely behind the colleges. There are of course many details to sort out, and we look forward to doing so at an early date in joint discussion with all the inner London boroughs.
There has also been a strong campaign in support of ILEA's provision for the musically gifted. The Government accept that ILEA's provision has in many respects been of a high standard, and particularly that the Centre for Young Musicians based in Pimlico School and the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra have a deservedly high reputation. The generality of instrumental tuition will, under our proposals, become the responsibility of the boroughs in inner London, as indeed it is in outer London and elsewhere. However, in order to maintain the high standards which depend upon bringing together large numbers of gifted young people, we believe that co-ordination, particularly of the arrangements for tuition of more advanced pupils, is required.
I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee that the department has held discussions with representatives of Westminster City Council, which is, of course, likely to become responsible for Pimlico School and therefore for the Centre for Young Musicians. Westminster has expressed a strong interest in taking a lead borough responsibility for organising such provision across inner London. We shall be discussing further the detailed arrangements with Westminister, and other boroughs will be invited to join in determining how best to ensure that the quality and scope of existing provision is maintained and indeed enhanced. In essence we envisage a central team of music advisers liaising with the music advisers in other boroughs to help maintain the CYM and the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra. Other councils may also have specific contributions to make to these arrangements, and we hope that they will. The involvement of one or more of the London music colleges, for example, would not only safeguard existing standards, but could provide an exciting opening for further developments.
We envisage that most of the costs of such an arrangement will be met by the boroughs, but the Government would be prepared to consider some topping up finance if necessary. We now look forward to exploring these arrangements in more detail.
Another area to which much reference has been made in the circumstances of inner London is the contribution made by the voluntary organisations, and particularly those concerned with youth work.
200
We entirely accept the importance of that contribution. I myself have held a series of meetings with representatives of many of the main youth bodies to consider jointly with them the best way forward in the context of the Government's proposals. Of course, at the moment the great majority of this work is carried out at a very local level anyway, and it will be entirely appropriate for local organisations to look to their local council for support. The Government's proposals will make possible closer co-operation between education departments responsible for the youth service and other departments and agencies in the boroughs with related concerns. One of the effects of such interagency co-operation in authorities in other parts of the country has been to raise the level of local concern with the needs of young people and to broaden the financial base of youth work, especially in the inner cities. This would be a timely new development in inner London. The Committee will also be aware of the very significant contribution by central government—the Department of Education and Science, the DHSS and the Home Office—to local voluntary work. Grants from the DES alone currently amount to over £16 million across the country as a whole.
We recognise also that the headquarters organisations of some of the inner London voluntary bodies play an important role in co-ordinating provision across the capital. In recognition of that contribution, the Government propose to make available additional interim funding of £500,000 a year for three years from 1990 for distribution to these bodies. That would allow the voluntary organisations time to assess the scope for raising more money from the boroughs and from the private sector. I believe that this announcement will therefore be widely welcomed and will meet many of the concerns that have been expressed over the difficulties during the transitional period.
We have recognised also that the Horniman and Geffrye Museums are a valuable asset to London, and indeed to the country as a whole. I see that later this evening we shall be discussing an amendment dealing specifically with the museums. The Government accept that it would not be reasonable to ask the boroughs in which these museums are located to bear the cost of maintaining them, except perhaps in relation to their specifically educational functions. Equally, however, it would not be appropriate for them simply to be submerged and lose their identity in one of their larger neighbours, such as the V&A or the Museum of London.
We therefore propose to ensure that both are established as independent trustee bodies, encouraged so far as possible to secure maximum possible support from the private sector, but with an assurance of government support initially through the London Residuary Body and subsequently from the Museums and Galleries Commission. The precise details of the way in which these arrangements will be carried out will of course need to be the subject of discussion with the museums themselves; it might be, for example, that it would be sensible for them on a temporary basis to pass on to the LRB while the

201
necessary trusts were drawn up. We shall have to see about that.
What I have said will make it quite clear, however, that the museums have a secure future as independent institutions with an assurance of support from central government grant. I am sure that the many Members of the Committee who have been concerned about the Horniman and Geffrye Museums will welcome that.
I have spoken at some length. Even so, I doubt whether I have fully fulfilled the Lady Macbeth quotation. However, I hope that what I have said will have provided some measure of reassurance that the Government's proposals and timescales are necessary and practicable, and that important aspects of provision about which we are all concerned will be safeguarded for the benefit of the people of inner London and, indeed, of the whole country.
4 p.m.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her one question? I should simply like to put it as a question and perhaps the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will answer it in due course. But it is germane to this amendment.
The noble Baroness referred to the urgency of the Government's case. We have asked on many occasions what happened educationally between the original publication of the Bill and the sudden decision that it was a matter of absolute urgency to abolish ILEA. What happened educationally to cause the Government to come to that decision?
Baroness Hooper: The Government, as a listening government, listened to the many comments on this subject that were made.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Goodman: Before the noble Baroness sits down, there is one item of information that I seek which is probably easier to give than the answer to the last question. Can she tell us what cost would be involved in acceding to the delay sought by this amendment?
Baroness Hooper: All the procedures would be delayed and slowed down. Everything would grind to a halt. It is very difficult to estimate such factors at this moment of time. However, we believe that the need to settle the doubts and uncertainties that have arisen in inner London, perhaps in particular with teachers, means that there is an urgency about this case and that it is important that we get on with the job.
Lord Goodman: The noble Baroness will recognise that that is an argument and not an answer.
The Lord Bishop of London: Perhaps I may first welcome the assurances which have been given by the Minister. I have heard what she has said with encouragement—and I mean that. However, I still have grave reservations about the procedure. I
202
should like to develop them and then to return to some of the points.
Perhaps I may first remind Members of the Committee that the debate today is about education. It is about people. It is about those who teach and those who learn. Of course one cannot have education without politics, finance and administration, but we must always remember that they must be subservient to the overall objective of education; that is, to enable people to fulfil their potential in the right way for them. Seven of the 10 districts about which we are talking today are seven of the 10 most depressed districts in our country. We are not talking about any area in England or Wales: we are talking about London, which has very particular problems of its own.
Reference has been made to the abolition of the GLC. It is not quite accurate to say that its passing was unnoticed. I know that only too well through the withdrawal of funding for many voluntary organisations as a result of the abolition of the GLC, and the problems which we face because of the absence of any one statutory authority to which the voluntary agencies can relate. Frankly, the idea that voluntary co-operation will suffice is simply not true to facts. I am not sure whether I have ever quoted the 39 Articles of Religion to your Lordships' Committee before.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): Do not start now!
The Lord Bishop of London: I shall start now because it is rather an important quotation. As I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will remember immediately, one of the articles speaks about the infection which "doth remain … in them that are regenerated". That is a very salutary point to have in mind because it reminds us that any system, any government, has to be operated by fallible people like you and me. Therefore, to rely wholly on voluntary co-operation often does not produce the required results.
We are talking about people. At this very moment I am thinking of the children in the primary school that I was visiting last week—where, I may add, the worship was very distinctly Christian. I am also thinking of the children of a wide range of ages in the adventure playground that I was visiting the week before last in one of our areas where it is almost the only provision that is made in which they can exercise and find leisure, and so on.
I am thinking of teachers whom I have met who are deeply worried at the moment. I am thinking of people who are involved in the whole education process. I am thinking of people I know in schools who are concerned not only about the matters that the Minister has mentioned but, for example, the education welfare service. I am thinking of one school which has a large proportion of families in need of counselling and care. In a school of 500 pupils there are seven girls on the risk register for physical or sexual abuse, 21 who have made the initial report of abuse as yet uncorroborated, 14 manifesting severe emotional difficulties, eight known to have one or other parent who is alcoholic, and seven under stress

203
because of mental illness at home. They need the education welfare service. The teachers want to be assured that this will continue to be provided and will not simply be subject to the chance of whether they happen to be in this or that borough.
I simply give Members of the Committee one or two examples of the kind of problems about which we are talking today.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will allow me to intervene. On the education welfare service, his information and mine vary slightly. I am in touch with a school in one of the worst boroughs in London which has not had a visit from an education welfare officer since last year, and which has a high delinquency and truancy rate.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, says, but I can assure her that this school uses the service a great deal—perhaps too much at the expense of others. But certainly it is used, if not perhaps as widely as it should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in proposing the amendment, mentioned the great state of uncertainty that exists at the moment. Some of your Lordships may have seen a letter to the papers recently which said that in the case of four primary schools in the East End, one head left for Somerset, one is leaving for Kent and a third is teaching, and our own Church primary head has contracted a very severe illness. Of the nine schools in our area, six are without a head teacher, or will be by the summer. This indicates the situation that we face at the moment.
When we look to the future it is insecure. I tried very hard to work out what the effect will be of the community charge, of the housing Bill, and, coupled with this, of the devolution to the boroughs, in terms of the expenditure available to the boroughs for education. Frankly, I find it impossible to work out the answer. I do not know how the boroughs will plan if they have to take on these great additional responsibilities.
This is the main point of what I want to say. The noble Baroness stressed that the Government's concern was with the schools. But her answers about other things—and we are very glad to hear them—do not touch the schools. That is where attention is needed. What is the answer? We do not know. The Minister may say that there is no evidence that to continue ILEA in its present form will improve standards. But there is no evidence to show that devolution to the boroughs will improve standards either. We just do not know.
We have had plenty of reviews. I have read them, some of them with partial affection, which is a phrase of which we are reminded in our prayers here in the House. So far as I am aware, nobody has actually sat down in an impartial way and looked at all these reviews. Much of the evidence is there. Much of it needs checking. It needs a dispassionate look to decide what is the best way for education in London.
204
This amendment does not attempt to remove Clause 141 of the Bill. What it says is that we need to be quite certain of the way we are going, and we cannot be certain of that with something which is, as it were, brought in on the way. Much testing still needs to be done. We need a single authoritative survey using much of the existing material.
I do not believe that this need cause very much delay. Boroughs which want to go ahead and which are going ahead now can still go ahead with their development plans. They can put them in evidence to the review. There is no reason why they should not do that. This would presumably help them if they are good plans and will help the review in coming to its conclusion. We have, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, set the date very clearly, and with a competent chairman they could get down to work quickly.
I do not believe that my amendment need cause any delay. Rather by the date set in the Bill as it stands a competent, authoritative, dispassionate review from a non-political standpoint could be achieved and that is what is urgently necessary. What needs to be dealt with on a unitary basis and what does not? As I said, I do not believe that we have any evidence that the proposals before us will actually improve standards. What we need is more evidence to encourage us to think that a particular way will do so. As I said, I do not believe that this amendment will cause delay. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is an amendment which will enable us to make a responsible decision. Meanwhile there is nothing to hold back the movement that is going on.
I should just like for a moment to mention one or two points that I made earlier about schools. I do not want to delay things, because those schools that I mentioned want an answer. They want to know where they are going. They want to know what the future holds in hand. The adventure playground that I visited is solely dependent at the moment upon ILEA, which has a valuable site which it is willing to hold and make available to this admirable institution which has two paid workers but is otherwise maintained by voluntary help. There are day and residential centres which do invaluable work for those living in London who are able to go out and get their horizons enlarged. It is not an expensive way. It is a very sensible way. The future of some of those activities would be in jeopardy.
I have not attempted to say that we should not abolish ILEA. I have not even attempted to say that one solution is a reformed ILEA. What I have said is that to come to this decision we need more evidence. At the moment the Government have made certain assertions without any evidence to back them up, and particularly in the realm of schools that needs looking at, because it may well be that to retain ILEA would not improve standards in schools. But what evidence is there that devolving ILEA to all the boroughs—and it is all the boroughs, not just the few—would raise standards generally? These are some of the points we have to bear in mind and I ask the Committee to vote for this amendment, which does not delay, which gives us the evidence and which enables us to act in a responsible way.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The right reverend Prelate seemed in the closing passages of his speech to realise the basic weakness of the amendment which he was supporting. He tried to evade the self-evident fact that if this amendment were to be put into the Bill it must inevitably produce considerable delay in the implementation of the Bill's provisions in respect of ILEA.
If the right reverend Prelate really understood the way in which local government worked, he would realise that once an inquiry of this sort was going to be set up with the authority of Parliament, inevitably the local authorities which are at the moment taking steps, and indeed incurring expenditure, in order to prepare themselves for taking over these responsibilities would feel bound to halt those preparations. They would feel it quite wrong to use their ratepayers' money in order to prepare for undertaking a task which they certainly would not be able to undertake for some time and might as the result of these proceedings never have to undertake.
As a result the right reverend Prelate must face the fact that if this amendment were to be accepted the major local authorities concerned, several of whom, as was admitted earlier in this debate, are taking energetic steps to prepare themselves for the very serious tasks which will be imposed upon them in taking over from ILEA, would halt their preparations and there would be delay and discouragement.
What about the employees of ILEA itself? We have heard this afternoon of the breakdown in morale, of the flight—that is the word used—of teachers from ILEA. If the whole matter is to be plunged again into uncertainty, if everybody concerned is supposed to wait until the five wise men proposed in one of these amendments have come to conclusions, their conclusions have been debated, as they would have to be in both Houses of Parliament, and the Government have finally come to a decision, it is quite evident that crippling uncertainty would continue for many years to come.
Therefore I beg the right reverend Prelate not to try to convince himself, as he was evidently trying to do, that adoption of these proposals would cause no delay. I think that the Committee, whatever view Members take of the merits of the issue, must face the clearly established fact that the effect—and I believe in some quarters the intention—of this amendment is to delay the whole operation. If it be thought that a delay is right and necessary, one can understand that point of view. But I think it is better, and it is treating your Lordships' Chamber better, to accept that openly and to say "Yes, we want to delay the coming into effect of changes which some of us do not like".
Indeed I have been impressed on previous occasions by the innate conservatism of Members opposite and their intense antagonism to change. One understands that and in many ways I rather admire it. But it must be faced that what we are concerned with is not just making some arrangements for a further intellectual assessment of some of the precise provisions of the Bill. What we
206
are faced with is an attempt to delay this part of it coming into operation with a view to its never coming into operation. The Committee will then want to consider whether there has not been, and will not be anyhow, ample opportunity to go into—
Earl Russell: May I—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry, not for the moment—the details of the Bill and of the necessary steps. Believe me, I fully realise how complex and how difficult they are. The Committee will want to consider whether there has not already been, and will not be before 1990, time to examine these matters. If the noble Earl wishes to intervene now I shall be happy to let him.
He obviously does not. I am much obliged. I shall give way to the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of London: I did not intend to intervene, but I really must resist the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made that the purpose of the amendment, so far as I am concerned, is to prevent it ever happening. That is not true. This is not a move to stop ILEA being reformed, being broken up. This is why I do not believe it involves delay. I do not accept the noble Lord's logic on that point. If the amendment were to give the retention of ILEA as one of the options, then I believe his arguments would hold. That is not what the amendment says. That is why I cannot accept his logic on this point. It is not intended, so far as I am concerned, to say that this is a way of stopping ILEA ever being abolished.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am infinitely obliged to the right reverend Prelate for that brief intervention. One accepts the sincerity of what he said, but I can only remind him of the rule of law that a sane man is deemed to intend the natural consequences of his acts. The natural consequence of acceptance of the amendment inevitably, as anyone with any knowledge of public administration knows perfectly well, is a substantial delay in the operation of Clause 141 and the abolition of ILEA. Of course I accept that the right reverend Prelate does not want that, though I rather doubt whether some noble Lords opposite share that high-minded view. But I beg of him to understand that it is the inevitable consequence. Therefore if he presses it that is what he will do. That is what he is seeking to achieve. The result would be the continuance of ILEA for a considerable time with all the successor authorities being forced to abandon the preparations that they are at present so vigorously making.
I do not know whether the Committee really feel that that would be a happy or a satisfactory outcome. I do not want to go at any length into the merits, although the idea that education is a local service, locally administered, is one which is applied throughout the rest of the country. I cannot see why the inner London boroughs should be denied the opportunity and this right, and why parents and voters in those inner London boroughs should not have the same advantage of local administration of this vital service as is given everywhere else throughout the country. Therefore I suggest to the

207
Committee that, given that consideration—given the accepted fact that ILEA's educational standards, particularly in the secondary schools, are very low in the national league table, that its costs (for whatever reason one might like to suggest) are very much higher, about double the national average—the case for a change here is overwhelming. It is an issue that the Committee ought not to seek to duck under the excuse of some further examination.
I commend to ILEA the words which Oliver Cromwell delivered to the Rump Parliament on 22nd January 1654:
"It is not fit you should sit here any longer—you shall now give place to better men".
He added, and I add them for the benefit of the right reverend Prelate, these pungent words:
"You have no more religion than my horse".
Lord Stewart of Fulham: It seems to me that the reason we now have an amendment asking that a look be taken at what is proposed for ILEA and that we consider it at this stage is because the Government in their handling of this matter so far have rushed ahead without ever looking before they leapt. The noble Baroness said that the reason for the sudden change from what was originally proposed to a proposal for the outright abolition of ILEA was due to a surge of opinion demanding it. She knows very well that there was no such thing. There has never been any surge of opinion demanding the abolition of ILEA. Over and over again the issue has been before the citizens and parents of inner London and they have repeatedly shown their dislike of abolishing ILEA.
I believe that we ought to consider this point. If we really believe that the local education authority under which one lives is bad educationally and is expensive, what does one do? One votes, surely, for its political opponents who assure one that they could do it better.
One does not usually regard the abolishing of the authority itself as a remedy. I notice, for example, that the Sunday Times recently carried an article recommending the abolition of this House. A number of criticisms were made of the composition of the House of Lords. A number of criticisms were made, too, about the way it does its business. One was left wondering—since many of these criticisms had some force in them—why had the Sunday Times never noticed this before? The reason given was that recently this Chamber had been in the habit of being vexatious to the Conservative Government, and the Sunday Times, following the Government's attitude towards London, is that if any part of the political structure is offensive to the Conservative Party it ought to be abolished. That is the history of London government ever since the old LCC was destroyed.
The noble Baroness offered to us various cures for some of the problems that the Government's haste has created. The trouble was that they were all very partial, ill-thought-out cures: such as for the Horniman and Geffrye Museums. There was a reference to private generosity, to a certain amount of money that would be available from the
208
Government, to something that the London Residuary Body might do; but at the end of the day nobody was certain who would be running those museums or in whose responsibility they would be. Surely, if the Government are so anxious to get on with the job quickly, why did they not give some thought to that matter earlier? They ought never to have begun on the proposal to abolish ILEA without considering such problems as I have envisaged concerning the Horniman and Geffrye Museums and the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra. Yet on every one of those we have only partial suggestions. We are suggesting now that we might have a further look to see what is involved in abolishing ILEA, with these cultural but important appendages of ILEA, cultural additions to its main work which are of great importance and are famous worldwide.
There is also the advantage that London has from the fact that the population is so dense. If I may be forgiven, I repeat here briefly and summarise an argument I put forward at Second Reading. In London there is the special feature of a large population in a comparatively small area. The advantage of a large population to an education authority is that there might be enough of the quite exceptional cases of the deaf, the autistic, the blind and so on to make it worth while to build up a really good service to deal with them.
This is a difficult problem for smaller authorities. If every authority were to have the population of London, most would be far too big on the map to be possible. The great advantage of London is that having the large population enables one to provide really good specialist services for special needs without the stretch on the map being so great as to be administratively unworkable. That was why the LCC, and ILEA after it, were extremely good authorities, and why it would have been impossible, despite determined attempts, to get the parents to vote against their continued existence. Exceptionally good services have catered for exceptional needs.
I recently received a letter from a lady whose child was stricken with meningitis when it was a baby. It survived, but is subject to epileptic fits. It is now, thanks to ILEA, in the junior department of a school, while previously it was in the nursery department; it is able to live a normal life and even to engage in swimming lessons, of which it is particularly fond. The mother says, "I cannot be too grateful to ILEA for what it has done for my child". She wants to know what happens next. The running of a nursery school is not a statutory business. The borough in which she lives is a poor one. There is no certainty that the school that has done so much for her child and for other children in the past will continue to exist.
The Government have not so far come forward with anything like an adequate explanation of what will happen. We are told that the boroughs will "get together". Of course they can get together and talk about it indefinitely. It still will not solve the problem of what one does with a school that, of its nature, must cater for children from all over London if it is to do its job properly, when apparently it has to be put into the area of one local authority only. This and a host of similar problems are left unanswered in the Bill as we now have it.

209
It may cause some delay if the problem is considered a little further. It is worth a small delay to get right some of the answers to these questions. We do not want to leave Londoners with the provision for the deaf, blind, autistic and handicapped all awry and misshapen. We do not want to leave London stripped of its cultural distinctions like the Horniman and Geffrye Museums. We do not want bodies like Morley College, the City Lit and the Mary Ward Centre to be handled, according to what we have heard from the Minister, in a way that yet again is a mixture of private generosity—something from the Government, something from the London Residuary Body, but no one to say exactly, or even in convincing outline, how it will work. We surely do not want to do that merely to save whatever time is needed to carry out the amendment.
I make no secret of the fact—many others think this, too—that I think the whole idea of abolishing ILEA is wrong, just as I thought the abolition of the LCC was wrong from the start. It is not surprising that no one mourned all that much for the GLC: it was a Tory creation, created because a Tory Government hoped that it would vote Tory and, when it did not, it was left almost without any friends. Before that there was the London County Council, whose administration, particularly of education, was well known the world over. We are now reaping part of the retribution of the wanton destruction of that body.
I hope that we shall not repeat the error. As I say, although I and, I believe, many others object to the abolition of ILEA, I recognise that the weight of opinion in the two Houses may in the end be against us. Even if that is so, it is not a reason for going ahead with so many practical, important questions unsolved, sketchily described and neglected as if they were of no great importance. It is to avoid that that I ask the Committee to support the amendment.
Baroness Young: The issue before the Committee is whether there should be a delay in implementing this part of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has made absolutely clear the great dangers of that move.
Perhaps I may say that the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Southwark, are—I do not impugn their motive about this—being disingenuous if they really believe that putting off a decision about this matter until next April means that a decision would be taken then. We would be in the same position then as we are today, with all the other matters that would follow from it, and there would be a considerable delay. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has so obligingly reminded us that he does not want to see the abolition of ILEA in any event, and would of course gladly vote for the delay, because that is what he thinks it would mean.
I think that the Committee should be under no illusions about this at all: of course the delay would have disastrous consequences. It has been pointed out to me by many people in the inner London boroughs to whom I have spoken about the matter, that delay would not stop the anxieties in the education world; rather, it would increase them. Good staff, good administrators and good teachers
210
would leave, and difficult decisions would be taken either in "stronger" boroughs or, indeed, in "weaker" boroughs. Indeed, a kind of planning blight would descend on the whole authority and no decisions of any consequence would be taken at all, with all the consequences that that would have for children.
Noble Lords who have spoken have made much of what will happen, but one must not forget what the present situation is. It is a very serious one, with low standards and criticisms of secondary schools. As my noble friend Baroness Hooper properly pointed out, children are leaving school without any qualifications, totally ill-equipped to face the world of work. Against that background we have to see whether or not we can do better.
One question that can justifiably be put to boroughs is how they think they might improve matters. I shall take two issues which seem to me to be helpful. The first is for them to try to deal with the truancy levels, which are now running at 30 per cent. across London secondary schools, with some even higher.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred to the educational welfare services. These will of course continue. One of the advantages of the boroughs is that, in their way, they are becoming all-purpose authorities: they have social services as well. They are therefore in a position to effect a much closer link between education and social services where this is required. The second point is for them to recruit and to keep good teachers.
One problem was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark; that is, the difficulty of getting teachers and the cost of housing. The London boroughs are of course housing authorities. They would therefore be in a position to find some housing for teachers more easily than ILEA. To speak from my own experience, when I was in a local authority—it was an old county borough that was an education and housing authority—we used to provide council houses for key staff at least on a temporary basis until they found something else. This is the kind of thing that a well organised authority ought to be able to do. That would be a positive measure. Nor has real evidence been produced that the poorer authorities would be incapable of running their education authorities. The poor London boroughs that run their own education at present seem to manage perfectly well.
One must remember that the authorities will be subject to the national curriculum, to the procedures of testing and assessment and to all the other matters that have been debated in the course of the Bill. However, if we compare ILEA with authorities such as Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham—all of which have the enormous inner city problems of ethnic minorities, many languages and so on—we find that they manage to produce better results with less money. I believe that one needs to ask oneself why London is so expensive and has such bad results when others do better.
A further criticism has been on the whole question of cross-borough services; many people have referred to it. It is not unknown in local education authorities

211
for children from one authority to be educated in another and to use the services of another authority. To hear the arguments put forward, anyone would think that that is something unique to London. It happens in an enormous number of places and is happening all over the country today. Indeed, the 1980 Education Act made that easier and simpler and I have no reason to believe that it will not continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, talked of a cultural
collapse with the ending of ILEA. My noble friend Lady Hooper has rightly pointed out that the Government have very much in mind those organisations which will continue and I have no doubt that we shall hear more on that front. However, we were threatened with cultural collapse with the end of the GLC and we have not yet experienced it, so once again I have no doubt that this is an acute fear which is being stirred up to make everybody's flesh creep—certainly the parents'—which is not very helpful in the situation.
The last point I should like to make is that I believe it would be most unfortunate if it was thought that those who were against this amendment and who believe that the education of London's children will be better provided when it is devolved to the boroughs, as is the case in every other part of the country, are somehow politically motivated and not interested in the education of the children. I believe that everybody taking part in this debate wants to see the education of the children improved. The results in London's secondary schools are not a kindness to the children involved. There is a duty to maintain those services which are good and to improve those which are falling well below the acceptable standards. This has been introduced because of the importance of raising those standards and giving the inner city children in London similar opportunities to those children elsewhere.
If there is a Division on this amendment, which in a sense is a wrecking amendment for this part of the Bill, I hope that the Committee will reject it because further delay will not improve education. It will simply delay it, prolong the anxiety and mean that nothing good will be done for a long period of time to come.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Goodman: I hope that I shall be acquitted of any of the sinister and ulterior motives attributed to the Benches on my right. I have no wish to prevent this Bill from passing. I feel strongly that some portions of it are desirable. However, I have one particular motive for being here today. I represent one interest which I believe is greatly endangered and, with respect, I have to contradict what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said when he suggested that arrangements were advanced and well advanced in many areas. In respect of the matters with which I am concerned I have authentic and incontrovertible proof that they are not advanced.
I am here as president of the London Union of Youth Clubs and also as the chairman of one particular youth club which was inspired and originated by my Oxford College. No arrangements
212
at all exist for that very vital service which may seem to be a peripheral one. However, it is a service which involves hundreds of young people. It concerns keeping them off the streets and whether or not they grow into civilised, law abiding human beings or into louts who end up in our prison population. That it has no significant arrangements made on its behalf is extremely serious.
I would not wish to vote either for or against this amendment if the noble Baroness or anyone else from the Government were able to assure me that something satisfactory and realistic will be carried out. Guidelines were published which were almost an insult. They did not give the slightest indication of where to go for the money or what comparisons should be made among the different councils. The youth club movement is not a political one. In my youth club I would venture to suggest that one of the trustees sits on the Government Benches and all the other trustees, if they vote at all, vote Conservative. I am equally convinced that the staff of that club are not nihilists, Maoists or communists. They are people who have given a great deal of time and thought to maintaining this vital service.
I say that guidelines have been published, but they are absolutely useless. I am prepared to submit them to anyone on the Government Benches and they can see that there is no guidance at all as to what sum of money will be available to replace the money needed to maintain the club.
In the club of which I speak a great amount of money has been raised by volunteers. We have built a roof garden and an annexe. The other day we had a splendid Royal visit to a children's centre which has been established to enable disabled children between the ages of four and eight to come to play two or four hours a week. It is that sort of project which is endangered by—I can almost say—the mad haste with which the arrangements are being made.
I do not have the least wish to prevent this measure from passing. As I say, it is sensible to recognise, even if one is as large as I am, that a steamroller will destroy you. I am satisfied that the steamroller which can be organised by the Government will be able to cope, even with me. However, I appeal to the Government for something to be announced because otherwise I shall have to vote for this amendment. I have no more wish to vote for this amendment than any other amendment. However unless this organisation is protected, I shall be failing in my duty to a body for which I have worked for years and for which many people have worked for longer.
Baroness Seear: I shall refrain from making a long speech but there are questions I wish to ask the noble Baroness and I shall limit myself to asking questions. If it is so urgent that these measures should be carried out because the state of ILEA is so bad, why—and we have had no answer to this—was it not in the manifesto and in the original Bill? The noble Baroness tells us that they are a listening Government. They have listened to Messrs. Heseltine and Tebbit but not listened to the parents of London. Those parents had their own ballot which the Government refused to
support and which resulted in

213
an overwhelming majority for the retention of ILEA. If I may say so, the Government have very partial hearing.
Secondly, what is going to happen to the financing of the schools in the poorer boroughs when ILEA has been disbanded? We have said all along that we wish to raise the level of education in this country. We need to raise it particularly for the non-academic children, and there are a great many of them in the boroughs of Southwark, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets. Can we have a clear statement from the noble Baroness as to where the money is coming from when ILEA is not there—and nor will be the money that the ratepayers of Chelsea, Westminster, and so on, have previously put into the kitty which has gone to the poorer boroughs? How will that be replaced? Without that money there will be sink schools. The teachers will leave. We have talked about teachers leaving and they will leave a great deal quicker than they have in the past unless there is adequate financing.
Thirdly, as president of Morley College I was delighted to hear the compliments given to that college and to its sister organisation mentioned by the noble Baroness. However, she went on to say that after a period of time no doubt those colleges would be able to raise a large amount of their finance from the private sector, from earning their keep and standing on their own feet. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware that at present one third of the students at Morley College are reduced fee-paying students because they are either old age pensioners, unemployed or people who are not in a position to pay. Unless considerable sums of money can be raised the whole character of the college will change. It is the essence of the work of the college that London-wide it is providing both high standards in such matters as music and art but also is determined to meet community needs for people in great need and difficulty who urgently need the advantages of adult education for a whole variety of reasons which I shall not go into.
Does the noble Baroness really believe that those colleges will be able to maintain themselves by putting up their fees—which is what she means—and raising money from trusts and foundations? Of course they will endeavour to do that. However, that does not begin to answer the problem. I should like to have satisfactory answers to those questions from the noble Lord the Leader of the House if he is to reply to this debate.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: The case for the speedy abolition of ILEA is overwhelming and I do not want to dwell on it further this afternoon. It is well known to everyone.
The only thing that ILEA is good at is bogus propaganda in trying to extend its own life. For example, I refer to its ludicrous parents' poll. That was conducted at public expense in ILEA schools, backed by massive ILEA propaganda. A weird weightage of voting was given according to the number of children that parents had at an ILEA school. ILEA then claimed that 93 per cent. of the
214
parents in the poll were in favour of ILEA. In fact, only 72,500 out of ILEA's 475,000 parents voted at all.
Recently the Committee passed an amendment to the effect that when a school wishes to opt out of control of its local authority there must be a majority of all those who could have voted; not just a simple majority of those who voted. 1LEA's self-preservation poll hardly satisfies that standard. A much better guide is the Gallup poll published in the Daily Telegraph on Monday. That said that 63 per cent. of all Londoners are not at all worried about the abolition of ILEA. It is true that 47 per cent. expressed concern (that is, of inner Londoners, not Londoners in general) but 49 per cent. were not worried. It is surprising that after all the propaganda put out by ILEA the majority, even of inner Londoners, do not back its continuance.
The bogus polls conducted by ILEA are reminiscent of the bogus polls conducted by the GLC when we were told of all the ghastly horrors that would occur if that magnificent ornament of public government were to be abolished. The GLC has vanished. There is no clamour to bring it back. Everyone is getting on very nicely without it. It will be the same when ILEA has gone into the dustbin of history.
The 13 new local education authorities could not do a worse job than ILEA. They have every chance of doing a much better one. The Government propose to give the new authorities two years to make plans for running the schools within their areas. One can do an awful lot in two years. It is half the length of the First World War. The Government are right to speed up the process of abolition. Even some of the movers of this amendment assume that ILEA must go. A dying authority is useless and it can have very nasty death throes.
I was surprised that my noble friend Lord Annan said that if the deed were to be done it should be done quickly. He then moved an amendment allowing for a very long delay before the deed occurred—perhaps not at all.
Lord Annan: Will the noble Lord give way? I said "three months".
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: That is not so. Once this amazing panel of assessors has been set up and it starts consulting everyone, the hands of the Secretary of State will be tied. He can do nothing about making new arrangements until he knows what the panel is proposing to him. Even then he has to decide whether or not he agrees that the panel has produced a good solution. There will then be another debate on all that. That may please all the education experts but it will do no good for children and their futures. It will just be a collection of experts advising and telling other experts what to do—and they would never agree, in any case.
I am a new Member of this Chamber. My understanding of our role is that we are to improve Bills sent to us by the other place, not to emasculate them. No doubt the general level of intelligence in this Chamber is higher than that in the other place.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: At least we have agreement on that. Members of the other place were elected, we were not. In making alterations to central parts of legislation passed by a majority in another place we run the risk of serious danger. We may say that we pass a major amendment only to give the Government and the other place the opportunity to reconsider the matter, but in practice we are holding up significant legislation which has been passed in the other place.
If ever there were another Labour Government, Labour Peers and the Labour Party would resent this practice very much. They would revise their policy of abolising your Lordships' House. Already a leading article in last week's Sunday Times advocated just that. Even a Conservative Government may not remain indefinitely tolerant.
That is not the only reason I am opposing the amendment. The speedy abolition of ILEA is essential for the better education of the children of inner London. We are compelling them to have a continually bad education the longer we delay it. It would be foolish of us to behave as though this were a great constitutional issue which puts the nation in danger and only this Committee can save it by passing the amendment. The nation is not in danger. What is in danger is the education of the children of inner London. The sooner that danger is removed, the better.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I rise because, as I explained when the original announcement was made, I was probably the person most responsible for the paternity of ILEA in its present form, but it is time that my putative child should be put an end to within the time-scale allowed by Her Majesty's Government. I give my reasons.
There is no respectable body of opinion in this country except in regard to inner London which does not want education to be based on local authorities. The question we have to ask ourselves is why inner London should be privileged to have a different system of education from the rest of the country? I should have had a great deal more respect for the amendment if its supporters had taken the line, avowedly admitted by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that it was bad to abolish ILEA and therefore it ought not to be abolished. However, from the moment that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, spoke it was obvious that that is not what the amendment says. If I may remind the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark it says, roughly speaking, what was said by St. Augustine of Hippo, which was:
"Domine, fac castum sed non modo"
please make me chaste, but give me a breathing space first!
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, quoted Lady Macbeth and her husband, but he should have remembered the words of Dr. Johnson:
"when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully".
The fact is that there is plenty of time to use before the abolition of this authority, which is entirely
216
unexampled throughout the rest of the country and which, as my noble friend Lady Hooper said, has failed the ordinary children of London for the reasons given: partly because of its financial incompetence and partly because of the low standards of its education. It is not an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, to say, "Ah, but there are so many people with exceptional needs congregated in this highly populated area and we can make special arrangements for them", if the cost of that is to be at the expense of the ordinary school and the ordinary child.
What is ILEA? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, was the only person who touched upon the truth. ILEA is the built-up area of 1888 which has about as much relevance to the educational needs of the country at the present time as the street plan of Pompei. It is a survival from the past. I preserved it not because it was a good education authority, but for reasons which I gave to the House when the announcement was made, namely, it was a question of bricks and mortar. The LCC, which is the area concerned, built its schools and, I must say because I was particularly concerned with them at the time, the polytechnics, and although they have disappeared from the Bill for reasons which have no relevance to what I am about to say, they are dealt with in Part III. But the bricks and mortar did not correspond to borough boundaries. More than 20 years have passed since then for Parliament to put this matter in order.
There is absolutely nothing in the obviously complex difficulties to which the abolition of ILEA, passed by the House of Commons, gives rise which cannot be dealt with either by trans-borough arrangements with suitable financial arrangements where the export of pupils exceeds the import and by the kind of provision which my noble friend Lady Hooper gave in her very carefully and properly prepared speech.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, defend the boys' clubs. I hope that proper provision will be made for them. On the basis of the present programme there are two years in which it can be done. The amendment is now asking us to invent a new quango of anonymous composition and therefore of unknown value, and to postpone the evil day which will therefore lead to increased uncertainty and increased delay. I can have no respect whatever for that proposition.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hart of South Lanark: I wish to speak very briefly and I rise in response only to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I must declare a vested interest and I suspect that a number of Members of this Committee also have an interest. My first young grandchild began at a primary school in Hackney a week ago. The question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is a very demanding one and no one whom I have heard speaking from the other side opposing this amendment has come near to offering an answer to it.

217
The question to which I am referring is this. How will a very poor borough finance education on an adequate scale for its children?
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, that it is no answer at all to say that Kensington and Chelsea are doing very well. The noble Baroness may wish to give the comparative figures of the ratio of the child population to the adult population in those areas. Perhaps she will also give the proportion of the children of Kensington and Chelsea who are sent to fee-paying schools by their parents, often outside the London area altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, made some play about what public opinion pollsters can do and also the statistician who attempts to produce tables in relation, for example, to the achievement in schools of children in the ILEA area. What account is taken of the relationship between school results and performance and the degree of deprivation, problem children and problem areas? There are a number of studies—I have seen at least two—which indicate very clearly that if one considers the relationship between the performance in London schools and the degree of problems faced by those schools and the children in them, compared with other parts of the country, the results are perfectly normal, at least in most areas.
I end on this point. I have always regarded the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, as an eminently reasonable person. It seems that he is bound to agree —
A noble Lord: Not all the time.
Baroness Hart of South Lanark: Most of the time. It seems that the noble and learned Lord must agree that, as compared with other parts of the Bill, less careful attention, preparation and thought can have been given to this part which has been added at a very late stage. The noble and learned Lord, if he is not indulging in perversity, is bound to agree that further study of this subject may be necessary. I believe that he is also bound to agree that within the terms set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, it might be possible for individual boroughs to come to some agreement on how to support and provide the specialised services, a number of which have been mentioned in Committee today.
It would seem advisable to most reasonable people that before the Bill becomes law it is clearly set out by the Government, whatever arrangements are to be the outcome, that there must be continuing and equally good provision for the handicapped of various kinds, for English literacy education for the ethnic groups—some of which takes place at Morley College—and for the continued provision of good music education, and the continued provision of services for young people. There is another need which I have not heard mentioned and to which I attach enormous importance; namely, the continued provision of good child-guidance services.
Without the undertaking by the Government that the arrangements to be made must satisfy those criteria, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord—as I say, I have always found him to have a considerable
218
element of reasonable rationality—that the amendment being moved today gives the Government the opportunity to make those kinds of commitments and to see that those undertakings are met in whatever arrangements are achieved. The amendment also gives time for these matters to be studied in the way in which they should have been studied before the clause was added to the Bill.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I must admit to a feeling of relief that we have come to that part of the Bill which deals with the ILEA, not primarily because we are now moving to within sight of the finishing post, but more because for almost the first time I believe it is possible to feel the firm rock of solid evidence under our feet.
When the Committee discussed the national curriculum, open enrolment and grant-maintained schools, we could to some extent at least indulge our fancies as to whether the proposed changes would be for the better or worse. Proof was hard to come by—it almost always is in education—and so speculation and anecdotal evidence, the lessons of past experience and a dash of prejudice here and there, were the order of the day. But with ILEA it is rather different.
The charges are that the authority produces bad results and that it is profligate. That is what the Secretary of State said in another place and we have heard it repeated again today. What is the evidence? The evidence for the former centres on secondary examination results. I believe it is common ground that these tell only a small part of the total story, but I shall not dwell here upon the excellent nursery, adult and further education provision and satisfactory primary provision besides the many cross-boundary services to which other speakers have already drawn attention.
Let us take the case at its admitted worst. In absolute terms ILEA exam results are almost at the bottom of the national league but anyone who has wrestled with performance indicators in education or in any other field, will know that this kind of raw statistic is meaningless. For example, does one close down a terminal cancer ward because the outcomes are uniformly bad? Before one judges an outcome one has to look at an input. In education this is not an easy exercise because there are so many variables. However it has been done. When allowance is made for the multiple disadvantages under which inner London suffers, the verdict is that ILEA's performance, compared with others, is middling; neither particularly good, nor bad.
Of course we know from other research—conducted, be it noted, by ILEA's own research and statistics branch whose future is now in jeopardy—that schools can make a difference, however dire the social need may be. The authority's performance could be up near the top of the league; however, by the same token, it could equally well be at the bottom. Do we have any other evidence—reliable evidence, not hearsay—about the state of ILEA's secondary education? As it happens, we do; and we have already heard about it. The verdict of the senior chief HMI in a recent report confirms the story told by the examination results: standards are patchy across the

219
authority. However, "undistinguished" might perhaps be a good word with which to sum up his overall view of the situation because I do not think it is accurate to quote him as calling it "poor".
The situation is nothing to be proud of; much work remains to be done, and it is being done. However, it is a long way from the out-and-out condemnation on which the abolition case appears to rest. Are the 40-odd LEAs, which are placed below inner London in the league table I referred to, to be shaken up as well? It seems not.
Further, what about profligacy? Inner London spends about £2,600 per secondary pupil per annum, as against an LEA average of between £1,500 to £1,600. How can one accurately judge whether that is about right for the problems that London has to face—the unusually sharp fluctuations in pupil numbers and social structure in recent years; the greatly increasing incidence of first languages other than English (now about one in four); whether £2,600 is too much and whether—the possibility has to be considered—it may even be too little?
Perhaps the best that can be done in this connection is to look at what other inner London services spend in relation to the national average, as it is the essence of London which concerns us and not what happens in Liverpool or Leeds where, although things are not easy, they are different. As we have seen, educational spending is something over one and a half times the average. What are the comparable figures for the police? They are about twice the average. What about social services? They are three times the average. What happens when one looks at the unit costs of services provided by the inner London boroughs who are to take over the running of education? They are higher in relation to those of the outer London boroughs than ILEA's education costs are in relation to those same boroughs. Therefore it begins to look as though ILEA may not be quite as spendthrift in its inner city context as has been said. Further, it may be that future economies may not necessarily be looked for from the boroughs under the proposed new dispensation.
I cannot resist one further observation. When one looks at the cost of some of the independent day schools one is talking of a figure in the region of £3,000 plus. For example, I believe the fees for St. Paul's School for Girls are over £3,400 per annum. Of course I know that fees and unit costs are not exactly the same, but I should be surprised if there were that much difference between the two. However, I have not heard the Government tell independent schools that they are spending too much. I cannot for the life of me see why £3,400 is all right for a girl attending St. Paul's School, but is far too much for a girl attending an ILEA school.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: If the noble Lord will allow me to say a word, I should like to point out that my daughter attended St. Paul's School and it did not cost anything like £3,400.
A noble Lord: That was 60 years ago!
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Without knowing how long ago that was, it is difficult for me to reply to the noble Lord.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: It was more recent than that—two years.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: However, the difference is still an extremely large one. The figure is one which was recently given to me and I have no reason to think that it is incorrect. Of course prices in the independent schools have gone up, even in the past two years. However, be that as it may, the difference is a great one. It is the LEA average of under £1,600 which is perhaps the one which is out of step in this connection.
I have tried to keep to hard facts and figures. I know that the statistical comparisons are not perfect—they never are—but they have been published before and I am not aware that they have been seriously challenged. In my mind it all adds up to the fact that the case for the dismemberment of the ILEA is so weak that it could only be justified if the administrative arguments against a large unitary authority were overwhelming. However, as we know, that is just what the experts have never argued.
There are many aspects about ILEA which could be improved—there are no two ways about that. I remember as a 10 year-old a report which went up on the school noticeboard about the first football match in which I ever played. It said, "Baldwin was adequate". As I sped to look the word up in the dictionary I was pretty excited: I have never liked that word since. It could perhaps be the right word for ILEA in so far as one can categorise so diverse an enterprise.
I do not believe that anyone is saying that ILEA is above reproach, not even the chairman of the London Parents' Ballot Campaign, who writes of its "occasional wayward notions". Similarly, no one is excusing the examples of waste and inefficiency. However, thoroughly bad ILEA is demonstrably not; and the evidence does not suggest that overall it is profligate. Of course I could continue about the odds against anything better being provided by the individual boroughs, for all their enthusiasm, and about the great value of the central services, but I shall leave that subject to other speakers.
My main reason for speaking on the issue, as an educationalist, is to re-emphasise the quite firm evidence that we have about the authority's performance in what is acknowledged to be its worst area; to suggest that in the light of this the case for abolition has not begun to be made out; to note with dismay that the Government solution appears, once again, to be to change the system which looks good politically but which usually leaves the real issues untouched and to express my agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that his amendment now offers the best way forward.
Lord Bellwin: It is hard to get a word in in these long debates but I must say that the feeling of déjà vu is rather mind-boggling. This is almost exactly where I came in on the GLC debate. Here we have it all again: the panoply; the propaganda; the campaigns, and so on. We even had a Petition arriving on the day of the debate; the whole thing is there in place and, of

221
course, the spending of the money on such campaigns is at the poor ratepayers' expense. What a picture it paints, and what a shambles! I am glad of the opportunity—
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord has suggested that the campaign is at the ratepayers' expense. Surely, so far as the London Parents' Ballot is concerned, that is not the case. The London Parents' Ballot Campaign was paid for by that organisation itself and not by the local authority.
Lord Beltwin: If the noble Lord will look at the actual spending of ILEA and then add to it the spending of individual boroughs who support their case—plus other spending as well—I think he will agree that the figure is at least significant. Happily, the outcome will be the same as that which applied to the GLC. However, we must ensure that we do not have the same type of delay which, as those who have spoken before me have clearly indicated—especially on this side of the Committee—would, frankly, have a devasting effect. That has to be said.
When we contemplate life after ILEA in relation to inner London, I should have thought, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Baldwin, said, that we can feel most relieved. The fact of the matter is that if one takes any statistics on their own you can argue about them; if you take the totality of spending and say that it is four times more expensive in administrative terms than anywhere else in the country, you can argue the point. However, it is only when one starts to put those concepts together that one obtains the type of picture which has led to us wanting to see done that which must be done.
The fact is that the case is overwhelming. The over-spending and under-achievement is something which cannot be left to go on any longer. We can argue as to how good or how bad it is; some people say that it is 93rd out of 96 education authorities. We can say that perhaps it is the 83rd, but that is still quite awful by all standards.
Attention has been drawn to the poor backgrounds of people concerned, with the children coming from poor homes and so on. If there were no others in that situation then perhaps one could argue the case. I accept that Leeds should not be brought in here because that authority always does these things so much better under whatever system is operated there. But there are other areas. In another capacity I have had the opportunity to see those areas where the conditions are quite awful, and one would not want to say how much better or worse they are than some areas in London. Yet the education results are not by any means as awful.
On that point, if the Committee will allow a strictly personal note, up to the age of 10 I attended a primary school where the average size of classes was 44. I do not think we ever had less than 44 in the class and one could say of almost all those children that they came from what would be described today as poor backgrounds. Almost all of them came from the ethnic minorities. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, knows exactly what I mean when I say that.
222
Yet the teaching was good, the head master was strict, but he was highly respected. The parents were concerned about what the children were doing in school. One thing was not there and noble Lords may or may not consider this significant: on none of the school noticeboards or walls was there any notice pertaining to anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-heterosexism or anti-anything else, come to that.
The results of the school in educational terms, with all the background and all the deprivation, could only be described as outstanding. I shall name the school because I would love to see it on the record. It was the Lovell Road School, Leeds. I am very proud of having at one time been a pupil there.
I have no fears as to what life will be like afterwards. It is true that the boroughs will do things differently. Some will be better, some will be worse. This is always the case in local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hart, who, I note, is not in her place, asked, where will the money come from for the boroughs? Of course, as always, it will come from the same place as the money for all the other education authorities in the country—from central government grants, through the rate support grant. The poorer boroughs will receive much more than the better off boroughs. That is always the way.
I shall not say a great deal today because many others have spoken, and who knows how many more may wish to speak! But the more carefully I have looked into the case made out by the anti-abolitionists, the more appalled I have become. One cannot explain away the fact that one out of eight head teachers in 1986 and another 76 by May 1987 had left the service of ILEA. That cannot be explained away. We can take heed of what the general secretary of a head teachers' association said:
"The fact is that the job has become almost impossible. They (the head teachers) are continually harassed by threats of tribunals, of allegations of racism, sexism and so on".
How can teachers go about their business of teaching and educating the children in such a festering atmosphere? When it has all gone and it is all finished, it is all just a bad dream, the teachers will be free from any of the fear of harassment of this kind. Then we shall see a real opportunity for the children of London.
In my view postponement is not an option. I just do not think we can delay any longer. What is being called for by the amendment is the kind of vacillation that we had in the 'seventies. Look at the mess that got us into with just about everything! The low educational standards and high spending—it has to be said, so let us say it now—are a scandal. The financial cost in wasted millions is unjustifiable. The human cost in wasted opportunities is unforgivable. I think that uncertainty is the worst option of all. I hope that we shall reject this amendment, and I gladly support those who will do so.
Baroness Blackstone: I know what happened to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, since he left his school, but I do not know what happened to the other 43 pupils. I am sure that everybody in this Committee will agree that almost all parents would prefer their children not to be educated in a class with 44 children. Almost all

223
parents will be aware of the enormous difficulties that teachers would experience in a class as large as that. We have made some progress since then and certainly the Inner London Education Authority has made a great deal of progress since then. I do not believe that those reminiscences are appropriate to 1988.
I had not intended to speak on this amendment but one or two points have been made which I feel I must answer. As many members of the Committee know, I speak as a former chief officer in the Inner London Education Authority. I hope that the Committee will not think that makes me parti pris. I do not care whether the Inner London Education Authority as such survives. There are various forms of organisation which could provide education in inner London. What I care passionately about is that the quality of education for children in our capital city should be of the highest possible order, and that the range of opportunities for students and young people should be as great as they possibly can be. It is for that reason that I am on my feet rather than because I want to defend every single aspect of what the Inner London Education Authority has done in the past.
I should like to pick up the issue which a number of noble Lords on the opposite Benches have raised. One is the question of whether delay will be undesirable. I agree that a delay of many months would not be helpful to people in inner London. However, we are faced today with new clauses which were inserted in this Bill half way through its passage in another place. Surely it is reasonable in those circumstances to suggest that we should not rush with undue haste down a route about which many of us have great doubts. Moreover, I must take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. This is not a wrecking amendment and I think it is very unfair to the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Annan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, to suggest that it is. If at the end of the day, after a review which should be short and should be done as fast as possible, it is decided, or the Government are advised by their experts that the best solution for education in London is to abolish the ILEA, then so be it. It cannot be a wrecking amendment in those circumstances.
I wanted to pick up one or two of the points made by the Minister. I think she was very unfair and somewhat selective in what she said about standards in inner London. I also think she was rather unfair and selective in what she said about costs. I am however glad that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, has covered those issues admirably. I am pleased that it came from him rather than from me. As a professional education officer from outside inner London he may be considered to be more objective than I could possibly be. But I fully endorse every word that he said.
There are two or three other points which I think need picking up and which have not been covered. First, I should like to say a few words about social needs in inner London. Reference has been made to the extent of urban deprivation in our capital city. I do not think anybody has adequately covered the extent to which social conditions have deteriorated in recent years. There has been a great increase in
224
unemployment among the parents of inner London school children. Housing conditions have deteriorated in many parts of the areas served by the ILEA. It is also the case that there has been a very substantial increase in the number of children and young people who do not speak English as a first language at home. The proportion of children who are qualifying for free school meals has increased.
This has all happened in the past four or five years. Therefore it is rather unfair to complain that ILEA has not adequately put its house in order when one takes into account the enormous social problems with which it is having to deal.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Somers: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She said that we should not rush through this Bill with undue haste. We have spent two and a half hours and more over one amendment. Does the noble Baroness think that too hasty?
Baroness Blackstone: I have nothing to reply to that intervention, which I do not think is particularly helpful. I wish briefly to mention my point about costs. It is true that ILEA has had high levels of expenditure. It is possible that in the past some savings might have been made that were not made. I accept that. However, as again the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, has said, the costs of providing services in inner London are very much higher than they are in many other parts of the country. That applies to the police, to the social services and to other services. But the Government introduced new legislation not very long ago to control expenditure by local authorities where they consider that spending is too high.
Rate-capping is now operating in inner London, and, indeed, this very financial year ILEA is cutting its budget by 12 per cent. as a result of those provisions. If the Government wish to cut it further (although I would hope that they will not) they have those provisions available. The Government do not need to abolish ILEA in order to deal with the problem of high spending if that is what they perceive to be the main problem.
The Minister made a number of references to particular services and in almost every case she kept referring to the fact that whether it was adult education or whether it was the Horniman and Geffrye Museum they could rely in future on more private sector funding. I really wonder whether private industry and commerce in this country has so much spare money available that it can pay for our public services. Surely its profits should be reinvested to increase the productivity that the Government are so proud of. Surely it is out of general taxation and the raising of rates that we should pay for these services which are of communal advantage to us all.
I should just like to refer to the quite extraordinary speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. To refer to the parents' poll as bogus is I believe an insult to those parents who spent many weeks and months organising that poll as well as putting money into it. It is quite untrue that those parents were simply responding to propaganda put out by ILEA. We have heard a certain amount of

225
propaganda in this debate, some of it from the Benches opposite and some of it from the public newspapers. But to suggest that parents are unable to make up their own minds on this issue after reading the propaganda from all sides is I believe an insult and is totally and utterly out of tune with everything that the Government have said about their wish to listen to parents.
Finally, the headteachers and every other organisation in inner London concerned with education have come out strongly in favour of maintaining a unitary authority. I therefore find it quite extraordinary that the Minister should say that she has been listening. All I can say is that her listening has been extraordinarily selective.
Baroness David: The Government plan sudden and dramatic changes to, and fragmention of, the organisation and structure of the service which has provided for the social and educational needs of inner Londoners for more than 100 years. These hastily drafted changes were introduced in Committee after the Bill had been given its Second Reading in another place, and were quite unexpectedly inserted into Part III as a result of an Early Day Motion tabled by Back Benchers.
They remain on the face of the Bill despite overwhelming expressions of concern and anxiety from those who will have to live with the Government's unplanned outcome for London's education. Her Majesty's Inspector Mr. Eric Bolton has conspicuously failed to endorse the Government's proposal. Headteachers, parents, national representatives of the Churches, voluntary organisations and the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry have all expressed their fears and concerns.
We on these Benches have been accused, quite wrongly, of complacency and of reluctance to acccept change. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to this again this very afternoon; but I want to take this opportunity to spell out clearly our attitude to reorganisation and change. Our attitude is very firmly based on the stated policy and the clear advice offered to education authorities by the current Secretary of State for Education. This policy and advice relates to the manner in which changes to an education service should be proposed, agreed and carried out. Therefore, I shall confine myself in this debate to the advice and policy of the Secretary of State as defined in Circular No. 3/87, which was circulated by the DES on 6th May 1987, only a year ago. The circular is entitled Providing for Quality, and lays out quite clearly the
"General considerations against which the Secretary of State judges rationalisation proposals".
First, the Secretary of State makes it quite clear that it is his policy,
"having regard to his legal obligations and the need for cost-effective reorganisation to keep an open mind as to what pattern of school organisation might best suit the needs of a particular area".
Secondly, he states unequivocally (and I quote again):
"The Government is committed to giving the fullest possible effect to parental preferences".
226
The parental preference must, however, be fairly considered by a Secretary of State whose mind is open. We have had parental preferences expressed very clearly in the ballot, but the Secretary of State does not appear to have kept an open mind.
The matter to which the Secretary of State attaches the greatest importance in Circular No.3/87 is consultation. Paragraph 9 of the circular states:
"The Secretary of State has made clear in previous guidance the importance he attaches to the adequacy of consultation on the part of all promoters."
This policy, the circular emphasises,
"has received judicial backing from recent High Court decisions which hold that parents have a legitimate expectation that they will be consulted on proposals affecting reorganisation of their children's school. The Secretary of State expects appropriate consultation to have taken place with parents, teaching and other staff, governors and other interested parties at the formative stage of the proposals, with sufficient information and time available to permit intelligent consideration of and response to the issues involved; such consultation should normally have taken place within the 12 months immediately prior to publication."
The circular goes on to encourage very careful consideration of a range of options. The Secretary of State advises:
"It may be appropriate that a range of options is explored before arriving at a specific proposal, but it is important that before a final decision is made, proposers should ensure that in the course of consultation the emerging choice is sufficiently identified to allow those being consulted to focus on it. Where an entirely new option emerges from the consultation process, the Secretary of State generally expects proposers to broaden the consultations to take account of that option."
The circular them makes a particularly telling point in the light of this Government's refusal to make public the responses to their proposals to break up ILEA. Mr. Dunn, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in written answers in another place, has made plain his refusal to disclose, analyse and publish responses to the Government's consultation document, which did not even include the present proposals, or to their proposals in the Bill, on which no consultation has been permitted and representations on which have been swept under the carpet.
The circular states in paragraph 11 on page 12:
"The Secretary of State expects proposers (of change) to be able to demonstrate that they have considered the views of interested parties in their formulation of proposals. He would not expect proposals to be published in the face of overwhelming local opposition unless the proposers could show that no other form of rationalisation could meet the circumstances of the area."
The starkness of the contrast between that advice and the actions of the Secretary of State in relation to ILEA could not be greater. Not only has the same Secretary of State ignored his own advice by publishing proposals "in the face of overwhelming opposition": he has thought fit to include the proposals in legislation at a very late stage in its parliamentary progress. If that were not reckless enough, he has, without any willingness to demonstrate that he has considered the views of interested parties, proceeded to steamroller it through, ignoring throughout the anguish and outrage of parents whose votes were cast in the parents' ballot and who constitute an absolute majority. All the while, the Secretary of State has refused to show
"that no other form of rationalisation could meet the circumstances of the area".

227
The amendment tabled by, among others, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London comes none too soon to rescue inner London from such recklessness. If Members of the Committee opposite feel that in supporting the amendment of the right reverend Prelate they may in some way incur the wrath of the Secretary of State or the Minister, they may rest assured. On the Secretary of State's own advice they are reminded in paragraph 12 of Circular 3/87—
"of the desirability of consulting Diocesan Authorities at an early stage on any proposals which could have implications for voluntary schools in their area".
The considerations in the circular apply to small-scale changes, the closure of individual schools and the rationalisation of provision within authorities. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State has taken great care in providing detailed advice to authorities on how most effectively to manage and to bring about change and create a climate of opinion which enables change to take place with the benefit of public confidence. Is it not ironic that in the consideration of the major changes which will affect not one school but 1,000 schools, not 3,000 pupils but 300,000 pupils, and not 90 employees but 90,000 employees, and in considering a major upheaval to the administration of the capital city, the Secretary of State appears unwilling to abide by the standards and criteria that he rightly expects those dealing with lesser changes to observe?
In her speech the Minister showed that the Government have come to realise belatedly some of the problems which will flow from the abolition of ILEA. It seems to me that that has occurred very late in the day. The key point in the arrangements which she outlined in her speech earlier today is that those arrangements deal with adult education, music and voluntary organisations, which constitute a very tiny margin of the ILEA's total provision. It is the 1,000 schools that the ILEA is concerned about. What will happen to the pupils in those schools? I ask the Committee to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: We have had a long debate on the amendments, which I believe turn on two issues. The first is whether there is any longer a justification for retaining a single authority for inner London's education service. The second point is whether the service can be transferred successfully to the inner London boroughs.
What has become clear to me during the last three hours is that, whatever else we may feel about the Inner London Education Authority, there is no question but that the situation in the secondary schools in inner London leaves a great deal to be desired. Her Majesty's inspectors have always found a great deal that is good in other parts of the education service in the capital. However, they have found 40 per cent. of classes in inner London's secondary schools to be unsatisfactory or poor. That is reflected in the fact that in the final year of
228
compulsory education the level of absenteeism across inner London's schools is almost 30 per cent. That means that on average on any given day one in three pupils is simply not there. It was also found that more than 20 per cent. of young people—
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps the Minister will give way for a moment. Does he agree that truancy is seen in every major city in all developed countries, and particularly in cities suffering from urban decay? To suggest that truancy is the fault of the Inner London Education Authority cannot be fair. Perhaps the Minister will also tell the Committee what he thinks the inner London boroughs will do to reduce the rates of truancy.
Lord Belstead: I shall come to the question of the inner London boroughs in a moment. However, the point which the noble Baroness neglects is that for some unexplained reason the level to which I have referred is over twice the average throughout the whole of the rest of the country. That includes Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham and the other great conurbations. We also know that one in four of all children who leave schools at the end of their compulsory schooling in inner London do so without any qualifications. I put it to the noble Baroness that those figures are worse by a ratio of two to one than the figures for any other part of the country.
In the interests of pupils, that is not a matter which can be shrugged off. Nor can it be solved by pumping more money into the system. The fact is that the ILEA has become almost unbearably expensive. Today one only has to cross from inner London into the outer London boroughs to find that it costs nearly £1,000 per year less to educate a secondary pupil in outer London. Incidentally, the ILEA's costs per pupil are 75 per cent. higher than similar costs in Birmingham.
In addition, the very size of the Inner London Education Authority is a clue to its poor performance. Each of the authority's ten divisions deals with a workload which, in the outer London boroughs, would be appropriate for a whole authority. That is not the fault of the ILEA. However, it is an in-built problem and it means that the things which are of greatest concern to parents, such as the problems of a particular school, will not loom large among the enormous responsibilities concentrated at County Hall.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham made a crucial point when he said in essence that surely it is better and more in keeping with our ideas of local democracy for people in each borough to have a decisive influence on the shape of education in their areas through the ballot box in electing their local council, and to let the boroughs run education as they do other services, including the social services. That raises an important point. When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said that he was thinking of people in debating the amendments—and I respect him for saying that—I must ask whether it will not be of advantage to such things as youth work, dual use of school facilities and programmes for young people in need if the boroughs become multipurpose authorities. That point was made very

229
effectively by my noble friend Baroness Young, with all her experience of local government.
It was for those reasons that the Conservative manifesto a year ago made it clear that we believed that there is no longer any justification for retaining a huge unitary authority. We intended to proceed by allowing individual boroughs to opt out. However, as the Bill proceeded through another place the Government were by no means alone in realising that in the general interest, and not least in the interests of staff, there needed to be an orderly abolition of the ILEA as whole with the boroughs assuming their education functions simultaneously. Once we had made our intention clear, our proposals to abolish the Inner London Education Authority were carefully scrutinised in the other place. Over 22 hours were spent debating the matter there, and there is no justification for claiming insufficient scrutiny. Nonetheless the Committee has before it today amendments calling for a period of delay to look further into the matter. With respect, I do not think that that is necessary, but I accept that the Government must show that they are taking every care to ensure a successful transfer to the inner London boroughs.
So we are taking the following steps. First, the boroughs are being asked to publish development plans by next February explaining how they will take on their education responsibilities. That will enable parents, teachers and others with an interest, including the Churches, to discuss the shape of the education service in their area.
Secondly, over the next two years the Government will provide a great deal of financial support to assist the boroughs in preparing to become local education authorities. We recognise that setting up the new authorities will entail a good deal of work and the Department of Education and Science will stand ready both with grant aid and advice.
Thirdly, through the new education support grant—which is a new idea introduced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for monitoring the quality of education and for implementing the national curriculum—each of the inner London boroughs will receive support for additional school inspectors when, as we plan, they first become local education authorities in two years' time.
In addition, we intend to table amendments to make it possible for the London Residuary Body to provide support services formerly provided by the Inner London Education Authority across the boroughs if the boroughs ask for that to be done.
That represents a great deal of forward planning and I realise that it is necessary. But it can only go ahead if the Committee gives approval to this part of the Bill today and rejects the amendment. Let us be quite clear, a great deal has been said about the amendment but my reading of it is that it would mean that everything would stop until undoubtedly towards the end of 1989. Perhaps I may remind the Committee, because it has been a very long debate, that in addition to what I have just said my noble friend Lady Hooper in her speech announced a
230
number of very important measures. Those measures will secure the long-term future of four very distinguished adult education establishments through a guarantee of central government funding. They will provide additional grants to help with the headquarters' expenses of inner London voluntary and youth organisations (and if I may, I shall return in a moment to the point about youth organisations which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman). The measures announced by my noble friend will secure the maintenance of high quality music tuition in inner London, and the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra in particular. Finally, those measures will make arrangements for the internationally famous Horniman and Geffrye Museums to become grant-aided independent trustee bodies.
I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that we are now proposing to start discussions with the museums and the inner London education authorities about the constitution of those trusts.
There was one entirely different part of the debate this afternoon when the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hart of South Lanark, both raised the question of children with special needs. In effect they said that they had not heard the Government say anything about the position of schools which serve areas across borough boundaries. With their experience, both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord know much better than I that virtually no authority in this country attempts to provide by itself for every kind of handicap. Authorities tend to co-operate with each other in placing pupils in the most appropriate schools and the fact that recoupment is at full costs assists this process. The inner London boroughs will be expected to maintain the existing ILEA special schools with the process of placing children and recoupment of costs as in other parts of the country.
The point which was raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord in itself raises another very important point. That concerns the vital group of ILEA schools which provide residential special education outside inner London and which make a very important contribution to provision for handicapped children throughout the whole of the South East of England. So my right honourable friend will shortly invite representatives of the Inner London Education Authority, the inner and outer London boroughs, and the county authorities where the schools are located to join together in a working group to consider the future of these schools very much as was done in the 1960s at the time of the reorganisation of London boroughs.
In essence I am saying that a great deal of careful planning has started to ensure that, with the consent of Parliament, the boroughs will be able to take on their education responsibilities successfully.
With respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark who said that this was being done in such haste, there will be time enough because in order to become local education authorities on 1st April 1990, the inner London boroughs will have exactly the same period of time to prepare as the outer London boroughs had to assume their many responsibilities 20 years ago.

231
However, the Government recognise that in a matter as important as this as much certainty as possible is required. So perhaps even more important than the organisational structure of the new authorities will be the capability of the individuals who will be appointed to run them. Therefore the Government intend to bring forward at Report stage in your Lordships' House two amendments designed for that purpose. First, the boroughs' development plans will have to set out clearly the management structure for their education service, subject to my right honourable friend's approval. Secondly, and I think very importantly, we intend to bring forward amendments closely paralleling those provisions which applied until 1972 in all local education authorities requiring—for a limited period only—my right honourable friend's approval for senior appointments. I hope that when your Lordships see those amendments you will feel that they will provide an additional guarantee that the new local education authorities will start life with strong management teams.
This has been a very long debate and, if I may, I shall content myself with trying to reply to two questions only. The first is the very important question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hart of South Lanark, both of whom asked whether all the boroughs will be able to cope. Both noble Baronesses suggested that there were some which would not be able to cope. As I listened to both noble Baronesses I found it surprising that they had doubts as to whether inner London boroughs would be able to provide a service which all their neighbours in outer London have run for many years.
The Government accept that a great deal of work will be necessary to prepare over the next few years. That is why I have been at pains in my speech this afternoon to point out that we are setting up a special inner London unit. That is why we are offering the boroughs a specific grant. That is why the London Residuary Body will be able to help smooth any transitional difficulties by taking on some support services if that is wanted. Let us also remember that under the new system of local government finance which the Government are putting before Parliament the revenue support grant will be paid precisely in order to meet the needs of local authorities.
If, however, the noble Baronesses are concerned at the educational attitude of some of the boroughs I would remind them not only of what I said in my last few remarks about the arrangements for approval of the senior posts in the education service, but also of the important provisions in the rest of this Bill—the national curriculum, local financial management and the availability of grant-maintained status, all measures, if I may say so, which will provide powerful—
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Belstead: I should like to reach the end of the sentence—all measures, if I may say so, which will
232
provide powerful safeguards and achieve exactly the objective which both the noble Baronesses wish to see achieved.
Baroness Seear: What I asked was whether the Minister can confirm that the poorer boroughs will be no worse off in real terms after the reorganisation than they are now.
Lord Belstead: The answer was embedded in the remarks which I have just made. Whether or not the noble Baroness likes the Local Government Finance Bill, the whole idea of revenue support grant when we come to introduce it (and I know that my noble friend Lord Caithness will have a good time explaining it to the noble Baroness) is that it will apply to the needs of the boroughs in London as it will apply to the needs of local authorities outside London. The exact details under which the revenue support grant will work have still to be worked out but I can say to the noble Baroness that I reckon that the way in which the revenue support grant work will be very much akin to the way in which the needs element of the GRE works at the present time.
The other question that I promised to answer was put in an intervention which came from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who asked where the money would come from to replace the ILEA's grants to youth clubs. Of course the youth clubs, like others elsewhere, will look to both their own local education authority and other forms of local support. The noble Lord knows that. However, in her speech my noble friend Lady Hooper referred also to the very large scale of central government support for voluntary organisations. Speaking from memory, some £16 million is devoted to voluntary organisations by my noble friend's department, the Department of Education and Science; about £30 million comes from the DHSS and £20 million comes from the Home Office. So the amount of government money that is being channelled towards the voluntary organisations is very large indeed.
My noble friend Lady Hooper also said that in addition we should be providing grants for three years from 1990 specifically to assist the headquarters organisations of London voluntary bodies in their work of co-ordination across the capital. We shall watch closely the effect of our proposals on youth work but we are confident that this essentially local service will be well provided for locally. The difficulty in which we find ourselves today is that despite all that has been said from this side of the Chamber about the very careful planning that is going into the transition of educational responsibilities in inner London, the Committee has to consider a group of amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and other Members of the Committee, which would have the effect of delaying the preparations and lead to very damaging uncertainty.
Preparatory work in the London boroughs would simply grind to a halt. Inner London Education Authority staff would be left in complete uncertainty, as would parents. In the end it would be the children who suffer. If it is said that that is a price worth paying provided that we obtain a definitive report about inner London's education, with great respect

233
to the Benches opposite I beg to differ. Report after report by both central government and the Inner London Education Authority itself have had too little effect on the way in which the authority conducts its business; I do not think that Amendment No. 272, which is among this group of amendments, will provide the answer. That is the amendment which would give my right honourable friend an order-making power to make changes in the structure of inner London's education. The constitution of the ILEA has already been changed in recent years and so far as I can see that has had no discernible effect on its performance.
I feel that my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Boyd-Carpenter had every justification for saying in their speeches that the inevitable consequence of these amendments must be substantial delay in preparing for the transfer of inner London's educational responsibilities, but on the evidence I believe that a transfer of responsibility from the existing huge authority is both necessary and urgent. With approval today from the Committee the work of preparing for an orderly transfer can go ahead and we can begin to build an improved education service for inner London with a strong local basis. I ask the Committee to give that approval and not to support these amendments.
6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: The Minister spoke about the reforms which had been produced in an attempt to affect ILEA. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will accept that from 1960 to 1984 all but one of the relevant reports—reports from Royal Commissions and other bodies such as the one that produced the Marshall Report—advocated a unitary authority quite independently of whether or not ILEA should continue to exist. The exception was a report produced by Mr. Baker, who was then a Back-Bench MP. That report advocated devolution to the boroughs. From 1960 to 1984 all the other reports maintained that a unitary authority should be retained in some form or other.
Lord Belstead: The right reverend Prelate has asked me a question and the answer is very simple. As I observed at the beginning of the debate and as my noble friends said in their speeches, that may be the case, but we have reached the point at which in view of falling standards and increasing costs it is not in the interests of the children of the capital to go on as we are doing.
Lord Kilmarnock: We have had a long debate, as is appropriate to the subject, and so I shall certainly not make a long winding-up speech. It would be churlish not to welcome such crumbs of comfort as those offered by the noble Baroness in her speech, but I must say that they seem to be restricted to a very modest level of interim funding while the institutions concerned seek private sponsorship.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and his noble friends will be satisfied with the response on the question of museums, but no doubt the Committee will hear from them later. Again, I do
234
not know whether the provision of £500,000 a year over three years for voluntary organisations working with youth clubs will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Certainly to a layman it seems an extraordinarily small amount of money for the work involved.
In her speech the noble Baroness made great play on the words "reprieve" and "retention" in relation to ILEA. In fact, she implied that these amendments had been advanced simply as a screen for the reprieve or retention of ILEA as it currently exists. That is not the case. I tried to make that plain in my speech, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. We are not against change; it is a question of what change and whether it will work.
Those who support this amendment face the problem that neither the noble Baroness nor—I must say this to him—the noble Lord the Leader of the House has addressed our central concern. The noble Baroness referred to the need to give a clear signal to the three boroughs which were contemplating opting out, and she referred approvingly to Wandsworth's leaflet. Have we come to the point of legislating by leaflet? Moreover, what signal are we sending to the other boroughs? That is what we want to know. We received no answer to our questions. It seems to me that there is no prospect of the boroughs getting adequate funding without a very high level of poll tax.
Nothing has been said on the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. London has particular problems and there is a vast difference in the problems facing the different boroughs. We have talked a great deal about the three Conservative boroughs and very little about the fate of the other boroughs. In my view no rational argument against these amendments has yet been advanced in this debate, except the argument of delay. As I said in my opening remarks, I take that matter very seriously but that is simply not what we are proposing. There is no delay implicit in these amendments beyond that which is already implied in the Bill.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord the Leader of the House mentioned everything grinding to a halt, but there is no reason whatsoever why boroughs should back-track on the development of their plans or abandon their preparations. As the noble Lord has said, they are due to submit their plans to the Secretary of State by February next year. No doubt they will also submit them to the panel of assessors that will be reporting only one month later; that is, by 1st April, which is also precisely one whole year before the abolition date. There is therefore no reason in the amendment why the abolition timetable should not be kept. The only difference between the Government's timetable and ours is that we would have a far better idea of where we are going and how to get there rather than stepping blithely and blindly into the abyss. In the circumstances I am afraid that I have no alternative but to press the amendment.
6.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 269) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 183; Not-Contents, 236.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Alport, L.

Hayter, L.

Amherst, E.

Henniker, L.

Annan, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Heycock, L.

Attlee, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Avebury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hughes, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hunt, L.

Bancroft, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Banks, L.

Hylton, L.

Barnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Basnett, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Birkett, L.

Jay, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kennet, L.

Bramall, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Brimelow, L.

Kindersley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Lawrence, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Leatherland, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Listowel, E.

Canterbury, Abp.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Caradon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

London, Bp. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Chandos, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Chitnis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cobbold, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

Combermere, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

Melchett, L.

Davies, L.

Milford, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Mishcon, L.

Molloy, L.

Denington, B.

Monkswell, L.

Diamond, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mountevans, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elibank, L.

Nicol, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Northfield, L.

Ennals, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Esher, V.

Oram, L.

Ewarts-Biggs, B.

Parry, L.

Falkender, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fitt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Flowers, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Foot, L.

Raglan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Reilly, L.

Gifford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Glenamara, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grafton, D.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Gregson, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Grimond, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hampton, L.

Scanlon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

236

Sefton of Garston, L.

Thurso, V.

Serota, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Shackleton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Shaughnessy, L,

Turner of Camden, B.

Shepherd, L.

Underhill, L.

Sherfield, L.

Vernon, L.

Soper, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Walston, L.

Stallard, L.

Warnock, B.

Stedman, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strafford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Swann, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Thurlow, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Aldington, L.

De Freyne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Deedes, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Derwent, L.

Ampthill, L.

Digby, L.

Arran, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Dudley, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dulverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Bauer, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Erne, E.

Bellwin, L.

Faithfull, B.

Beloff, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Ferrier, L.

Benson, L.

Fisher, L.

Bessborough, E.

Forte, L.

Blatch, B.

Fortescue, E.

Boston, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Freyberg, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Brentford, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Burton, L.

Goold, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gowrie, E.

Caithness, E.

Grantchester, L.

Caldecote, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Camden, M.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Greenway, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Haddington, E.

Carnock, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Halsbury, E.

Chelmer, L.

Hanson, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Clinton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harrowby, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Hartwell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harvington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Havers, L.

Colyton, L.

Henley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hives, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Holderness, L.

Cowley, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cox, B.

Hood, V.

Craigavon, V.

Hooper, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Huntly, M.

Crickhowell, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Croft, L.

Ironside, L.

Croham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kearton, L.

237

Killearn, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Rochdale, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Rodney, L.

Layton, L.

Rollo, L.

Lindsay, E.

Romney, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Rugby, L.

Long, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Luke, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lyell, L.

Saint Levan, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Salisbury, M.

McFadzean, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Sandford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Seebohm, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Selkirk, E.

Mancroft, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Mansfield, E.

Shannon, E.

Manton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Margadale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marsh, L.

Somers, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Mersey, V.

Stockton, E.

Middleton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strange, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Morris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Munster, E.

Sudeley, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Suffield, L.

Nelson, E.

Swansea, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Newall, L.

Swinton, E.

Norfolk, D.

Terrington, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Teviot, L.

Orkney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trafford, L.

Peel, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pennock, L.

Tryon, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Perth, E.

Vestey, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Vinson, L.

Polwarth, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Porritt, L.

Watkinson, V.

Pym, L.

Weir, V.

Radnor, E.

Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Wise, L.

Reay, L.

Wolfson, L.

Rees, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Reigate, L.

Young, B.

Rennell, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 269A:
Page 136, line 19, leave out ("1990") and insert ("1992, subject to the provisions of subsection (3) below,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 269A I shall also speak to Amendment No. 270AA. This amendment tries to do something rather different from what the last one did. It postpones the decision about the abolition of ILEA until after the borough elections and there has been time for the people of London to have had a chance to say what they want to say. In this amendment we are addressing the issue of a democratic mandate for the Government's proposals. The amendment calls for a postponement of the abolition proposals until such time as the people of London have been given the
238
right to consider, debate and decide on the best way forward for their own education service.
In the speech that I made in the last debate I pointed out how little consultation there had been and how the Secretary of State did not wish to know the views of the people of London, in spite of the ballot. This amendment is in line with the Government's advice on the need to consult and (I quote again from Circular 3/87, which I quoted in my speech a short time ago) to
"adapt plans in the light of local people's views as a way both of forestalling objections and of improving the climate of opinion in which they are considered."
But the amendment is about much more than simple consultation. It is about the democratic process and the right of local people to a degree of control over the manner in which the services they pay for through their taxes, and in future through their poll taxes, are run.
Above all, it is about the issue of an electoral mandate. The Government have made much of their mandate. At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Graham reminded us of what that mandate was—and it was confused. Clearly the Conservative Party had given some thought to fighting an election campaign in inner London on the basis of abolishing ILEA and had then shied away. Quite naturally, they wanted to win the election, not stir up a hornets' nest of parental opinion against them; and the likelihood of winning on a commitment to abolish ILEA was very slim. So they fudged the manifesto commitment.
In a short paragraph on page 20 they simply hinted (the Secretary of State keeps referring it to as "signalling") that
"in the area covered by the Inner London Education Authority, where entire borough councils wish to become independent of the LEA, they will be able to submit proposals to the Secretary of State requesting permission to take over the provision of education within their boundaries."
What, then, are the expressed wishes of the inner London borough councils? Three wish to become LEAs—Westminster, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea. I am unaware of the position of another—Tower Hamlets. The remaining eight boroughs are on record as not wishing to take on education. Their leaders wrote a letter published in the Independent newspaper in January, the last three paragraphs of which I would cite. They state:
"As leaders of eight inner London boroughs we believe that the only way to provide a high standard of education for all children in inner London is through a single unitary education authority.
"Only an authority like the ILEA can command the resources and expertise needed to give fair and equal treatment to both children from deprived areas and those from more affluent backgrounds. Only an authority like the ILEA can provide a service which encompasses the differing demands of primary and secondary schools, further education colleges and institutes of adult education. And only an authority like the ILEA has been able to provide a comprehensive programme of assistance to such a wide range of children, from ethnic communities, children with disabilities and children who have special learning difficulties.
"We are utterly opposed to the Government's plans to abolish the ILEA. Over the next few weeks we will be making it clear to the Secretary of State that his proposals will inflict irreparable damage on the education system in London."
The Government profess to having been persuaded that individual boroughs opting out of ILEA would be administratively disastrous. I do not seek here to question that judgment. But it is to stand Aristotelian

239
logic on its head to argue, as do the Government, that because individual borough opt-out is an impracticable solution therefore all boroughs must be forced to take on education.
The amendment tabled in my name is in reality closer to the Conservative Party's manifesto than its present proposals and enables this issue to be put before the people of inner London at the next borough elections in 1990. After these elections it will be possible for the representatives of the people of inner London, on the basis of the mandate they have received, to debate the question of whether they wish to become the local education authority for their area. If a majority of inner London councils indicate that they wish to become the LEA, then it will be up to the Secretary of State to decide whether those services are likely to be more appropriately provided by councils rather than by a unitary authority. Having so decided he will be empowered to lay an order which will provide for ILEA to cease to exist and for the boroughs to take over educational responsibilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has explained why she believes that these amendments provide an element of local decision about the structure of inner London's education service. It would not, of course, allow free local choice about the way in which education was to be run, and in that respect it differs from the proposals which the Government originally introduced into Parliament.
This amendment tries to have it both ways, and therefore is inevitably unsatisfactory, for the essential feature of this amendment is that it puts off for over two years any decision whatsoever about ILEA's future. During the next two years, teachers, parents, and administrators would have no idea whether they were planning for the next few months or for the next few years. The Government accepted that that aspect of their original proposals was unsatisfactory, and it is exposed in an even more unsatisfactory way in these amendments.
I have already explained fully to the Committee the urgent need for action to improve educational standards in inner London. The amendment will guarantee that none of these improvements took place. In this it is similar to the other delaying amendments that we have discussed, and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: In saying a few words on this amendment in a sense I shall be giving part of the speech I did not give in the previous debate. I found the previous debate very unsatisfactory because we were skating round the issues. In fact one or two Members on the Government Benches more or less said that, and I was somewhat sympathetic with them. We must get into the substance of the abolition of the ILEA on the one hand and inquire about the positive case for the devolution of education to the boroughs on the other.
I should like to state some general principles and my doubts on these matters, not because I expect in
240
the immediate term to persuade noble Lords opposite, but the education of children in London will be with us for a long time, long after we have gone. It is vital that some of us say the right things about this and prepare the ground for what will be, I predict, the time when all of what is happening today will be changed.
I should perhaps say a word about the general principle of decision-making. I believe I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggest that those of us who like to think about these matters and analyse them, should look at the evidence and raise questions such as, "Will you demonstrate to me that what you are proposing to do will work?". He pooh-poohed the idea and, in a derogatory fashion, used the word "conservative" about that. I believe in approaching problems in precisely the way I have described. If I am accused of being conservative in that regard I am perfectly happy to be so accused. I do not regard the careful approach to problems in any way as a bad thing. What I do regard as bad are emotional knee jerk reactions, saying that there is a problem that we must do something about and whatever pops into our heads is what we do.
In addition to that, there is some common ground because we agree that in some areas ILEA has serious problems. I do not doubt any of the remarks made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House about secondary education. It is simply not good enough. I entirely agree with him that it is not good enough and that something must be done about it. The reason we raise amendments of this kind and why we wish to pursue the matter further this afternoon and delay the Committee from other matters, is precisely in relation to that specific problem of secondary education and, more generally, in regard to all the activities that ILEA is engaged in. We cannot see the connection. My noble friend Lady David referred to Aristotelian logic. I refer to logic in general, and I cannot see the logic or the connection between the problems on the one hand and the solutions being proposed by the Government on the other.
I reiterate that the secondary education aspect of this matter is as dear to my heart as it is to that of any noble Lord opposite. I should like an explanation. To take the example of the London borough of Hackney, what is it that is about to happen that will improve the education of secondary school children in Hackney? The Leader of the House referred to truancy. As he will recall, yesterday some of us were seriously discussing truancy. We said that we thought it was an important problem but that we were not clear what the solution was in regard to that. I ask again, what is about to happen in Hackney that will reduce the truancy rate?
That is about secondary education in general. What concerns me more generally are the needs of London as a whole for cross-borough services. Here again, we see services being provided. Many are recognised as rather good. I believe that none of the cross-borough services is regarded as rather bad. The noble Baroness was at pains to try to reassure us that in some sense she can patch things up after all this goes on so that services continue. But she has no answer. I do not believe that the Leader of the House has an answer. I listened to the noble Lord the Leader

241
of the House and I shall read his speech even more carefully in Hansard tomorrow.
I do not believe that in any sense we were told what is likely to happen. I do not expect a degree of certainty, or to be told what will happen, but just what is likely to happen. Is it not the case, and must the Government at least not recognise, that they are placing all of this at risk? The most they were offering to us was a modicum of reassurance. But there can be no doubt whatsoever about the risks that the Government are taking. They are plunging into an area blindly, and in my view and the view of my noble friends they are plunging into it—let us leave politics to one side—because they see a problem and feel desperate that they want to solve it; so they say, "Let us go ahead and see what will happen". My view is that that is not the right way to do it.
I was interested by something that the Leader of the House said. He said that logically we could argue that even if there are costs of delay—I believe he said that—there may be benefits. I am not certain that there will be many costs of delay; but for the sake of argument let us agree that there may be. What I am really arguing is that, having raised the matter, a more cautious approach might have guaranteed us more in the way of benefits.
That seems to me to be what lies behind our attitude to this matter. It quite clearly differentiates us from noble Lords opposite, because I must admit that if we had had the inquiry and the postponement. I still believe—I hope noble Lords opposite will take my word for it—that I am capable of coming to the conclusion, having considered it more, that perhaps what the Government are doing or something similar to what the Government want to do might be best. But on the available evidence, on the analysis of the particulars so far, I am totally unpersuaded and extremely concerned.
Baroness David: Of course we are not the least satisfied with the answers we have had. I repeat yet again that the Government have no mandate for this, which has caused extreme anxiety throughout the whole of inner London. I am sure that we have all had an enormous number of letters from teachers, parents, governors and from all the people who use the many services which ILEA supplies so well. However, I shall not at this moment press the amendment, but in order to try to improve matters we shall come back with something at Report stage.
Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 270 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 270A and 270AA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 270B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Alport Lord Alport had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 270C:
Leave out clause 141 and insert the following new clause:
(". Abolition of ILEA.
.—(1) The Inner London Education Authority and any education committee established by that Authority, together with the Inner London Education Area, shall cease to exist at a date to
242
be determined by the Secretary of State by Order in Council, a draft of which shall be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2) Such Order shall not be laid before 30th June 1992.
(3) The date in subsection (1) above is in this Part referred to as the "abolition date".
(4) The Secretary of State shall before the abolition date consult the local authorities, professional teaching organisations and representatives of school governors and parent associations in the Inner London Education area with regard to making provision for the future organisation of adult and further education, special schools, museums and cultural activities and the central advisory, inspectorate and procurement services at present administered by ILEA, and may make, by Order in Council additions or amendments to Part III of this Act as may seem appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that there may be an opportunity to discuss this matter at a later stage I am not moving the amendment on this occasion.
[Amendment No. 270C not moved.]
Clause 141 agreed to.
After Clause 141: [Amendments Nos. 271 and 272 not moved.]
Clause 142 [Expenses]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 272ZA:
Page 136, line 25, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of section (Organisation of further and adult education) below,"
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 272ZB. Whatever else the Government may say about these amendments, they have nothing to do with delaying the introduction of the changes that the Government wish to bring about. They are based on the assumption that the Government will have their way and that the reorganisation will take place.
As I said in the last debate, to a small extent some of us were reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said about the provision that she proposed to introduce for certain selected adult education colleges, although as I mentioned in the debate there are still questions to be asked about that because of the reference to the expectation that much of the money—though, from what she said, I do not know how much—will be raised from the private sector. Even if the provision for those colleges is entirely satisfactory—and that remains an open question—it leaves a number of colleges and a number of education activities that in our view by their nature should be cross-boundary.
To take not only the colleges referred to by the Minister but adult education institutes and colleges of further education in general, there seems little logic in arguing that this should be done on a boundary basis. In such cases, one is by definition providing for adults—people who are at least post compulsory school age who regard themselves as adults, however else others may regard them. Adults are capable of crossing borough boundaries for the studies that they wish to pursue. It is surely sensible and economic that colleges should specialise, particularly having regard to the expense of providing equipment and resources today. One college should provide Russian, another advanced computer studies, and so on. It does not make sense for them to be organised on a borough basis; they should be organised on a London-wide basis.
The Government will say that this can be done by agreement between the boroughs, as happened after the abolition of the GLC. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, the changes made by the Greater London Council in terms of cash resources and the nature of the tasks to be undertaken were of a very different order from the changes to be made with the abolition of the ILEA. A London-wide plan for the most economic and effective provision of further education is needed. This will be very expensive if it is done properly. It needs to be guided and developed by people who are expert in the subject. It will become more expensive and will call for increasing expertise. This applies to adult education too.
At a time when people are being urged to retrain, those who for one reason or another have missed out on so-called normal educational development should be able to take advantage of the great variety of classes now available in colleges of further education. There is surely a case for a London-wide body to have a strategic plan for further and adult education, which will co-ordinate and assist with the financing and ensure that it is done as effectively and economically as possible. The Government cannot be so doctrinaire in their belief that every mortal thing has to be done by the local authority that they cannot see the advantages of a London-wide body for the development of this important and growing area of education.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Combermere: In appending my name to the amendment, I am in full agreement with what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said. However, I should declare an interest in that I am on the staff of the extra-mural department of London University. Hence, with my colleagues, I am closely involved in planning courses at university level at various adult institutes in London.
The Government have frequently expressed an interest in adult education. However, the pamphlet that I have received entitled ILEA—The Closing Chapters refers to adult education in only one sentence:
"While some aspects of ILEA education—particularly adult education and the youth service and teacher resources—are of commendable quality, the mainstream education, especially at secondary level, for pupils in inner London is not".
It is precisely this aspect of ILEA education of acknowledged quality that will be at risk. On Second Reading, several noble Lords expressed their concern in this connection. I believe that the Government have gone a little way in meeting the anxieties of those of us who are greatly concerned at the threat that hangs over adult education.
References have been made to a group of four adult education institutes that will be catered for. To follow the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, one wonders how well this has been thought out. In company with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, one wonders how realistic is the expectation that they can raise adequate funds from private finance. Adult education will continue to be at risk because the other various adult institutes spread throughout inner London will become the responsibility of 13
244
individual London boroughs. Some may well have both the resources and the interest to support adult education. However, even in the most favourable circumstances, how can one London borough mount the range of courses that one now finds in ILEA-controlled adult institutes? One may find established colleges under the control of an impoverished borough or of a borough that clearly has other educational priorities.
Adult education will be at risk because many of the colleges and institutes are in two or even three boroughs, and student enrolment is totally independent of local borough residence. Hence colleges and institutes have been able not only to offer a core curriculum of basically similar courses but also to develop specialist work of excellent quality. These opportunities for strategic planning across London boroughs give students a real second opportunity—and they come from all over London, irrespective of borough boundaries. If adult education were to be borough-based, the opportunities might be severely limited. There is not time to refer specifically to further education. My comments apply in general in this area as well.
The excellence of adult education in general has been
referred to by many noble Lords. This recognition is not just national; it is international. The quality
of this neglected area of the education spectrum has been singled out for praise by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. Even the Conservative Party pamphlet on ILEA echoes it, and the Minister has underlined it. There are many areas that one could highlight in this respect. There is the provision for the unemployed and the elderly—40 per cent. of all adult students are receiving concessionary fees. There is the provision for women—70 per cent.; for the educationally disadvantaged—4l per cent. of adult students in London have no formal qualifications; and for the ethnic minorities.
Adult education would undoubtedly survive in some form if ILEA were to be abolished. A group of four institutes undoubtedly would, but one wonders about the others. In this context, I fully support the proposal for the establishment of a London further education and adult education board.
Lord Peston: As we discuss the amendment, it seems that we are illustrating precisely what I had in mind in my earlier intervention. Here we have a service fulfilling a need, meeting a demand and internationally recognised for its quality, and we place it at risk. I repeat that I can see no rationale for placing a service like this at risk. I think that it is foolhardy and wanton.
However, the Government have decided to do that. Our next responsibility therefore is at least to minimise the risk, and to start to put pressure on the Government to safeguard this very important area. I find it very odd—and again I make the Boyd-Carpenter point—that noble Lords on this side of the Committee have to refer to matters like tradition. The tradition of the cross-London education authority with respect to adult education is long standing, is greatly recognised and, for those of us whose origins are slightly poorer than average, it is a tradition in which our parents and grandparents were involved.

245
The fact that some of us have made our way in the world so that we take part in ordinary education should not cause us to forget that there still remain our fellow citizens for whom adult education is in many ways a life-saver, in particular offering them something worthwhile to do in lives which are otherwise very unsatisfying. I cannot state too strongly our concern about those matters.
Concerning the four colleges and the intervention of the noble Baroness, as always with these matters everything happened so quickly and I was not quite clear what kind of guarantee she gave. If she is about to intervene again, which I hope she is, I should like to hear, perhaps more slowly, the guarantee for these colleges and in particular whether there is a guarantee? Will the Government ensure that these colleges survive no matter what antics the individual boroughs get up to?
Related to that—and this is a good hook on which to hang this point—the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when intervening in the earlier debate asked about real resources. She asked a specific question on that subject. I have not had a chance to ask her whether she understood the answer, but I did not. I did not think that there was the faintest glimmer of an answer to the question which was
whether the same amount of resources will be available to which the answer is either, "yes", "no" or "we do not know". I was not very clear which of those was the answer.
That is of particular importance in areas such as adult education because, unless I misunderstand it, another aspect of the ILEA is specifically an education authority. The London boroughs will be boroughs and also education authorities.
From my small knowledge of local finance—and that will very rapidly become obsolete if we proceed with the changes in local finance that are envisaged—the different activities within a broader authority will compete with each other. Therefore, from now on, in no sense will education and resources for education be safeguarded within these boroughs. Perhaps I may put that as a question. Is there any sense in which the resources can be regarded as safeguarded? Is there not an evident danger that authorities which are hard-pressed and subject to all kinds of pressures to avoid spending money will rapidly decide that there are certain activities such as adult education which, compared with other pressing matters such as the homeless, will first have to bear its share of the cuts and then its disproportionate share of the cuts? There will be all kinds of arguments about raising fees. It will be said that if those people really want the education they will be willing to pay higher fees and that if the fees are raised and people do not attend the courses it is because they do not really want them. That is as much a misuse of a marketing mechanism as one would ever come across.
Those are our concerns. Our concerns are about the future and the slow death of the adult education service because it would not disappear but would gradually deteriorate. That is why the amendment of the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount is so important. I do not like quangos and I am not against
246
the Government in their 10 years of quango abolition although there now seems to be a turnaround and new quangos are appearing. However, in this case I believe that the noble Baroness is right and that something of the nature of a further adult education board might give one a little more confidence and a cross-London voice to these matters which I should like to be heard.
Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount are to be congratulated on bringing this matter to our notice. I believe that we could change the wording and refer to other services which we shall be discussing in due course so that, in a sense, this is a probing amendment for cross-London services. Speaking not only for myself but also for my noble friends, there is nothing in the area of inner London education dearer to our hearts and minds than adult education.
Lord Hylton: If this amendment is accepted I believe it will confer benefits on not only inner London but also outer London and, to some extent, the adjoining areas of the Home Counties. I say that because London still has a functioning transport system which will enable people to come in from the outside and to take advantage of what is being provided in the centre. That is surely something of which we should make use and capitalise on. On those grounds. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Young: I do not believe that there can be any disagreement between any of us in the Committee this evening about the importance of adult education. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said about the invaluable opportunities it has given and will continue to give to thousands of people and, indeed, all the opportunities it gives to women and ethnic minorities. We all know the arguments about training and retraining; namely, that such training is invaluable. I hope that we shall all agree on its importance.
The question which must be addressed is one which I felt my noble friend Lady Hooper addressed in her remarks; namely: what are the proposals for the future of this very important service? Of course, I have looked at the draft guidance which has been issued and in paragraph 22 and following I see that the plans that the boroughs make must indicate their proposals for adult education. That must be right. I believe it will be helpful to hear from my noble friend Lady Hooper in more detail than her original remarks about what will happen.
When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State comes to consider the guidance it is very important that he ensures that the variety of provisions is maintained and that it is possible for people to cross borough boundaries. I see no reason why that should not be the case because it happens in other authorities up and down the country and I see no reason why in London, where it should be much easier to move around, that should not continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said how worried he was that this service would come under an authority which was not just an education authority but was also a local authority. However, that is the position

247
in the rest of the country and it functions. Therefore, I see no reason for believing that it will not function at this point.
We return to the argument about resources and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hooper will have something to say on that matter. As regards the future of local government finance, as I understand it—but I stand to be corrected—at least half will be paid by the Government. Moreover, its distribution will be crucial because it will have to pay attention—and I believe this was the point made by my noble friend the Leader of the House when he wound up—to the needs of the authorities. Therefore, it will be distributed in that way. I believe it is very difficult to put a figure on this because, if I may say so and I hope that I shall not raise too many hackles in saying this, more resources do not necessarily mean that it will be better. One matter that one has to look at is what is happening to the resources. We have seen in quite a number of organisations that one can be more efficient. I do not put this forward as an argument because I am not sufficiently familiar with the details and therefore it would not be proper for me to criticise something of which I have no knowledge.
That is one of the arguments that would need to be looked at. If ILEA is proposing, as I understand, to reduce its expenditure by 12 per cent., no doubt the resources on these colleges will be taken into account with the resources on its other services. That is another measure. Therefore, it will be very difficult to answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Perhaps my noble friend could reiterate the broad basis on which we see Government funding in the future which must take account of the needs of adult education in less well off boroughs in London as in a general distribution of government grant to local authorities.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, I have some responsibility for adult education in London. Indeed, the University of London's extra mural studies department will be incorporated into Birkbeck College on 1st August this year. That department has had an enormous range of contacts with ILEA's further and adult education provisions. Many of us are extremely nervous about how far the university's contribution to this area of work can continue when we have to negotiate with 13 different authorities rather than with one.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that for higher education institutions in London—and no doubt other universities such as Brunel and the City University—the proposals in this Bill will create much greater difficulties. As the Master of Birkbeck, I should like to add that we are endeavouring to recruit a much wider range of students than traditionally has been the case. We are anxious to recruit more young people, and indeed elder people, from ethnic minority backgrounds, and people who do not have the conventional two or three A-level qualifications but have other types of experience or qualifications, many of which can be equally useful for attaining higher education.
248
One of the initiatives taken by ILEA in its provision of further and adult education is to be a great leader and innovator—I believe those are the correct terms to use—in the field of access courses. The Government have become increasingly concerned, and Ministers have been making speeches about it, to seek to widen access. They are right to do so, and I congratulate them. It is extraordinarily important in a context where we are to see such massive demographic decline and if the level of qualified manpower that this country needs to survive is to be maintained.
Apart from individual access courses for particular colleges, ILEA has set up what it calls open college networks which cover a number of areas of the authority and certainly go right across borough boundaries. It has planned those networks in the interests of serving as large a number of people as possible. If we are simply to hand over the whole of adult and further education to 13 different boroughs, those networks which have done so much for access courses will be jeopardised.
Reference has already been made to provision for the unemployed and the elderly—people who may not necessarily be in the same category of people, as I have described, who go on to higher education. Those groups are equally important and must not be neglected. Only this afternoon I received an extremely touching letter from a man of 74 whose wife had just died. He said that adult education had brought to him a lifeline of sanity from black depression and misery. One could, of course, give countless other such examples.
Just because the metropolitan districts provide adult education does not mean that the 13 inner London boroughs would be the best form of organisation for that in a big city like London. I am sure the Minister will agree that the extent and nature of provision in inner London is, in any case, very much broader and wider than that provided in any other metropolitan district in the country.
It is rather strange that we have sitting on the Government Benches noble Lords who are Conservatives and who therefore, I had always thought, want to preserve what is best about educational provision or, for that matter, any other aspect of our national life, but who are willing to throw away a service of such merit as this. I do not need to remind the Committee of what the recent HMI report on ILEA said about these services. They could not have been described in more positive or rosy terms than by Mr. Eric Bolton.
In those circumstances, does not the Minister agree that it would be sensible to endeavour to set up some sort of provision across London to ensure that these services can be preserved at their present level? I reiterate the questions already put by a number of noble Lords about the funding of adult and further education. One of the reasons the ILEA has had high levels of expenditure is because it has had high levels of provision. It reaches far more people than is the case in many other parts of the country. It is not simply because of high administrative costs or more support services. I support the amendment because I fear that otherwise these excellent services will be jeopardised.
Baroness Hooper: We recognise the importance of further and adult education, and I have already acknowledged the high quality of much of the ILEA provision. Indeed, I go so far as to say in a general way, and not just with reference to ILEA, that adult and continuing education has an increasingly important role to play, as my noble friend Lady Young said. Indeed, the widening of access to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred is supported by the Government.
These amendments would mean the retention of an independent pan-London bureaucracy to deal with all further and adult education, and that the boroughs would simply take their orders from that body. The responsibility for the education of London's 16 to 19-year-olds would then be split between the boroughs, which would run the 16 to 19 service in schools, and this body which would provide for them in colleges. That is surely a recipe for divisiveness and consequent inaction at a time when it is widely accepted that more flexible and integrated provision of education for the 16 to 19 age group is required. Morever, it does not appear necessary to have that sort of division in any other part of the country.
I note also that the amendment offers no advice on how the service determined by this body would be funded, although a number of questions raised in the debate have referred to resources. I suspect that it might be the case of the body deciding the provision and the boroughs being obliged to stump up the cost. We are in no doubt ourselves that the responsibility for policy provision and funding must be located at the borough level; and that is the intention behind our proposals. In saying that, we fully recognise that further education provision in inner London has its own distinguishing characteristics: an uneven spread of colleges, many of them with sites in more than one borough, and specialist provision. We believe that those factors do not present insuperable problems.
The draft guidance referred to, issued recently, makes clear that the Secretary of State expects that, even though they cross borough boundaries, colleges would usually transfer to the boroughs intact and the boroughs should continue with the broad pattern of provision that they inherit. Of course, we shall be discussing that further with the boroughs and will be concerned particularly to ensure that specialist provision is maintained.
The existing automatic recruitment arrangements will ensure that boroughs are reimbursed for the provision they make available to students from outside their area. In addition, it is to be expected that, like other local education authorities, the London boroughs individually or in co-operation will purchase some further education provision from those institutions which will be transferring to the PCFC sector.
Turning to adult education, as I have said, we readily acknowledge that the ILEA provides a first-rate service, and it is the firm intention of government that a first-rate service should continue. That is entirely consistent with our view that decisions on the generality of adult education are best taken by the boroughs themselves, which should be at
250
least as aware and responsive to the needs and wishes of their local communities as a London-wide body.
As we said in the draft guidance, we expect boroughs to consult each other in order to secure the most satisfactory organisation of resources. We also recognise the need for boroughs to consider carefully recoupment arrangements in order to safeguard the viability of certain courses. The department intends to have early discussion with the boroughs about these and other matters in order to assist them in the preparation of development plans.
We have two years in which to do this and we do not wish in any way to pre-empt any suggestion that may come from the boroughs themselves. Questions have arisen over resources and, as I have said, I am not sure how the creation or the introduction of a unitary body would make an enormous difference in this respect. However, for the generality of adult education we believe that decisions about what provision can be afforded and what charges should be made are best taken by the boroughs, which should be more aware and responsive to the needs and wishes of the local community than a London wide-body. Therefore, the main provision will come from that source.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and others asked me to return to my remarks as regards the specialist colleges, the future of Morley College, the Mary Ward Centre, the Working Men's College and the City Lit. I believe I have made it clear that the concern of the Government for these four institutions is such that their future is guaranteed. As necessary, the London Residuary Body will meet the shortfall in their funding—and shortfall that arises—in order to ensure the continuation of an effective service. Beyond that, the Government are willing to continue to provide financial support. That will take us some years ahead and so provide as much or more of a guarantee than ILEA would have been likely to do.
It is not unreasonable that during that time the institutions should also look to see what level of private support they can attract and also to look at their charges. That does not mean that the Government are aiming to price them out of the market; on the contrary, we want them to thrive.
The noble Viscount referred to the generous discretionary provision of ILEA. I accept that ILEA has traditionally operated a generous policy in respect of discretionary awards to full-time students in further and to some extent adult education. We believe that discretionary awards are the responsibility of each local education authority. It will be for the inner London boroughs themselves to determine their own policy for making such awards, taking account of the particular needs and circumstances of their area.
In the course of discussion and preparation of the development plans that will be taking place, obviously the Government will be in a position to emphasise the importance which they attach to this area. With these explanations and assurances, I trust that the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount will feel prepared to withdraw their amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: I hope the Committee will bear with me because I have one or two other questions to which it will be of interest to know the answers. I believe I am right in saying that there is no actual obligation to provide adult education. I understand that the Government and the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Secretary of State have been in touch with at least one or two of the Conservative boroughs. Without any secrets being revealed, it will be interesting to know whether adult education was discussed when they talked about their anxieties in regard to how to deal with this subject. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us something about that.
Perhaps we may consider one of these bodies, namely, City Lit. Let us suppose that Westminster announces that it does not want to spend any more money on City Lit. It seems that it is perfectly entitled to say that. Does the borough of Westminster really believe that it does not gain anything from the existence of City Lit and therefore that it does not see why the ratepayers or poll tax payers of Westminster should help in any way to finance City Lit? In addition, let us suppose that the London borough of Westminster were to say that it has no intention of reimbursing other boroughs for their own people who go for adult education in other boroughs. I ask the noble Baroness whether I am right in saying that there is nothing that can be done directly about this if Westminster announces that it is simply not going to make this provision any longer and it simply does not do so.
If that is the case, it seems to me that we have moved to a logically different state of affairs from that which exists under ILEA. I should like some explanation as to why that different situation can be better. It seems that it can only be good if Westminster behaves itself or it becomes worse with the other possibility of not reimbursing other boroughs. There is no prospect of its being better. I have no reason to believe that this is an actual case I am discussing; it is a theoretical one.
Let us assume that this happens. Who then steps in? It seems to me that one of the results that will follow as regards this whole Bill and the 366 leap-year number of powers of the Secretary of State is that this is one area where there are not any powers. In other words, he cannot intervene and say, "In that case I instruct Westminster to provide or support this measure or I myself will do it for the people of London". It seems that this amendment opens up a can of worms and I should like some response from the Minister on that subject.
Perhaps I may return to the question of private finance for institutions like Morley College. I am not objecting to private finance. I shall be interested to know—this relates to a point raised by my noble friend Lady Blackstone—why the private sector would wish to finance Morley College in any major way. Why would the private sector wish to discover that it had become a Lady Bountiful, if you will forgive the sexist term, or Lord Bountiful? We all have to be non-sexist these days; perhaps I should say, Ms Bountiful. What has happened or what is about to happen to our society that we can have any confidence whatever that places like Morley College
252
will receive significant sums? Is not this merely rhetoric on the part of the Government, a whistling in the dark and saying "We hope, we hope"? We also hope. I believe that what we are exposing here—I reiterate that I shall raise it again as regards other amendments—is the taking of terrible risks. Risks are being run by our fellow citizens and they are precisely the kind of people who should not be running such risks.
Earl Russell: I am not by any means an uncritical admirer of Edmund Burke, but I believe that some of the wisest things that he had to say in his reflections on the revolution in France were on the dangers of local government reorganisation. It was in that context that he developed most effectively the case that one cannot effectively tear down a living institution and build it up again in a completely new form. One has to let the institution grow, and when it grows one has to pay attention to the form in which it has grown.
The way in which organisations have grown in this city is the London way. We think as Londoners and we associate as Londoners. Our interests are shared with other Londoners, but not very often with residents of our individual local borough. Our transport network is run in that way. We have here a living institution, and when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, spoke of a can of worms he was using an image which I believe is apt in more ways than he intended. The Government seem to be saying that they imagine we may treat the education services as though they were worms, divide them, and leave each part to carry on its own separate life.
With the more specialist forms of education provision I do not see how this can work. To draw up a form one has to draw on a large area. I do not see the future for 13 different boroughs teaching Arabic and 13 different boroughs teaching Chinese. I simply cannot see how one can do it. The result will be to tear down a valuable service. It will come very near to an act of educational vandalism.
Therefore I ask the Government to take some heed of what has happened in other places. Other countries take pride in their capital cities; they treat them as a national asset and develop their services. I can think of no other country which treats its capital city with the contempt which we are showing towards ours at the moment. I beg the Government to think again on this issue.
Baroness Hooper: I shall try to answer one or two of the additional questions which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether the subject of adult and continuing education has been discussed with the Conservative boroughs. I should remind him that the guidance which has been issued, which refers to adult and continuing education and its importance in the development plan, has been issued to all boroughs. Further, it has certainly been discussed with the leaders of those boroughs which have been prepared to come forward and discuss their plans with us. I refer the noble Lord to the leaflet issued by Wandsworth council which has a section headed "Adult Education", which refers to various details on the matter.

253
The noble Lord also put forward a hypothetical case where Westminster council would not choose to send any of its population to the City Lit. I think that hypothetically is the only way that we should treat the suggestion. There is no doubt that not only in London but in other parts of the country that type of cross-boundary movement takes place, especially in the case of the City Lit. and the school for the deaf where a special provision is available. Therefore to say that he is being a pessimist about that aspect of the matter is, I think, understating the situation.
The noble Lord also asked why any of the private sector would wish to provide finance for Morley College. If we consider that this is a service—as we have all agreed—that is valuable to the population in London and if we also agree that firms and businesses are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of training and retraining their employees, I believe that there is plenty of scope for private sector input in this area. We certainly do not wish to pre-empt any suggestions that may be forthcoming and we understand from the colleges themselves that they may have some ideas in this connection. Therefore we clearly wish to see them and support them in any endeavours that they may put forward.
I entirely refute the suggestion that this is an act of educational vandalism.
Lord Peston: I was genuinely seeking enlightenment so as to save myself having to look it all up. Am I not right that it is not obligatory to provide adult education—in other words, there is no statutory responsibility?
Baroness Hooper: From memory I believe that the 1944 Act—
Baroness Seear: There is no statutory obligation.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: The Minister drew our attention to the document published by Wandsworth council and the fact that it contained a section entitled "Adult Education". However, has she noticed that one of its recommendations is that fees charged in evening institutes should be increased?
Baroness Hooper: It is a suggestion that has been put forward and obviously there are people who many well be willing to pay such additional fees to those institutions.
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I was most disappointed with her reply. She told us—as have other speakers on the Government side—that other parts of the country manage perfectly well with local authorities controlling adult education, so why should not London? The fact of the matter is that London is way ahead in this connection and that is a very good thing. Just because other local authorities have not caught up, and have not been able to do as much, is no reason why London should have the service which it has built up so effectively relatively undermined; I believe that is what will happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was right when he said that it is not, by any manner of means, only people in inner London who benefit from the provision in London. In the case of Morley
254
College—I am sure it is true of many other colleges—many people come into London daily in order to work and when they finish at 5.30 p.m. they pop into the Morley canteen, have a cup of tea and go to a class for two hours before going home. Surely that is good use of resources. It is a great benefit to all manner of people in London—for example to ethnic minority groups; to women returning to work; to old-age pensioners; to housewives who suddenly discover interests they never knew they had before, and so on. In short, it is a most important service.
Moreover, economically speaking, continuing education is of the highest importance. Frankly, I do not believe that the noble Baroness understands what we are talking about: the importance of the service; the extent to which it has developed in London and the need for it to be developed still further, especially in the provision of specialised services of one type or another. If the Minister seriously thinks that this facility will be provided by the boroughs without any type of overall London plan, guidance, and financial assistance then frankly she is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, the local authorities have, overall, local authority responsibilities competing for the money. There are many other worthy causes knocking on their doors wanting the money and adult education has to compete with those other demands. Again, it is perfectly true—although I do not think the Minister was quite clear about this aspect—that this is not a statutory obligation. If I were on a local authority committee, dealing with all those other demands, and an organisation which had no statutory right approached me and asked for resources I would say, no.
Unless the Government are prepared to consider provision on a London-wide basis, it is not just a pessimistic forecast, because as sure as night follows day the level of adult education and further education in the London area will decline. However, in the circumstances I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage and shall beg leave to withdraw it for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 142 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I think we have reached a suitable moment at which to break for dinner and adjourn the Committee stage. I suggest that we do not return to further consideration of this Bill until 8.30 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Eastbourne Harbour Bill [H.L.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I have studied the plans of this most imaginative project and I think it is an outstanding example of the way that Britain and her

255
imaginative building companies, planners and others can come together for a project which is perhaps too often seen in France, and elsewhere, but not seen enough in this country.
The plan has the entire support of the East Sussex County Council and of Eastbourne Borough Council. It is a large and imaginative plan. I am told that at the peak it will employ some 4,000 extra people. On all those scores I trust it will have the support of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Orr-Ewing.)
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing for introducing this Bill. I am grateful to him personally for the discussions we have had, but I am afraid I still have some fears as to the outcome of the proposals.
First and foremost I must clearly state that I am not opposed in any way to the building of the marina. I am sure that it could enhance the area and bring benefit to the town of Eastbourne and some of its inhabitants and the surrounding areas, as well as being a benefit to the sailing fraternity.
I must make it quite clear, talking about the town of Eastbourne, that noble Lords might think Eastbourne a place to retire to with rather pleasant buildings of one sort or another. But from a local historian's point of view it is an ancient fishing port which people remember. Where we are thinking of building is in an area known as the Crumbles, which is an area of special scientific interest on the Pevensey marshes.
Having said all these rather pleasant things, there is a very big "but". We have some concern as to the cost which could arise to the ratepayers not only now or in a few years' time, but for ever. The expertise of Tarmac Construction, who might or might not be the owners at the moment, might not be able to stem the drift of shingle eastwards, caused by the construction of this marina, now or in future decades. We have two examples where erosion to the eastern shore, not very far from Eastbourne, has occurred. The first was the building of Shoreham Harbour, which was contemplated in 1816 when curiously enough a trust fund was set up. The building of the harbour produced erosion of the beaches of Hove and Brighton. I put them in that order because we go from west to east. More recently, work done on Newhaven Harbour has involved the Southern Water Authority in great expense in maintaining the beaches at Seaford. Erosion, I am afraid, will be inevitable.
I am asking that a bond be provided by the owners, whoever they may be, either the Chatsworth Estates or Tarmac Construction. I should make it absolutely clear that this goes back to even before the proposals for any planning permission to be granted, in 1974—and, as my noble friend has said, the Eastbourne Borough Council have now agreed. The only reason why they were given planning permission was that they would look after the situation afterwards. An agreement was entered into, and one cannot escape that fact.
I am asking for a positive assurance that whatever agreement is reached between the Southern Water
256
Authority and the past, present and future owners of the Eastbourne Harbour Company, it will be properly funded and able to fulfil its legal obligations under the agreement to maintain the beaches north-east of the harbour for all time. If a positive assurance is not given, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, of which I was a council member at one time—and they are very keen on this—may have to petition. It might not be Eastbourne, but it is comparatively east for the purposes of whatever is proposed. I am looking forward to hearing my noble friend's reply, giving me those splendid assurances.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I intervene only briefly because there was perhaps a question about some of us on the Swanage Yacht Haven Bill voting on a totally non-party basis. I wish to make it quite clear that we on these Benches are not opposed to marinas. The proposal for Eastbourne is something which we wish to support because the safeguards have been built into the situation, regardless of what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, says, either by Tarmac or the Water Authority.
I am quite sure that at the end of the day this will be a project which will enhance the viability of Eastbourne as a place for leisure and recreation. If noble Lords look at the plan for this new marina they will see that it takes over an area of fairly derelict land. With the best will in the world, it is a gravel pit which is past its best.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I think it might be a gravel pit now, but whatever it is it was a place, within living memory, where people could go and seek recreation and enjoy themselves. It is not an entirely derelict parcel of land.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying but I believe that this is an opportunity to restore it to being an area of recreation. I wish I could afford the kind of boat that people will put there. Nevertheless, it will be an area of recreation and better than it is at the moment. I believe that this is a good project and one which has our support.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I understand the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Teviot in this matter. I have made available to him a copy of a very important letter
which the chief executive of Tarmac wrote to the chief executive of the council, because that council had some anxiety that at some time in the future a littoral drift might be troublesome. One has to remind oneself that Tarmac is a very substantial and hightly successful company. In all the projects which it has undertaken it has done outstandingly well.
I can now announce that a further agreement has been made, in case there is any incipient anxiety, even after that comfort letter. Tarmac and Southern Water have reached an agreement in which the costs of managing any littoral drift problems will be met by a bond or a trust fund which will have a value of at least £2 million.
I hope that in view both of Tarmac's assurances and this joint fund or bond my noble friend will feel

257
that the Bill should now have the recommendation of this House and proceed to another place. Therefore, I trust your Lordships will agree that this Bill be now read a third time.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1988
7.39 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th April be approved. [23rd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this draft order be agreed to.
The order provides that the members of the European Committee to be established in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment shall enjoy the appropriate privileges and immunities to enable them to exercise their functions under the convention.
The task of the committee will be to arrange visits to places of detention in order, in the terms of Article 1 of the convention:
"to examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such persons from torture and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Parties to the convention are required to offer the members of the committee every facility in the performance of their tasks, in particular by giving them access at any time to any place where persons may be held (for instance, police stations, prisons and hospitals) and the opportunity to interview detainees in private and likewise their families, legal representatives and doctors.
Apart from periodic or routine visits in the territory of each contracting party, the committee may organise any ad hoc visits warranted. After each visit the committee will communicate its findings and recommendations to the party concerned. This procedure is confidential.
This non-judicial and confidential procedure is designed to assist governments in treating detainees properly. It aims at co-operation between the committee and the state concerned, not the latter's conviction by a judicial authority.
If this committee is to be able to carry out its task fearlessly and impartially, it is vital that its members be accorded certain privileges and immunities, not for their personal benefit, but in order to safeguard the independent exercise of their functions and free them from any constraints in carrying out their duties.
This order accordingly provides for the members, whilst performing their official duties, to have some of the privileges and immunities accorded to a head of a diplomatic mission, such as immunity from legal action, immunity from personal arrest or detention,
258
inviolability of documents and papers and inviolability of personal baggage.
The convention has been signed by all 21 member states of the Council of Europe and three have already ratified it (Turkey, Malta and Ireland). The order before the House will enable the United Kingdom to ratify it. I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments have examined the order and commented favourably on it. This convention will serve as a signal to other regions of the world of European commitment to stamp out torture. Let us hope that it will eventually lead to the elimination throughout the world of this terrible violation of human dignity. I commend the convention and the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th April be approved. [23rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Glenarthur.)
7.42 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his explanation of this important new order which provides a new mechanism for dealing with torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
It was in the late part of the 18th century or in the early part of the 19th century when Voltaire said how splendid it was that the use of torture had ceased to be an instrument of Government activity and action. How wrong he proved to be! The United Nations passed a resolution in December 1986 which expressed its sincerest concern about the:
"alarming number of reported cases of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment taking place in various parts of the world".
That is the sombre reality. In a statement to the Commission on Human Rights in February of this year the United Kingdom delegate, my old friend Henry Steele, if I may call him that, said:
"So long as torture continues to be widely used—and recognition of the fact that it is widely used is inescapable—it is clearly essential that the Special Rapporteurs Mandate on Torture should be continued."
So that is a measure of the gravity of this matter.
This year's report of Amnesty International, which has done valuable work in exposing and fighting against torture, alleges that torture is practised in the countries of over one-third of the members of the United Nations. So it is a grave challenge to human dignity, liberty and to international decency. Therefore I would hasten to congratulate the Government upon their decision to bring this order forward. It will have a great value in that by conferring immunities on members of the European Committee to which the noble Lord referred, the order will enable the Government to become a party to the convention which they have already signed and in the creation of which the Government—I give credit to them for this—have played an important part.
As the noble Lord has indicated, the convention is unique among both regional and international instruments dealing with torture in setting up this committee of elected members to conduct, as he has said, on-site visits to places such as prisons, and possibly even police station cells, where people are

259
deprived of their liberty under the jurisdiction of the states which are parties to the convention.
This is therefore a very important order with very important implications indeed for this country and for prisoners, in that it will enable the members of the committee to enter these places and make their report. I am not very clear as to whom the committee is to report or the extent of confidentiality of its proceedings. It is clearly very important that the committee should be provided with adequate resources for its important and difficult work. It will also be very important that the Government should be able to ensure that access to the committee is available to those who might have complaints to bring forward under the terms of the convention. Perhaps the noble Lord will indicate how it is hoped that this access is to be ensured.
Finally, it is very important, of course, that the committee should be provided with adequate resources for its important and difficult work. In short, I believe that this is a most important step that the Government have taken in the advancement of human rights, and I am happy to be associated with it and to support it.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise to welcome this order to establish a European committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The order also concerns the immunities and privileges for this committee. I do not want to delay for too long the passage of the order, but I hope that the Minister can clear my mind on a few points.
How will the committee members be chosen? I understand that the bureau of the European Assembly will be involved and that there is also a mention of expert advisers. But what tests will be applied to establish this good and just list? How large will it be as it will come from the 21 different nations of Europe? How will the committee members choose their visits, and on what criteria, or is this to be a roving commission?
How many countries have to ratify before the committee goes to work? It could be years, could it not? There are three countries which have ratified so far, and four if we pass this order tonight. One recognises that the few countries that ratify signify that their doors and their frontiers are open. That in itself is indeed a welcome step forward in combating torture in Europe.
As regards how the members will choose their visits, suspected punishment and torture will of course be the test. But are there to be any guidelines for their work? What happens in the case of newspaper and media exaggeration? I know from experience that that often happens in this sphere of alleged torture. Will this form of highlighting an alleged act or incident be the signal for the committee to act?
I should also like to know what Amnesty International's role will be after this committee has been established. Of course, Amnesty International will be totally free in its operations and activities outside the European countries that are subject to
260
this committee's work. The Minister may well say that he has no responsibility for Amnesty International. But what will happen if Amnesty International intrudes on the work of the convention and affects the 21 European member states covered by it? Will Amnesty International and the committee co-operate and work together, or will they work separately but in parallel? In the latter case, we shall have two torture-examining bodies working within the 21 countries.
Amnesty International might decide alternatively to raise its profile within the 21 states, to heighten or at least maintain its international profile. It might well try to be more unduly active than has hitherto been the case, ferreting to keep itself alive in Europe. I warn it that to do so will damage its reputation. How exactly will the two organisations perform within the 21 states?
Welcome as this development is, especially in the light of the committee's diplomatic immunity and ability to travel to visit institutions on an ad hoc basis, I hope there will be no confusion between the operations of Amnesty International and the new committee. Above all, in this sensitive field there should be no competition which, in the end, would only result in the hounding of the various institutions, subject to investigation within the 21 states. The order has my blessing. However, I should like assurance on the points which I have raised.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say that I greatly deplore his attacks on Amnesty International, which will of course be happy to work in a most co-operative way with the new organisation.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word from these Benches in support of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. It is a matter for congratulation and gratification that the Government have adhered to the convention. The only question which I wish to ask concerns a matter of fact. As I understand it, this order is made under Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968. That section enables representatives of international organisations and other persons to have conferred upon them by Order in Council certain privileges and immunities. Those privileges and immunities are to be set out and specified in the order. That is precisely what is being done here.
If one looks at Part II of the order and in particular at Article 4(c), one will see provided there that, among the other immunities conferred upon members of the committee, is an immunity in respect of personal baggage. I understand that to mean that personal baggage will not be liable to search or investigation. However, there follows a proviso which states that:
"the provisions of paragraph (c) of this Article shall not apply to any person who is a United Kingdom national".
There may be a simple explanation for that which I have missed. I should be grateful if the Minister can explain why United Kingdom nationals do not have an immunity which is granted to all the other members of the committee.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, previous speakers have underlined the importance of the order and of the European convention which lies behind it. I should like to welcome it. I was particularly delighted to hear that the Irish Republic has already ratified the order.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, asked what kinds of cases the committee might look into. I should like to suggest a few. We have had too many prison riots in this country in recent years. The knowledge that the committee could, or would, visit might well defuse a potential riot before it actually happened. Again, in recent years we have had rather too many cases of abuse of patients within psychiatric hospitals. The committee might act as a preventive safeguard. We currently have far too many persons, who have been arrested and who are awaiting charge and trial, confined within police cells. I hope that the committee will be a spur to the reduction in those excessive numbers.
In recent years we have experienced cases where would-be immigrants—some of them asylum seekers—are detained in such places as Harmondsworth. Some of them have reached such a desperate state of mind that they have attempted suicide. I hope that the committee will help to eliminate those situations. Those are examples of the reasons for my belief that the committee can be active in the United Kingdom and do much good. I welcome the order.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in our discussion on the order. Although I very much appreciate the general concerns which have been articulated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, regarding torture in all its forms and the rights of people in detention to the provisions in the convention which apply to them, we are not debating the European convention as such. We are merely discussing the immunities and privileges aspects of the convention. However, I thought that it was important to allow the debate to develop. I realise that there are very real concerns, such as those expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Foot.
Many of the answers to the questions which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, raised are to be found in the convention itself. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, will have a copy. It describes the details of the committee and how it will operate. However, perhaps I may answer the noble and learned Lord by saying that the committee will report to the state concerned. It will also report on its activities to the consultative assembly. So far as I am aware, that report will be made public.
Articles 4 and 5 cover the election of members. The members of the committee will consist of a number of members equal to that of the parties, and the convention will come into force when seven member states have ratified it. After our ratification, a further three ratifications will be needed. The members of the committee are to be of high moral character and known for their competence in the field of human rights.
262
As regards Amnesty International, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, will accept that that is not in any sense a matter for us. So far as I am aware, Amnesty International will continue to operate as it always has. It is in no way affected by the order or the convention itself.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that answer. There was no attack on Amnesty International. However, I wanted to clear up the confusion between the two bodies operating within the 21 states.
Lord Glenarthur: The two bodies can operate as Amnesty International always has. This is a totally separate body and in no way affects Amnesty International.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, raised a technical point concerning Article 2 of the order. As he said, the order is made under Section 5 of the International Organisations Act 1968, not Section 1 of the Act. Paragraph 3(a) of the annexe to the convention reflects privileges granted to senior officials travelling abroad on temporary official duty. I am not sure that that answers fully the point that he made but it seems to me, unless I have got it wrong, that the provision relating to baggage would not apply to a UK national operating in his own country. That is presumably all that the order refers to in so far as it concerns people trying to deal with these problems as members of the committee in this country. I hope that I have got that right but I believe that to be the case. I do not think that anyone will be disadvantaged by it and I believe it to be perfectly normal. I hope that I have answered most of the points that have been raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.1 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 272ZB not moved.]
Clause 143 [Extension of function of London Residuary Body.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 272A:
Page 137, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) In discharging its functions under this Act the London Residuary Body shall be treated as a principal council for the purposes of Part V A of the Local Government Act 1972 (Access to meetings and documents) and shall be a body to which the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 applies.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 272A I shall speak also to Amendment No. 272B, on which the main emphasis of my words will fall. The Committee is discussing the extension of the life of the London Residuary Body and what will happen to the assets connected with the proposed abolition of the ILEA.
I must apologise to the Committee. Before the break I understood that the noble Lord the Leader of the House made a number of observations about the London Residuary Body and they sounded rather interesting to me. However, we were proceeding at such a pace that unfortunately I did not take a proper note. I hope therefore that I shall be forgiven if I raise matters to which, in a sense, he has already responded.
In the first place, it must be recognised that the Inner London Education Authority owns a vast amount of valuable property. When this Bill becomes an Act, that property will devolve to the individual boroughs and I suppose that one of the interesting questions which this Chamber will be discussing in due course relates to that transfer. En passant, I should mention another matter that we have not discussed and which interests me as a general proposition—presumably we shall discuss this matter on Thursday—namely, that property which belongs to taxpayers will be taken from them as a result of this Bill and given to other bodies involved with the polytechnics and the grant-maintained schools. I mention that merely in passing, however, since Amendment No. 272A is not concerned with that matter.
Amendment No. 272B is essentially a probing amendment which raises questions about the disposal of properties. I suppose that the noble Baroness was right earlier when she accused me of pessimism. I must tell her that I am about to be pessimistic once again. Essentially the concern is with properties which are dedicated to education in one way or another either in the form of educational buildings or in the sense of dedicated playing fields and so on. Uppermost in my mind is the question of the criteria that will be applied when such properties are disposed of.
If I understand the law correctly, the duty of the LRB when disposing of any property simply consists of obtaining the best commercial value for it. That is my understanding of the present legal position and as it will apply to the disposal of ILEA properties under this Bill if it becomes an Act. We should not like to see that happen if it is fairly obvious that such properties could be better used for other purposes. That is a source of concern to these Benches.
Let me take the example of playing fields. I do not wish to emote over the value of playing fields or to assert that all character-building derives from what happens on the playing fields, but I am bound to say that I believe that boys playing football on Hackney Marshes on a Sunday (and one can see there hundreds of games of football being played) are better occupied than boys who are going around spreading graffiti on walls. Playing fields are on the whole a good thing.
If it should turn out that playing fields are, in some sense, surplus to the requirements of individual boroughs—and my argument is always a question of "if"—and it falls to the LRB to dispose of those properties, we feel that the LRB should be able to dispose of them not in order to obtain the highest commercial or development value but to obtain what is almost the reverse—the lowest commercial
264
value—by preserving them as playing fields. That is simply an example. Similarly, it seems to me that if it is a question of buildings that are not required for educational purposes in the maintained system, should people of a charitable nature come along who felt that they could make use of those buildings for suitable educational or related social purposes but could not possibly meet the development value of buildings, then at least it would be possible to dispose of the properties to them.
I should like the noble Baroness to reassure me that I am right. I believe anyway that the Secretary of State has power to intervene on matters of that kind and declare that such playing fields should remain as playing fields and not be used as the basis of development for, say, a block of flats. I believe that that is the case and I should like confirmation of it.
This amendment has been tabled in order to clarify the position and make explicit that the direction-making power (if it exists) is for educational purposes and not for other purposes. In particular, we believe that the Secretary of State ought to be in a position to intervene, and indeed should intervene by way of direction, so that property of an educational and community value is not sold or at least is not sold without due consideration, explicit argument and proper consultation. That is the basis of our argument.
I reiterate that this is a probing amendment. I do not intend to divide the Committee on the issue. We should like to use the discussion as a basis to discover rather more about what may be happening and in particular to declare that we want many of these properties protected for educational and similar purposes. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that the noble Lord was speaking to Amendments Nos. 272A and 272B. As I understand it, as well as the property matters to which the noble Lord referred, these amendments are largely concerned with the extent to which the LRB will take account of education interests in discharging its functions in relation to ILEA and the transfer of education responsibilities in inner London generally.
Clause 158 requires the LRB to comply with any directions given it by the Secretary of State. In issuing any such directions the Secretary of State would of course be under his duty under Section 1 of the Education Act 1944:
"to promote the education of the people of England … and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
That, in short, explains why this part of the amendment is unnecessary. The Secretary of State will of course want to ensure that the LRB acts in accordance with the educational interest of inner London. In any event, he will be under a duty.
It is not inconceivable that the Secretary of State might, in certain circumstances, direct the LRB to accept less than the full market value of a particular piece of property, if that would be in the educational or other interests of boroughs. But it would be difficult for the LRB to take that sort of decision without guidance by the Secretary of State. I have

265
already explained to the Committee in answer to a question on another occasion from my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that we recognise the importance of sports facilities; and we are of course willing to discuss specific issues with those with an interest in sport. In the meantime any arrangements which the Inner London Education Authority might wish to make on the disposal of property is of course subject to consent from the Secretary of State.
There are, I think, two other points raised by this amendment. The first is that meetings of the board of the LRB should be open to the public, and their papers published. This is not, of course, the case with the LRB at present, nor do I think it would be appropriate in the future. The London Residuary Body is in existence for a specified period only, to carry out as quickly as possible certain transactions which are, to a large extent, of a commercially sensitive nature. It would not be appropriate for the meetings of the board to be treated as though they were the meetings of a borough council. Questions arising on
the work of the LRB at the moment are dealt with as necessary by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and questions relating to the LRB's work on ILEA would similarly be raised with my right honourable friend in future. That is the proper line of accountability in this case.
A second point raised by the amendment is that the inner London boroughs should designate members to serve on the LRB. Quite apart from the fact that to do so would mean trebling the size of the body, and completely overbalancing its present expertise, we do not believe that the nature of the LRB's tasks is such as to require such a large change in its membership. There is, however, some slack in the membership of the LRB in relation to what is permitted under the Local Government Act 1985, and it may well be that it will be appropriate for the Secretary of State to appoint a number of additional members with specific experience in education in order to inform the hoard's discussions. This is something to which we shall be giving further attention.
In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness. She will not be surprised to hear that I am not happy with the answer although I am not too unhappy. I should have liked her to have gone further on the openness point because I believe that it is a good thing. I do not believe that most of the matters I have in mind could be described as commercial incompetence. I am concerned with the disposal of valuable community assets. I should have thought a degree of openness in justifying that would be a good thing.
Having said that, I shall think more carefully about what she has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 272B not moved.]
Clause 143 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 144 [Development plans for education]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 273:
Page 137, line 29, after ("areas") insert—
("( ) consult organisations representing Head Teachers of schools in their area").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 273, and Amendment No. 274 to which I am also speaking, are simple amendments. They affect Clause 144, which lays down the ground rules for the development plans. I had the impression from our earlier debates that the Government attach considerable importance to these development plans, not only as rigid blueprints of what the new LEA plans to do, but also as a consultation process. I understand from the intervention of the Leader of the House, when he wound up on the debate that we had before dinner, that the Government will be bringing forward amendments at Report stage to allow appointments to positions to take place during the development phase. One of the reasons why the Government rejected the amendment which I moved was that they felt that it would hold up this process in some way.
Clause 144(3) provides that in preparing a development plan a council shall, according to the Bill,
"consult the local authorities for adjacent areas".
It shall also take into account,
"any guidance given by the Secretary of State".
All that I am seeking to put into this clause is that it should also consult organisations representing head teachers of schools in their area. I should have thought that that would be a sensible provision. If there is a provision to consult the local authority for adjacent areas but not to consult those who have hitherto been responsible for the running and administration of the schools, there seems to be a gap.
I know that the noble Baroness and, I think, others have referred to reasonably friendly consultations taking place between the boroughs and ILEA. But it would seem to be sensible that we should have on the face of the Bill that the head teachers of the schools—the people who had been the frontline runners of the schools that will be transferred to the local authorities—should be in at this stage of the development plan. That is the sole purpose of these two amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I had rather assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was tabling these amendments as probing amendments. I therefore hope that I shall be able to reassure the Committee on the point that they raise.
Amendment No. 273 would require inner London councils, in preparing their development plans, to consult organisations representing head teachers of schools in their area. I think that in many ways, such consultation is certainly common sense. The head teachers in each area will have a crucial part to play in advising the new local education authorities and in helping to establish new working arrangements. But I draw the Committee's attention in particular to Clause 144(3)(b) which requires councils to take into account any guidance given by my right honourable

267
friend as to consultation. Members of the Committee will be aware that the draft guidance which the department published three weeks ago made clear, in paragraph 45, that councils should consult all groups with a direct interest. That would plainly include heads, and indeed other teachers, both in schools and colleges.
If that is not clear enough, the fact that the guidance is at present in draft form means that the final guidance can—if it is indicated that it is not absolutely clear—be clarified in this respect. So I doubt whether it would be appropriate to specify whether councils should do this on an individual basis or formally through the teachers' associations. This is something which they will wish to decide in the light of local circumstances, although I would naturally expect that the representative associations and union would wish to engage in discussion with local councils about their plans; and indeed we are very much encouraging them to do so.
Amendment No. 274 goes on to require my right honourable friend, in issuing his guidance, to take account of the views of head teacher organisations about the way in which it should be published. As I said, the draft guidance has been sent to the bodies representing head teachers, and we shall naturally take into account any points they make, especially on the content of the guidance, but also on its presentation.
I must say, however, that it would be rather odd to require my right honourable friend on the face of the Bill to take into account the views of only one group, however important that group may be—and I do not wish to under-emphasise the important role of head teachers—in relation to the way in which the guidance is made public rather than what it actually says. I hope that in making the Government's position clear I have set the noble Lord's mind at rest and that he will therefore be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I did not say that this was a probing amendment because I had rather thought the noble Baroness had assumed I would not press this to a Division at this time. She is perfectly right and of course it is. I must confess that I have not read the full draft guidance. I read a summary of it, which was quite long, but I have not read the draft guidance line by line. I think it runs to something like 40 pages. Perhaps that was remiss of me.
I am certainly prepared to accept what the noble Baroness says and, maybe, these would be the natural group to be consulted at this stage. Before withdrawing this amendment I should like to say that head teachers are quite clearly crucial to getting the new system off the ground. So I hope that when the guidance is firmed up—I think the noble Baroness said that it was only draft guidance and that there would be a final version—it will make this point very plainly to local education authorities. If that is the assurance that the noble Baroness is giving me, which I think she is, then I am perfectly happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 273A:
Page 137, line 33 at end insert ("; and
(c) and any trust established under section 145(5A) of this Act,").
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 274BZB, 274BZC, 274BZD, 274DZB and 274EZB. I am very much hoping that we shall find agreement with the Government on these amendments, because they are about a specific matter with which I believe the Government have very considerable sympathy, and that is provision for handicapped children, particularly residential schools for handicapped pupils.
The Government must be very well aware of the enormous importance of these schools, both to the young people who are in them and to the families which they serve. I have contact with—as I am sure have many members of the Committee—people who are using these schools, and the whole of their lives would be radically changed, and changed for the worse, if this provision was not available.
We are therefore asking that the position should be safeguarded by the establishment of a trust, so that there is no question of these premises, which are no doubt valuable, being used for some other purpose. This is a specific objective of the very greatest importance to be served by the establishment of a trust, in order that these residential schools for the handicapped may be maintained on a basis of permanence. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I appreciate the noble Baroness's concern over the future of the residential schools for children with special educational needs maintained by the ILEA. There are 30 of them, 27 of which lie outside the ILEA boundary, either in the outer London boroughs or counties in the South-East of England.
About half of the schools are for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The others cover a range of handicaps such as moderate and severe learning difficulties, autism and delicate children. At present there are about 1,000 pupils attending them. Most of the children are of course placed by ILEA but, in common with other residential special schools, they admit children from other LEAs. There are three residential special schools located in inner London boroughs and responsibility for them will fall to the relevant borough council. But the Government are aware that responsibility for the other 27 cannot be allocated in quite this straightforward way.
The department's draft guidance on the future provision of education in inner London addresses this point. While the guidance asks inner London borough councils to state their intentions within their development plans with regard to this group of schools, we recognise that there will need to be further discussion before firm proposals can be made as to their future.
As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal explained earlier, we shall shortly be sending out to interested parties invitations for the first meeting of a working party which is to be established to consider this matter. The interested parties will, of course, be the

269
ILEA, the outer and inner London borough councils and those county authorities where these schools are located.
Through this working party, it will be our aim to reach agreement that either a borough or the LEA in which a school is situated will take on responsibility for these schools. There are precedents. When Middlesex disappeared as a county in 1965, the new outer London boroughs were able to decide among themselves responsibility for those Middlesex special schools which lay outside the county. However, I do not want at this stage to prejudge in detail the outcome of what may be the working party's deliberations.
The amendment proposes the establishment of a trust to run these schools, as the noble Baroness explained, although it does not say how this trust would be financed. It would presumably need to employ its own staff and expert help or to buy it in. The central thrust of our proposals for the provision of education in inner London from April 1990 is, of course, that each borough—like metropolitan LEAs elsewhere in the country—should be able to develop its own education service, including special education provision.
We recognise that, again like all other LEAs, the inner London boroughs will need to share their expertise in special education. But the department's Inner London Unit will be offering guidance as development plans are drawn up, in order to ensure that the necessary co-operation is built in. We are confident that in this way a strong special education service will be maintained, with an important element of local control. So I trust that with that reassurance of how we are planning to go about this situation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: May I ask the Minister a question which I do not think she answered in the course of her remarks? Do the staff of these schools and the parents know what is going on at the moment, because there must be quite acute anxiety about their position?
Baroness Hooper: As I said, guidance was distributed some three weeks ago to a very wide variety of people. I expect that the staff will certainly be aware of what is said in that and can go some way in being able to reassure the parents. As regards the establishment of the working group, I am not sure but I think that it was announced by my noble friend this afternoon, and therefore people might not be aware of it.
9 p.m.
Lord Carter: Although the amendment refers only to residential schools for handicapped children, the Minister in her answer widened the scope to deal with special education generally. I shall do the same. The amendment refers to residential schools. As the Minister said, there are only about 1,000 children with special educational need in boarding schools. There are 5,000 children with special educational need in day schools. They must also be considered.
270
There are 8,300 children in inner London who have statements of special educational need. As we know, there are many more without statements. There are 6,600 in special schools, 495 in specialist units in mainstream schools and 1,200 receive individual support in mainstream schools.
The residential school that I referred to at Second Reading illustrates the problem that the successor to ILEA and the boroughs will face in handling this matter. It is the only boarding school for children with impaired vision in the ILEA area. The figures are for all the children with impaired vision in boarding and day schools, and 52 per cent. of the children either at the boarding or the day schools are from outside the ILEA area. Obviously, there must be something in the development plans for this trust or whatever is used to deal with the problem.
Reference was made to special boarding schools outside London. As the Minister said, there are 27 of these. It seems that the Government do not have the first idea of a policy because all we are offered is a working party. We are not told what is the Government's view on how the problem should be handled. Also there is the problem of the use of central services and resources.
At page 9 of the draft guidance for ILEA which has already been referred to one reads:
"The Secretary of State's initial view is that in general he would expect each borough to maintain any ILEA special school which is within its area, although decisions about the allocation of institutions to councils will reflect the totality of councils' plans, in order to ensure the satisfactory maintenance of provision in inner London".
I have read that three times and believe that it is Civil Service jargon for saying, "We have not the first idea of how to do this. Will you please tell us how to do it?"
I referred to the only boarding school in London for the visually impaired. It is in Wandsworth. I referred also to it at Second Reading. Only seven out of 61 children come from Wandsworth. There are a further eight from the other ILEA boroughs, so only a quarter of the children, 15 out of 61, at that school come from the ILEA area. The other three-quarters come from the outer London boroughs and the Home Counties. As we know, the provision of special education is extremely expensive. The fees at that school are between £15,000 and £17,000 per head per annum. I repeat the question I asked at Second Reading. Is Wandsworth really equipped to take over a school with an annual budget of about £1 million where only seven out of the 61 children actually come from Wandsworth? That is only 11 per cent. of the children involved.
It is true that in the leaflet that Wandsworth has produced it claims that it wants to take over all 12 special schools in its area. This refers to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. In reply to an earlier amendment the Minister said—I wrote the words down when she said them:
"The policy provision for funding should be located at the borough level".
That presumably is to apply to special education. But what about the special schools which, through the accident of history, are in the poorer boroughs? Are they to rely on central resource grants to provide the special education in their areas, or are they to rely on

271
the kind of trust which is only to deal with the residential schools that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has referred to? All of this indicates the lack of planning and forethought that has entered into the Government's thinking on ILEA in relation to special schools. I hope that the noble Baroness will either be able to accept the amendment or to return at a later stage with some better ideas than the Government have produced so far.
Baroness Hooper: I shall try to meet one point as well as the general points that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has raised. As I understand it, the amendment addresses specifically the cases of the 30 residential schools. That is why I confined my remarks to that factor. We have considered the general provision for special educational needs, and the cost element to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention is not really a problem because the cost follows the child. The recoupment takes place at full cost. Even if the example he quoted for Wandsworth were to exist where only a small number of local children were in the school, for children coming from other areas the full cost would be met in a similar way to what happens in other parts of the country. I do not foresee any major change or problem in that respect.
Baroness Seear: The response of the noble Baroness to the proposed amendment was sympathetic in tone, but all we have had as a hard offer is a working party. The noble Baroness says that the boroughs will continue to be responsible for special education provision for their own areas. Once again this raises the problem of what happens if a borough finds itself in financial difficulties.
The whole subject of the provision for handicapped pupils is of an order of its own. It is not the same kind of problem as the ordinary provision of schools for ordinary healthy children. The costs are very great, the anxieties are very great, the problems of dealing with such children are specialist and it requires specially trained staff to provide that education. Are the Government prepared to go any further and say that they will stand behind these schools in some way, so that this essential provision, both for the children and their families, can be guaranteed? If the boroughs cannot provide it, will there be some other provision, either through the trust as suggested in the amendment, or in some other way? Are the Government prepared to say that they give this high priority and that they will see that adequate provision is made for young people of this kind? Can the noble Baroness reassure us more on this issue?
Baroness Hooper: Because we have requested the boroughs to address this concern in the development plans they are to bring forward, we shall be looking closely at those plans to ensure that the provision is adequate. In terms of any other support, as I said, these arrangements are made in other parts of the country and therefore I see no reason why London boroughs, provided that they go about it the right way, should not be perfectly capable of and responsible for handling these needs.
Baroness Seear: I am not reassured that these schools will still be in operation and providing the service required in a few years' time. However, this is a probing amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 274 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 274AZA:
Leave out clause 144 and insert the following clause:
("Development plans.
—(1) Not later than such date as the Secretary of State may direct, each inner London council shall prepare and publish a draft development plan—

(a) providing full particulars of the manner in which the council proposes to perform the functions of a local education authority including separate consideration of inter alia the items set out in Schedule (Items for inclusion in development plans) to this Act;

(b) providing a list of the property belonging to ILEA which in its opinion needs to be transferred to it for the purpose of enabling it properly to perform its LEA functions; and

(c) specifying all schools and other bodies or institutions which it proposes financially to maintain.

(2) The council shall carry out consultation on the proposals contained within its draft development plan in such a manner as is requisite to bring the same to the attention of those persons (both inside and outside its area) who may be affected by the performance by the council of its LEA functions, including parents, governors, students, churches, the ILEA, staff employed within the education service, voluntary organisations, employers, adjacent boroughs and bodies representative of such persons and bodies.
(3) Not less than three months shall be given in respect of the consultation required under subsection (2) above.
(4) The council shall make public available and take into account all representations received in respect of its consultation and having made such amendments to the draft development plan as it considers appropriate, shall approve its development plan for submission to the Secretary of State.
(5) Upon receipt of a development plan the Secretary of State shall forthwith seek the advice of Her Majesty's Inspectorate on the contents thereof and shall—

(i) approve the plan if advised that it provides reasonably for the establishment and maintenance of an efficient and effective comprehensive education service for its area and is consistent with the provision of such service by adjacent LEAs;

(ii) refer the plan back to the council for reconsideration, if advised that it does not so provide.

(6) The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of assisting councils in drawing up draft development plans, or development plans, give guidance in respect of the contents thereof, and a council shall take into account any guidance so given.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 274AZA, I should like to speak to the corresponding schedule under Amendment No. 274ZZB. It may be helpful for the Minister to know that this is not a probing amendment but one that we intend to pursue fully.
If we are to devolve education to the individual boroughs, we have to take seriously the way in which they will exercise their responsibilities. More importantly, they have to start to face the reality of education planning and decision making. The Government recognise that. Therefore, we enter the area of development plans and so on. In moving the amendment, we are emphasising the nature, scale and complexity of the problems and our view, which we have argued on many other occasions in connection with the Bill, that the Government have not thought this through. The draft guidance is a botched and not fully analysed document. Like so much else of the Bill, it is based on the premise that it will be all right

273
on the day. However, it will not be all right on the day unless we amend the Bill and do much more about it than we have so far done.
Perhaps it would be helpful for me to draw the attention of the Committee to the schedule that my noble friend Lady David and I have set down. This brings out the scale and complexity of the problem confronting the individual boroughs. I say "brings out" because I do not wish to vouch that we have covered the whole ground. If we had been able to think about it a little more and had not been so preoccupied with moving amendments, we could probably have provided an even longer list. This is at least a beginning, and pretty much the kind of thing that will have to be covered.
It would have been interesting to ask whether those noble Lords who so blithely voted for the abolition of the ILEA and who said that it would be all right to let the boroughs become education authorities fully appreciate that this is at best a minimum statement of what will be involved. Although I did not speak on the previous amendment, I draw attention to the arrangements that will have to be made under subsection (6) for the education of children with special needs, in particular those not provided for in borough schools. I should like to emphasise—I was remiss in not having done so earlier—the many worries of those people who have written to me and to other noble Lords.
One serious matter that has been raised is the long and short-term provision for children in hospital. Another concern that I wish to put on record from the letters that I have received is about schools dealing with children with mental handicap. This is an immensely difficult question, and people are struggling all the time against insuperable odds. That comes under the same heading, and is another problem with which the authority will have to concern itself.
Bearing all that in mind, the development plan is vital. We have discussed staff. The authorities will have to recruit staff, but it is not a matter of recruiting any old staff; the problems involved require experience and judgment. Management in this above all other areas cannot be bought off the management supermarket shelf. One cannot say, "You are a manager. Come and run our education system". That talent is scarce. In that connection, the noble Lord said that the Secretary of State will have powers and that on Report there will be amendments concerning those powers so that he can take a direct interest in the early appointment of senior staff in connection with these matters. We certainly look forward to that.
What does this amendment seek to achieve? First, in referring to the schedule, we are seeking to achieve that all possible aspects of educational provision are fully covered by the individual boroughs—the new authorities. That must be common ground with which we all agree. Secondly, as a matter of principle and good practice we believe that the new bodies must consult properly with all interested parties; not least parents but also staff, Churches and other people who take an interest in these matters. We believe in this consultation because we think it is right to consult, and we believe that if one consults the
274
matter is carried out more efficiently. In other words, we take a positive view of the value of consultation.
The boroughs have been given this draft guidance document. Our own reading of it—and I should like to know the view of the noble Baroness—is that the draft guidance issued to the boroughs is weaker than that offered by her department in Circular 3/87 and, in particular, was weaker in connection with consultation. We should like to hear from the noble Baroness whether that was a slip of the word processor or was intended.
In relation to consultation—and again this seems to me to be common sense—it would make good sense to have a draft development plan in the first instance and then to consult, review and moderate the draft development plan to produce the actual development plan. Indeed, in other guidance that the DES has given that is how it suggests that people should operate. We should like to know why it is not suggested that the department operates in this way.
Perhaps I may emphasise another matter which we have consistently argued from these Benches. We propose that Her Majesty's Inspectorate's advice should be sought on the educational validity of the development plan. I am drawing attention to what we believe are the inadequacies of the draft guidance. We are not surprised at the inadequacies because we are not surprised at anything in this horribly rushed Bill. Therefore, in a sense I am boring on about the nature of the Bill and I continue to do so because that is the case.
Finally, I come to the point which I have made twice, and perhaps three times will be enough for this evening.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord has not yet heard what it is, and he may even enjoy it this time. It is the point about real resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has raised the point and I reiterate it. We still await a modicum of an answer.
First, quite separate from the question of what real resources will be available, it seems to me—and I do not see how this is avoidable, particularly in the interim phase of the first three to five years—that if one sets up all these individual authorities, there must be a vast duplication of the decision-making and management mechanism.
All those people will have to hire their own management structures, which, in many ways, are already catered for by ILEA. However, because they are also engaged in a learning process, because they are largely starting from scratch, they are likely to have a lot of it wrong. Therefore, the transition phase must, in itself, be more expensive than what economists call the eventual equilibrium—if we ever reach it. Therefore, there is the problem of real resources.
We return to the question of what real resources will be available. As an economist, I do not understand what is the point of planning unless one is planning within a real resource framework. It is all very well to say that there are all these duties and things one would like to do, but what matters is what

275
one is proposing to do; what it costs; what are the likely resources available; how do we compare the likely resources available with the costs; and how do we then set a priority system to choose, because one is obliged to choose. Those are questions which will have to be answered. For those boroughs plunging head first into this matter that is what they will have to do, and it is not easy.
The key point is the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. In the earlier main debate I heard several Members of the Committee talk about the wasteful nature of the ILEA. Therefore, the Government must be arguing that they are proposing to cut the real resources available to the individual boroughs. There will be much less available in the way of real resources.
Perhaps they are arguing that this cut will occur at some time in the distant future; that they will let the authorities get going and that they will become infinitely more efficient—although we do not see how—and make fewer demands for resources. I do not believe that that is remotely in any way what the Government have in mind. I believe that the Government intend to impose, on the basis of needs assessment, stringent and serious cuts, even well beyond what ILEA was in the process of being obliged to engage in.
I conclude by again exercising the natural pessimism of the economist by pointing out that we have, in considering the development programme, a recipe for possible disaster. My view of how to take decisions is always to look at the worst aspect to decide what to do and then, if you do slightly better than the worst, you feel a little more cheerful. I have been emphasising the worst but I hope desperately that it will not happen. My own children are past school age so it will not happen to them, but I have friends and colleagues who will be affected.
In this amendment we aim to be constructive and to suggest ways which might minimise some of the damage. If the noble Baroness can bring herself to say something more positive about the real resources and, as we asked earlier, about guaranteed resources we will perhaps be reassured—or less not assured.
Baroness Young: I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on many occasions during the progress of this Bill and have frequently found myself in agreement with him. However, I am bound to say that his last remarks did not reach the standard which I at any rate have come to expect from him.
The noble Lord put forward arguments for his new clause—I understand he spoke also to his new schedule—but in the draft guidance, which we have now all had an opportunity of reading, his points are largely covered. Of course a local education authority, a borough taking over educational responsibilities, must draw up a plan. Quite properly the noble Lord lists in his amendment what must be considered. However, I understand that that is what the draft guidance says.
The noble Lord said in the course of his remarks, if I understood him correctly, that it is important to get the inspectorate's advice. I have no doubt—and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hooper will
276
confirm it—that when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State looks at the plans he will be taking advice from the inspectorate and others on whether or not the London boroughs have drawn up plans which meet the requirements of their areas.
The noble Lord then said that there will be increased management costs. I find that difficult to believe. One of the criticisms of ILEA is that although there has been an enormous drop in the school population the number of administrators has increased since 1980. That is an irrefutable fact. I see no reason to suppose that management costs will increase.
As regards resources, we have had this argument several times, but if ILEA is to reduce its expenditure by 12 per cent. clearly there will be fewer resources. That does not mean to say that education may not improve. It is a question of what one does with the money available and, in the schools specifically, what expectations one has of the pupils. It is nothing to do with resources available.
I do not believe that these amendments are necessary. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hooper will, without difficulty, satisfy the Committee that the Secretary of State has clearly thought of these points and will pay attention to them when approving the plans.
Earl Russell: It strikes me that we are today dealing with a kind of mini-Bill. In effect, we had this afternoon a Second Reading debate which we concluded at about six o'clock. We have now begun a Committee stage, so to speak, anew. That illustrates how many measures are packed into this Bill. Incidentally, if this were in law a single Bill, as it is in fact, it would be out of order to take the Second Reading and Committee stage on the same day.
What is unusual here is that in starting a new Committee stage we have the Opposition attempting to write the Bill as we go along because we believe that a great deal of it is not yet written. It is clear that on this side of the Committee people wish services to continue. We keep reiterating this point because over and over again we find an ambiguity at the very heart of the Government's case on this subject. On the one hand, the Government tell us over and over again that the service is too expensive; it wastes money and costs must be reduced. On the other hand, as soon as any Member of the Opposition begins to ask whether the Government wish the service to continue they say "Yes, of course we do".
I can understand that in some kind of double visioned heaven the Government might have both those objectives and pursue them honestly at the same time. But in the real world down here, sober, and on earth, there comes a point where the Government have to choose between their objectives. They have to say whether they wish to reduce the cost or whether they wish to continue the service. If the Government wish to convince Members on this side of the Committee that they want to continue the service then they should join in what I believe are genuinely constructive attempts being made to write, as it were, a new Bill to ensure the service will continue. If they do not wish the service to continue, then I believe that they should come clean and say so and then we may be able to join issue on what many

277
of us on this side of the Committee suspect are the real issues. It is time that people on the other side of the Committee absorbed the basic message of commercial practice; namely, you cannot have something for nothing.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know whether the noble Earl has ever been in local government. I should know but I do not. If he has—I notice that the noble Earl is shaking his head—he would know that very often two councils next door to each other obtain quite different value for money. One will get a far better education service for the same amount per head than another. That is a fact and that is what local government is all about. That is why we are convinced that local government should be linked to the democratic process.
I can understand that an amendment of this kind dampens the best of motivations, but it completely takes away the power of local government. When councillors meet they have a mandatory duty; they have functions to perform and matters that they are permitted to do in education. They have many models to look at in other education authorities. They will have guidance and it will be for them to decide. Some local authorities will be much more successful than others and people will vote for them accordingly.
When we discuss the problem of resources, the needs element in the support grant will take great account of the different requirements in different authorities. That having been done, the local authorities will know what grants they are receiving; they will set their rate and subsequently, under the new system, they will collect their money in a different way according to what is decided in this Chamber. The local authorities will then see the results of their actions.
To talk about this subject as though it had nothing whatever to do with local democracy and local government is a little misleading. At the same time I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is attempting to do. He is trying to make sure that the new local authorities understand their duties. I believe that they are not so daft; they are used to local government and they will find that they have far more flexibility within an all-purpose authority to cross the boundaries of different departments and so have their resources adjusted in the way that they want. They will be like other all-purpose authorities. I do not see why this measure should not work and I do not believe the amendment is necessary.
Lord Hylton: As regards the question of resources, I understand that in the past five years the expenditure of a London fire authority increased by 82·5 per cent. and that of the Metropolitan Police by 67 per cent. Those are two examples of non-elected statutory bodies in the London area. When one considers the inner London boroughs' social services, their expenditure went up by 64 per cent. We have to remember that a good number of them were rate-capped.
During the same period the expenditure of ILEA increased by only 43 per cent. I wonder if there is
278
some lesson to be learned there. Can the Government give some really cast-iron assurance that what the noble Baroness from the Government Benches was saying a moment ago would happen, will happen; that is, that the resources element will cope with the clear, well-known and thoroughly studied problems of the inner London boroughs, or will we end up with a much worse service than that which we have now?
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I accept that in moving this amendment the noble Lord was not moving it as a probing amendment. I also recognise that in tabling these amendments, in any event, he is taking a most constructive approach, which I very much welcome. I believe that the amendments contain a good deal more detail than is either necessary or appropriate for primary legislation, but they nonetheless deal with important questions which we have addressed in our draft guidance on the preparation of development plans, which we shall want to discuss in more detail with the inner London boroughs during the coming two years.
One effect of the amendments would be to require the inner London boroughs to prepare draft development plans by a date to be specified, to publish those plans for local consultation with specified interests, and then to submit a final version of the plan to the Secretary of State for approval. No date is specified in the amendment for this last step. The Secretary of State would then have to seek the advice of Her Majesty's Inspectorate on the development plan, and, depending on what that advice was, would be required either to approve the plan or to refer it back to the council for further consideration. I have to say that this makes it look very much like another delaying tactic.
Amendment No. 274ZZB sets down a list of items that need to be covered in boroughs' development plans. The list contains 37 items. I can say to the noble Lord that there is one category which they have missed, which I learnt of recently, and that is the instruction of London taxi drivers in "the knowledge". Nevertheless, I have checked the list in the schedule against the draft guidance which the department issued a few weeks ago, and all but about nine of the items in the list are clearly dealt with in our guidance, as my noble friend Lady Young assumed. Indeed, some have been the subject of discussion earlier today.
Some of the items in the noble Baroness's list that are not in the guidance at present are not ones which it would be appropriate to ask of boroughs at an early stage in drawing up their plans. The arrangements for the provision of physical education in relation to the adequacy of on-site facilities will, for example, be a matter to be discussed between the borough and its teachers. Other items, however, I think we could usefully add to our guidance—just as the proposers of the amendment could usefully have added to their list if they had chosen to do so. However, it is encouraging that both sides of the Committee are in close agreement about the broad information which is required. But I need hardly say that the Government do not believe that it would be right to

279
include in primary legislation a detailed list of the type proposed in the amendment.
Perhaps I may make some further comments on the amendments. We certainly believe, as is made clear in the Bill and in the draft guidance, that boroughs should take account of local opinion when drawing up their development plans. Indeed, it is central to our proposals that for the first time local people will have a chance to shape the education service in their area.
However, we do not believe that it is right to impose the precise manner in which consultations should take place in the way which has been proposed. In the last resort it is the boroughs who will be taking on the responsibility for their local education service. It is they, as democratically elected bodies, who must decide how to set about consulting on their proposed arrangements. Further, the draft guidance makes it clear that we expect local councils to continue the process of consultation after the development plans have been published.
These amendments, on the other hand, envisage that the development plans would be subject to approval by my right honourable friend and so become, as it were, set in concrete. It is not clear whether the proposers of the amendments believe that once the transfer of responsibilities had taken place a local education authority would be able to change aspects of its development plan. But in any event the Government believe that it is necessary to preserve flexibility for what will, after all, be local education authorities in their own right, once they have assumed education responsibilities. So while the development plans would provide a basis for local consultation and for the necessary decisions on staff and property transfer, we do not see that there will be any advantage in making them binding in a way which would place on these local education authorities a constraint which did not apply in relation to all others.
Naturally, my right honourable friend will wish to discuss the implications of the development plans with the councils concerned and in doing so he will take full account, as has been hoped for, of the views of HMI. Indeed, the department's Inner London Unit has a member of HMI attached to it to assist with this process from the outset. But it would be wholly wrong for the legislation to prescribe the HMI's advice and only that advice should determine the decision of the Secretary of State.
Much has been said again about resources. It has been suggested that the Government are expecting boroughs to cut spending by various amounts compared with what ILEA spends now. I must reaffirm that we have no such target. We believe that there is considerable scope for savings but that these can come mainly from reductions in administration and support services rather than from teachers or other important facilities.
As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal made clear earlier on about our proposals for local government finance, the transitional arrangements from 1990 to 1991 will be such that domestic ratepayers and community charge payers in inner London are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged as a result of the abolition of ILEA. In the longer term, it will be
280
for each borough to decide on the level of provision for its area, as it will be for every other education authority in England.
In short, on the basis of these amendments I believe that noble Lords opposite share very largely the Government's view of the best way to handle the process of transition. We believe that it will be more effective if we allow a greater degree of flexibility than is envisaged in these amendments. We certainly believe it necessary to be much clearer about the target date for transfer and to make that date as early as possible. On this basis I hope that the proposers of the amendment will feel able to withdraw.
Lord Carter: The noble Baroness referred to savings which she foresaw through the reduction of support services. Which support services did she have in mind?
Baroness Hooper: I said that these would be administrative and support services. It is largely in the administrative services that we expect to see possibilities for savings.
Lord Carter: The noble Baroness said "support services", and I wondered what she meant.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may draw to the attention of the Minister one particular aspect of the draft guidance. It suggests on page 1 that many areas will need to be the subject of discussion between the department and councils and ILEA as appropriate. I think it woud be very helpful if we could have some clarification as to what "ILEA as appropriate" means. I should have thought that ILEA would have to be consulted about almost every aspect of this transfer, if it is to be achieved in an effective and efficient manner.
Perhaps I may give one or two examples. There is of course a huge amount of work to be done, despite what some Members of the Committee said earlier. Only three boroughs have done very much in terms of getting the planning process under way. It is suggested that staff who work in schools and colleges should be transferred by order to the borough in which they are situated. But I think many people may be unaware of just how many staff in the ILEA are not attached to any particular school or college, and therefore cannot simply be transferred to the borough concerned.
I shall give a few examples of this. There are 3,000 central administrative staff. While mentioning those I should like to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She suggested that there has been a growth in the number of administrative staff in ILEA, despite the fact that the number of pupils has declined.
Yes, there has been a growth, and one of the most important reasons for that growth is the abolition of the GLC. Before the GLC was abolished ILEA used the GLC as an agent to provide many of the services that are necessary, such as valuations, surveying, architecture, legal services, accountancy and other services. As it happens, I oversaw the transfer of many of those staff whom I am sure the noble Baroness would agree were utterly necessary in order to maintain a single function local authority.
I also wish to point out another important fact. It is not the case that many of the people who are

281
classified as administrative staff in the CIPFA statistics are administrators. I do not think that we should be constantly carping and critical of administrators. Any large public authority needs administrative staff to keep it going. But many of the people in that category are providing various forms of specialist services in advising schools and indeed providing direct support to teachers in the classroom. Of these inspectors and advisers are perhaps the best example.
But in addition to those administrative staff there are some 2,000 buildings and maintenance staff who are not attached to particular schools or necessarily located in particular boroughs. Much of that work in ILEA is done on a quadrant basis. They must all be considered and divided up. This provision says nothing about supplies. It was agreed by the Government when the GLC was abolished that it would be sensible for ILEA to take over the GLC's supplies functions, and that in doing so it would be possible to provide an efficient service not just for ILEA but for a number of other local authorities in the London area and way beyond it.
There are 2,300 teachers who are not attached to a particular school. These comprise supply teachers, home tutors, peripatetic music teachers and PE teachers who are based in sports centres. In the light of all this, it seems quite extraordinary that this draft guidance does not suggest that ILEA should be consulted on all matters regarding transfer because I cannot think of a single area where it will not be necessary.
As regards administrative functions, quite a lot of work is delegated to the divisional officers in ILEA, and although eight of these cover the same area as the boroughs there are two that do not. They cover more than one borough. Those staff have all got to be divided up, and the only way that that can sensibly be done is to involve ILEA in proper consultation.
A number of Members of the Committee have referred to the particularly acute problems of transfer in such areas as special education, adult education and further education. Again I see no possibility of doing this effectively without the direct involvement of ILEA. In addition to those services, no one has yet referred to the fact that in-service training for teachers is of course run centrally by the authority. There are 27 specialist teacher centres which either cover the authority as a whole or alternatively cover parts of the authority. There is no way that individual boroughs will be able to make sensible decisions about issues of this kind without again the direct involvement of ILEA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said that local authorities understand their duties. I have no doubt that they do understand their duties in a general sense, but we are talking about the most complex service in local government—that is education—and I think it is fair to say that in the inner city the range and complexity of those services will be greater than in some other parts of the country.
I have not mentioned property transfer, which is another difficult and complex area. It seems to me that the guidance given in this document is
282
extraordinarily vague and needs to set out in much greater detail what is expected of these boroughs which have never been education authorities. Finally, it is exceedingly important, as the amendment suggests, that there should be proper consultation of all interested parties before final decisions are made. I support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing sinister in the words, "discussion [with] ILEA as appropriate". We intend to involve the ILEA fully in all aspects of the transfer of functions and hope for its full and effective cooperation as soon as possible.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we think that the Government are wrong. Let there be no doubt about that. However, given that the die is cast, the next stage is to make the best of what is happening. The amendment is intended to be constructive and to help the new local education authorities in their task.
I should have been more reassured if the noble Baroness, in her considerate reply, had said that the Government would consider re-writing the draft guidance along the lines suggested. The Government recognise the problem; otherwise, there would not have been a draft guidance in the first place.
Perhaps I may respond to the interesting contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, by saying that it is one of the mysteries of local government that there is no very evident explanation of why some local authorities are more successful than others. I shall not make any political points. However, the
subject has been studied by economists in some detail. Even within a local authority, schools which
apparently have exactly the same resources and everything else produce extraordinarily different results. Clearly variety is characteristic of local government.
If we are to decentralise, then I grasp the straw of variety. I hope that some of the authorities will take the opportunity to achieve new things. My emphasis is on the fact that the contributions throughout the experiments will not be the positive and successful ones which we are looking for, but rather the negative ones and the failures. However, I entirely accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has said about the variety of local government.
There is a further complexity, in that one can talk about the local authority fine tuning its education system to meet its requirements. However, the essence of the problem and what the whole debate has been about is that many matters are London-wide. Problems cannot be defined as pertaining to individual authorities. That is the logical error and the reason that I am afraid that the experiment will go wrong.
Having said that, I find some aspects of the reply of the noble Baroness quite helpful. I shall return to the theme again, I hope constructively. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendemnt.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
9.50 p.m.
Clause 145 [Responsibility for schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 274EZA to 274BZD not moved.]
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 274CZA:
Page 138, line 33, leave out ("On the abolition date—").
The noble Lord said: I wanted to speak to my three amendments together. That is why I did not move the amendment earlier. If I am in order I shall move them in this way.
The Government proposals will mean yet another upheaval for governing bodies only a short time after the reconstitution arising from the 1986 Education (No. 2) Act. That reconstitution will take place in September 1988 for county schools and in September 1989 for the voluntary schools. In some cases governing bodies will have been in being for only two terms at the very most.
Subsection 8(a) is undesirable. The Government's proposal to remove ILEA appointees will mean a considerable change in the membership of the governing bodies. Subsection 8(b) would mean an unnecessary upheaval. ILEA intended to recommend to governing bodies that they co-opt representatives of black and ethnic minorities, staff support and members of the business community. The combination of Subsection 8(a) and (b) will add significantly to the disruption caused by abolition and further upset the system.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): Do I understand that the noble Lord is moving Amendment No. 274CZA?
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I am.
Baroness Hooper: As I understand it, in addition to moving that amendment the noble Lord was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 274DZA and 274EZA.
These amendments would mean that rather than boroughs having the opportunity to replace ILEA nominees on school governing bodies from 1st April 1990, they would have to wait until 1st September to be able to do so and that the governing bodies themselves would then have to wait for a further year before they could replace any co-opted members. I can see the argument that this would help to preserve continuity. But, especially given the new and important responsibilities which fall to governing bodies under the Bill, we feel that it is vital that those who are intended to represent the local education authority on the governing body do so effectively from the word go.
Clause 145(8) as drafted specifically states that the provision for removing ILEA-appointed governors is without prejudice to their being appointed again, if the new LEA so wishes. There is therefore ample scope for maintaining continuity where the borough believes it necessary. Where the nature of appointments to a governing body changes as a consequence of new appointments it is only right that the co-options to the governing body should reflect
284
that also, and that a governing body should not have to wait for a year or more before it could make any necessary changes in that area.
I recognise the noble Lord's concern and interest in this matter. I hope that he will be satisfied by my explanation of the existing provisions and that he will not press this amendment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I am not happy because I do not believe that the Bill provides for the continuity that I should like to see, especially since the existing arrangements have been operating for only a short time. I cannot see any point in pressing the amendment further but I hope that the Minister will look very closely at the situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 274DZA, 274DZB and 274EZA not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 145 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Morton of Shuna: One can best look at the point that I wish to raise by first looking at subsection (4) of this clause, which provides, obviously correctly, that designated schools cannot be closed without following the procedure laid down in the Education Acts. Then one sees that a designated school is such school as the Secretary of State designates in an order as shall relate to that inner London council and which had previously been an ILEA maintained school.
In our present situation of falling school rolls and other demographic changes, it may well happen that there are too many schools in the borough for efficient use. So far as I can see from the Bill, and certainly as it appears from Clause 145, in those circumstances the Secretary of State can designate only certain of the schools in the borough as necessary to be taken over by that borough. If I have read the Bill correctly—and no doubt the Minister will tell me if I am wrong or if there are some other provisions—it would mean that such schools would fall through the trap, so to speak, and close. There would not be any consultation process either with parents or other interested bodies as to whether that or another school should close. That problem does not appear to have been dealt with in this Bill.
The possibility of schools falling through the trap occurs because the Secretary of State has no duty to designate each school which is an ILEA school to one of the various inner London councils. Therefore there could be schools which are not designated. I should like to know whether that is the case and, should I be wrong, where the provision can be found. Otherwise it appears to me that this is an omission from the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: The flexibility to designate schools outside a borough's area is designed to cover two specific cases. First, ILEA maintains a number of schools completely outside the inner London area (and this is a matter that we have already discussed), most of them catering for children with special education needs. We do not wish to preclude those schools from being transferred to one of the

285
boroughs. I imagine from what the noble Lord has said that he also accepts that point.
Of course it would be possible for such schools to be transferred to a local education authority outside inner London if it seemed to be more appropriate under Clause 146(2). In order to remove any possible misunderstanding on this point, at Report stage we shall table an amendment designed to make quite clear that the provisions for the designation of schools in Clause 145 extend also to the designation of schools to a local education authority outside inner London.
However, there is also the possible case of a school which is near a borough boundary and which primarily serves a borough other than the one in which it is located. The borough that it serves may wish to be responsible for administering that school either by having it formally designated under subsection (3) of the clause or by agreement with the host borough under subsection (5). The borough in which the school is located may be equally happy with that arrangement.
I cannot see the point in removing that flexibility. That is not to say that there will be many or even any such cases, but we simply wish to leave open that possibility within the general provisions of Clause 145.
Lord Morton of Shuna: No doubt it is my fault but I do not think that the Minister answered the point that I was endeavouring to make. If there is a borough that has within it five secondary schools, say, but it should only have three because of the number of children that it contains, what is to prevent the Secretary of State from saying, "This borough needs only three schools" and designating the three of his choice? Then the other two, which have no connection with any other boroughs, close because they have not been designated, so far as I can see under this clause. There is no consultation process because subsection (4) deals only with schools which have been designated.
It appears to be a mistake that has slipped through. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the department would not wish schools to be closed without the consultation process. It seems that there is a possibility of something having gone through by mistake. That was the point. It was not the question of schools on borderlines or outwith the area but of too many schools in the one borough.
10 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I thought that the noble Lord was concerned about the possibility of flexibility in this case. In preparing their development plans under Clause 144 councils will be required to specify all schools inside their area which are currently maintained by ILEA and therefore to anticipate the kind of example that the noble Lord has given us.
In case there is something into which we should look in more detail in respect of schools that are no longer required, I shall look again at the clause and come back to the noble Lord in some way.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clause 146 [Transfer of property, rights and liabilities]:
[Amendments Nos. 274EZB and 274EZC not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 274FZA:
Page 139, line 21, at end insert—
("(6) The Secretary of State shall consult each Inner London Council before making an order transferring property to any local authority other than to an inner London Council within whose area it is situate;
(7) In consulting Inner London councils under subsection (6) above, the Secretary of State shall inform them of the principles upon which he is proposing to make his decision, and no such transfer of property shall be made other than in accordance with principles applicable to all Inner London Councils or all local authorities, as the case may be.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the clause relating to the transfer of property rights and liabilities. The provisions here are of very considerable importance as the Inner London Education Authority has nearly 1,500 sites and 3,000 individual buildings.
In view of the integrated pattern of educational provision in inner London there could be competing claims for buildings of certain types, such as special schools and sports facilities, but there are no statements of principles for transfer. For example, is transfer to go to the majority user with guarantees to the minority users? Inevitably borough development plans will throw out competing claims which, because of the inadequate timescale, will in practice fall to be dealt with by government officials who are likely to be unaware of the full circumstances.
There ought to be—and this amendment aims to put it in—the necessity or requirement for consultation before making the transfer of property. The amendment states that the Secretary of State,
"shall consult each Inner London council before making an order transferring property to any local authority other than to an inner London Council"
and that the inner London councils, in consulting, shall be informed of the principles on which the Secretary of State is proposing to make his decision; and that no such transfer shall be made other than in accordance with principles applicable to all the councils.
The problem is (as we considered in the debate on clause stand part) that there are properties which are outside the inner London area. There is, for example, for historical reasons a small children's cemetery in Kent, and how that will be transferred and to whom will obviously be a matter of some difficulty. Various other properties such as sports centres are outside the area. Are they to be transferred to the local authority that they are in, if they are outside the inner London area? Are they to be transferred to a different inner London authority so that it can use these out-of-its-area facilities and how are they to be paid for?
If, for example, a sports centre in Bromley is to be transferred to Bromley and used by Bromley Borough Council for its own purposes, how will it be financed? Is each inner London authority being charged for that use or will they get facilities for using

287
it? It is for these reasons that consultation is essential. We believe it is necessary that there should be some principle which would apply right across the board, and be stated to be there, so that people in the various local authorities know the principles on which the Secretary of State is acting and know that he does not apply an ad hoc principle to each individual case. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: If taken literally, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult each and every inner London council before making an order transferring property to any authority other than an inner London council within whose area the property was situated. If that is actually the noble Lord's intention, I have to say that it seems to be a somewhat cumbersome procedure. It would mean that a property transaction which affected only two boroughs—for example, at the western edge of inner London—would also have to be the subject of consultation with boroughs several miles away who had no interest whatever in it.
But it may be that the noble Lord's intention is not properly reflected in his draft, and that what he is actually concerned to ensure is that the boroughs involved in anything other than a straightforward transfer of property to the council in whose area it is situated should have a chance to offer their views. That is eminently reasonable, and indeed it is already reflected in our draft guidance on development plans.
Perhaps I may quote a few sentences from the guidance. Paragraph 39 says:
"… Councils may in general expect to inherit the ILEA property located within their area for which there is a continuing educational requirement. There may in addition be property located in one council's area but which has traditionally served another area or would be of more educational value in serving the area of another council than in remaining with the 'home' council. Where a council can make out a strong case for inheriting property located outside its boundary, the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider this, in the light of any representations made by other bodies. The Secretary of State will consult interested parties and the London Residuary Body as necessary in cases of dispute".
So the position is already clearly laid down in our draft guidance, and, subject to any modifications arising from the current process of consultation on the draft, will be reflected in the statutory guidance to be issued after Royal Assent.
There is a further aspect to the noble Lord's amendment, which is essentially that the Secretary of State must make clear to councils the principles upon which he is proposing to make a decision of this kind about property transfer, and that he must act in accordance with principles which apply equally to all boroughs.
It is of course a fundamental principle of administrative law that the Secretary of State should follow common principles in deciding different cases. If he failed to do so, his decision would be liable to judicial review. Again, our draft guidance sets out the principles in paragraph 38 which the Secretary of State would expect to follow. Perhaps I may quote briefly again:
"Councils should note that the Secretary of State will be prepared to transfer to them only that property clearly required in connection
288
with their LEA functions. All surplus property will pass automatically to the London Residuary Body in accordance with the provisions of Clause 156."
Then, there are the points which I have already quoted about the possibility of transferring property to an authority other than the one in which it is located, where another council can make out a strong case that it would be of more educational value for the property to be so transferred.
The guidance continues to make clear that
"in the case of an institution mainly based in one borough but having some of its facilities located outside that borough, (or for example) where playing fields in one borough serve a school in another … the Secretary of State will in general be guided by the principle that institutions should remain as an entity, and that they should transfer to the predominant owner, using the location of the largest area of floor space as an initial criterion, but taking account also as appropriate of the intensity of use of each site".
All this serves to demonstrate, I believe, that the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary, as the Government fully intend to embody in their statutory guidance the principles he is proposing for the face of the Bill. I hope therefore that in the light of these arguments he will not seek to press his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister referred to "statutory guidance". Is that guidance to have the force of a statutory instrument, or is it just guidance?
The Earl of Arran: It is issued under the statute.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Under the statute, where? Which section? So far as I am aware, this guidance is just a document that comes from the Department of Education and Science. Is there to be an answer, or shall I go on? If we are talking about consultation that is fine. Paragraph 39 of the guidance states that the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider inheriting property located outside a boundary in the light of representations made by other bodies. The question I should like to ask is: let us say that borough A wants this property outside its boundaries. How are the other councils to know that it wants it unless there is such consultation as I suggest in the amendment?
Speaking as a lawyer, I am becoming more and more irritated by the idea that we do not need guidance in primary legislation because it is somewhere in some statutory instrument that may be passed at some time in the future, after the Act is passed. That seems to me to be a totally irresponsible way of revising legislation, and it just will not do. Is the guidance just to be ordinary guidance, or is it to be some form of statutory instrument, once it has been decided what form the guidance is to take?
The Earl of Arran: If the noble Lord would care to read Clause 144(3)(b) he will see:
"take into account any guidance given by the Secretary of State (whether as to the contents of the plan or as to consultation with any other persons, and whether as to such plans generally or as to the particular council's plan)".
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry to keep on with this subject, but we have been through guidance in a whole variety of Bills in the very short time I have been here. Guidance can take all sorts of forms. The guidance to which I have been referred could be just

289
a letter. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, can indicate without speaking that it is there. That does not make guidance statutory. That the Secretary of State says that one thing would be good and another would be bad is not a statutory form of guidance that we can debate as a statutory instrument and approve or negative. There may be reasons for not having the guidance there, but there is no reason for not having the principle in the legislation.
We are being told once again that there is no need to state the principle in the Bill, but that we should trust the Minister. To repeat what I have said more than once, I hope that, for the sake of his health, Mr. Baker is not to be the Minister for the rest of time. Ministers and governments change, and attitudes change. It is better to have a provision with full statutory force.
I am sorry that we have been given no satisfactory answer. I may have been slightly irritable and firm on the matter, but it is one about which lawyers feel strongly. I think that it would be appropriate to take the opinion of the Committee.
10.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 274FZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lockwood, B.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

David, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Raglan, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Russell, R.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

White, B.

Hylton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Cowley, E.

Annan, L.

Cox, B.

Arran, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Bathurst, E.

Croft, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Braye, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fortescue, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Gainford, L.

Burton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Caithness, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Caldecote, V.

Goold, L.

Camden, M.

Grafton, D.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gray, L.

Greenway, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gridley, L.

Carnock, L.

Halsbury, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Harvington, L.

Clinton, L.

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Colnbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

290

Hives, L.

Pym, L.

Holderness, L.

Radnor, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kimball, L.

Selkirk, E.

Knutsford, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Long, V.

Strange, B.

Lyell, L.

Swinton, E.

Margadale, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mersey, V.

Trafford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Morris, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Young, B.

Newall, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.25 p.m.
[Amendment No. 274FZB not moved.]
Clause 146 agreed to.
Clause 147 [Establishment and functions of staff commission]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 274GZA:
Page 140, line 6, at end insert—
("(5) The Staff Commission and the Secretary of State shall so exercise their functions under this section as to secure that employees of ILEA are afforded all reasonable priority in the obtaining of employment upon or as soon as practicable after the abolition date with a relevant authority.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the security, so to speak, available to employees of the Inner London Education Authority during the transfer period. Clause 147 establishes a staff commission and states that the Secretary of State may give directions—not, on this occasion, guidance—on procedure. It makes various provisions, the intent of which is to assist the transfer of ILEA employees, especially teachers, to the various councils and the residuary body.
The amendment strengthens that clause by adding the words:
"The Staff Commission and the Secretary of State shall so exercise their functions under this section as to secure that employees of ILEA are afforded all reasonable priority in the obtaining of employment upon or as soon as practicable after the abolition date with a relevant authority."
The intention is to endeavour to make it worthwhile for ILEA staff to stay with that organisation, as it is essential that adequate staff remain until abolition, without feeling that they have insufficient security and therefore fade away and apply for other jobs. Without adequate compensation there is a severe risk that the education service will face a breakdown as key staff leave.
The GLC, in dealing with its own winding up, introduced through the staff commission a weak ring-fence procedure for the benefit of all Greater London local government employees, but it had no teeth and was widely ignored. The worry for the staff of ILEA is that that should not be a model and that we should have a method of retaining staff within ILEA until its abolition because if that does not happen chaos will result. The only way of securing that staff have an

291
incentive to remain is to offer some security after abolition that they will be transferred within a reasonably short time and have the priority to which they are entitled in this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support this amendment both from the point of view of giving a fair deal to the staff and, equally important, in regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, that two years will pass between now and the transfer. Unless an amendment to this effect is accepted a great many of the staff are likely to look elsewhere for jobs. We understand that this has already happened. The Government will say that it is due to uncertainty. Others may view the word "certainty" with even more dismay than "uncertainty" because they do not share the Government's enthusiasm to be transferred to the tender mercies of, say, Lambeth or Southwark council. They will busily look for jobs elsewhere and they will get them because of the shortage of teachers.
If the Government do not want to find that they are transferring to local authorities schools with extremely depleted staffs, they would be well advised to accept this amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord and the noble Baroness may rest assured that the Government are in complete sympathy with the intention behind this amendment to ensure that the inner London councils, when filling their education-related posts, first consider applications from ILEA employees. The Government repeatedly made clear their intention in this respect in another place. Indeed, the words "reasonable preference" were used and these are very similar to the phrase "reasonable priority" used in this amendment.
I am sure that we all accept that it is very important that ILEA's skilled manpower should not be lost to the boroughs. That is one reason why the boroughs should be pleased to consider ILEA applicants first. The other reason is that the interests of ILEA employees need to be protected. If an ILEA employee is fully competent to fill a borough vacancy, then he or she should get the job. It will be for the Staff Commission, as it was at the time of the abolition of the GLC in 1986, to work out with the boroughs the details of how best to ensure that ILEA employees are given this priority consideration.
We have said in another place, and it is repeated in the draft guidance, that the Staff Commission should be in full operation before the deadline of the publication for the boroughs' development plans, which is February next year, 1989. With the reassurance that we envisage the Staff Commission's contribution to resolving staffing issues to be critical, particularly in respect of ensuring that ILEA employees who apply for education-related jobs in the boroughs are given priority consideration, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him why he keeps inserting the
292
words "education-related employees"? I am a little suspicious of that phrase in the sense that it sounds as though the Government are saying that the only employees of ILEA who are important are the teachers and all the administrative, ancillary and support staff are virtually unnecessary and irrelevant. I hope that is not the Government's position. I suggest that a few words from the Minister might help in clarifying the position.
Lord Trefgarne: It is the case that there are very many hard-working, effective and successful administrative employees working in ILEA. But the Government have also made it clear that they believe that there are areas within that particular ambit which may be the cause for some concern as regards ILEA. I dare say that there will be some administrative officials in ILEA who will not necessarily find employment with the boroughs. I hope that they will find appropriate employment in another or in a related field.
As I have said, I am sympathetic to the thought at least behind the amendment. I have said that I do not believe that it is necessary to write that kind of provision into the Bill given the effect of the guidance and of the Staff Commission to which I have referred. I shall be prepared to consider finding words that will put into the Bill in another way the Government's thoughts to which I have referred tonight.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged for that because, as I thought I said—or at least, as I intended to say—one of the fears is that the Staff Commission will be as toothless a tiger as the GLC Staff Commission which could really only offer encouragement. Something more is required, and in view of the Minister's encouraging words I hope he will return with something stronger. In the light of his undertaking I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 147 agreed to.
Clauses 148 and 149 agreed to.
Clause 150 [Compensation for loss of office or diminution of emoluments]:
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 274HZA:
Page 142, line 29, at end insert ("or subsequently acquired by him by reason of a variation in his contract of employment which was intended solely to ensure that, in the event of loss of employment by reason of redundancy, he would be entitled to be compensated on a basis not less favourable than that applicable to other employees of ILEA.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 280F, with which it is grouped. Clause 150(3) and, in so far as it affects ILEA, Clause 185 of the Bill are designed to prevent ILEA from entering into contracts with its employees which would have the effect of enhancing their contractual rights to compensation in the event of redundancy. Both clauses are retrospective to 20th November 1987—that is, the date of the Bill's introduction in another place.
These amendments are not intended to undermine the main purpose of the clauses, but merely to introduce limited exceptions which would enable

293
ILEA to correct certain anomalies in the contractual rights of its employees, so as to secure equality of treatment among them in the event of loss of employment through redundancy arising in consequence of the Bill.
I am advised that under longstanding provisions of the Greater London Council's staff code, GLC and ILEA employees enjoyed certain contractual entitlements to compensation in the event of redundancy. In some respects those entitlements were superior to those laid down in government regulations at the time of the abolition of the GLC. However, Section 53 (3) of the Local Government Act 1985 preserved contractual rights to compensation acquired before 2nd March 1984.
When the GLC was abolished, on 1st April 1986, staff who were then made redundant received compensation from the London Residuary Body on the basis of their GLC contractual entitlement where this was more favourable than the statutory basis. Staff transferred to successor bodies—such as ILEA and the London Residuary Body—by designation order under Section 52 of the Local Government Act 1985, retained the benefit of their GLC contractual terms which will accordingly apply in the event of their subsequent redundancy—whether by reason of ILEA abolition, or otherwise.
Although the vast majority of former GLC employees were transferred to ILEA in the aforementioned way, and in the event of their becoming redundant on ILEA abolition they could claim compensation on the basis of their GLC entitlement, there are some former GLC employees, now employed by ILEA, who will not so benefit. Those employees were not designated in a statutory transfer order and were therefore directly recruited to ILEA on the basis of new contracts of employment.
In the general turmoil attendant on GLC abolition, and on the new ILEA taking over, a process of recruitment had to be hurried through. As a result of this, employees were given contracts which were not in all respects as favourable as they would have been had they merely continued under their GLC contracts. To some extent it was a matter of chance who was transferred to ILEA by statutory order, and who by direct recruitment. Thus certain officers in the GLC architects' department were so transferred; but staff doing comparable work in the engineering department were directly recruited. In some cases the difference could have a crucial effect on the amount of compensation to which they would be entitled in the event of redundancy.
Clauses 150 and 185, to which these amendments relate, overlap in many respects. They would prevent ILEA from correcting the anomaly to which I have already referred, which could operate in a harsh, unfair and discriminatory way. Therefore the object of the amendment is merely to enable ILEA to remove this source of discrimination by raising the redundancy entitlements of all staff to an equal level, but not to a level higher than that already enjoyed by the bulk of existing employees.
The amendments are not intended to enable ILEA, in anticipation of its abolition, to raise everyone's entitlement to a new level; they are intended simply to
294
ensure that in the event of redundancy, staff of like age and service are compensated on the same basis.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me. I am sorry that this is somewhat detailed. Perhaps I may now describe in a little more detail the relevance of these amendments, first to Clause 150 and then Clause 185. Subsection (3) of Clause 150 provides that compensation for redundancy is to be paid only in accordance with the regulations. Subsection (4) creates an exception to the rule by preserving the effect of contractual terms acquired before 21st November 1987.
Amendment No. 274HZA is designed to widen the scope of this exception by enabling rights acquired subsequently to be preserved where they had been acquired under variation of a contract and the sole purpose of the variation is to ensure that all employees are treated alike by improving the terms to a level as favourable as that already enjoyed by the general body of existing employees. I hope I have made that clear.
Clause 185 is wider in scope, but also has the effect of preventing ILEA from correcting the anomalies which I have endeavoured to describe. The clause would render any change in contractual terms designed to remedy this deficiency void and of no legal effect. Again, the amendment has the limited purpose of preserving the validity of terms designed to put disadvantaged employees on the same level as that enjoyed by other employees.
Although Amendment No. 280F does not strike at the main purpose of the clause, it is discriminatory in its effect in that it applies to contracts between a local education authority or certain governing bodies and any person employed wholly or partly by those bodies in connection with their functions under the Education Acts 1944 to 1988. The clause thus applies to all ILEA employees. As regards county councils, outer London borough councils and metropolitan district councils, which are all local education authorities, the clause means that those councils can give improved rights to redundancy compensation to their employees in, say, the social services, housing and recreation departments, but not to employees in their education departments and not to employees in other departments who spend even a small proportion of their time on work for the education service. I suggest that this differentiation of treatment between different classes of employee is discriminatory and unfair. Amendment No. 280F would correct this anomaly.
Because of the detailed nature of the background to these amendments and also because their aim is so limited and, it seems to me, so modest and reasonable, I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, about them last week, to give the Government notice of what I proposed to say today. I very much hope that as a result either the amendments will be accepted in their present form, or the Government will agree to introduce others at Report stage worded in a way that is not only acceptable to them but also meets the concerns expressed to me by representatives of the employees who are involved. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I strongly support these amendments and I hope that I shall not be too repetitive. It seems to me on the information I have that there are various other points which can be made. It is not only necessary that there should be equity in dealing between various members of staff of the same grade and with the same service. It is obviously wholly wrong that a mere matter of chance should decide whether or not the employment and therefore the redundancy period shall be transferred from the GLC.
But in addition that will affect the keenness of the staff of the Inner London Education Authority to remain until abolition. These people who were transferred other than by the statutory transfer are, I am informed, key personnel in the finance, legal and property services, among others, and they are most at risk in losing what equity would say was their entitlement to redundancy. If they do not have this they are the people most likely to go and find another job before ILEA winds up. If that were to happen it would be very difficult indeed for the Inner London Education Authority to continue to operate until its limiting date, and it is essential that it should so operate.
In addition to that there are the obvious dangers to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has referred of having inequities between staff of the same grade. There is also the difficulty that if it remains as it is the residuary body will have to deal with redundancy payments and have to look at thousands of individual contracts of employment and exchanges of letters which could be disposed of if it were possible to accept at least the thought behind these amendments so that one treats everybody of the same grade and the same length of service in the same way. That is the basic purpose behind this provision. It is an important matter and I hope that the Government will be amenable to looking at it.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I am sorry that owing to a number of changes in the Front Bench team, or at least in the allocation of amendments, I have not had a chance to see the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. But I hope, nonetheless, that what I say will reassure him, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, too.
There is a category of ex-GLC employees who, because they were recruited by ILEA under Section 52 of the Local Government Act, have lost the more generous contractual rights to redundancy compensation which they had as GLC employees. In this respect they are less well off than the majority of their ex-GLC colleagues who were transferred to the employment of ILEA and so retained the rights to redundancy compensation which they enjoyed as GLC employees.
In addition it appears that some of those GLC employees who were recruited to the employment of ILEA were led to believe by ILEA that they would retain the more generous provisions they had enjoyed as GLC employees. That unfortunately was not the case.
296
Turning to the resolution of this problem, I want to draw a distinction between those ex-GLC employees who were recruited in the belief that their GLC terms would be protected and those who were recruited in the knowledge that their GLC terms would be replaced by ILEA's standard contractual terms. The first group certainly deserve our sympathy. The second group present a rather less good case for they are no worse off than the bulk of ILEA employees.
What we believe is required is a discretionary power to reinstate the redundancy compensation terms of that first group should they be made redundant—those ex-GLC employees who were recruited to the employment of ILEA in the belief that their contractual right to redundancy compensation would remain unchanged. This would be achieved by giving to the London Residuary Body a discretionary power to provide such redress. There is no need to amend the Bill in order to provide this discretionary power; the compensation regulation which we intend to make under Section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972 will provide the necessary vehicle.
With this assurance of the Government's intention to give to the LRB this discretionary power I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we intend to deal sympathetically with the situation which has led him to move this amendment, and I hope that he will withdraw it and also what I believe is in effect the consequential amendment to Clause 185; that is, Amendment No. 280F. I recognise that that amendment does not deal with quite the same point but I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied by the reassurance that I have given.
Lord Rochester: I am not altogether satisfied. I thank the noble Lord for what he has said about those who were recruited to the ILEA in the belief that they were to be accorded favourable treatment. As regards those who did not have that belief, my information, it may be wrong, differs from that of the noble Lord in that they are not in the same position as the general body of employees. For that reason I am disappointed at what he has said.
However, this is a complicated matter. Rather than pursue it further tonight, I shall study closely what has been said. I am sorry that the letter, which I took some trouble in writing last week, has not reached the Minister. Perhaps he can do me the courtesy of reading it and, before Report stage, considering whether, in the light of its contents and what I have said tonight, he is more favourably disposed towards the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 150 agreed to.
Clauses 151 and 152 agreed to.
Clause 153 [Repayment by London Residuary Body of loans to ILEA]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 274JZA:
Page 145, line 7, at end insert—
("() In making an order under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall provide that the sums deemed to have been borrowed

297
are determined according to common principles to be applied equally to all inner London councils.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 274JZA and 274KZA to which I shall speak concern a minor accounting point dealing with the way the London Residuary Body will deal with borrowing and the calculation of interest. Looking at my amendments and at the text of the Bill, it seems to me that that is obviously what the LRB ought to do. The amendments concern how the sums deemed to have been borrowed are determined—namely, according to common principles—and how the implied or actual interest is calculated. They seem to be obvious and I hope that the Minister will tell us that that is what the Bill means, that we do not have to worry about that problem and that the individual borrowers can count on being treated in a fair way, in the accounting sense. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord. Clause 153 follows the model of the arrangements established at the time of the abolition of the GLC, which provided for deemed borrowing by successor authorities. The purpose of that was twofold: to provide for the smooth transfer of outstanding liabilities and to protect third parties who were owed money at the time of abolition. We expect the detailed operation to follow the model of the 1985 Act also.
I should first perhaps emphasise that one aspect of the 1985 procedures which we expect to mirror is that of consultation with interested parties before any orders are laid before Parliament. This will of course include the order-making arrangements for deemed borrowing. So the Government will have discussed the proposed arrangements with all the inner London councils before they are put into effect.
It is against this background of consultation that I should like to consider the two amendments. Our basic intention is that all the boroughs should be treated in the same way when we come to determine deemed borrowing. In the case of the GLC—which, as I have said, is the precedent we shall be following—deemed borrowing for all authorities was determined by a common formula based on the population of the council's area. The terms for repayment and payment of interest were likewise set across the successor authorities.
We would not wish to rule out special arrangements in respect perhaps of a particular debt if an inner London council so wished, and after full consultation. But I can assure the Committee that the basic principle will be one of common treatment for all councils. I hope that that provides the reassurance the noble Lord was seeking.
Lord Peston: With the Committee's leave, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 153 agreed to.
Clauses 154 to 166 agreed to.
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett moved Amendment No. 274ZA:
After Clause 166, insert the following new clause:
("The Horniman Museum
.—(1) On the abolition of ILEA the Secretary of State, shall make a recommendation to Her Majesty in Council that the Horniman Museum known also as the Horniman Public Museum and Public Park Foundation, should be vested in a body of trustees appointed by him and supported by monies provided by Parliament, and Her Majesty may then by Order in Council constitute such a body and make further provisions as appears to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient for giving effect to the recommendation.
(2) In this section "the Secretary of State" means the Lord President of the Council.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment perhaps the Committee will allow me to speak to Amendment No. 274ZB at the same time. The two relate to the Horniman and Geffrye Museums.
In moving these amendments I hoped to be able to say to Members of the Committee that I felt sure that they would all want to wish those two distinguished and imaginative museums a hopeful and bright future. The very welcome and encouraging remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her opening remarks this afternoon lead me to suppose that that is the case. Indeed, her announcement that after abolition both the Horniman and Geffrye Museums would become independent and would be centrally grant aided in some ways goes rather further than my amendments. In the case of the Horniman Museum it echoes very much the amendment which is now before the Committee.
The amendment relating to the Geffrye Museum was different. It suggested that the museum should come under the wing of the Museum of London. It was felt that the Geffrye Museum, not being quite as large or self-sufficient as the Horniman, might need that protection. In fact I think it is very welcome that the Geffrye should also be independent. Who would not rather be independent than under the wing of even so imaginative and well-meaning an institution as the Museum of London, for which I have the greatest possible respect? In that way I think that the proposal is very satisfactory indeed.
That arrangement also removes one possible hiccup whch had occurred to me. Wiser drafters of parliamentary legislation than I had pointed out to me that these two amendments, taken together, amounted to a possible hybridisation of the Bill. What the noble Baroness has proposed does not do so. In that respect it is altogether more satisfactory. The noble Baroness referred to the possibility that the two museums might have to be parked, as it were, with the London Residuary Body in the meantime if arrangements could not be made quickly enough. I am bound to say that if one has to stand in a lay-by the LRB is as nice a lay-by to stand in as any and I have the greatest respect for its work. I think that Sir Godfrey and his colleagues have done with enthusiasm and good sense a job that most people would have regarded as quite beyond the pale. However, I suspect that there is probably time enough for the arrangements to be made without those two museums having to be parked anywhere.
It only remains for me to issue a small warning about the funding of the museum. It is very important that between now and the abolition of the ILEA the

299
levels of funding should not decline so steeply as to endanger the museums, and if they do, those funding levels should not be regarded as the norm.
I should like to make one last small caveat about capital funding. Capital funding is often forgotten because it is so incalculable—one cannot say what it will be from year to year. It is not an academic question because at this moment the Horniman is building one of the most joyous and eccentric extensions to any museum in London. It is in fact putting up the Coombe Hill conservatory. That is a kind of do-it-yourself Victorian conservatory kit which was found some time ago, and with the help of English Heritage the museum has been gradually putting it up. I must say that this conservatory kit is so large that I cannot imagine who could possibly have wanted to buy it as a private citizen in Victorian times. Nevertheless, it is going up. It will be a welcome addition and will be exciting, but we shall need to think about capital funding. So while welcoming very strongly the words of the noble Baroness, I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: It gives me great pleasure to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. It is fitting that this amendment should be moved by a Cross-Bencher since it is one that commands support from every part of this Chamber. I am especially pleased to support the noble Lord since I had the privilege of knowing his father, who was as distinguished for his love of the arts, and literature in particular, as he was renowned in the practice of the law.
When one talks of the press one tends to think in terms of newspapers such as The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent—I hope I have covered myself sufficiently by mentioning those four—and one forgets that a large part of the press is purely local in character. Papers such as the Northamptonshire Chronicle and Echo or the Essex Chronicle are papers by which people are probably influenced in many cases much more than by skimming through more pretentious journals.
I believe that it is the same in the world of museums and galleries. Of course when that phrase is used there comes to mind the British Museum or the National Gallery, but there are other smaller institutions which are not household names but which are equally important in the museum and gallery world. I first visited the Geffrye Museum when I was Minister for the Arts and I found it a most rewarding and stimulating experience. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to Geoffrey Daniel, who was the director at that time and who was so devoted to the work of the museum—work cut short by his sad and premature death.
The Geffrye and the Horniman museums are very popular, particularly among young people. Over the years thousands of children have first made their acquaintance with the world of the arts through those museums. That is something for which we should be deeply thankful. We live in an age of material affluence which at the same time suffers from spiritual starvation, and such institutions offer something of
300
great importance to meet that need. I often think that the Government might reflect further on the fact that there are thousands of societies and institutions which are much smaller than the ones that we are discussing today but which need much smaller amounts of money. In fact, they can survive with very small help from the Government, but without that help they will simply go under.
When I first raised this question in this Chamber in April I received an encouraging reply from my noble friend Lady Hooper. She has been even more encouraging today. She has not been as good as her word; she has been better than her word, and has thrown in some encouraging words about Morley College (which played such a crucial part in adult education) and the City Lit., where I once gave lectures in public speaking when I was struggling at the Bar and was very glad to receive a guinea for each lesson. I am indeed grateful to my noble friend for her encouragement. I should like to refer to her, no doubt out of order, but suitably, I hope, as "Glorious Gloria", in this respect.
We have heard this Bill being debated without the bitterness it might have aroused because in so many ways the Secretary of State for Education has been flexible and reasonable in his response to meeting legitimate needs and points of grievance.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord St. John of Fawsley: Although that sentiment does not seem to command universal consent, it is one which I sincerely feel. We should have been in much more difficulty with this Bill had it not been for that approach.
However that may be, with these amendments there has been a most encouraging response. It is not a matter of party politics. I have seen great changes take place in the party political world, I have not changed but, alas! the world around me has changed beyond recognition. I remain what I always was—an old-fashioned Catholic Unionist! But others have moved in different directions. The Stuarts have been succeeded by the Hanoverians; and the Stuart cause is always lost. I accept that; that is inevitable. But it is worth saving something from the wreckage from time to time, and the Geffrye and Horniman Museums are two jewels which are well worth salvaging.
Baroness Birk: I, too, am delighted to have been joined in this amendment by three colleagues from different parts of the Chamber. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John, said, they have expressed the views probably of all Members of this Committee, with no party affiliations.
I, too, was delighted to hear what the Minister said this afternoon. It will mean a diminishing amount of anxiety, not only for those of us who are anxious about the museums, but for the directors and the staff of the museums who are most concerned about their future. These are two local London museums, but whose interests are spread much wider; they command large numbers of visitors every year.

301
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. Perhaps she can answer them in so far as is possible. She stated that the museums may be "garaged", so to speak, in the London Residuary Body, until the arrangements have been worked out. I hope that this may not be necessary. We have seen the situation with regard to Hampstead Heath, which is still rattling around the London Residuary Body. I believe that the quicker the arrangements are made, the better it will be. Also, it will be far more satisfactory for the staff of the museums, and for the visitors. It is true that there will be time enough to get the museums on to their new footing within a year or even sooner. Can the Minister give us any joy by stating that the matter will be proceeded with very quickly?
I should like to know whether the support services— which now come from ILEA—will be supplied by the London Residuary Body. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned the resources support services coming from the body. I should like to know whether the same applies to the museums. It is important to know what will happen in the two years before the transfer about the finances for the museums, because they must be able to keep going.
This brings me to the whole question of core financing from the centre for these museums, which at the moment are pretty stretched at £1½ million costs for the Geffrye and £.1·5 million for the Horniman Museum, and they are still finding it difficult to manage. They have been very worried that the amount from ILEA has gradually been slipping and decreasing each year. It is very important that the changeover should be got off on the right foot and conducted as speedily as possible, so that the museums can go ahead with setting up boards of trustees and can feel that they have security and a very stable future ahead of them.
We wish this every success and, although I cannot join with the noble Lord, Lord St. John, in commenting on the flexibility with which amendments generally have been received on this Bill, on the present occasion this is so and I, too, am grateful to the Minister for giving us the hope that she gave this afternoon.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As the fourth signatory I shall try to be the shortest speaker. I am grateful for what has been done. It is pretty sound as far as it goes. I am interested that Professor Dunning's suggestion, that the Geffrye Museum should go to the London Museum, was not accepted. I do not know whether there is any particular reason for that, and I should rather like to know. It seems to me a rather small museum to be entirely independent.
The most important thing is the question of finance. I took down the words of the noble Baroness, which were that the museums should have a secure future as independent institutes with some government support. I do not trust this Government one inch over money, and I do not think many other people do. My noble friend Lady Birk suggested that ILEA has been cutting the income of both these museums over the last four or five years, and I am afraid that they will be given too little to start with
302
and their directors will turn into what directors in this country are always being turned into, which is money raisers instead of looking after the customers.
I should like to pin down the noble Baroness in this way. I should like to get some way of finding out the exact finances proposed as soon as they are arranged, so that we can comment on them here. Then, if they are not satisfactory we ought to make a great fuss. Having said that, I am very grateful that the Government have done what any Government must do, which is to preserve these excellent museums, and I have no more to say on the subject.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The Government are well aware of the valuable service provided by the Horniman and Geffrye Museums to the people, particularly the children, of London and the south-east, as my noble friend Lord St. John reminded us. We have said all along that we are anxious to preserve that service. We believe that we have now found a satisfactory way of ensuring their future; indeed, of providing for both museums to improve their standing and service in the community. I am therefore most grateful for the welcome extended from all sides of the Committee to our proposals.
These two museums provide a very distinctive service to the people of the south-east. They have both specialised in meeting the needs of schools and other educational institutions. We believe this particular ethos should be preserved. So we sought a solution that gives the museums financial stability without losing necessarily all their local involvement.
As I announced earlier—and I am very happy that these amendments give me an opportunity to elaborate a little further—we therefore concluded that in the long terms both museums should be run by independent charitable trusts. The Horniman Museum already has such a trust, as has been pointed out, although the trustees are, I understand, appointed by the Inner London Education Authority. A new trust would have to be set up in respect of the Geffrye. We wish to discuss the details of how this should be done, but I hope that ILEA will be prepared to co-operate with us in this so that work can be put in hand well before 1990, as everybody here also seems to wish. We recognise, however, that both museums have been sponsored by local government for many years. So they will need time and help to build up management systems to enable them to stand alone.
That is why we propose that if they are not fully ready to stand alone from 1990 they should pass, if necessary, to the London Residuary Body, which could provide necessary management assistance and back-up until such time as they are ready. I emphasise that we hope and expect that with arrangements being put in hand right away, this will not be necessary. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts proposes during that interim period, if it arises, to appoint consultants expert in the management of museums to assist the Horniman and the Geffrye to prepare for the change.
What is of course critical to the success of any new arrangements is secure funding. We accept that single

303
boroughs are unlikely to be able to provide such security for these museums, faced as they will be with competing education priorities. They will, therefore, be paid a grant in the first instance by the LRB, and in the longer term via the Museums and Galleries Commission, to cover the majority of their running costs. But one of the key advantages of independent status must be the opportunity it provides for plural funding.
Nor do we think that the museums should be taken totally out of the local scene for funding as well as provision. We shall therefore be encouraging the trustees to look for a range of funding from their local boroughs, from other local authorities in the South-East whose residents gain so much from the services of these two museums, and from business sponsorship and other private sector funding. In particular, the Inner London Education Authority has in the past seconded teaching staff to both museums. We believe that this is a function which should properly pass to the successor local education authority. The department will be discussing the practicalities of that with the boroughs of Lewisham and Hackney and other neighbouring local authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, specifically asked about support services for the museums. As I explained, these are the kinds of details that we shall wish to discuss with the museums, ILEA and the local boroughs, which we expect will be in the best position to provide these kinds of facilities.
I believe that the package I have outlined provides a secure future for the Horniman and the Geffrye museums. The details are not set in concrete. We wish to discuss them with ILEA, the boroughs and other local authorities in the South-East. There will be a lot of work to do in helping both the museums to prepare for their new status, and, as we said, we do not want to rush this unnecessarily. We shall use the residuary body as an interim home, if it becomes necessary. But we are firmly committed to securing the future of the museums. We are firmly committed to plural funding underwritten by central government as necessary.
I have noted the two caveats entered by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. I hope that, with those assurances, it will not be necessary for him to press the amendment.
Lord Birkett: I am sure we all wish the museums every possible success in the future. It looks as though that is the way it is going. I just hope that the plurality of funding to which the noble Baroness referred is not so complicated that the budget falls not between two stools but several stools. That is a danger of the current philosophy of plural funding. We must hope that those running the Geffrye and the Horniman museums are skilful enough to see that properly on its way. I am most obliged to my noble co-signatories for their support on the amendment. In view of the very encouraging response we have had from the noble Baroness, I hope that the Committee will allow me to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 274ZB not moved.]
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett moved Amendment No. 274ZBA:
After Clause 166 insert the following new clause:
("London Schools Music Trust.
On the abolition of ILEA the Secretary of State shall cause to be appointed a Trust to be known as the London Schools Music Trust which shall promote and coordinate those musical activities in schools which need London-wide administration, including centres and junior centres for young musicians, orchestras and other performing groups, special musical courses, concert schemes, and instrumental teaching. The administrative costs of the Trust and of its services shall be financed by monies provided by Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to music, and in particular to the London-wide music activities of the ILEA. After the abolition of the ILEA, certain music activities will be able to continue only if some central organisation is estabilshed.
The Minister has made encouraging remarks today, although not exactly in terms of the amendment, which proposes a totally independent trust. However, the amendment and the proposals that the Minister has made relating to Westminster as a central guiding force in putting together a post-abolition London musical scene may not be so far apart after all.
Westminster has a very good reputation for funding the arts. After the abolition of the GLC, Westminster took up its artistic responsibilities with an alacrity and, indeed, generosity matched by few other boroughs. As the Minister pointed out, Pimlico, where the special musical courses now take place, is within the boundaries and therefore forms an admirable focus for a post-abolition musical scene.
It is a complicated issue, and I cannot go into all the details now. To refer to the London Schools Symphony Orchestra as an example, it is very important that that should continue after abolition. Anyone who has heard that orchestra I am sure will agree with me. If one played a record of it "blind", one would not believe that it is school children playing. I find it intensely moving always to hear the orchestra.
One must remember that it is not only the glamorous symphony orchestra that the ILEA runs; there are also the countless ensembles, steel bands, wind bands and early recorder consorts. These require a great deal of putting together. The sheer cat's cradle of scheduling holiday activities for children is very complicated.
There is also instrumental teaching, with special courses of all kinds. There are the activities involved in putting together concerts for young people with a concert plan for the bright and talented young musicians of London to go to other concerts and, indeed, to meet professional musicians, from whom they can learn both in the obvious ways of being taught and simply by contact with the great professional musical world. In that respect, the South Bank and the Barbican will be happy to help and to co-ordinate the activities. Both have professional musicians of all kinds coming in and out constantly. They are uniquely equipped to help in this regard, and I am happy to say that both will do so.
It is a complex musical picture that should be preserved. I am sure that the Committee will agree that these cross-London musical activities must not

305
be lost. Here is an opportunity for them to become even more London-wide than previously. After abolition, the organisation could well include not only the ILEA boroughs but also the outer London boroughs, the private sector and other schools. We may have an even more London-wide young musicians' orchestra than before.
I am sure that the Minister will not be able to say tonight how that will happen. The support of Westminster will be very welcome. I hope that an organisation as powerful as, and even more wide-reaching than the present one, can be brought into being. I trust that the Minister can reassure me that her ambition in this respect is the same as mine.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to support what the noble Lord has said, almost in its entirety. I am not nearly as happy about the concessions which the noble Baroness has made in this sphere, which are valuable concessions, as I am about the museums, because it is clearly far more difficult to run a teaching centre which at the moment covers 18 boroughs from one borough. There is only one way in which it can be carried out, and I hope it is the way in which it will be done; namely, that the present staff of the Centre for Young Musicians should be taken over in their entirety and should be given whatever outside runners are required to coordinate the other 17 boroughs. It will not happen unlesss something of that nature is carried out.
I want to be sure that we are told what is to be done. Perhaps the noble Baroness could write to one or two of us to explain how it is proposed that it should be carried out. I believe that it is of first-class importance. The ILEA has produced something which is more or less unique, not only here but also in other countries, and is enormously successful. I am absolutely determined that I shall not let the Government wreck that. They have taken a big step towards trying not to wreck it because Westminster is a competent and reasonable wealthy borough council and the centre of this particular work is within its area. Therefore, this is not unreasonable, but it must be carried out with the greatest care, and I hope that the noble Baroness can either tell us tonight or write to us with an explanation of how it is to be achieved.
Baroness Hooper: The Government have on many occasions paid tribute to the high quality of ILEA's provision for the musically gifted, and in particular the Centre for Young Musicians based at Pimlico School and the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. These have a deservedly high reputation. I know that Members of the Committee share the Government's view that such opportunities for high level music tuition and performance should continue to be available. Under our proposals the inner London boroughs will each become responsible for music tuition generally in their area, as are the outer London boroughs and other local education authorities. But we readily accept that there need to be co-ordinated arrangements for provision of a more advanced nature, since the high standards presently achieved depend upon a large number of
306
receive high level instrumental tuition and, of course, to perform.
This amendment suggests one possible solution. It is a solution which would effectively take instrumental music tuition out of the domain of the boroughs altogether without giving them the opportunity to consider for themselves how best to ensure the continuation of this important provision.
I earlier proposed what I consider to be a more appropriate solution. Westminster City Council, which is likely to become responsible for Pimlico School and thus for the Centre for Young Musicians, has expressed a keen interest in becoming a lead borough in organising advanced music provision across inner London. I welcome the confirmation from the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that Westminster has proved to be very responsible in that area in the past. The detailed arrangements will need to be discussed further with Westminster and the other boroughs. But in essence we envisage a central team of music advisers liaising with music advisers in the boroughs to ensure that gifted young musicians from all areas of inner London are able to take advantage of the facilities offered by the Centre for Young Musicians and become members of the London Schools Symphony Orchestra and other ensembles.
Other councils and other institutions may also have specific contributions to make to these arrangements; and it might be possible to seek the involvement of one or more of the London music colleges, which I am sure would provide an exciting opening for further developments. Moreover, a charitable trust, which might of course attract private sponsorship, could be established as part of these arrangements.
We envisage that most of the costs of such an arrangement will be met by the boroughs, but the Government would be prepared to consider some modest topping up finance if necessary. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will accept the Government's commitment (as the Committee has indicated that on the whole it does) to securing the future of advanced music provision in inner London, and that the development of arrangements should proceed along the lines I have described as the best way forward. Certainly I shall be happy to keep informed of progress those noble Lords who I know are particularly interested.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Birkett: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for confirming the Government's intention to make the post-abolition musical scene work powerfully, as I was urging her to do. It only remains for me to say that I echo some of the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, about that. It is, of course, infinitely more complicated than at first appears. I can only urge upon the noble Baroness that those very talented people in ILEA who at present run these matters and who are the repository of knowledge should be put together with all the likely authorities as fast as possible. They have a huge task ahead of them, and I believe that we should not lose a moment in getting these arrangements in hand. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding earnestly, so I hope that as soon as midnight strikes it will start.

307
In those circumstances, and with that hopeful prospect of the musical education of London continuing as excitingly as it has in the past, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 274ZBB:
After Clause 166 insert the following new clause:
("Funding arrangements for certain institutions.
(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the date of Royal Assent, provide by regulations for the funding arrangements for the institutions to which subsection (2) below refers, after consultation with the governing bodies of each of the institutions concerned and with ILEA.
(2) Provision shall be made under this section in respect of—

(a) the Working Men's College;

(b) the Mary Ward Centre;

(c) Morley College; and

(d) the City Literary Institute.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I declare an interest as the principal of the Working Men's College. I should say at once that that is not a financial interest. The title "principal" refers only to the honorary chairman of the council and was devised by the distinguished Christian Socialist, Frederick Denison Maurice who founded the college in 1854. The real boss is the warden.
The Working Men's College, together with the other three colleges named in the amendment, has been subjected to a considerable degree of worry about the continuation of that part of the funding which came from the ILEA. I hasten to say that the funding of the Working Men's College from the ILEA is marginal. It is not much more than 10 per cent. of its total income, thanks to wise husbandry of its resources over a period of more than a century.
I say with grateful thanks that the colleges will have been much relieved by the statements of the noble Baroness and of the Lord Privy Seal in this afternoon's debate. If I may quote the Lord Privy Seal, he said that those measures will secure the long-term future of four distinguished adult education establishments through a guarantee of central government funding. It is rare for government Ministers in these circumstances to use the word "guarantee". I know that the noble Lord, Lord 'Belstead, will ensure that the guarantee that he gave of continued funding will be kept, and that the more detailed promises given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will be also carried out.
There is an element of unrealism in thinking that there are vast sources of private funding to be tapped for these colleges. That must be a reservation which we have about the Government's proposals. It must also be recognised that the Government gave totally unsatisfactory answers in response to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about maintained adult education. If, as we fear, there are severe shocks to the maintained adult education system in London, that will mean increased pressure on the resources of the independent sector. We may have to come back, and they may have to come back, to the department and to the Secretary of State to ensure that the guaranteed funding is adequate for their new purposes.
As always, we should have liked to see these assurances on the face of the Bill. If the Government had had the foresight to do that at the very beginning perhaps the anxiety which has been felt by those who serve these immensely important and high-quality institutions would have been that much less. We are grateful for the concessions which have been made, so far as they go. Perhaps the criticisms of intent could be thought to be carping.
Baroness Seear: I, too, am very grateful. Because of my association with, and as president of, Morley College, I wish to add to what I said earlier today. We are most grateful that this offer has been put forward. It is more than an offer, it is an assurance given to us by the Government. I noticed that the reference to the idea that the Government were going to guarantee this sum roused the noble Lord the Leader of the House from his slumbers. Perhaps he will confirm that he meant that the Government were giving a guarantee. I should also like confirmation whether it is for a limited period only and until such time as these wealthy benefactors produce the goods. Alternatively, will the guarantee continue indefinitely, assuming that the colleges have made a reasonable effort to get the money even if funds are not forthcoming on the scale that the Government hope for.
I will not dwell upon it at this time of night, but I sometimes wonder when this capitalist Government is going to say that it is just possible that the first obligations of industry are towards reducing prices and paying dividends. It is an unkind note to introduce, but I have heard so many suggestions that everything that we should like the Government to do is to be done by the private sector. At times I wonder what money is going to be left for the running of industry. However, on that slightly ungracious note and in asking for the confirmation I mentioned earlier, that this guarantee is really indefinite and into the future and not merely a temporary bridging allowance, so to speak, I join with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in saying that we are most grateful.
Baroness Hooper: I had hoped that between us my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and I had already explained adequately the proposals of the Government for securing the future of these four important institutions. I am glad that in principle the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are able to welcome our proposals so wholeheartedly because we believe that these proposals will also encourage a policy of flexible development, so that the service provided continues to meet the needs of its customers.
I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness questions that my noble friend really means it when he says "guarantee". I can reassure on that point, and also on the fact that the guarantee is not limited in time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the light of those repeated assurances, because I understood the words "long-term" and "guarantee" in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I believe that it is proper that I should ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 167 [Continuity of exercise offunctions]:
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 274ZC:
Page 154, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) The functions of ILEA with regard to child guidance shall be transferred on the abolition date to a Child Guidance Council for Inner London, which shall—

(a) provide those services with regard to child guidance for which ILEA was responsible before the abolition date;

(b) have a duty to consult on child guidance matters with the inner London councils and the relevant District Health Authorities; and

(c) account directly to, and be supported by funds provided by, the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I am speaking about a very useful service provided by the Inner London Education Authority which is not mentioned in the Bill, and it has hardly been discussed today in any of the many references to the wider aspects of the activities of the ILEA. The child guidance service is an important aspect of the ILEA and I believe that many members of the Committee will not be aware of its valuable work, which is done by all the 16 child guidance clinics in London. It is criticised by very few people and it is praised by many who know of its work. It is the envy of many other cities in the United Kingdom and throughout the world.
The service gives support to thousands of children and parents and it relieves pressure on social services departments and schools—both special and mainstream—and also on the long arm of the law, in which I would include not only the police but also the probation service, special schools and units for young offenders. It deals with the types of problems that other people shy away from; for example, child abuse, depressed, suicidal or violent children, delinquents and school refusers, to name just a few. In my view it provides a more constructive answer to the problems of delinquency than some of those which were put forward earlier today.
As a general practitioner I have come to value the work of the child guidance clinics. It is extremely useful to be able to refer such intractable problems to a highly professional, multi-disciplinary team. The team consists of psychiatrists, psychiatric social workers, psychologists, social workers and other specially trained people. They look at the problems, assess them in depth and advise on what sensible steps should be taken in order to tackle them.
It is most difficult to measure such work in terms of cost-benefit. It is highly likely that the main benefit of the child guidance clinics is in what they prevent; for instance, the number of crimes not committed; the number of prison or borstal places not filled and the amount of legal costs not incurred. Of course the crime rate is increasing, as all Members of the Committee know, in spite of all the efforts of the Metropolitan Police. I suggest that that situation is not due to the fact that the child guidance clinics are failing in their work but that, at least in part, one of the reasons for the rise in crime is that their resources are spread so thinly and they are working against a tide of increasing social deprivation in London, which is due to a certain extent to the policies of the present Government. Those policies lead especially to the very high level of youth unemployment.
Schools are not sufficiently attractive to children between the ages of 14 and 16 who are not academically minded, and I see nothing in the Bill which is likely to make them more attractive, in fact, rather the reverse.
I am surprised that as yet no mention has been made by the noble Baroness of this valuable service. I suggest that it would make no sense for each borough to be responsible for providing its own child guidance service. The 16 units are at present most unevenly spread. Some boroughs have none; some have more than one. The cross-borough flow is virtually the norm. As it is now, the organisation provides a valuable network for inter-professional and intra-professional contact of the workers in the child guidance service. It is also extremely useful to have this wide network for the purposes of training and in order to share expert workers between the different clinics. I suggest that if the network is broken up something good will be lost; something that is in the forefront of crime prevention, which is very much part of the Government's policy.
The ILEA network of special schools for physically and mentally handicapped children is an integral part of the service provided by the child guidance clinics. Therefore I hope that we shall receive further assurances that this network will be provided; that is, special schools for children with special problems.
The amendment is designed to preserve this valuable service. The teams working in it have been built up over many years. I feel that they are quite outside the argument about whether or not ILEA should survive. I think it would be a great mistake if, like an innocent bystander, the child guidance service were mortally wounded in the cross-fire which is aimed at the ILEA. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some encouraging words when she replies. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Baroness David: I should like to give support to what my noble friend has said and hope that we can have a constructive reply from the Minister.
The Earl of Arran: I can well understand and sympathise with the noble Lord's concern. The ILEA child guidance service has a good reputation. It is based on 16 child guidance units which the ILEA operates in collaboration with specialist colleagues in the NHS.
The noble Lord's amendment however would freeze the present pattern and level of service of child guidance in London for some time, besides making it directly accountable to and funded by the Secretary of State. That cannot be right. It cannot be appropriate for the Secretary of State to fund directly the child guidance service in inner London when everywhere else in the country it is planned and financed locally. It must be a mistake to assume that the present pattern of child guidance in London is necessarily the best pattern of provision for what are to become 13 independent LEAs.
It will be for the boroughs themselves in preparing their development plans to put forward their

311
proposals on how best to ensure that an effective child guidance service will be provided in each new LEA.
In preparing their proposals, the boroughs will need help. I am happy to repeat the assurance given by my right honourable friend in another place, in response to a Parliamentary Question, that he would wish to discuss the continuation of the child guidance service in inner London with the inner London councils, the ILEA, and the relevant district health authorities. The sooner these discussions can begin, the better. In so saying, I hope that the noble Lord can be persuaded not to press the amendment.
Lord Rea: I do not propose to press the amendment, but I must say that that answer will give rise to a great sense of disappointment among all those who are providing this very valuable service in inner London at the moment. We shall scrutinise the noble Earl's every word in Hansard and decide how we shall come back again at Report stage. However, I must say that I am not very happy with the reply. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Newall Lord Newall moved Amendment No. 274ZD
Page 154, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Any voluntary body which runs youth clubs for children aged 8–16 years, and which was previously grant aided by ILEA shall continue to be so grant-aided to the same extent by the relevant borough, provided that the youth club fulfills the requirements which were previously laid down by ILEA.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that this is the last amendment this evening, thank goodness! The whole idea is to provide an opportunity to see the words "youth clubs" somewhere in the Bill. They are not there at the moment.
On 21st March I asked my noble friend Lady Hooper what the Government's intentions were regarding the funding of the youth service after ILEA had gone. My noble friend has been very kind, both then and since, in trying to educate me as to where I should find references to the youth service. She has said that in the future there will be consultations and dialogue which I think are obviously vitally important. But there are 713 voluntary youth organisations in London. They play a major part for the benefit of a great many children both disadvantaged and disabled.
In the past, ILEA has given grant aid of up to 65 per cent. for these youth clubs which in the main paid for the leaders' wages. Of course large sums also came from the voluntary bodies who raised their own money. But in the change when ILEA disappears the boroughs appear to have no direct commitment whatever. As I have said, I can find no mention anywhere in the Bill of youth service or youth clubs.
However, I have been told that this Bill is to be taken in conjunction with the Education Act 1944. I was informed that in Section 53 of the 1944 Act there is to be found a reference to youth clubs but I am afraid it is not there. It mentions play centres and recreation and other activities but it does not mention youth clubs. It states that a local education authority shall:
312
"have regard to the expediency of co-operating with any voluntary societies.".
But having regard is merely taking into account or considering. There is no duty whatsoever implied.
Finally of course this matter is mentioned in the guidelines which are very appropriate but they are not enforceable; they are not law. So I thought it necessary to try and introduce the words "youth service" or "youth clubs" into this Bill. When I came to examine the Bill at some length I found in Clause 167 the words:
"The abolition of ILEA shall not affect the validity of anything done by ILEA before the abolition date.".
I thought hoorah! If all these grant-aided clubs were valid at the time of ILEA they must be valid in the future because that is what it says in Clause 167. But that is really nothing new; it is just a matter of emphasis. There is no more being asked to be done and no less being asked to be done.
I think there are many justifiable anxieties that youth clubs will receive insufficient money to pay perhaps for the leaders' wages. ILEA had budgeted for about £36·5 million and the new idea is that £13·5 million will be allocated. If that kind of thing happens there is a great chance that many, many clubs—there are 713 youth organisations—will inevitably have to close. This is not a very happy situation. I am sure that the Government do not wish this to happen and I hope they see the point that youth clubs and the youth service should be mentioned in the Bill somewhere to give an obligation to the boroughs, particularly the boroughs who will be strapped for money and who will find this provision a difficult one to operate. I hope that the Government will find a way of somehow including "youth service" in the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Baroness Hooper: I fully understand the concerns of my noble friend in this matter. Under the Government's proposals, the inner London boroughs will assume responsibility for youth service provision in their areas after the abolition of ILEA. They will have to set out how they intend to fulfil this responsibility in their development plans. We shall not seek to constrain the boroughs by imposing prior conditions about the type and level of provision they must make. They must take their own decisions based on the particular needs of their area.
The intention of the amendment is, I fully recognise, to ensure that the valuable work undertaken by voluntary youth clubs in inner London is not disrupted or diminished. I respect and indeed share the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Newall, to the voluntary sector. But the effect of the amendment would be to oblige an elected authority to abide in perpetuity by the decisions of a predecessor body. That not only conflicts with the principle of local accountability, but it would introduce considerable inflexibility into youth service provision in inner London. I am sure that is not what my noble friend seeks to do.
The Government consider that the present legislative basis for the youth service is the right one. Existing provision is based on sections in the 1944 Education Act relating to the provision by local

313
education authorities of social, physical and recreational training and leisure time activities. One of these, Section 41(b), will be amended by Clause 104 of the Bill but will retain its force in respect of these activities. So we have no expectation of changes in existing provision based on that.
The effect of present legislation is to enable LEAs to assess the needs of young people in their areas and to make appropriate provision, taking into account provision made by the voluntary sector. This means LEAs can make a relevant, flexible response to the needs of the young people in their area, bearing in mind that these may change over time.
We shall encourage the boroughs to pay close attention to the work of the voluntary youth sector in drawing up their development plans. I have no doubt that, by the time the boroughs take over responsibility for education, they will have a clear appreciation of the work undertaken by voluntary youth organisations in their areas, and will place a high value on the cost-effective contribution made by them. I am sure that the boroughs will continue to give substantial financial and other support to this sector. The views of local communities, who use and benefit from clubs, will of course play an important part in securing continued support.
There has also been some concern about the future funding of the London-wide headquarters bodies of voluntary youth organisations which receive support from ILEA. I have had a series of meetings with representatives of many of those organisations to discuss their concerns and to see how we can bring them to the attention of the boroughs. Those organisations will be able to apply to the individual inner London boroughs to contribute to their work. However, the Government also plan to set aside a sum of £1½ million for each of three years from 1990 to assist those aspects of the work of headquarters organisations which the Government believe will support effective youth work in inner London. This gives those organisations breathing space to reorganise their finances on the basis of support from the individual boroughs and increased support from the private sector. The Government will decide nearer the time precisely what assistance is needed and how grant aid would be distributed. However, as the Committee will appreciate, the announcement of the additional aid was made for the first time today.
I hope that on the basis of what I have been able to say my noble friend will accept this reassurance and will 'withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newall: I am most grateful to my noble friend for repeating what she has said to me on many occasions before, apart from the nice £2½ million for those who are entitled to it.
I am still very unhappy with the fact that youth services and youth clubs, which perform such a valuable service, are not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. As they do much more than provide recreational facilities, which is mentioned in the 1944 Act, I feel that there is a need for making the matter clearer so that those boroughs which may not be totally
314
sympathetic to the idea will be directed rather than simply helped along.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to consider the matter again before Report stage. I shall read what she has said; but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 167 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at one minute before midnight.

  SALMON NETTING: SCOTTISH CLOSE TIME
  SALMON NETTING: SCOTTISH CLOSE TIME
  ST. WILFRID'S CHURCH, BRIGHTON: USE FOR FLATS
  ST. WILFRID'S CHURCH, BRIGHTON: USE FOR FLATS
  REDUNDANT CHURCHES: VANDALISM RISK
  REDUNDANT CHURCHES: VANDALISM RISK
  RESPONDENTS: LEGAL AID
  RESPONDENTS: LEGAL AID
  "THE SOVIET BIOCHEMICAL THREAT TO NATO"
  "THE SOVIET BIOCHEMICAL THREAT TO NATO"
  VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY: ENFORCEMENT CAMPAIGN
  VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY: ENFORCEMENT CAMPAIGN
  ISRAEL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  ISRAEL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS