Sitting of 12 April 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  NEW WRIT
  For Vale of Glamorgan, in the room of Sir Herbert Raymond Gower, Knight, deceased.—[Mr. Waddington.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Drugs (East European Route)
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the east European route for the supply of drugs has now been closed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Timothy Eggar): Relatively small, but increasing quantities of illicit drugs continue to reach the United Kingdom via eastern Europe. We are developing our co-operation with the Governments concerned to combat drug trafficking.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that although the situation remains far from satisfactory, efforts are being made to block that route, and the only way that that will be achieved will be by the continuation of intergovernmental co-operation?
    Mr. Eggar: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There are a number of routes through eastern Europe into western Europe, mainly for drugs originating in Afghanistan or the neighbouring countries. We now have close co-operation with a number of eastern European Governments, particularly the Soviet authorities, as a result of which Operation Diplomat recently led to a large seizure of cannabis.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Have not the east European, Soviet and Afghan authorities done a great deal to clamp down on this evil trade? It must be remembered, as the Minister said, that most of the drugs come from Afghanistan, thus providing additional resources for the Mujaheddin whom, ironically, the Government support.
    Mr. Eggar: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has a skewed view. of the world. I have already said that there is close co-operation with the Soviet authorities and with other Governments in the fight against drugs, and that is how it should be. We shall not defeat the threat from drugs unless all Governments combine against it.

    Hungary and Czechoslovakia (Human Rights)
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to Hungary and Czechoslovakia about human rights abuses in those countries.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): We have made bilateral representations to the Czechoslovak authorities four times this year about their handling of human rights issues. We have not raised human rights issues with the Hungarian Government recently as Hungary's record on these matters is relatively good.
    Mr. Knapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I agree that the Hungarian Government's record on human rights is better than that of Czechoslovakia, but can my hon. Friend assure the House that those differing standards will be taken into account if either of those countries seeks closer economic co-operation with the west, and particularly with EC countries?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a good point in relation not just to those countries but to others in eastern Europe. The EC has recently halted all negotiations with Romania on the matters to which he refers. It is obviously right that the progress of countries in that respect should be reflected in our relations with them generally.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not the height of political illiteracy for the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who has never worried about such matters in South Africa or Chile, to compare Czechoslovakia, which remains the prison house of Europe, with Hungary where, as the Minister has conceded, there has been remarkable progress? If European Governments are to be represented on 16 June in Budapest, when the remains of Imre Nagy are to be reburied, will the British Government be represented? It should not be forgotten that when the Hungarian uprising was crushed in blood in November 1956 the Tory Government were engaged in criminal action at Suez.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has managed to widen the question to take in Suez and a number of other matters. It is a little unwise of him to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) of illiteracy. My hon Friend was making the perfectly justified point that one of those countries is meeting fits conference on security and co-operation in Europe obligations while the other is not. That is the distinction.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the reburial of Nagy. We have not yet considered that, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it. Mr. Nagy's memory has not yet been restored to its proper place. As Mr. Grosz recently made clear, Mr. Nagy is being reburied as a humanitarian gesture, but he has not been rehabilitated. We should like the Hungarians to go a little further on that.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend accept that in many respects, not just this one, the Warsaw pact is a case of some animals being more equal than others? In relation, for example, to the relaxation of visa requirements, which I welcome in principle, will he bear in mind the importance of taking matters one step at a time and making them

    891
    conditional on adequate performance in relation to human rights in individual countries and on the performance of their security services?
    Mr. Waldegrave: All those matters should be taken into account, but none of us should miss the opportunity of recognising that the Hungarians and the Poles, having recognised that Socialism does not work, are steadily moving away from it.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that in Czechoslovakia there remains substantial evidence of discrimination, particularly against doctors and teachers, 21 years after they chose to express their opinions freely? Will he make further strong representations to the Czechoslovak Government in that respect?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right. We have recently been protesting about the whole new series of trials that have been held in Czechoslovakia. The most famous is that of Vaclav Havel, but he is not alone. The tragic thing about Czechoslovakia is that it is a country with a tradition of democracy which wants to make real progress but it has a Government who are resisting the clear but carefully expressed will of their people.

    Conventional Forces
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations to reduce conventional forces in Europe.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Two negotiations—one on conventional armed forces in Europe and one on confidence and security-building measures—began in Vienna on 6 March. The discussions have got off to a good, businesslike start. I presented radical Western proposals for both sets of talks on 6 March. We now look for a response from the East.
    Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although the Vienna talks have got off to a good and constructive start, they are bound to be long drawn out in view of the many complexities involved and the many different weapons systems in Europe? Given the asymmetry of conventional weapons and arms in Europe, does he agree that we have no choice but to rely on a nuclear deterrent for our total security for what may be a considerable time?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no doubt that my hon. Friend is right in the last part of what he says. The central problem is the gross inequality between the conventional forces available to the Warsaw pact and those available to the NATO Alliance. There is progress in the fact that that inequality is now acknowledged by the Warsaw pact and it is recognised that unequal reductions are necessary to achieve an outcome that will be acceptable in the end.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does the Foreign Secretary think that it helps to advance the possibility of weapons reductions throughout the world when he sits in the Guildhall smiling and nodding while Mr. Gorbachev outlines the Soviet Union's unilateral proposals but then
    892
    goes around the world slagging off those efforts and doing everything he can to undermine any possibility of confidence-building between our two nations?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman, as always, has a wholly inaccurate perception of the facts. The proposals put forward by Mr. Gorbachev at the Guildhall were of a very modest nature. Perhaps the most important and least attractive part of them was his attempt to bring nuclear weapons back into the negotiations and to suggest that there can be no progress on conventional arms reductions so long as there is no progress on nuclear weapons. In doing that, he was going unhelpfully right outside the terms of reference of the talks.
    Sir Peter Blaker: What recent developments have there been in the attitude of the Soviet Union to the key question of verification, which is relevant not only to conventional disarmament but to the possible abolition of chemical weapons? Am I right in thinking that the recent trial inspection of chemical weapons establishments in the Soviet Union was somewhat disappointing? Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to give a lead on this important matter, as he has been doing in recent years?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: With regard to the conventional negotiations, the mandate rightly calls for strict and effective verification measures. That is crucial to its success. The Soviet Union has demonstrated its ability to agree on such matters by its acceptance of the necessary measures in the intermediate nuclear forces treaty. My right hon. Friend is, however, entirely right to point out that the Soviet Union's absence of candour and failure to be straightforward about the size of its chemical weapons stocks, and the lack of openness of investigation during the recent visit to Shikhany, illustrate how far there is to go.

    Occupied Territories (Human Rights)
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent United States State Department report on human rights violations in the territories occupied by Israel; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The State Department's assessment is in line with our own.
    Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister agree that the United States State Department report was devastating, showing that thousands of Palestinians had been detained without trial and thousands had been injured by the activities of the Israel Defence Force in the last 17 months of occupation, and that more than 400 had been killed in that period—including, when I was last there two weeks ago, a four-year-old girl? When will pressure be put on the Israeli Government to reduce the carnage?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is relatively unusual for the hon. Gentleman to endorse what is said by the United States State Department. It emphasises the fact that there is no doubt about the unacceptability of Israeli behaviour in the occupied territories. That is recognised by a wide spectrum of opinion—it would be hard to be find a wider spectrum. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the British Government and other Governments in the European Community have repeatedly made their views clear.
    Mr. Adley: a few moments ago, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), my hon. Friend the Minister said that relations between eastern European countries and the Community would depend on violations of human rights not taking place. In view of the obvious violation of human rights by Israel in the occupied territories, why the double standards?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As my hon. Friend knows, the relationship between Israel and the European Community came into question over the access of goods to the Community from the occupied territories, particularly Gaza. Speeches in the European Parliament and elsewhere had a pronounced effect. In general, however, we believe —I believe that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is with us on this—that it is not sensible to try to change a country such as Israel by means of threats. Israel is a genuine democracy. We must engage her own public opinion, and persuade Israelis who want to make that change freely.
    Mr. David Young: In his talks with Israel, has the Minister entered into any discussion about resolving the difficulties in the Lebanon, which seems to be a key issue in this worrying saga?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It remains one of our principal quarrels with Israel that Israel still has troops in the Lebanon, and we refuse to sell weapons to Israel until she has accepted the relevant Security Council resolution and withdrawn her troops. That is one of the matters that come up regularly.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is my hon. Friend aware that Israel has many friends on both sides of the House, in this country as a whole and in the West, and it is those friends who are the most dismayed by the report and by developments in Israel? Will my hon. Friend convey that very strongly to the Israeli Government?
    Mr. Waldegrave: One of the most impressive recent developments is that genuine friends of Israel on both sides of the House—indeed, all sections of opinion in this country and also in the United States—have begun to make it clear to the Israeli Government and people that they do not consider the policy on which Israel is engaged to be either right or sensible. My hon. Friend's own part in that is important.

    Middle East
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent progress made towards achieving a settlement in the middle east.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There have been a number of positive developments—the PLO's renunciation of terrorism, Israel's recognition that the status quo is untenable, the constructive attitude of the Soviet Union, and the determination of the United States to work actively for a settlement.
    We continue to believe that an international conference remains the most suitable framework for negotiations between the parties.
    Mr. Sumberg: Bearing in mind the sale of bombers to Libya, the continuing civil conflict in the Lebanon and the tragedy of Lockerbie, is not the caution and scepticism of
    894
    the Government of Israel at the PLO's renunciation of violence understandable? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that just as he would be cautious if the IRA were to announce tomorrow that it had renounced the bomb and the bullet, Israel has understandable reasons for taking a cautious view of events in the middle east?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have explained to the House on more than one occasion my understanding of that. The length of time before the PLO made the important concessions to which I referred is certainly a ground for caution on the part of Israel. However, the Israeli people and Government have to understand that although we are committed to Israel's right to a secure existence, we are also committed to the view that Israel's security can be achieved only through peace with all her neighbours. Above all, Israelis cannot deny to the Palestinians the rights that they themselves have earned at such cost. Repression of Palestinians breeds resentment and hatred, which is the exact opposite of security. Fortunately, more and more Israelis understand that fact, as does the overwhelming body of opinion in the House. The search for peace along those lines deserves—and is receiving—the active support of more and more Israelis.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us of one positive result of the most recent visit by the Israeli Prime Minister to the United States?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The proposals put forward by Mr. Shamir for elections may point in the right direction and are worth exploring in detail without dismissing them out of hand. It is also important to emphasise the statement made by President Bush after his talks with President Mubarak that
    "The goals of the peace process should be security for Israel, the end of the occupation and the achievement of Palestinian political rights"
    That statement should be studied carefully in Israel as it is important to the progress of the negotiations.
    Sir Dennis Walters: Bearing in mind among other reasons the continuing oppression and violation of human rights by the Israelis on the West Bank and Gaza, is not the hesitancy and slowness of the Bush Administration rather disappointing? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he is doing everything in his power to put some speed into the Americans by pointing out that the problem has continued for a very long time and that excessive caution is a mistake?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the United States engagement in the peace process is absolutely vital. That means that the new Administration must take a leading role, and we shall certainly support them in that role. We have already made our position plain. I shall be going to Washington at the weekend to discuss the topic along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the making of peace in the middle east is a very complex matter? Those of us who are desperately anxious that the parties should be brought together in negotiation recognise the sensitivities of both sides, not least the anxiety of all Israelis in their genuine democracy that their country should be safe from attack, their worries about the dangers that a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza would create, and their fears

    895
    that a terrorist enemy which now says that it has renounced terrorism cannot be trusted with the lives of their people.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand fully the point articulated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, namely Israel's anxiety that it should not take steps that might weaken rather than enhance its security, and I understand why that rests against a background of threats to the security of that state. However, it is Israeli opinion that is emphasising that the status quo cannot be maintained and is recognising the need to move forward. Time is not on the side of those who seek a peaceful solution, whether they be in Israel or among the Palestinians. The Israeli leadership and people must recognise, for example, the impact upon the other side of the sheer arithmetic of 420 Palestinians having been killed in the occupied territories compared with only 13 Israelis. That balance of hardship and human suffering cannot be allowed to endure indefinitely. For their own sake, the Israelis must respond to the mounting sense of urgency about the situation.

    President Bush
    Mr. Conway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the United States of America; and what matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any present plans to visit the United States of America.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I plan to visit the United States next Sunday and Monday, 16 and 17 April. Following President Gorbachev's visit last week, East-West relations and arms control will be on the agenda. I also expect to discuss regional issues, particularly the middle east and southern Africa.
    Mr. Conway: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that he will be visiting Washington next week. When he meets President Bush, will he assure him that, despite the warmth of the reception received by President Gorbachev on his recent visit to the United Kingdom, we are not gullible and there is still a constant need to be prepared for all eventualities in relation to countries which still do not appreciate a true democracy? Will he assure him that we still need to maintain a proper role in NATO and that the steadfastness of the United States in this matter is still deeply appreciated?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly make the central point of my hon. Friend's question when I meet members of the United States Administration. They, too, will share our feeling that the changes taking place in the foreign policy thinking of the Soviet Administration represent a challenge and an opportunity, as has been pointed out in the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. However, they will also understand the central point made by my hon. Friend that we need to maintain our vigilance and unity in defence of our security because it is that formula which has helped us to move as far as we have in recent years.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: During the talks in Washington, will my right hon. and learned Friend thank the United
    896
    States Administration for their strenuous efforts to inhibit the fund-raising activities of extreme Irish nationalist groups on behalf of the IRA? Will he also make it clear that neither Government will relax their vigilance so long as the terrorist threat remains?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly emphasise my hon. Friend's last point. Neither Government should or will relax their vigilance so long as the threat remains in any form. It is also right to say that the United States Government have taken significant steps to inhibit the fund-raising activities of extreme Irish nationalist groups. The House appreciates that, as I shall make clear when I am in Washington.
    Mr. Steel: If during his discussions in Washington the Foreign Secretary is tempted to press for an early commitment to the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe, will he make it clear that he does so without the support of the other European members of NATO?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall conduct my discussions on that topic in Washington and elsewhere on the basis of the Brussels communiqué of the North Atlantic Council in February last year—that it is necessary for NATO to continue to modernise its weapons, nuclear and conventional, where necessary.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Foreign Secretary raise the important question of the future of Kampuchea, given that the Vietnamese troops are to be withdrawn completely in September? Will he convey the great concern of many hon. Members that any future political settlements must ensure that there can be no return to power of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Kampuchea?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly discuss Cambodia with the United States Government in the light of the prospective withdrawal of Vietnamese troops, just as I did last week with Mr. Shevardnadze and a few weeks ago with the Chinese Foreign Minister. As on both those occasions, I shall make it clear that this House and the overwhelming body of opinion round the world would regard the return of Pol Pot and his cronies as an intolerable prospect.
    Mr. Kilfedder: As the Foreign Secretary will be aware, another terrible atrocity has been committed today by the IRA in Northern Ireland. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the United States, the IRA and its front organisations are consistent in their propaganda campaign in the media? Surely it is time for this Government and the United States Government to counter that campaign, which brings in funds for the IRA.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to underline the importance of putting that message across. It is a message that has been put across in every possible way by our embassy and staff over there, and by a series of visits by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That message will go on being put across by this Government in every possible way. Alongside that, incidentally, we shall also hammer home our opposition to the so-called MacBride campaign because it is counter-productive to investment and takes no account of our own fair employment proposals, which are more radical and more effective.
    Mr. Kaufman: Was not the Foreign Secretary's response to the question put by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) a deliberate and disingenuous attempt to dodge the issue on the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons? Is it not a fact that Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Spain have made it clear that they are against forcing an early decision on modernisation, that the Netherlands and the Federal Germans have great misgivings and that the President of France gave the Prime Minister the brush-off by saying that it was a sovereign decision for the Federal German Government? Why is the Prime Minister alone, of all the NATO heads of Government in Europe, impervious to reason on that issue?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman never loses his gift for getting something absolutely wrong. As I told the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), NATO committed itself in principle last year to the modernisation of nuclear and conventional weapons where necessary. It is agreed that short-range nuclear weapons are one type of weapon that needs to be modernised and there is no doubt about that. The only question, about which there are widely varying views, is at what point particular decisions need to be taken in that respect. As it has in the past, NATO will reach an agreed conclusion without any help from the right hon. Gentleman.

    Single Market
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking through its offices in other European Community states to help to prepare for the single market in 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): British embassies are fully involved in lobbying and reporting on single market measures. They also provide a range of services to help British exporters make the most of growing opportunities.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that there is a great deal that her Department can do to help British industry—not only manufacturing industry, but service and professional industries such as engineering contracting, consulting and distribution—to prepare for 1992?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that the agreement that we have reached on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications is an important opportunity for British professionals to ply their trade abroad. Service industries, just as much as manufacturing industries, can contribute greatly and we hope that they will all participate in the setting of European standards because without their help in achieving the right technical standards we shall not be as well prepared as we could be.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that there was a hype a few years ago in the City about the big bang that was going to occur and that there was the same kind of co-ordinated propaganda about how well Britain was going to do? In fact the City got nothing out of it and the
    898
    invisibles have fallen rather than risen. Does the Minister expect the big bang of the single European market to be more or less successful than that in the City?
    Mrs. Chalker: We make steady, positive and continuing progress towards success in the City. When I see the hon. Gentleman and his big bang, I know that steady, solid progress is much to be preferred. I can say firmly to him that I believe that the United Kingdom's financial sector, which is by far the largest in Europe, is likely to be the most successful. Financial services will stand us in very good stead in Europe.
    Mr. Wells: What work is my right hon. Friend doing in preparing this country to debate the issues that are likely to be in the Delors committee report on central banking and the single European unit of account? How can our country have an opportunity to discuss and understand those issues before there are decisions and discussions at the Europe Council?
    Mrs. Chalker: I doubt whether any decisions are going to be arrived at the next European Council. It is far too early to say, when the report of the Delors committee will possibly come forward only later this month and will have its first examination in the ECOFIN Council in May. 'We will thoroughly discuss everything in that report and see what progress can be made. We should never underestimate this country's practical commitment, by the introduction of ecu-dominated Treasury bonds. to the development of better monetary co-operation throughout the Community.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that, with the free movement of people, Common Market nationals will have the right to enter the United Kingdom without a visa, bring children up to the age of 21, their parents and their grandparents, be able to undertake employment without a work permit, and establish businesses without any evidence of financial resources? Will she reflect on those matters when she examines the family disunity and separation that is caused to many British citizens who originate from the Indian sub-continent? Because of the Government's unfair yet firm immigration policy, for years they have been separated by thousands of miles from their spouses and families.
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows that European Community nationals have total reciprocity in those mattters. Our immigration policy is based on sensible, longstanding reasons. The one does not affect the other.
    Mr. Rowe: Is it true that the momentum towards the Common Market in 1992 is now virtually unstoppable? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it does nobody any good to start casting doubts on it as being some kind of fiasco or disaster? It is a great opportunity, particularly for small firms in this country.
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right. We are making good progress in dismantling barriers to trade. It is quite wrong for any commentator, whoever he may be, to say that 1992 measures are failing. More than 40 per cent. of the issues that were raised in the 1985 White Paper have been agreed. We have progressed almost daily. I was delighted to see the European Court of Justice's judgment on air fares, which was reported in the press this morning. That judgment represents a significant step towards our

    899
    aim to liberalise international air transport and bring down the cost of air fares to the ordinary travelling public. The court said that, from now on, airlines should clear their price-fixing controls between Community countries directly with the Commission. That is another great step forward.
    Mr. Robertson: Does the Minister agree that, although Britain has not done very well in Europe, Europe has done very well in Britain?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must look at his figures again.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's financial contribution towards the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus (UNFICYP).
    Mrs. Chalker: Britain's contribution towards the cost of the United Nations force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) in the financial year 1989–90 is estimated at £22·87 million, net of recoveries.
    Mr. Bennett: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom is the only member of the Security Council that pays its dues in full? What action is being taken by the United Kingdom to press the other countries to make their full payments towards this force?
    Mrs. Chalker: Indeed we have been paying our full amounts towards this force. The account is in deficit by some $167 million, as my hon. Friend knows, but the United Kingdom is not in deficit. We have absorbed all our own costs since 1964, and we have encouraged all other nations to contribute fully. I hope very much that many other states, including France and the Soviet Union, will stop resisting the change from voluntary contributions to assessed contributions. That would go a long way towards solving the problem.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to the British soldiers who have served with that force over many years? Is it true to say that we carry the bulk of the administrative burden, not only of the United Nations force in Cyprus but of the peacekeeping force in Lebanon? Can he confirm that we supply the biggest element of that force in Cyprus, and, but for its presence, the number of deaths on both sides of the green line might have been considerably greater over the years?
    Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the whole British contingent —currently 741 officers and men, or about one third of the total force—who have worked extremely hard. They bring a very special balance to a very difficult situation, and they continue to give absolutely first-class assistance in this very difficult area. We only hope that the negotiations towards resolving the problems of Cyprus will soon again proceed smoothly, and we wish both sides well in their efforts to find a solution that is acceptable to all.

    Israeli Foreign Minister
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Israeli Foreign Minister of State; and what will be discussed.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to visit Israel later this year, and looks forward to discussing bilateral and regional issues with Professor Arens then.
    Mr. Galloway: When the Foreign Minister meets Professor Arens will he raise the question of the arrest yesterday of two prominent leaders of the Palestinian community on the West Bank—the distinguished Jerusalem journalist Sam'an Khouri, and Adnan Shalalda? Today those men were charged before a military court with being leaders of their own people in the territory in which they live and have always lived. Will the Minister point out the irony of the absurd proposal by the Israeli Administration to hold elections to identify such leaders at a time when any leaders who do emerge are either shot down in the street or clamped in irons for months on end?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly agree with the hon. Member that it is no way to develop a sensible dialogue with the leaders of the Palestinians to treat people in that way. We have made regular representations, and I should think that we shall have an opportunity to make representations on these cases well before my right hon. and learned Friend goes to Israel.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that handing back the Taba enclave to Egypt has been very much to Israel's advantage, and will he make that point to the ambassador?
    Mr. Waldegrave: What the Taba incident demonstrates to Israel and to others in the region is that it is possible to resolve disputes by means of law and treaty. In a sense, that is the main significance of Taba, and I should have thought that, small though it is, it reminds people that it is possible to solve disputes in a way other than by force.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister agree that the most vital component, or at least one of the most vital components, of the struggle for peace in the middle east is the necessity for Israel to have discussions with the PLO? The PLO is recognised throughout the middle east—by all the Arab nations, as well as by the people of Palestine—as the representative of the Palestinians. Let it be made clear to the Israelis that they took lands away from the Palestinian people by force, and that before there can be a peace settlement in the middle east there must be a conference involving Britain and America, along with the PLO and the Israelis. Will the Minister impress that on the Israelis with all the prestige that Britain commands in this area?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is certainly our view that the Israelis will not find it possible to conduct negotiations with the Palestinian leaders in the occupied territories without talking to people who identify themselves with the PLO, and they will not find such people. It is the British Government's position that there should be an international conference under the aegis of the five permanent members of the Security Council but, in a sense, that matter is secondary. We want to get the process going and

    901
    believe that such a conference would ultimately be the best way of establishing a framework for the direct talks which must take place between the Israelis and the other parties to the dispute.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that the British Government see no need for elections in the occupied territories to find out who represents the Palestinian people because it is well known that the PLO does? Does my hon. Friend agree that the idea of such an election is merely a means of trying to postpone having a proper international conference, which is obviously the right way forward?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure that I would put it in quite that way. I would emphasise that the Palestinians would be chary of taking part in any elections that did not lead to a further process that would result ultimately in negotiations about the final status of the territories. From what I have understood of the PLO position and of its reactions to Mr. Shamir's proposals, if it believes that such elections are part of a continuing process, it would consider them seriously, but it does not wish to be caught in a cul de sac of voting only for municipal elections or for something that establishes Israeli hegemony over the territories.

    Romania (Human Rights)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made on human rights violations to the Government of Romania.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I raised Romania's appalling human rights record with the Romanian Foreign Minister in Vienna on 6 March. We deplore the Romanian Government's failure to meet their commitments under the Helsinki agreements and, in particular, their continuing policy of systematisation. We urge them to heed international calls for an end to repression and intimidation.
    Mr. Flynn: The Government are to be congratulated on their leadership of the European protest against Ceausescu, a leader who increasingly oppresses his own people with the primitive cruelty and arrogance of a mediaeval tyrant. However, is it not time for the Government to lead a new initiative against the process of systemisation—a process of cultural pogroms—which is sending the process of civilisation into reverse in Romania, and against the most savage breaches of human rights in any country in Europe? Would it not be a start to the new initiative if Britain stripped from Ceausescu the honour that was given to him in 1978 in the same way that we have taken honours from past Members of the House and other citizens of this country when they no longer deserve those honours?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House will have sympathy with the vehemence with which the hon. Gentleman condemns what is happening in Romania. Condemnation is being expressed not only by Western countries because it is notable that even the Soviet Union and other Warsaw pact partners of Romania have failed to support that country in recent proceedings before the European Commission of human rights. Condemnation of that cultural and human savagery is widespread.
    902
    However, the award to which the hon. Gentleman referred was conferred long ago as part of the longstanding arrangements for the exchange of courtesies during state visits. Although there have been occasions in wartime when our enemies in recent conflicts have had their awards taken away, there is no precedent for depriving the holder of an honorary award in peacetime. It is not judged right to depart from that rule in this case. However, that does not in any sense diminish my sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the appalling human rights record of Romania under the corrupt and repressive Ceausescu regime, the fact that it has become an acute embarrassment even to its Warsaw pact partners, the creation of a major refugee problem by the enforced devillagisation that is taking place in Transylvania and in view of the fact that our own ambassador has been manhandled by the police in that country, is it not high time to show our disgust and our repugnance with this regime and to withdraw our ambassador?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand totally why my right hon. Friend makes that point so strongly. One of the purposes of retaining an ambassador there is to continue to fight against the very conditions that my right hon. Friend describes. He is right that our ambassador and members of his staff were grotesquely ill-treated on an occasion when they were trying to establish contact with the historian, Doina Cornea, who has been outrageously treated. It is also right that more recently our embassy was able to establish contact with her, which has been of value. It confirms that she is continuing to be extremely badly treated, both in encirclement and in being deprived of communication with the outside world. That in itself justifies a continued presence there, although my right hon. Friend's statement of anguish about what is going on in Romania is equally justified.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Secretary of State tell us what representations have been made to the Romanian authorities? Is it not time that words of condemnation were backed by action?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As was conceded by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) in his supplementary question, the United Kingdom has been playing a leading part in mobilising action by the Community in demarche after demarche. We have been making representations with continuous vigour. We have also been able to block progress on the negotiations that were due to take place between the Community and Romania. So we have intervened effectively in the way that was open to us. We shall continue to mobilise as much condemnation as we can of the intolerable conduct of the Romanian Government.
    Mr. William Powell: My right hon. and learned Friend's robust denunciation of the despicable regime in Bucharest will be widely welcomed in the House, in the country and across all countries of Europe. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that there is no precedent for stripping the President of the Romanian Republic of honours that have been accorded to him. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there are times when new precedents must be set? This is probably a case where we should begin the process.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps the most important point is the immense strength of feeling expressed on all sides of the House. I am sure that that in itself will underline a crucial message to the Government of Romania. One only hopes that it may make some difference to their conduct.

    Namibia
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in implementing United Nations resolution 435 on Namibia.
    Mrs. Chalker: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in Windhoek on 1 April, we are actively supporting the United Nations operation in Namibia. It is vital that the parties abide strictly by their obligations under the United Nations plan for Namibian independence.
    Miss Lestor: In order to counter the feeling among many that South Africa is having far too great an influence on the implementation of independence, can the right hon. Lady tell us whether she supports the call made on 8 and 9 April at the Mount Etjo conference that the full United Nations transition assistance group force should be implemented, and whether she would also endorse the United Nation's view that South Africa should not be allowed to interrogate SWAPO guerillas? Will she recommend that in future SWAPO should be involved in discussions of the implementation of the resolution?
    Mrs. Chalker: It may interest the hon. Lady to know that the Mount Etjo declaration is being placed in the Library. The full UNTAG troops will get there as soon as possible. I was pleased yesterday to be able to announce that we have given a gift to the United Nations of the use of 55 Land Rovers and 12 four-wheeled trucks to try to help, while other equipment is on the high seas. In talking to those concerned about whether returning SWAPO guerillas to Angola will be interrogated, we have been assured that any information from the SWAPO forces will be sought by UNTAG and it will be solely directed towards the implementation of the Mount Etjo plan.
    Mr. Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of resolution 435 is that fair and free elections should be held in Namibia to determine its future? Will my right hon. Friend investigate allegations that British taxpayers' money is going through the European Community to give a preponderant advantage to SWAPO, despite its recent violations of the peace accord? Will she do her utmost to ensure that all parties can participate in those elections on an equal basis?
    Mrs. Chalker: Of course, there must be free and fair elections and everything must be done through the United Nations, whose responsibility it is, to ensure that that is so. We have no evidence of my hon. Friend's accusation that funds are being given to SWAPO and, in fact, I have written about that only this morning, or last night. In addition, I believe that it is absolutely vital that we do all that we can to support UNTAG in its most difficult task of maintaining the peace and proceeding towards those free and fair elections.
    Mr. Boateng: Does the Minister agree that it would be highly damaging to UNTAG, and to the implementation of resolution 435, if elements of the Koevet unit—the notoriously murderous unit of the South African army —were to be in any way engaged in the policing of the withdrawal of SWAPO? Does she further agree that that is likely because that unit now comprises almost half of the South African police force in Namibia?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am certain from what I have heard this morning that the task of the fully deployed contingents from the United Kingdom and Australia, who will be manning the nine assembly points, accompanied by UNTAG military observers—but, indeed, with the police and the Angolans alongside, as agreed under the Mount Etjo declaration—will be to see that the SWAPO forces return north of the 16th parallel in Angola. It is clear, too, that those members of the South African forces who may be alongside will be under the direction and supervision of the United Nations forces there and, indeed, our own forces.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Was my right hon. Friend able to discuss with the Soviet delegation in London last week the situation in Namibia and Angola, especially as President Gorbachev had recently returned from Cuba, which is well known to be heavily involved in the activities in that area?
    Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. and learned Friend talked with Mr. Shevardnadze last week. Our efforts, especially those of the Prime Minister and her decisive intervention in Windhoek on 1 April, have been warmly welcomed by the President of the Soviet Union, by the President of Angola and by the Cubans. I regret that Opposition Members should seek to try to bring party politics into such a subject.
    Mr. Anderson: Is not the Minister being just a little naive about the cease-fire assembly points? Apart from members of the South African forces who may be present, is it not correct that the South African militia—the South West Africa Territorial Force—is in the majority at those cease-fire assembly points and that a South African spokesman has said that UNTAG would be permitted to be present during interrogations? Who gave the Government those assurances? Will the Government ensure that visiting parliamentarians from western Europe are given visas to be present to monitor the electoral process and that SWAPO is given reasonable facilities for access to the media during the electoral process?
    Mrs. Chalker: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the British Government are not in charge of what is going on in Namibia, but the United Nations. Many of the questions that he has posed are questions for the United Nations. We are working in support of the United Nations' transition assistance group to get those free and fair elections. That will obviously mean all parties to the election wanting access to put their points over.
    I further say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, at the present time—with South African forces on the ground —the United Nations has not been able to get all its forces there, because there was a filibuster after the United Nations Secretary General put his plan to the Security Council. That was not by this country, which warned again and again that, if there was a delay in coming to a conclusion in the Security Council, and then the General Assembly, there would not be full deployment on 1 April.

    905
    Those responsible for the filibuster are responsible for the fact that United Nations forces were not there. Others had to be used under United Nations supervision. They are being used only in support of UNTAG until other forces arrive.

    Angola
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's recent contacts with Angola.
    Mrs. Chalker: There are regular contacts with representatives of the Angolan Government in the normal course of diplomatic relations.
    Mr. Coombs: While welcoming the regional peace settlement, the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola and Angola's application to the international monetary fund, which are evidence of more flexibility by Angola in its attitude to the West, does my right hon. Friend agree that Angola is still divided between the Marxist PLA and the equally unattractive Jonas Savimbi who has recently been accused of human rights abuses? What proposals have the Government, either on a regional basis or through the United Nations, to ensure democracy and peace in Angola?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am pleased to say that the President of Angola has played a constructive role in helping to get the
    906
    United Nations plan back on the road in Namibia. Having concentrated on doing that, the next step for peace in Namibia is to seek internal reconciliation for peace in Angola. We welcome the proposal for a regional security conference with Angola's neighbours. There is no doubt that we shall not see lasting peace in Angola until the parties come together. I have made it clear that a military solution in Angola is not possible. It needs to proceed towards a peaceful reconciliation between both parties.
    Mr. Speaker: Motion under Standing Order No. 20 —Mr. Robert Hughes.
    Mr. Robert Hughes indicated dissent
    Mr. Speaker: Presentation of Bill.

  BILL PRESENTED
    RELIGIOUS PROSECUTIONS ABOLITION
    Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. David Steel, Sir Ian Gilmour, Ms. Jo Richardson, Sir Cyril Smith, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Bernie Grant, Sir Russell Johnston, Mr. John Gorst, Ms. Diane Abbott and Mr. Eric S. Heller presented a Bill to abolish prosecutions for the expression of opinion on matters of religion: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 April and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

Abolition of Welsh County Councils(Creation of Unitary Local Authorities)
3.32 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish Welsh county councils by the creation of unitary local authorities.
Colleagues may say, "Not another local government Bill," but I make no apologies for seeking to introduce such a Bill. The time has come to debate again the structure of local government in England and Wales. That is especially appropriate in this centenary year of the county council system which was an enacted by the Local Government Act 1888.
Local government is vital and plays an important role in our national life and in helping to administer our country. However, it is top-heavy. There are three tiers of local government outside London and the metropolitan districts. They are the counties, districts and boroughs and the parish councils or, in Wales, the community councils. I want to concentrate on Wales because specific questions about that part of the United Kingdom need to be addressed. The Association of District Councils in its report "Closer to the People" said:
"Nowhere are the arguments for change put forward in the previous chapters more relevant than in Wales, highlighted by the remoteness of County government and by major difficulties in co-ordinating service provision between the County and District tiers. The 37 Welsh Districts provide a sense of identity and community which cannot be matched by the County structure. The latter, in terms of service provision, operates in the main through a system of area offices largely coterminous with existing district boundaries, and accountable to a distant County Hall. They do not provide a focus for the local community of interest."
The association's report continued:
"Welsh local government's reliance on Government funds, thereby improving the structure of local government, local responsibility and the local tax base. The distinctive character of Wales should be clearly recognised within such a review;"
The present system was introduced in 1974 as a result of the Local Government Act 1972. It was bitterly resented in many parts of Wales. In my own county of Pembrokeshire, in Montgomeryshire and in Monmouthshire there were protests at the time. Pembrokeshire county council produced a report in 1970 entitled "A unitary authority for Pembrokeshire" which made three points. It recommended:

(i) that all authorities be unitary;

(ii) that the size of authorities be based on population, area and sociological need;

(iii) that existing county boundaries need not, of necessity, be the boundaries for the new authorities."

The Redcliffe-Maud report, the Royal Commission on local government in England in 1969, came out in favour of unitary authorities for England whenever "geographical and other factors allowed".
In Wales, there was a reconsideration by the then Labour Government, who agreed in March 1970 in a White Paper that single unitary authorities for Glamorgan and Monmouthshire could be introduced, but it was not to be so. In 1974, we saw the creation of eight jumbo-sized local county councils in Wales.
There are four main problems with county government in Wales. First, it is too large and cumbersome. The report of the Association of District Councils in 1987 said:
"Certainly, the radical reorganisation of 1974 failed to get the system right in Wales. The 'big is beautiful' argument,
908
popular at that time, was particularly unsuited to the four rural counties of Gwynedd, Dyfed, Powys and Clwyd which make up some 75 per cent. of the Principality in terms of area; and bears no relationship to the ADC view `that a truly effective and durable system of local government is one which binds democratic institutions and service delivery to identifiable communities'."
Secondly, the county councils are remote from the voters and, indeed, from the councillors. As the Welsh committeee of the national committee of the National Association of Local Councils said:
"The Association believes that the present system has in most areas gone too far in increasing the size of authorities and that the local government system in many places now suffers so severely from the defects of remoteness that any compensating advantages of scale are lost. Particularly in the counties of Dyfed and Gwynedd, distances are so large that councillors in both counties and districts have to travel long distances to meetings and very few of them at any meeting can have a proper local knowledge of the matters under consideration."
Thirdly, the present county boundaries are not coterminous with the natural communities. Redcliffe-Maud in 1969 said:
"Local authority areas should be defined so that they enable citizens and their elected representatives to have a sense of common purpose."
That view was echoed by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executive Officers in its report last year entitled "Local Government of the Future". It argued that natural communities, rather than size, should be consideration for local authorities.
Our 1974 experience has shown that local communities hold together due to historical and other links that are particular to each area, and I believe that it would be sensible for our system of local government to be based on the social structures of communities.
Fourthly, there is confusion among the general public about the roles and services of local authorities. People do not know which authority provides which service, and that is particularly true where there are overlapping responsibilities, such as on questions of social policy, roads and planning. That has been recognised in recent years. The London boroughs and metropolitan districts have become all-purpose authorities and the area health authorities have been abolished, so reducing the number of tiers in the National Health Service.
In Pembrokeshire, we were split from the Dyfed health authority to have our own health authority, and the Secretary of State for the Environment is now looking at the boundaries of Humberside county council. In Scotland, the Conservative party is considering the abolition of the regional tier of government, and in Wales the Labour party has already announced that it wishes to get rid of county councils and to have 24 or 25 all-purpose district councils, albeit with a regional assembly as well. The ADC, in its report "Closer to the People", talking about Wales and the views of the Committee on Welsh District Councils, agrees
"that the paramount goal is the creation of a single tier of most-purpose district authorities which would exercise, either directly or through joint arrangements, all the functions now exercised by district and county councils."
Somebody might say, as Mandy Rice-Davies said, "They would say that, wouldn't they?".
There is further evidence, supported by academic research commissioned by the ADC, by Murray Stewart and Frank Tolan at Bristol university. They, having

909
looked at Cheshire, came to the conclusion that the transfer of functions in Cheshire was a real and viable option:
"We are convinced now—as we were not at the start of the study—that a move towards a single tier of most purpose authorities is an entirely sensible and indeed important issue for widespread public debate."
Three issues should be at the front of our minds in the reform of local government: it should be democratic and more easily understood, and decision-making should be at the level closest to the people; it should be more cost effective in providing local services to the public and it should be financed from locally controlled sources of revenue; and powers should be decentralised to local government and, when possible, unnecessary controls by central Government should be removed.
I therefore propose in my Bill that we abolish the eight Welsh counties and amalgamate some of the smaller district council areas to create 16 or 17—or, if necessary more, depending on local feeling—all-purpose district councils.
Cardiff would once again become responsible for its own affairs. That would bring back a form of local government similar to the old county boroughs, but larger and without the competing counties surrounding them. For some services like the police, fire services and other emergency services and perhaps for some parts of education, joint committees would be set up composed of members of the constituent authorities. Town and community councils would remain, although I would like to see the Welsh community councils renamed parishes, and an increased role might be possible, especially for the larger parish and town councils.
The Association of District Councils in its report "Closer to the People" concluded:
"A single-tier structure of local government would facilitate accountability and realistic budgeting and eliminate waste. It would minimise bureaucratic duplications inevitably associated with a two-tiered system, thus reducing unproductive overheads. It would provide a tighter management of services and give better value for money to local people."
I believe also that is would be immensely popular with the people of Wales, as it would bring back the historic county names and communities which the Welsh people would recognise.
3.40 pm
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to oppose the motion?
Mr. Ray Powell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I am mindful of the time, effort and energy that hon. Members employ to secure a ten-minute Bill. On several occasions I have presented such Bills, all of which I had hoped would be useful to the country at large. I introduced the Grandparents (Adoption of Children) Bill, which included some measures contained in the present Children Bill. I also recall the Bill to ban opinion polls before general elections and by-elections. That Bill was opposed and was never enacted. However, it would have been useful.
I believe that the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is no more than a publicity stunt.
910
Obviously he has not bothered to research the subject; he may have something more sinister in mind, such as a running conflict with his county councillors in Dyfed.
Why should the hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill to abolish his county council, especially when county council elections are being held at the moment? That makes me wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has no confidence i n his county candidates in his constituency and whether his main aim with this Bill is to abolish them. To propagate this proposal now is very suspect.
Those of us who have been here for the past 20 years since the reorganisation of local government by a Tory Government long before the hon. Member for Pembroke entered politics, who genuinely and profoundly wish to see the real devolution of power from central to regional government, feel outraged that anyone should want to attempt to waste the time of this House by tinkering with such a complex, intricate and emotive subject for whatever reasons. To confine the Bill specifically to Welsh counties complicates maters and infuriates hon. Members on both sides of the House.
From my experience at community council, borough council and county level and from my friendship with county councillors from most parts of Wales, I would respectfully suggest that it would have been far more responsible of the hon. Member for Pembroke if he had presented a Bill to establish a major programme of consultation in all parts of Wales to consider the future of local government, paying particular attention to the differing needs and problems in various areas and clearly undertaking that any change in Welsh local government should proceed only in step with the leading region or regions in England. I must add that I support my Scottish colleagues in their demands for devolution of power to Scotland.
Before the House can even consider supporting the Bill we must ask numerous detailed and probing questions. It is proposed to alter the present local authority functions. but how will they be redistributed in the new dual structure? What Welsh Office function, presently unaccountable, should be given to the unitary authority?
Are there to be further reductions in the Exchequer block grant, or can we expect substantial increases to ensure improvements in local government services to meet the urgent need for industrial modernisation, social change and distinctive cultural development?
The structure of finance begs a series of questions on the right of levy taxex. Should there be an additional Welsh tax or would that be an unacceptable burden on the taxpayer? Would it prove a disincentive in attracting industry and much-needed employment? What limit, if any, should be given to revenue-raising powers, and should there be any limit to the amount or purpose of such expenditure? What machinery should be established to determine the level of rate support grant or its replacement? Should Wales have different financing methods from England?
Those of us who have been born and bred in Wales and have studied the problems of decentralising government, appreciate that we need more than a ten-minute Bill.
Other questions need to be answered. What about the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State for Wales? Only recently the Secretary of State made a statement which showed that he is not in step with the Government, but he has not subscribed to any criticism of them for the past 10 years. Should he have a seat in the Cabinet? I wonder

911
whether the occupant of No. 10 is considering that today. How many tiers of Government should we have—regional, unitary authorities, community councils? Who should serve on them? What areas are to be covered? How many Members of Parliament should there be? Do we need a parliamentary constituency reorganisation? Would they be coterminous with the unitary authorities? How would we define the responsibilities of Members of Parliament, regional elected members, unitary authority members and councillors? Most areas of Wales have differing needs. How shall we cater for them if we reform Welsh regional, local and community representative bodies?
All those essential, pertinent, obvious, responsible questions need answers, which need to be well researched and, more importantly, well and truly discussed with our present representatives. Until that happens, and a concentrated and concerted opinion is voiced by the majority of people in Wales, the House has no alternative but to reject any ill-informed, however well-intentioned opinion.
I have many other questions, but the House has a number of matters to deal with which may be more important than the Bill. I ask all hon. Members to join me in the Lobby and reject the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 148.

Division No. 156]

[3.48 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Kilfedder, James

Alton, David

Knapman, Roger

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ashby, David

McCrindle, Robert

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Bevan, David Gilroy

Maclennan, Robert

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Mates, Michael

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

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Paice, James

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Pawsey, James

Carrington, Matthew

Porter, David (Waveney)

Churchill, Mr

Rathbone, Tim

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Rost, Peter

Dover, Den

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Evennett, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Fearn, Ronald

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Franks, Cecil

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Fry, Peter

Stanbrook, Ivor

Gill, Christopher

Steel, Rt Hon David

Glyn, Dr Alan

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hannam, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Hayward, Robert

Wallace, James

Howells, Geraint

Woodcock, Mike

Janman, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Mr. Edward Leigh and

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Allen, Graham

Armstrong, Hilary

Anderson, Donald

Ashton, Joe

912

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Leighton, Ron

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Barron, Kevin

Lewis, Terry

Battle, John

Litherland, Robert

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

Loyden, Eddie

Bermingham, Gerald

McAllion, John

Bidwell, Sydney

McFall, John

Blair, Tony

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Boateng, Paul

McKelvey, William

Bradley, Keith

McLeish, Henry

Bray, Dr Jeremy

McWilliam, John

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Madden, Max

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Buckley, Qeorge J.

Marek, Dr John

Caborn, Richard

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Callaghan, Jim

Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Martlew, Eric

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Maxton, John

Cartwright, John

Meacher, Michael

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Meale, Alan

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clay, Bob

Mowlam, Marjorie

Cohen, Harry

Mullin, Chris

Corbett, Robin

Murphy, Paul

Corbyn, Jeremy

Nellist, Dave

Cousins, Jim

O'Brien, William

Cox, Tom

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Crowther, Stan

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Dalyell, Tam

Parry, Robert

Darling, Alistair

Patchett, Terry

Dewar, Donald

Pike, Peter L.

Dixon, Don

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dobson, Frank

Prescott, John

Doran, Frank

Primarolo, Dawn

Duffy, A. E. P.

Quin, Ms Joyce

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Redmond, Martin

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Eastham, Ken

Robertson, George

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Robinson, Geoffrey

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

Rogers, Allan

Fisher, Mark

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Flannery, Martin

Rowlands, Ted

Flynn, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Foster, Derek

Salmond, Alex

Foulkes, George

Sedgemore, Brian

Fyfe, Maria

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Galbraith, Sam

Short, Clare

Galloway, George

Skinner, Dennis

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

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

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Snape, Peter

Golding, Mrs Llin

Steinberg, Gerry

Graham, Thomas

Stott, Roger

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Straw, Jack

Grocott, Bruce

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Haynes, Frank

Turner, Dennis

Heffer, Eric S.

Vaz, Keith

Hinchliffe, David

Wall, Pat

Holland, Stuart

Walley, Joan

Home Robertson, John

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Wareing, Robert N.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Wilson, Brian

lllsley, Eric

Winnick, David

Ingram, Adam

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Janner, Greville

Wray, Jimmy

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Tellers for the Noes:

Lambie, David

Mr. Win Griffiths and

Lamond, James

Mr. Alan W. Williams.

Question accordingly negatived.

Points of Order
3.59 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you look into the activities of the Secretary of State for Health in treating the House with contempt in relation to his proposed changes to National Health Service hospitals? He is already acting on the basis of his proposed legislation, assuming that it has been passed by the House. But it has been subject to no legislative scrutiny whatsoever.
I have received a letter from Mr. Terry Hunt, the regional general manager of North East Thames regional health authority, stating:
"I am seeking preliminary suggestions for the identification of hospitals … to be considered for self-governing status … These proposals will be explored with a view to establishing a shortlist of a few hospitals that … will be the first to become self-governing."
He asked for the names of hospitals to be considered for inclusion on the initial shortlist to be sent to him no later than 5 May.
I wrote to him saying:
"It seems a negation of the democratic process for you to invite immediate bids for self-governing hospitals under a proposal which has not yet been through Parliament."
I asked him to
"withdraw this letter and recognise that it is not right to anticipate the outcome of the Health legislation. Even if the Government thinks it can ride rough-shod over the democratic process, there is a responsibility for others not to do so"
On 6 April I received a reply saying:
"In this matter we are acting directly on the instructions of the Secretary of State through the Chief Executive of the NHS Management Board."
He is acting directly before the legislation has been considered by the House. The Government are treating
914
Parliament as a rubber stamp. It is an abuse of the parliamentary process and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises a highly political matter, which continues what we were discussing yesterday. I have no responsibility for what Ministers say or do. These are matters which legitimately must be taken up in debate across the Floor of the House but not through the Chair.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No point of order can arise on that. What the Secretary of State writes in a letter is not a matter for me.
Mr. Banks: As a member of the Procedure Committee, I know that the report that was published yesterday made it quite clear that one of the reasons for the apparent lowering of parliamentary standards and the running of tempers rather high was the practice adopted by Ministers of making statements outside the House, and effectively circumventing procedures on the Floor of the House. This is yet a further example. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you should take some interest in the matter.
Mr. Speaker: But we are referring not to a statement but to a letter that the Secretary of State wrote to an hon. Member. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Banks: The Secretary of State wrote to the health authority.
Mr. Cohen rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter of order in the Chamber, it is a matter of political debate, and that is how it should be carried on.

King's Cross Fire (Fennell Report)
Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.3 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move
That this House welcomes the thorough and comprehensive report by Mr. Desmond Fennell QC on the investigation into the King's Cross Underground fire; endorses the Government's commitment to invest in the improvement and modernisation of the Underground and its decision to provide £266m over the next three years for the implementation of the report's recommendations; notes London Regional Transport's constructive response to the report; and looks forward to continuing vigorous action by London Underground to implement its recommendations
The House will agree that it is right to have a full debate in this House on the Fennell report, but it is also right that it should not have taken place until after London Regional Transport and London Underground had made their formal reply to the report. As the House will know, their reply was published on 6 February and copies were placed in the Library.
The fire at King's Cross Underground station happened on 18 November 1987—more than 16 months ago—but the tragic events of that night are still very much in our minds—and so they should be. The House will not need reminding that the fire resulted in the loss of 31 lives. I know that many are still suffering from the loss of a loved one or were themselves injured and are still trying to come to terms with what happened. I am sure that at least on this I echo the sentiments of the whole House when I once again offer my sympathy to those who have suffered. Also, we must never forget the heroism and sheer professionalism exhibited by many members of the emergency services on that night.
Let me remind the House of the events which followed that terrible tragedy. I appointed an inspector, Mr. Desmond Fennell QC, to carry out a formal investigation. The inquiry sat in public for 91 days, hearing a mass of evidence from 150 witnesses. A number of technical and scientific studies were carried out. I believe that it is generally agreed that Mr. Fennell's report, published on 10 November 1988, when I made a statement to the House, is thorough and comprehensive. It is more than a once-and-for-all prescription for some action to be taken: it calls for continuous vigilance and action, long after the debate has been forgotten.
Mr. Fennell concluded that the fire was caused by a lighted match, which fell through the gap beside the escalator treads and ignited an accumulation of grease and rubbish on the escalator tracks. The fire beneath the escalator spread to the wooden escalator components and then erupted into the booking hall in a flashover. The flashover was attributed to the "trench efect" in which the flames and hot gases are confined within the escalator trench and extend rapidly up it, before bursting upward and outward, at the top of the escalator. This phenomenon, previously unknown, was discovered and explained in the course of the painstaking research commissioned by Mr. Fennell during his work. The message is that nobody responsible for safety can be
916
complacent that all potential hazards have been identified or that the cumulative effect of individually unlikely events can be predicted, let alone ignored.
The report found serious shortcomings within London Regional Transport and London Underground Ltd. which called for a totally new approach to safety management and fire prevention. There were 157 recommendations, the majority of which were directed to LRT or LUL in particular. I accepted the resignations of the senior management and directed the two bodies to institute prompt action. The House will know from their formal reply that the new managements of LRT and LUL have accepted the vast majority of the recommendations which are addressed to them and many have already been implemented. I invite the House to take note of this response as a serious and responsible reaction to the criticisms made.
It would take too long to describe all the measures which are being taken so I shall just summarise the main actions. First, there is the elimination of wooden panelling from escalators. LUL is replacing the wooden skirting boards and balustrades, decking and advertisement panels with metal. I understand that 51 out of the 74 escalators have had their wooden skirting boards and balustrades removed and 23 have had their decking and advertisement panels removed. LUL is also proposing to close temporarily some stations so that this work can be completed by the end of August.
Secondly, there is the introduction of heat detectors and sprinklers beneath escalators. LUL has fitted linear heat detectors and alarm systems to 235 escalators and is aiming to complete the remaining 41 by the end of this month. Smoke detectors have been fitted into 113 escalator machine rooms. Work has now begun on installing sprinklers, and LUL aims to complete this by the end of 1990.
Thirdly, there are to be better below ground radio communication systems available to the emergency services. A VHF radio system has been installed for British Transport police use at 42 Underground stations and it is being enhanced to enable communication with London Underground staff. London Underground, together with the British Transport police and the London fire and civil defence authority, are looking at ways of achieving compatibility with the equipment used by the London Fire Brigade.
Fourthly, there was to be enhanced emergency training for station staff. Station staff now receive fire and safety training every six months. Management and supervisory staff also receive regular refresher training in controlling station emergencies. Fifthly, there was to be liaison with the fire brigade, including joint exercises. These now take place twice yearly. Sixthly, there was to be closer monitoring of statistics and formal reporting up of incident investigations to ensure that trends were identified and action taken. Reports are now considered at director level.
Hon Members have expressed concern about the safety implications of the Underground ticketing system. This was addressed in the Fennell report, which recommended that there should be a review of the proposals. The House will know that the London Underground has recently discovered that in certain circumstances, if one phase of the three-phase power supply system fails, not all the gates will open automatically. London Underground is taking steps to eliminate that remote possibility and should

917
complete the work by the end of June. London Regional Transport has, at our suggestion, appointed independent consultants to carry out the review. It should be completed by the end of April. I shall inform the House of the review's findings and I shall ensure that prompt action will be taken if necessary.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware just how deeply unpopular the new barriers are to the travelling public in London? It is not just a question of them not opening up in an emergency, as we were given to understand they would. It is that access itself is difficult even if all the barriers are completely open, because they restrict the movement of people throughout the station. Has the Secretary of State gone round and seen for himself what happens at Westminster, for example, at rush hour in the morning?
Mr. Channon: Both my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport and I have seen the Underground ticketing system in operation. I accept that it is unpopular with some of the travelling public at this stage, although one cannot estimate how many, and I accept that the unfamiliarity of the system makes it unpopular. However, similar systems have been introduced in many underground systems round the world; I have a full list of those countries if the House is interested. The claims that the barriers are inherently unsafe are not shared by the London fire brigade or the railways inspectorate.
Mr. Terry Fields: That is not the case.
Mr. Channon: That is not my view alone, but the view of the London Fire brigade and the railways inspectorate, which are more likely to be expert than the hon. Gentleman or myself.
Whatever views the House may have about the opinions of the London fire brigade or the railways inspectorate, the important point is that consultants are considering the operation of the system. We shall have their report at the end of the month, the House will be able to study the findings and then we shall have to decide on an appropriate course of action.
Mr. Robin Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the central reasons for introducing the barriers in the first place, other than increasing the number of exits, was to tackle fraud, which is estimated to total £25 million, all of which falls on the rail users?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My hon. Friend the Minister will deal with the matter in more detail, if the House wants to go into the questions, when we have heard the comments of other hon. Members.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The public are upset about the barriers not only because they are an inconvenience, but because they are viewed as serious safety risks. The Secretary of State has made the excuse that consultants are being brought in and that a report will be issued shortly. Why did the Secretary of State not stop the installation programme when he agreed to consultants being appointed to look at the safety aspects? Why are yet more harriers being installed while the safety aspects are being
918
considered? If the Government were really interested in safety, they would have stopped that installation programme.
Mr. Channon: Mr. Fennell made no suggestion that that should be done. The hon. Gentleman's view, which has also been expressed by other hon. Members, that the Underground ticketing system is unsafe is not shared. Let us wait for the consultants' report. It is evident that the system is, in some ways, likely to enhance safety. The gates, which are made to spring open in emergencies, replace fencing and one or two-manned opening's. Evacuation will be easier in some circumstances. The introduction of gates and ticket machines is often accompained by the redesign of the ticket hall to provide an open area less prone to congestion, and in some stations the barriers will release ticket controllers to give advice and assistance and to look out for problems.
Mr. Terry Fields: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Channon: No, I shall not.
Mr. Fields: This is an important point.
Mr. Channon: I must press on. I have already given way three times.
The House will express its views, and hon. Members will hear what the consultants say at the end of April.
The Fennell report highlighted the need for London Regional Transport and London Underground to examine their management structures and introduce an effective and continuing audit of safety. I welcome the establishment of the new safety audit committee, together with the safety services directorate. I am sure that the. House would agree that it is absolutely vital to get a new safety culture. To do that, we must get the new structures right. Further changes may well be required in the future as the new management, under the chairmanship of Mr. Newton, who was appointed only last month, get further to grips with its task.
The safety audit committee established by London Regional Transport will monitor the safety of operation of all the subsidiary companies. The committee reports direct to the LRT board. It is chaired by a non-executive board member. In addition, a safety audit unit has been established within LRT to administer the safety monitoring process.
London Underground has established a safety committee which meets monthly. That committee is also chaired by a non-executive member with a special interest in safety. That director has direct access to the chairman of London Regional Transport. These measures will ensure that any concerns about safety on the Underground can be made known at the very top of LRT. The committee has a wide range of functions, including safety and fire prevention, safety audit reports, as well as reviewing the underground's safety performance in relation to other similar undertakings or industries.
London Underground has also established a safety services unit, which includes a group of safety auditors and advisers, each with a particular speciality, and a safety programmes unit which provides a central focal point for the overall management and co-ordination of its reply to the recommendations of the Fennell report.

919
The lessons from Fennell go wider than just London Underground. Thirty of the recommendations were directed at the emergency services or Government Departments.
On 10 November, I made it clear in my statement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be making regulations under section 12 of the Fire Precaution Act 1971, specifying fire precautions arrangements for Underground stations. The House will know, or it will wish to know if it does not already, that the consultation process on those regulations is now at an advanced stage and that my right hon. Friend intends to lay them next month. The regulations will encompass a number of Mr. Fennell's recommendations, above all those for the installation of heat detectors and sprinklers in escalators and other areas of high fire risk, for the protection and maintenance of exits so that all of them, including ticket barriers, can be immediately opened, and for the training and provision of staff so that, in an emergency, they know what to do and are there to do it.
I also told the House on 10 November 1988 that the railway inspectorate, with support from the Health and Safety Executive will be conducting a special investigation of London Undergound's safety management systems. This debate gives me the chance to report progress. The study team has now completed its field work and written an early draft of its report. I understand from the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways that further analysis is going well and that the aim is to produce the final text by the end of this month. The report will be published. I have no doubt that any study of that kind is bound to produce important lessons. As the House would expect, I shall want any such lessons acted upon promptly and vigorously.
I now refer to the railway inspectorate. The House will know from the response of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport to a question by the hon. Member for Truro, (Mr. Taylor) on 13 March that, following a successful recruitment campaign, the inspectorate is now almost at full strength. Only two vacancies remain, and I expect them to be filled within the next couple of months. The chief inspecting officer has been carrying out a review of his staffing resources to see what further manpower needs are necessary in the light of the inspectorate's enhanced health and safety role recommended by Mr. Fennell. Meanwhile, as an interim measure, five additional inspectors are being recruited. The interviewing of candidates has just finished. We shall, of course, be sympathetic to any request for a further strengthening of the railway inspectorate.
I have heard Opposition Members allege that the Government's policies have led LRT to reduce its expenditure on safety. Those allegations are wrong and I reject them.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: That point is central to some of the comments that have been made. When I was a member of the GLC's London transport committee, the capital expenditure projections by the GLC at the time and its projections for further expenditure were substantially less than the amounts that have been spent by the Government. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that capital expenditure now is 60 per cent. higher than was envisaged by the GLC?
Mr. Channon: I think that my hon. Friend is right. It is a fact that in every year since 1984 London Regional Transport has been able to spend, more in real terms, on capital investment. As my hon. Friend has just said, in the year that has just finished, London Regional Transport had authority to spend around 60 per cent. more, in real terms, on capital investment than it spent in 1984–85—the last year of GLC funding.
Mr. John Prescott: Is it not right to say that the Government turned down an application from the GLC and reduced its capital expenditure allocation by one third? What the Secretary of State is making a comparison with is not what the GLC wanted to do, by way of capital expenditure, but what the Government allowed it to do.
Mr. Channon: The hon. Member is rather changing the tune—we have not heard that particular argument before. In the past, the argument was that we were spending an inadequate amount on capital investment. Whatever were the merits or demerits of GLC control of London Underground, 60 per cent. more, in real terms, is being spent on capital investment than was spent in the last year of GLC funding. LRT's spending level of £365 million —£1million a day—was agreed before the King's Cross fire. That £365 million is the totality, not just the figure for London Underground.
The only point that I am making is that there is no question of the Government's starving LRT or the Underground of the funds it needed before the fire. Indeed, experience has shown that, in the past, they have not been able to spend some of the resources allocated to them by the Government.
Mr. Tony Banks: We ought to get the facts correct. It is quite clear that it was the Government who stopped the GLC putting capital investment into the Underground system. The GLC wanted to spend £669 million on transport in 1983–84, but the Government accepted expenditure of only £461 million—capital and revenue.
Mr. Channon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is getting so excited about this.
Mr. Banks: We want the truth.
Mr. Channon: I am telling the truth. I am giving the facts of capital investment. What interpretation the hon. Gentleman puts upon what I am saying is a matter of dispute between the two sides of this House. My recollection is that the GLC had plenty of money to spend on subsidising fares, but never had any money for capital investment in the Underground. That is the reality of the situation. The money that was available was spent on reducing fares, but no money was spent on the long-term health of the Underground, and that is something for which the GLC will be condemned.[Interruption.] Well, it is true.
Mr. Fennell's report on this tragic fire explicitly states:
"In my judgment there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to London Regional Transport was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending and maintain safety standards. I accept the evidence of the most senior management in London Regional Transport and London Underground that if funds were needed, funds were available. There does, however, remain the question of how the available resources were allocated and used by London Underground."
Mr. Terry Fields: When we talk about what Fennell had to say, we are getting to the nub of this matter. Fennell said also that the board put more emphasis on performance and profits than on human safety. The avoidable and unnecessary death of my comrade, Station Officer Townsley and others is down to the board and down to this Government—on a par with the spirit of the Herald of Free Enterprise.
Mr. Channon: I do not agree with all that the hon. Gentleman says, but I do understand the strength of his feelings about this matter, which he has expressed on many occasions. I am coming on to refer to Fennell's view about the climate that he found in London Underground at the time of the inquiry. His report makes it clear that, sadly, London Underground and LRT had allowed a climate to develop in which safety was not given the priority we should all have wished it to take. The point I am making is that, in his view, the resources that had been made available had been misallocated.
There is now an entirely new management at the top of London Underground, and the climate has changed completely. Fennell exposed major weaknesses, which are being attacked. LRT has made an estimate of the cost of implementation of Fennell's recommendations—some £266 million over the next three years. We have made full provision for that amount, but that is not the end of the matter. That is the point that I want to emphasise to the House again and again. Safety must remain the No. 1 and continuing priority of LRT and the Underground. I am sure that problems will continue to be identified in due course. No doubt we shall have shock-horror stories all over again. If we get them, we shall ensure that London Underground deals effectively and speedily with any new problems that may arise. I want to make it clear, as I have in the past, that finance will not be a barrier to implementing the Fennell recommendations or any additional safety measures that may be identified in due course.
In my view—I think the House will agree—safety includes protection against crime, which is becoming a worrying fact of life on London Underground. As the House knows, the Government published a report in 1986 on "Crime on the London Underground" and provided £15 million additional finance to LUL to implement it.
We also agreed an increase in the complement of the Underground division of the British transport police from 280 to 350 officers and we agreed last year on the recommendation from Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary to an increase in the division's complement by a further 50 officers.
The additional funding has financed the inauguration of an Underground police radio network recognised by the 1986 report as
"the single most effective aid to improving the efficiency of Underground policing"
—and by the Fennell report as an essential facility.
The additional funding has also supported the setting up of new area police stations to allow extension of the home beat policing system commended by the inspector for its effectiveness in the Stockwell area, where the number of robberies has fallen in each of the last three years to half the 1985 figure—contrary to the rising trend elsewhere. New area offices are being opened at Finsbury Park, Wembley Park and Hammersmith. These are important steps, and they are producing results, but the
922
level of crime is far too high and the rising trend of violent crime throughout the system worrying. We shall continue to make combating crime a priority and I shall keep the matter under constant review.
Mr. Cohen rose—
Mr. Channon: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have already given way about 15 times and think that I should press on—[Interruption] I even gave way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) so perhaps the House will allow me to get on a little further.
Mr. Tony Banks: We love you for it.
Mr. Channon: Thank you so much—[Laughter.] I am not sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) does.
Mr. Prescott: Yes, I love you.
Mr. Terry Fields: This is a serious matter.
Mr. Channon: Yes, it is indeed serious.
The Government have recognised the central role and strategic importance of the Underground in keeping London moving and sustaining economic growth. Major improvements are needed in the London Underground. system to improve safety, to relieve congestion, to modernise the system, and to provide additional capacity to cope with the future increase in demand.
We must not forget this is the oldest underground railway system in the world and the measures required are expensive; the reconstruction of one station alone, Angel, which many hon. Members know, cost £40 million. That is why we have given approval to yet another significant real increase in the capital expenditure for the Underground in 1989–90—about twice as high in real terms as in 1984–85—to allow LRT to embark on a range of major upgrading projects, including many measures to reduce congestion in stations and on trains.
However, more will need to be done. The central London rail study has identified the need for a major upgrading programme to relieve congestion on the Underground and on Network SouthEast and I shall be taking decisions later this year on the need for new lines through central London to cater for the future. The east London rail study will also shortly be reporting on the best options for improving rail access from central London to docklands and east Thames-side.
Of course I accept that the Underground is congested and that much needs to be done to improve the quality of service. Substantial sums will have to be invested, and I am determined that that will happen. Inevitably, when the investments are made, while the improvements are under way, passengers will suffer some inconvenience, but passengers will not suffer in vain.
It is my intention that London travellers should eventually enjoy a safe, efficient and high quality Underground system. That should be the wider context for this debate and it defines the challenging task now facing Mr. Newton and the new management in LRT. I have given him a clear remit, published on 22 March, establishing that safety is the highest priority, followed by the need to provide for the projected increase in traffic on the Underground and to docklands and the need to improve the quality of services and security afforded to the traveller.

923
All of us know that those who experienced or suffered in this tragedy will never forget what happened—nor must we forget it, on whichever side of the House we sit. The right measures must be taken. We must ensure that this kind of tragedy is never allowed to happen again, and we must do everything in our power to try to avert it. We owe that to those who lost their lives. I have described the positive steps that LRT and LUL have taken to ensure that safety receives the highest priority. I emphasise again that I am sure that more will need to be done. Everyone involved must continue to view safety as the number one objective.
Mr. Fennell's report ultimately contains a vital message for all large organisations, whether or not they are in the transport field, that safety must be one of the top priorities of management. I am determined to play my part in fulfilling that objective for the industries for which I am responsible. I hope that the House will recognise that Mr. Fennell's report has set in hand a necessary change of perspective within London Regional Transport and London Underground. I am convinced that it will be a lasting change, and I am determined that it shall be.
The Opposition have put down an amendment. I assume, therefore, that we shall be asked to divide at the end of the debate. That is a pity, but that is for the Opposition to decide. Whatever division there may be on the point on which the Opposition base the amendment, the clear and united message from the House should be that we demand that safety must be paramount in all questions of this kind. If we implement it effectively, the Fennell report will ensure a lasting change of attitude in London Regional Transport and London Underground to the benefit of future and present travellers on the system. That is something that the Government are determined to achieve. I ask the House to support me in that aim.
4.30 pm
Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"congratulates Mr. Desmond Fennell QC and his assessors on the report into the investigation into the King's Cross Underground fire on 18th November 1987, particularly the scientific skill shown by the personnel of the Health and Safety Executive Laboratory at Buxton in discovering the new phenomenon of the trench effect; expresses its deepest sympathy to the relatives of the 31 people who died in this terrible tragedy; endorses Mr. Fennell's tribute to all members of the public, London Underground staff and emergency staff who helped others, especially Station Officer Townsley and Police Constable Hanson; looks forward to the urgent implementation, by both the Government and London Underground, of all the report's recommendations; but regrets the fact that Mr. Fennell ruled as ultra vires any consideration of the role that the funding of London Underground may have played in the circumstances leading up to this terrible disaster."
At last we have this debate, 16 months after the fire, five months after the publication of the report and four months after the debate in another place. The amendment makes clear our point of view on the matter. We congratulate Desmond Fennell and all those associated with producing the report. We express our appreciation for their analysis and conclusions. We record our deepest sympathy to the relatives of the 31 people who died and to those who are still suffering from the trauma. We state our admiration
924
for the emergency services, the public and the London Underground staff who played a major part in the rescue. We pay tribute especially to the contribution of Police Constable Hanson and of Fire Officer Townsley, who died a hero's death.
We are impressed by the Health and Safety Executive laboratory at Buxton for its painstaking scientific research into the trench effect of a new fire dynamic, something that we have learnt much about, which means that many people will have to change their traditional thinking on fire. We congratulate the personnel of the Health and Safety Executive. I am sure that all hon. Members endorse the view that much credit is due to them.
Like the Secretary of State, we look forward to all the recommendations in the report being implemented as soon as possible; on that I think that there will be unanimous agreement in the House. However, one substantial reservation is identified in the amendment. We regret Mr. Fennell's decision to rule as ultra vires any consideration of the role of the funding of London Underground in the circumstances that led to the fire. We believe that that decision was wrong. Indeed, the Secretary of State made it clear in correspondence that we have had on the terms of reference for other tragedies on the railway system that the terms of reference are traditional and should have allowed anything to be considered. It was only the judgment of Mr. Fennell that the matter should be ultra vires. Therefore, he refused to accept evidence on that point. That was an extraordinary decision. The Secretary of State claimed some support for the view that it had no role in the circumstances leading to the fire. It was curious for Mr. Fennell, a barrister, to decide that he would not hear evidence on the part that funding played.
In chapter 2, paragraph 14, of his report, Mr. Fennell stated:
"This Investigation had only one goal: to ascertain the cause of the tragedy and to try and ensure that it will never happen again."
We all agree with that; indeed, that point was made by the Secretary of State.
We are in common agreement about the cause of the fire. The analysis is clear about the circumstances that led to the fire. There is a unanimous acceptance of the cause of the fire; that the fire was on an escalator at King's Cross, that the accumulation of grease and dust became the seedbed for the fire, that it was ignited by a lighted match from a smoker who continued to defy the ban on smoking, and that fire incidents were not uncommon. A number of previous inquiries over recent years have recorded similar incidents and recommendations, which were not implemented, and which were ignored by London Regional Transport and London Underground. The wilful neglect of the use of water fog systems, due to cost considerations, contributed to the horror of a new concept in fire dynamics —the trench effect. The trench effect caused a massive flame-thrower effect that led to the considerable death and destruction.
As in all tragedies—as anyone who is concerned especially with safety will know—a combination of smaller incidents came together to contribute to the tragedy. It was a combination of inadequacies, each of them small enough in themselves but combining to make the tragedy so much worse. For example, as Mr. Fennell points out, there was no one with overall responsibility for safety in London Regional Transport. A system for training staff on fire drill and evacuation was not evident. Anyone who has spent a

925
considerable period at sea—or who is familiar with the legislation of the House—will know of the continual fire training that must be carried out on ships, and the important part that that plays when the time comes to deal with an emergency, especially with a fire.
The staff of London Underground were unco-ordinated and haphazard in their reactions to the fire. There were poor communications and, indeed, the very operations room was unstaffed, and had been unstaffed since 1984, due to the cuts in staff implemented by the London Regional Transport Board. There was an ambiguous interpretation of fire legislation and certification that was to apply to all the Underground system.
There has been some controversy about the role of the GLC, but from Mr. Fennell's report it becomes increasingly clear that the issue of fire certification was a matter of dispute between the Secretary of State's Department and his inspectorate and, indeed, the fire brigade and the GLC. The GLC wanted to treat all the Underground system as being subject, in law, to fire regulations. The people who opposed it on that issue were the Government, the inspectorate and London Underground. I shall return to that point a little later, because it raises the issue of the inspectorate—for which the Secretary of State is responsible—which must have received the greatest indictment of its operations of any inspectorate in this country at any time.
There is ample evidence in the report about the roles of the various bodies concerned. The railway inspectorate was undermanned, insufficiently resourced, confused as to its responsibilities, had no proper liaison with the London fire brigade and was too informal with the management of London Underground. I am bound to say that those have been common criticisms of the inspectorate in the Department of Transport going back many, many years, even before the Secretary of State had taken over the responsibilities of that Department.
In Mr. Fennell's report there is ample evidence to support all the conclusions. The 157 recommendations will undoubtedly, if implemented, effect radical improvements to safety, which all of us in the House want to see.
As the Secretary of State has said, the report will not only affect London Underground. To the good and to the credit of Mr. Fennell's report, I am aware of many publicly and privately owned industries that have made a special examination of the report and are considering what they can learn from it in dealing with similar incidents. Other Departments, especially the Home Office, which is heavily involved in fire certification, other underground railways —for instance, Glasgow and Tyneside—and those concerned with the Channel tunnel will learn a lot from the Fennell report. Increasingly, concerns are being raised about the safety of the Channel tunnel, especially by the fire brigade and others. I would like to meet the Secretary of State to discuss the Channel tunnel, because of the decisions soon to be taken.
Special sections in the report challenge the whole ethos of management about safety. The report also changes the approach of management, employees and Government to safety. It raises an important issue that I am constantly raising—the public's right to know. The people who travel on our transport system have a right to know what is being done in the name of safety. They have a right to know about the stability of a ferry, about safety on the Underground and the age of an aircraft. People do not
926
believe that everything has to be done in secret and the events of the last few years convinces them that the right decisions are not being taken.
I am glad to see that Mr. Fennell supports the principle that the public have a right to know. That is spelled out in his report because paragraph 21 of chapter 19 says:
"The travelling public have a right to know about the safety arrangements made by transport operators and the safety of places in which they habitually gather."
That principle needs to be spelled out more and more in our debates about transport.
The question, "Who is responsible and what circumstances led to the fire?" is still being asked. It is clear that the role of management was thoroughly examined by Mr. Fennell. It is also clear that under legislation management's responsibility is spelled out. As has often been said in the House, it has the responsibility for managing the London Underground economically, efficiently and safely. Those are management's obligations. However, greater attention has been paid to economy and efficiency than to safety and that is shown by correspondence between earlier Secretaries of State and London Regional Transport.
I note that the Secretary of State now says in his terms of reference to Mr. Newton, whom we wish well in his job of improving safety, that safety is now the top priority. That is written out specifically and disposes of the argument that a statutory obligation is sufficient. The Secretary of State has made it clear that safety in the operation of the system is fundamental. That poses the question how we are to achieve that and how it will come about.
It is clear that management failed to observe the many warnings about fires, believing that it could live with them rather than take preventive action. In the appendices to the report it is said that of 49 fires on escalators, 35 were due to smoking materials. If anybody reads the case history at the back of the report he will see that it predicts almost exactly what happened in this case. It was a different form of fire, the trench effect that we now know about, but the cause of the fire is made clear in all the reports that made recommendations, all of which were constantly ignored. Apparently they were ignored not only by London Regional Transport but by the inspectorate. I shall come to that matter later. Management failed to observe the warnings, to employ sufficient staff or to ensure that they had proper training.
It is right that the people responsible should pay the penalty, although I am not sure whether they were sacked or resigned. I was often sacked from shipping companies but I never got a year's or six month's pay. If I had, I would not have understood that to be a sacking. Thousands of workers would love to get the sack if it meant getting half a year's pay. People carried out the obligations placed on them by the Secretary of State and that is why they have not been sacked. If they had failed to carry out that obligation they would have been sacked. That is one of the issues that we must address.
Until that fateful night, on the criteria established by the Government, Dr. Bright and Mr. Ridley were major successes in the eyes of the Government. They were ahead of schedule in the plan to cut costs and reduce taxpayers' subsidies. They had achieved the objectives of section 16 of the Act of 1984 when London Regional Transport was taken over from the GLC. One of the primary aims was the reaching of financial targets. The terms of reference given

927
to London Regional Transport on 20 July 1984 placed much emphasis on efficiency and cutting costs. That was made clear by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Ridley).
The then Secretary of State told Mr. Bright—I should call him Dr. Bright, although he is now Sir Keith Bright; the man even got knighted. He must have been reasonably successful to have got knighted by the Government. He must have carried out his obligations, and these are the tasks he was given:
"You have told me that you can achieve a reduction in unit costs of 2·5 per cent. per year in real terms. Over the next few years I look to you, if possible, to do better than that, and I shall want to review the target with you."
He was set to cut the passenger revenue support level by half in two years. In the event, the revenue support level of £190 million inherited from the GLC was reduced to £90 million in one year. He was ahead of time, and no doubt that influenced the knighthood.
In those circumstances, while extra income came from passenger revenue—we can debate that later—the greater proportion had to be found in other ways. Taking the contribution of revenue and capital together, the amount of saving to the taxpayer and the ratepayer, or the Government, was about £200 million.
There is much talk about the way in which the Government have cut revenue support. This country has the only transport system in Europe that runs without revenue support. On average, the rate of support is 50 to 80 per cent. in most other European systems and, by common accord, they have safer and better quality services than we have. Clearly, it remains an issue of judgment between the two sides of the House as to how much revenue support should be given. We must bear in mind that we are attempting to run our transport system on far less than any other transport system in Europe.
As we require an extra £100 million to £200 million, what constraints are being put on the system? What cuts must be made and what is the quality of those cuts? Are they affecting the level of safety, administration and training? We are aware of the conclusion that Mr. Fennell reached about the overall level of subsidy available to LRT —the Secretary of State has quoted it often enough. In his view, there was no shortage of subsidy. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I should quote Mr. Fennell's words, which appear in chapter 19, paragraph 3:
"In my judgement there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to London Regional Transport was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending and maintain safety standards."
I note that those words appear in chapter 19 rather than in the analysis. Chapter 19 is headed, "Matters for further consideration". That issue should certainly receive further consideration because of the refusal to receive any evidence on the point. I have never witnessed such a startling conclusion, considering that it was not backed by evidence.
Indeed, on reading the report one comes across many examples of staff cuts and cuts in resources, all of which affected the level of safety. To be fair, it says that it is an issue for further consideration. The Secretary of State has ducked behind that conclusion, as if there had been a powerful examination of the case. There has not been such an examination, and his conclusion does not even appear
928
in the section of the report that would have dealt with such an examination. It is simply there "for further consideration"
Mr. James Arbuthnot: If what the hon. Gentleman says is right, why did counsel for the National Union of Railwaymen accept that the fire was not as a result of inadequate investment in the Underground?
Mr. Prescott: I am not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that that was accepted by the union. I am talking about the Fennell report and its conclusions. The evidence is examined and conclusions are reached. I am challenging the Secretary of State's conclusion when he ducked behind the argument that it was not due to a shortage of resources. He also said that he considered it to be ultra vires. As I have said in the past, we do not consider that to be an acceptable proposition. We disagree with it. It is a subject for debate.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). It is not just a matter of capital but of the pressure on necessitous revenue in relation to safety matters.
Although Mr. Fennell heard from one of the parties that there was a case relating to the prevailing economic climate and Government directives, that was dismissed at the stage when it was put. Later, a witness said that, as a result of the economic climate, various schemes were not put forward. Does my hon. Friend feel that at that stage Mr. Fennell might have reconsidered his decision about taking more evidence after hearing that witness?
Mr. Prescott: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point as that was the next point that I was coming to. It flows from chapter 19. If the Secretary of State had read further through chapter 19, but ignored what the managers were saying, he should at least have challenged the judgment of Mr. Fennell. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, the reduction in revenue support is very important.
If the Secretary of State had read on in chapter 19, he would have read about Mr. Sykes who had to make a judgment about escalator investment. Mr. Sykes was asked why the wooden cladding was not replaced, because many of the inquiry reports had pointed out that wooden cladding on an escalator made a fire much more difficult to handle once the rubbish underneath the escalator had been ignited. Report after report recommended that the cladding should be replaced, and escalators cleared. The obvious question then is why the cladding was not replaced. Mr. Sykes believed that
"There was a feeling among London Underground managers that the financial climate would rule out proposals to increase spending in certain areas."
That was the judgment of Mr. Sykes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Styles."] I am sorry. I meant to say Mr. Styles.
Mr. Styles, the lift and escalator manager, said that the relocation of the water fog controls or the replacement of wooden escalators "stood a thin chance" of being implemented. Mr. Styles had to make requests to the board to replace the wooden panels. He had the backing of the inquiry reports. All the evidence was that the

929
number of fires was increasing, but he felt that he could not make his application even though it was clear what was necessary.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Did not Mr. Styles have to have an excuse for doing nothing?
Mr. Prescott: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's question. I am not sure whether it was offensive. Mr. Styles is still employed by London Regional Transport. He had read the reports and he felt that in the interests of passenger safety something should be done about the wooden cladding. Who can deny that something should have been done about that cladding after the accident? The fact that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made such a silly comment shows that he does not understand the problems of safety on the Underground and he throws doubt on a man who was desperately trying to remove materials on our escalators which contributed to the fire and which played such a tragic role in the terrible loss of life at King's Cross. The hon. Member for Twickenham should re-think what he has said.
The wooden cladding was not replaced because of the financial climate and the budget for escalator cleaning was reduced. The Secretary of State would be aware of that if he has examined the figures. One third of the cleaning staff were sacked despite all the reports about dirty material in the escalators which caused fires. It was known that cigarettes and matches caused fires, so smoking was banned. However, the logic presumably was that as there were to be no matches, the dirty material did not matter. That assumption was fatally wrong.
The risers stopped discarded matches from reaching the dirt on the escalators. However, as people were denied the right to smoke on trains, they simply began smoking on the escalators. That is why there were more and more fires on the escalators. The inquiries highlighted the water fogging equipment. Why was that equipment not used to dampen the dirty material? When management was asked why the water fogging equipment was not used, the answer was that it caused corrosion and there were cost considerations.
I accept that those material factors should be taken into account. However, the management reduced staff by more than 3,000 because that is the traditional way to cut costs. It is important that we consider what kind of workers were lost. The man in the control room lost his job, and he was not there to handle the fire. From 1984, cleaners, inspectors and trainers lost their jobs. Those people are supposed to play a part in improving the safety ethos about which the Secretary of State is now convinced.
There was a crucial absence of adequately trained staff on the six tube line platforms at King's Cross. In 1984 the Oxford Circus fire report reached the same conclusions as those in the Fennell report. However, did that stop LRT reducing the number of staff at stations? No, it did not because there was a desire to reduce costs as there was not sufficient money.
The station inspector post was withdrawn from the operations room and that was left unmanned. Mr. Fennell criticised that. Those cuts are a consequence of cutting revenue support from £190 million in 1984–85 to £45 million in 1987–88.
I presume that LRT will face a demand that there must be a 7 per cent. return on investment. I believe that that
930
requirement applies even to the escalators. I wonder whether the Secretary of State, with his £260 million, can tell us whether all the escalators have been subjected to the Treasury rule of 7 per cent. rate of return—which I believe will be 8 per cent. after last week. I do not know how we can have a 7 per cent. return on capital investment on an escalator. That is a stupidity which affects the whole level of safety on London Underground. To add to that stupidity, the Treasury increased the 7 per cent. demand to 8 per cent. last week.
On 18 November, "Tubeline", an LRT publication., reported Mr. Jeff Allen, the LRT finance director, as saying
"The Directors consider it important that the company show its owners and paymasters it can keep proper control of spending."
He then went on to boast of cuts in recruitment of a further £1·3 million, £800,000 on maintenance—which meant that more cleaners' jobs would be lost—cuts of £40,000 in training and even £400,000 on electricity, which presumably means that the trains went slower.
When was that report about cost savings published? It was published on 18 November, the day of the King's Cross fire. Mr. Fennell now claims that all the areas where LRT was saving money were contributory factors, which meant that people's efforts to deal with the tragedy were inadequate. That is the connection between costs and safety. That is what affects the ethos of safety. Money is what matters.
Have things really changed? That is the important question now. The Government have £260 million. Basically the Government are simply giving back the money which they have robbed from LRT in the form of public revenue support. I assume that the Secretary of State now believes that that money should have been spent before. That money will not be spent on new areas. Why was the money not spent on these areas before? LRT believed it could get away with it. The Government are providing money now to pay for something which could have been done a long time ago. However, the Treasury wanted to make it clear that it wanted to save money and get rid of revenue support. The Treasury is moving towards removing capital support because it wants to privatise LRT. As the Secretary of State so proudly proclaimed at his press conference, privatisation is the way forward for the railway system.
The subsidising policy is questionable. I join the Secretary of State in wishing Mr. Newton well. The managers are trying to change the whole ethos of safety and to introduce a safety audit. I wish Mr. Newton well in that. The progress report contains positive responses to the recommendations and I welcome that.
However, subsequent discussions that I have had with LRT have raised some concerns. It rejects recommendation 36 which recommended the replacement of wooden risers. I notice that the Secretary of State did not mention that point when he referred to escalators. The wooden risers contributed to the trench effect. The proposal was rejected because it would cost a lot more money to replace the wooden risers.
Why are cigarette kiosks still allowed to sell cigarettes and matches on platforms? The answer is that LRT will not find the money to buy them out. They continue to sell matches and cigarettes on the Underground despite this terrible tragedy.

931
What about the regular fire practices? Mr. Fennell made it clear that there should be a fire practice on the Underground every six months. I do not believe that there has been one so far. A request from the fire authority to conduct such a practice was met with the response from LRT that it did not want to hold one during busy times because it would inconvenience passengers.
That attitude is not acceptable, particularly after the report. Of course passengers should be involved in such exercises. They give them a sense of security. Instead, London Regional Transport is feeding the old-fashioned view that passengers should not be told in case they panic. That view must be pushed out of London Regional Transport. That is particularly important given the incidence of fires. Last year there were over 4,000—11 a day. There were 135—more than two a week—on escalators. Many of those fires required the fire brigade, and that is since the incident.
The railway inspectorate's role is crucial. The Secretary of State is directly responsible for that department. Mr. Fennell makes it clear that checking and monitoring is vital to enforce the law. In chapter 18 he says that the railway inspectorate was mistaken in its interpretation of the law and its responsibilities. There were insufficient resources, staff shortages and a lack of vigour. There was a cut from three quarters of one person in 1984 to one quarter of one person in 1987, and no proper liaison with the fire brigade. The railway inspectorate had to admit that, after 1984, it stopped receiving the fire brigade's reports. It did not even want to hear about fires on the Underground. Its relationship with the London Underground "lacked creative tension." That is another way of saying that it was too damn cosy.
The report refers to the registered application of fire certifications for the Underground. The inspectorate led the fight against certification for the Underground—now accepted—and lined up with London Underground against the GLC and the fire brigade's recommendation. That is made clear in chapter 18 which says:
"I believe their general relationship with London Underground lacked the creative tension necessary to instil discipline and produce prompt results within the organisation. A more vigorous use of enforcement powers would probably have alerted London Underground senior management to the unsatisfactory state of affairs in stations sooner, and produced general improvements in housekeeping standards. The degree of liaison and co-operation with the London Fire Brigade was insufficient and the decision to stop receiving copies of fire inspection reports was wrong."
That is a long quotation but it is crucial to put it on the record. It is the most massive indictment that I have ever heard of a safety body which the Government claim is independent under their own legislation but is under the influence and shares the priorities of the Department of Transport, obsessed with saving money.
Who is the railway inspectorate responsible to? I have looked at the agency agreement—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I well recall the incident in relation to the GLC to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. I do not disagree with the thrust of what he is saying in terms of the necessity for fire safety certificates but, before we build the GLC's attitude on such matters into something that it was not, will he confirm that the discussion and the correspondence with the GLC related only to the Heathrow Underground station?
Mr. Prescott: That is a fair point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will refer later. The inspectorate was referring to the Heathrow station, which it called a hole in the ground, not a building. The report goes into all the arguments because Mr. Fennell asked for a report on that matter, but at the end of the day it was not applied to the rest of the Underground system which we are now considering. My hon. Friend will deal with that later.
I have looked at the agency agreement between the inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive. It is clear that the Health and Safety Executive paid the Secretary of State for his inspectors. If I were the Health and Safety Executive I would be asking for my money back because the Department did not carry out its responsibilities as identified by Mr. Fennell. The Secretary of State is directly responsible for the railway inspectorate. He often shuffles responsibilities on to other people in all sorts of areas, but he is directly responsible for the railway inspectorate's actions.
Mr. Fennell says that this terrible tragedy was foreseeable and that important warnings were ignored. Safety suffered because of the management's obsession with reducing taxpayers' costs to the detriment of all other considerations. The railway inspectorate lacked the staff, resources, motivation and independence to enforce the law and bring London Underground to account. The management has paid the price by resignation.
The Government are the only body who have not been brought to account for their role. Yet the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament for the railway inspectorate and for London Regional Transport and London Underground. The Secretary of State set the financial climate in which the wooden escalators were not replaced and in which the cleaning of escalators was cut, along with the staff who should have raised the alarm.
The Government created London Regional Transport, set its priorities and its funding and drove senior management in its policy to eliminate subsidy. Indeed, they supported everything that London Regional Transport did until 7.30 pm on 18 November 1987.
The Government's responsibility in this matter is of paramount importance. They failed to fulfil their obligation to ensure that safety had the highest priority in London Regional Transport. That is why the Opposition's amendment will be supported tonight.
5.5 pm
Mr. David Evennett: I am appalled by the speech that has just been made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We are trying to debate a report on a major tragedy. There are real issues to be raised and we need a constructive debate. The Opposition have shown today that, apart from the old traditional Socialist view that with more money and more staff all will be all right, they are bankrupt of ideas for going forward.
We should return to basics and say, first, that we are fortunate in our capital city to have such a comprehensive and extensive underground railway network. That service is too often taken for granted. Little attention is paid to it until there is a failure, a disruption, or, as in this case, a major tragedy.
My constituency in south-east London does not have the direct benefit of an underground network, but many of

933
my constituents use the Underground in and around the city for many and varied purposes, either for getting to work, to visit their relatives or for entertainment. They have told me of the deterioration over the past 10 to 15 years in some aspects of the service. That did not happen in the past five years; it has been going on for 10 or 15 years. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, over the years there has been an inadequate investment in London Underground to meet the needs of a developing service.
The Fennell report has highlighted a number of areas that we need to debate in looking to the future in order to expand and improve the service on behalf of all. It has highlighted many of the complaints which the travelling public has raised as well as identifying a number of serious problems about the way in which the Underground network has been operated.
Conservative Members accept that real causes for concern have been expressed by the travelling public. We understand that and we want to do something to improve the service in our capital city. We should begin by congratulating the Government on their speedy and commendable response to the King's Cross fire and to the report's recommendations. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on his comprehensive speech this afternoon. It is imperative that we learn from this tragedy the lessons contained in the report to ensure that as far as possible such a tragedy does not happen again.
We must be constructive about the tragedy and the report. I deplore the sort of manufactured hysteria that we hear from Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Opposition Members have attempted to make party-political capital out of the tragedy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] That is, as I say, deplorable and will be deplored by everyone in the country. This is a serious issue that must be debated seriously, and not by means of sedentary interventions—
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman does his case less than justice by suggesting that we are making party-political capital out of the tragedy. He should realise that some of us have been arguing for more investment in safety measures on London Regional Transport for many years, and began to take an interest in the subject before this tragedy occurred.
Mr. Evennett: I shall come to that point later when we examine what the hon. Gentleman said about investment in transport when he served on the GLC.
This afternoon the Government have shown that they are determined to adopt a positive and effective approach. The changes that have been implemented or are being implemented are welcome, as is the vast sum of £266 million which will be spent on safety over the next three years. That is to be commended.
However, the travelling public are still worried about several matters—the frequent breakdown of trains, overcrowding and vandalism and the crime which has become commonplace on the Underground. These issues have not been raised by people who have jumped on the bandwagon: they are the realistic and long-term concerns that passengers have been expressing long before the King's Cross fire and the subsequent Fennell report—
Ms. Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recent report on
934
crime on the London Underground pointed out that the self-same matters that Opposition Members have raised to do with safety—staffing and investment—are the key to crime, too? By dismissing what some of my hon. Friends have been saying about investment for years he shows that he neither cares about nor understands the issues.
Mr. Evennett: I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not wait for me to develop my argument. The increase in crime has taken place during the past decade, not only in the past couple of years, as she seemed to suggest. Unfortunately for the Underground, for part of the past 10 years it was run badly by the GLC.
Individual complaints may be of minor importance, but the combined views of the many naturally cause concern. Too frequently in the recent past the safety and the reliability of the service have been called into question. The major issues are crime, safety and investment. Robbery, assault and the other offences against the person which have regrettably increased in the past 10 or 15 years on the Underground have made many of my constituents and the travelling public afraid to travel on the tube late at night [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) would listen —she might learn something.
Crime denies people freedom of movement and access to many of the capital's attractions, because they cannot travel in safety on the trains. I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that he has increased the police establishment on the Underground to 350 officers. I also welcome the fact that the British Transport police is recruiting and training officers to fill the new posts. When they are in position their presence will make a noticeable difference. To date, this action has not produced significant results but I hope that there will be an improvement in time. We need to catch the people who are committing these offences while they are committing them and I am sure that more police in the service will he able to do just that—
Mr. Steve Norris: While welcoming the extra commitment to police resources for the Underground, does my hon. Friend agree that the levels of violent crime on the Underground are statistically no different from those for crime above ground? Although both are too high, and although extra investment to try to combat violent crime is welcome, it is important not to get the problem out of perspective.
Mr. Evennett: That is a good point. We must not overstate the case. I was merely trying to discuss the fears of constituents in the Greater London area. We must carefully note such people's concerns and fears, of which one is crime, which we all agree is far too high throughout the capital.
Mr. Cohen: Of course we welcome the increased number of police, but 350 police to man the whole Underground system 24 hours a day are not many. The money spent on putting in automatic exit barriers could have been spent on police—on 550 of them for 10 years. Which would the hon. Gentleman prefer—police or barriers?
Mr. Evennett: We must not confuse the two. We welcome the increased number of police for the service; the barriers must be debated separately. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the increased police

935
establishment—such a welcome was noticeable by its absence from the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
As for the barriers, we must recognise the real problem of fare evasion on the Underground. It has been said that £25 million has been lost through evasion—a fantastic sum. Something must be done to minimise such losses. Constituents have told me of barriers which have been out of operation or have swallowed tickets. They can present difficulties for the elderly or for young mothers with children and shopping or pushchairs. These are genuine concerns which we share. But we must not overstate the case.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for answering my question about the average number of gates that fail. He said that on average gates fail once for every 79,000 passengers, which represents about 16 gate failures a day. That puts the number in perspective. Although we share the concerns of those who are frightened about the safety implications of these barriers, we must bear in mind the money that is lost by people evading fares, and the true number of times when the gates fail. That is not to say that there is no problem; we await with interest the report of the independent inquiry which my right hon. Friend mentioned.
I was surprised that more public relations work for these gates was not done in advance. Fear of change and of what might happen is always the key—particularly after the tragedy of 16 months ago which highlighted some of the potential problems on the Underground. LRT has failed to communicate the importance of the installation of the gates. I am delighted, however, that my right hon. Friend has insisted on an independent inquiry into the operation of the barriers, and we await its report with interest. The fears may well be misplaced, and we should not judge the report until we see it.
In the past 10 to 15 years there have been many cycles of investment in the Underground network. As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned earlier in a slightly different context, a few years ago the GLC operated a policy of using money to subsidise fares rather than for capital investment. That was a ludicrous policy—keeping fares down rather than considering the operation of the service. It was imperative to restore the right of management to manage without undue political interference, and that has been done since the removal of the GLC.[Interruption.] I am afraid that Opposition Members do not like to hear the truth. They prefer their own illusions. The fact remains that a management must have the right to manage, and London Underground has a duty to use that right to ensure that the system is managed in the best interests of the travelling public.
Mr. Spearing: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that when the GLC decides to subsidise fares that is political, but that when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides to cut the subsidy, thus increasing fares, that is not Government interference and is non-political? He is saying, surely, that such action is political when taken by Labour, but non-political when taken by his hon. Friends.
Mr. Evennett: The hon. Gentleman's view is not sustainable. The entire aim of the GLC's management of
936
the Underground system was to keep fares down rather than to invest in a better transport service for the people of London and all who wanted to use it.
No one could have foreseen or prevented a tragedy like that at King's Cross. It should never have happened—
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
Mr. Evennett: I have given way quite enough.
The Fennell report is comprehensive and highlights aspects that could and should have been improved; nevertheless, the scale of the tragedy could not have been predicted. Action has been taken, and I am sure that all Londoners and users of the Underground service will be pleased with that action. Too often we are quick to criticise. In this instance, praise is due not only to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to Fennell, but to new men at London Underground for their actions to date.
A debate such as this gives us the opportunity to highlight a few developments, particularly the vast investment in the London Underground of the past few years and the projected investment for the next three or four years. That investment will be used to upgrade, renew and generally improve aspects of the service. Together with implementation of the Fennell report recommendations, it should ensure a far better Underground system for the future, which will provide a more efficient and safer service in the interests of the entire travelling public.
Efficiency and safety must go together. Mere numbers of staff working at a station will not guarantee an efficient service, or a safer service. The Opposition suggest that more money and more staff will produce a better service, but surely its efficiency and safety depend on how money is spent and how staff are utilised to the best effect.
There is still much to be done to improve the service to the extent that Conservative Members would like, but at least we have started to tackle the problems and improve the service. The Government must be congratulated, and the motion should be supported. The general public will be delighted at the prospect of better investment in an important London service, rather than money being wasted on subsidising fares.
5.24 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I am grateful to you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have retreated to the Back Benches. Let me begin by declaring an interest—and I do so proudly. I am sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen, which has many members in my constituency.
My constituency is dominated by railways and railway stations, including three mainline termini and no fewer than 14 Underground stations. Underground stations in my constituency include the deepest—Holborn—and the busiest—King's Cross and St. Pancras. There have been major fires in recent years at both Goodge street and Holborn stations, but nothing to compare with the horrors of what happened at King's Cross on the night of 18 November 1987.
Although the Fennell report is written in clear, unemotional, official English, many of its pages are upsetting. To read the transcript of some of the evidence given to the inquiry is be filled with horror at what happened, pity for those who suffered and—in my case at any rate—-awe and admiration for the many people,

937
including passengers, railway staff, transport police and members of the emergency services, whose personal courage and common sense did so much to limit the extent of the catastrophe.
The inquiry, although absolutely necessary, was in itself an additional cruelty for many who had to give evidence. It forced them to relive the horrors of that night, and also subjected their every action throughout the crisis, minute by minute, to the harshest, most clinical public scrutiny —something to which few of us would like to be subjected even for an afternoon at the House of Commons, where nothing more than our reputation is at stake.
I found it a humbling experience to read how my ordinary fellow citizens reacted when faced with a fearful combination of fire, fumes, smoke, darkness, noise and panic—all of it below ground. In that heat and horror many ordinary people performed extraordinary deeds, saying afterwards that they were only doing their jobs. No words of praise or admiration from me, at least, can do justice to—for example—the fire fighter Station Officer Colin Townsley.
When Colin Townsley arrives on the scene he goes down to the booking hall, reconnoitres down the escalators and instructs other members of his watch to go back to the surface to order more pumps and bring breathing apparatus for themselves and for him. He himself stays down there, in that dangerous, horrible place, to urge passengers to get out. The flashover fire occurs. The booking hall is engulfed in flames—flames so hot that they melt aluminium. Colin Townsley gropes around in the dark, and picks up a woman who is badly injured and burned. He makes for an exit where light and air would represent life to both of them, but the fumes poison him before he reaches safety. The report says, in its prosaic way:
"his was a heroic act"
St. John's Gospel says:
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Colin Townsley laid down his life for a stranger.
Constable Hanson of the Transport police, although himself very badly burned and injured, risked his life to save more people—more strangers. We should remember that to the members of the emergency services the risk of injury and death is an ever-present part of their workaday world. When a catastrophe occurs, the rest of us run away, but the people in the emergency services run towards it.
The Fennell report rightly makes it clear that the fire and the shortcomings in the response to it were not the fault of the people working at King's Cross that night, nor were they the fault of those working in the emergency services that night. But the fire should not have occurred and, having occurred, it should have been dealt with more promptly and more effectively. The responsibility for any failure lies with the managements of London Regional Transport and the emergency services, with those who laid down the priorities to be followed by those managements and with those in Government whose job was and remains to secure the safe operation of all our railways. At the pinnacle of that pyramid of responsibility is the Secretary of State for Transport.
Almost all of us who enter national politics seek important offices of state which carry personal power and personal trappings of office. They also carry personal responsibility, particularly where Ministers have played a direct part in events. The law made London Regional
938
Transport responsible for the efficiency, economy and safety of its operations. It also required it to act in accordance with principles laid down by the Secretary of State for Transport.
In July 1984, the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), now the Secretary of State for the Environment, wrote to the chairman of London Regional Transport setting out the Government's objectives. His 838-word letter talked only of economy and efficiency, calling for reductions in costs and subsidies. It set a target for reducing unit costs and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made clear in his excellent, trenchant opening speech, the letter urged London Regional Transport to beat the target that had been laid down. That letter made no mention of the word safety. The Fennell report rightly says that people "must place safety first". The then Secretary of State placed it nowhere.
In case anyone thinks that only his letters were inadequate, I have been checking his answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in June and July 1985. After the fire at Oxford Circus, she asked the Secretary of State to have discussions with London Regional Transport about the problems of contractors' work and materials and to do something about station plans which fire brigades could use when they reached fires at Underground stations. In his usual way, the right hon. Gentleman dismissed her questions saying that they were nothing to do with him and that the hon. Lady should write to the chairman of London Regional Transport. We all know what his priorities were.
Ministers may seek to evade responsibility, but the cavalier attitude of LRT management towards safety sprang at least in part from Ministers' clear, cost-cutting priorities.
Before the King's Cross fire a report produced by the Department of Transport revealed that the Department's railway inspectorate had an establishment of 24 but that five posts were vacant. All the vacancies were for inspectors responsible for health and safety on railway premises. There was just one inspector in post to cover every station on London Underground and the Southern Region of British Rail—a total of 796 stations were to be inspected by that benighted individual. There was no possibility that he could make those inspections. The inspectorate was run within the Department of Transport and, not surprisingly, the report says:
"As a matter of policy, the Inspectorate have deliberately refrained from making any preventative checks on railway maintenance …"
I bet they had. One inspector for 796 stations would be lucky to visit them all in a year just waving to the staff as he passed through. The report also reveals that the chief inspector and another inspector were spending between 20 and 30 per cent. of their time advising on the Channel tunnel and that agency advice for Hong Kong and Singapore was involving the inspectorate in more work than had been expected. The preposterous irony is that those same inspectors insisted upon higher standards of safety in Hong Kong and Singapore than they required on London Underground.
How did Ministers respond? According to the report, there had been criticism from Ministers that the

939
inspectorate was seeking too much information from London Underground. How could that one man reponsible for 796 stations ask for too much information?
Department of Transport officials had a cosy relationship with London Regional Transport. They ignored reports on earlier fires and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, they sided with London Underground when the fire brigade wanted to improve safety. They issued not a single statutory safety notice to London Underground in the 18 months before the King's Cross fire and only one in the year before that. They admit that they knew that the staff was being cut and less was being spent on cleaning and maintenance. They knew that staff were not trained to evacuate stations and that the fire brigade was not usually called when there was a fire and that fire fighters found it hard to master the layout of stations. Yet they did nothing. They did not even object when London Regional Transport stopped sending them the fire brigade annual reports. I suspect that they did not even notice when they stopped receiving them.
Some may ask what are the Minister's responsibilities for those officials. It is the basis of our constitution that Ministers are responsible to the House for what their officials do. The Prime Minister is fond of quoting Winston Churchill. This is what he said on ministerial responsibility after the fall of Singapore:
"I ought to have known. My advisers ought to have known and I ought to have been told and I myself ought to have asked."
The Secretary of State had no need to ask. Most of the facts that I have cited were available in the report produced by his own Department that was published in April 1987, six months before the fire at King's Cross.
Now we are told that everything has changed and that everyone is conscious of safety, but are they? Last year, in the summer after the fire, I managed to obtain the fire brigade's secret reports on six Underground stations in my constituency. They reported 50 fire hazards at those six stations, one of which was King's Cross. By God, if London Regional Transport had not learned that there was a danger of fire at King's Cross, they would not learn it anywhere, but eight fire hazards were listed at King's Cross, including rubbish at the top of the escalators at King's Cross where people were working on the adjacent escalators to put right the damage caused by the fire. There were other fire hazards at escalators at Tottenham Court Road, Warren Street and Euston. That report also stated that the box containing the station plan for use by the fire brigade at Mornington Crescent was impossible to reach. That was the case even though we knew that it had been a problem at King's Cross and Oxford Circus. Anyone with a grain of sense knows that it is a problem to approach a rabbit warren and risk one's life trying to save people without a plan or a guide. Admittedly, Mornington Crescent is a small station but it is still a dangerous place for a fire fighter trying to do his duty.
I want to know why London Regional Transport and the Secretary of State are defying Desmond Fennell's recommendations. He said that they should publish all the fire brigade reports on the Underground stations. Why have they kept secret the 1988 reports? The people who travel on London Underground are entitled to know the
940
state of safety both last year and this year. We are told that we will see the reports for this year, but I want to know why we cannot see the reports for last year.
We are told that the new management will pay more attention to safety and that, as the Secretary of State describes it, a new culture prevails. If there is a new culture of safety and things have changed, how can we explain the amazing advertisement for London Underground engineers which appeared in The Daily Telegraph at the end of March? It said that the new management was looking for "natural risk-takers" who were "commercially aware." The people who travel on London Underground have had enough of such people and want to be rid of them. Yet London Underground with its new culture of safety is trying to recruit more.
Despite the claims of a new culture, London Regional Transport is still pushing on with the installation of the dangerous new ticket barriers, which Ministers have been forced to admit do not always fail-safe. The barriers are not the product of a management doing what Fennell suggested—putting safety first. They are the product of a cash register mentality; the same mentality that introduced into London doors on buses in which nine or 10 people have been killed over the past few years because they do not work properly.
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): They are much safer than they were.
Mr. Dobson: All I can say is that if I had been caught in those doors, I would not find them much safer. I do not want to die in that way. I understand that adjustments to the doors will make them safer. Why were they not safe in the first place? They were not safe because cheapness not safety was placed first.
I will not repeat all the excellent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East but I shall talk about the emergency services. They were rightly praised on the night of the fire. However, as the Fennell report reveals, their actions were poorly co-ordinated and, with the exception of the Metropolitan police, their contingency plans were inadequate. Poor communication and inadequacies in equipment also hampered the rescue efforts.
Although the emergency services have now considered the Fennell report, I find it difficult to conclude that they are better placed now to deal with a major incident than they were in November 1987. For example, let us look at London's ambulance service. This evening it is likely that 10 per cent. of its emergency vehicles could not roll if they were called out because there are no crews for them. Tonight or this weekend, the proportion that could not roll may be as high as 25 per cent. Almost a quarter of the emergency vehicles have radios which are incompatible with the new computer-controlled radio communications system. Therefore, they cannot be properly contacted. At the recent Clapham rail crash, there was a 13 minute delay before the ambulance service called in the medical team. There are constant and justified complaints about delays in the 999 service and slow responses to calls.
The Fennell report rightly recommends that the emergency services should mount joint exercises to test their plans, procedures and personnel. The ambulance service had to withdraw at the last minute from one such

941
exercise organised at Hither Green because it was overstretched. Therefore, up to now, the ambulance service has not taken part in a joint exercise.
Ministers rightly paid tribute to the work of the fire brigade that night but that is all they have done. The number of front-line fire fighters in London has been reduced by 389 since the King's Cross fire. As a result, the management has arranged that certain special vehicles—not the pumps—turn out with smaller crews than in the past. What are those special vehicles? Ironically, some of them are the vehicles that carry special smoke extraction and lighting units which are important in many fires but critical for underground fires. In future, they will be sent out with fewer fire fighters to look after them. That is absurd. A special unit has been created within London's fire brigade to deal with underground fires. However, it has been financed by making cuts elsewhere.
The Home Office is now conducting what is called a fire cover review. It is confidently expected that that will lead to the closure of fire stations and less cover.
What of the hospitals visited by the Prime Minister and the accompanying television crews on the day after the King's Cross fire? University College hospital is a famous and fine hospital in my constituency. It was rightly praised by the Prime Minister. However, since the King's Cross fire, and now that the television cameras are no longer around, Bloomsbury health authority has been forced to cut its budget by over £10 million. Therefore, it is less ready to play the part that it did on that terrible night. Now there is even a threat from the regional health authority to close University College hospital and the Middlesex hospital without replacing them.
The consultant in charge of the accident and emergency unit at UCH, Howard Baderman, told me today that he is
"still very apprehensive about the firmness of the region's commitment to maintain hospital services in Bloomsbury."
Where would the injured go if another fire occurred at King's Cross, or if there was a fire at St. Pancras or Euston?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend is making a devastating speech. He will understand that as a Scot I am often asked by my constituents in good faith whether the London Underground is safe. What answer would my hon. Friend give?
Mr. Dobson: I do not know. I do not like using the Underground, that is all I can say.
Many of the people injured at King's Cross need plastic surgery. Anybody who has seen some of them will realise just how much plastic surgery they need. I hope that they do not need it in my health authority area because the local waiting list for plastic surgery alone now totals 1,143 and over 70 per cent. of them have to wait for more than a year. I am not talking about people waiting for face lifts. In the case of people injured at King's Cross, they may be waiting to have a new face constructed. Who would like to wait for more than a year for something like that?
So the greatly praised emergency services have been cut and their future is clouded with doubts and uncertainties. Lessons may have been learnt from King's Cross but the Government do not appear to be involved in that learning process.
I visited King's Cross Underground station after the fire. I saw what it was like and tried to envisage what people had put up with. Since then, I have met passengers, people from the fire service, ambulance staff and railway
942
staff who were there. I have met people who were burnt and severely injured and the relatives of people who died. I have been to one funeral service and one memorial service. I do not wish to go to a memorial service for someone who has died in my constituency ever again.
I have talked and listened to all those people and they are not satisfied with what has happened. They are not satisfied that those at the top have paid the proper price for their responsibilities. They do not believe that Secretaries of State, Ministers and senior civil servants have paid the price that some of the emergency services staff paid that night. They are not wholly satisfied with the Fennell inquiry because of that. They regarded the inquest: as nothing more than a low and insulting farce and they are not satisfied that the system is now safe. It will he a long time before I do anything other than share their dissatisfaction.
5.51 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: Close to the outset of this debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the heroism and sheer professionalism of the emergency services and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) later referred to the courage of the firemen, the police and others. Their bravery was of the highest order in the highest British tradition and I hope that they can be honoured, posthumously where appropriate, with even higher honours than they have received hitherto.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went on to refer to a 1984 letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who was then Secretary of State for Transport, to London Regional Transport, setting out its objectives. The letter referred to the need for London Regional Transport to operate within the London Regional Transport Act 1984, which refers to safety. It cannot, therefore, be said that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport ignored the question of safety.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman should know that the primary obligations placed on London Regional Transport were to operate its system with economy, efficiency and safety. If the person who appoints London Regional Transport and who was its paymaster writes a letter which, admittedly, refers to the Act that set up London Regional Transport, but talks only of economy and efficiency, what is London Regional Transport to conclude about the priority that the Secretary of State wishes it to give to safety? If it was satisfactory to cover safety by referring to the Act, the Secretary of State needed only to write a one-line letter saying that London Regional Transport should carry out its obligations under the Act.
Mr. Jessel: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said. The letter in question referred to the requirement to operate within the London Regional Transport Act, which contains the very words referring to safety that the hon. Gentleman quoted. There was, therefore, a reference to safety. One cannot expect every major letter or communication to refer to every important consideration at equal length and with equal weight. One important letter may refer to economic objectives while referring to safety, whereas another might refer mainly to safety with a passing reference to economic considerations.
Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jessel: We must live in the real world and that reference was made.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that there were 14 Underground stations in his constituency. There are none in mine; Twickenham is not served directly by the London Underground. However, my constituency has 16 British Rail stations, all of which lead towards central London and many of my constituents connect with the Underground in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who is here now, at Vauxhall or at Waterloo. Many of them, especially central London commuters, use the Underground every day.
When the terrible and deeply tragic accident occurred in November 1987, I was surprised that out of my heavy postbag from an articulate constituency—which produces some 3,000 letters directly from constituents and which generates a total of some 10,000 letters a year—I received only six letters on the subject of the King's Cross disaster. I asked myself why. I believe that people in the face of that terrible disaster had the mature and sensible view, by and large, that they wanted to await the outcome of the inquiry that was announced by my right hon. Friend the day after the accident and to see what action was proposed to prevent any recurrence of such an event. Their attitude was not to cast blame on anyone in particular, although that would be natural for some people to want to do.
It is a most unhappy story. There were 31 deaths and it is no comfort to anyone to say that it is a unique event in the history of London Underground. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyel), who has now left the Chamber, asked the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to say whether London Underground was safe. It is inevitable that the media will tend to focus particular attention on accidents in which many people die at once, whether on a train, a ferry—which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) —or an aircraft. If a vehicle in which many people are travelling is in a crash, there is a risk of many people being killed at once and that will hit the headlines, whether in broadcasting or the printed media, and impinge on the public consciousness to a greater extent than accidents in which people are killed in ones and twos.
The statistics show that it is far safer to travel on London Underground or British Rail than to travel by road, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes mentioned in a question on the statement a few weeks ago. The number of deaths in road accidents is far greater, although it has fallen form 7,319 in 1967, to 6,614 in 1977 and to 5,125 in 1987. I understand that the figures for 1988 are likely to be announced tomorrow. Accidents in which people in ones or twos lose their lives, whether by fire, a smaller railway or Underground or a road accident, are just as tragic for the families of those involved as are accidents in which people are killed together in larger numbers, as I happen to know personally. If one considers the Government's safety record, and if one considers all transport accidents, it will be seen that there has been a decline in the level of mortality compared to five or 10 years ago.
I shall now consider some points arising out of the Fennell report and I hope that the Minister will have time to refer to them in his winding-up speech. The first is the effect of inevitable traffic jams in London streets upon the swift movement of fire engines and ambulances. We know that the King's Cross disaster took place after 7 o'clock in
944
the evening, but the tail end of the London rush hour has now become extended. Rush hour conditions continue to apply after 7 o'clock, and they did so in that case. It took fire engines seven minutes to go 1,420 yards at an average speed of 7 mph.
I ask the Minister to re-examine the Highway Code and whatever other measures the Government might be able to take to encourage a more flexible response on the part of drivers of other vehicles on the road. For example, will he consider whether in an emergency of this sort, when they hear fire brigade bells ringing, drivers can be allowed carefully to mount the pavement to let fire engines go by, or whether any other action can be taken to get emergency vehicles through more quickly?
That is part of a wider problem. The state of the British national economy has brought about an increase of about 8 per cent. a year in motor vehicle usage in conurbations, including London. There is no easy solution, and it is a waste of time for anyone to pretend to be able to produce a swift and easy solution. But it has a consequence upon the efficient operation of the emergency services. In the light of what Fennell wrote on that matter, I should like the Government to give it particular attention.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that Mr. Fennell concluded that the fire was caused by a lighted match. Of course, a naked flame remains a major potential cause of fire—it always has. I am as aware of that as any hon. Member, as the royal coroner found that either a lighted match or candle caused the fire at Hampton Court palace two years ago. Naked flames are a prime cause of fires.
In the papers before us, there is reference to a ban on smoking on the London Underground. It seems overwhelmingly probable that the naked flame was from a match that was presumably being used to light a cigarette, pipe or a cigar. There is no other particular reason why someone should light a match on an escalator leading to an Underground station. As it is almost certain that a smoker was involved, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to draw London Transport's attention to the need to step up the enforcement of its no-smoking policy.
Thirdly, as the number of passengers on London Transport has increased by 70 per cent. in the past six years, which is a staggering increase, one must ask about safety implications—especially if the Government are considering measures in the short or medium term to deal with traffic congestion on the roads, which might result in an even greater number of people using the Underground —and about the capacity of Underground stations to cope with a further rise in the number of passengers.
When I have used the Underground and seen crowds of people on platforms, I have wondered whether a surge among the passengers standing there or any pressure resulting from adverse conditions might trigger off some kind of panic, resulting in some people falling off the platform, which they would not do in normal conditions. The authorities should be asked to look at the capacity of platform areas, whether in the context of fire or other risks.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Perhaps London Regional Transport should consider banning the distribution of promotional or protest literature in leaflet form in tube stations. It tends to lead to many leaflets being discarded. When there is a mass leaflet drop, there can be many leaflets all the way down escalators and on platforms.
Mr. Jessel: That is an excellent idea. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that suggestion. It is worthy of the most sympathetic and careful consideration.
My hon. Friend's suggestion leads me to consider buskers. One sometimes sees buskers singing or playing musical instruments at access points to the London Underground. I hope that they will not be banned. It is not necessary to do so, provided that they keep away from platforms and, preferably, from escalators. As long as they perform their songs or play musical instruments in the horizontal passages between escalators and platforms or are at ground level, I do not think that they are a danger or that they are objectionable. They lighten the tedium of people's journeys. I do not see any risk in that connection.
I do not see why I should not make my next point. I should take a very dim view if any hon. Member tried to stop me from saying it. Paragraph 3 of chapter 19 of Mr. Fennell's report states:
"In my judgement there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to London Regional Transport was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending and maintain safety standards. I accept the evidence of the most senior management in London Regional Transport and London Underground that if funds were needed, funds were available."
That is what the most senior management said, not what Mr. Styles, a junior person, said. Mr. Fennell went on:
"There does, however, remain the question of how the available resources were allocated and used by London Underground."
That is the important point. I am glad that the Government have decided to make £266 million available over the next three years. It is double the previous amount. Users of the London Underground, whether my constituents, people from any of the other 90-odd Greater London constituencies, or people from elsewhere will be grateful for the measures that are being taken. Things need to be done. and they are being done. I shall continue to press the Government to carry on with them faster.
Mr. Dobson: It would be better if the hon. Gentleman were consistent. If he is happy to rely on the Fennell conclusion that a shortage of money did not stop anything to do with safety being done, why is it suddenly necessary to spend £266 million to put right things that were not being done? He can either accept Fennell or praise the Government for putting in the extra money. It is a bit difficult to do both.
Mr. Jessel: Not at all. There is nothing sudden about it. The increase has been steady over several years. In the light of the recommendations of the Fennell report, still more is being spent. That is the right thing to do. I am glad that it is being done, and I support it.
6.8 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: I endorse what the Secretary of State said about the impact on the lives of the individuals concerned of what occurred in that awful disaster in November 1987. Those hon. Members whose constituents' lives were shattered by what took place on that night know that it will take many years for them to come to terms with what occurred or to get over the traumatic event. It is right that we should recognise that point at the outset.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the ability of London Regional Transport and London Underground to respond to emergencies. However good the operating performance
946
of London Underground, there are inherent risks in a system as congested as the London Underground undoubtedly is. Where large numbers of people are packed tightly into a confined space, any emergency inevitably puts lives at risk.
When the Secretary of State announced the inquiry, I thought it vital that it should examine the emergency procedures on the Underground, and the frequency with which they were reviewed and tested on a practical as well as a theoretical basis. I also felt that it was absolutely essential that the adequacy of training given to staff on the London Underground in handling emergencies be examined. I am very glad that the report goes into these issues in great depth and in considerable detail, and I welcome the clear, frank and readable way in which it presents its findings.
However, I am bound to say that the report presents a frightening picture of the almost total inadequacy of London Underground's state of preparedness to handle any emergency. Emergency procedures were almost non-existent, and where they did exist, in some cases they were positively harmful. For example, under the two-stage system of handling fires, the fire brigade was not to be called in immediately. Staff were expected to deal with minor fire incidents themselves. They were to call in the fire brigade only if a fire got out of hand—by which time, of course, precious time had been lost and lives were inevitably put in danger.
The report relates the fact that the London fire brigade objected vehemently to this two-stage system. Indeed, on 23 August 1985—the day after the Baker street fire—the brigade actually wrote to the operations director of railways, objecting very strongly to it. The brigade expressed grave concern about it and about the fact that its professional advice was being ignored. The brigade made it quite clear that it should be called immediately any fire occurred on the Underground system. I quote the letter exactly:
"I cannot urge too strongly that the two-stage procedure be withdrawn and instead clear instructions be given that on any suspicion of fire, the Fire Brigade be called without delay. This could save lives."
Despite that clearest of warnings, London Underground stuck to its two-stage system and made it very clear to staff that they should not call the fire brigade in the first instance. I welcome very much the fact that that policy has been changed, but I am bound to say that if it had been changed a little earlier, lives could well have been saved.
I want to say a word or two about staff training. Chapter 10 of the report, which deals with the response of the London Underground staff who were on duty in King's Cross that night, makes it absolutely clear that in no way could the staff be blamed. As Mr. Fennell points out, the staff were not adequately trained, there was no plan for evacuation of the station, there was no supervision, and the communications equipment either was poor or was not used.
Perhaps the most chilling comment in the entire report is this one in paragraph 4 of chapter 10:
"it is apparent that the outbreak of fire was not regarded as something unusual; indeed it was regarded by senior management as inevitable with a system of this age."
Yet, despite the inevitability of fire on the system, there was no policy to call the fire brigade at the onset of one. There were no evacuation procedures, and there was no

947
proper training of staff. It seems to me that that reveals extraordinary complacency on the part of the management concerned.
When one reads chapter 10 one is struck by the fact that Mr. Fennell uses the same phrases over and over again about the performance of the staff involved: they were doing the best they could; they were unprepared, by training and experience, for what occurred; they were simply doing the best they could in a totally unexpected situation, a situation of which they had no experience. Paragraph 34 sums it up:
"Those on duty did the best they could using their common sense in the absence of training and supervision."
One pays tribute to their common sense, but surely it is appalling that they did not have the training and the supervision to enable them to do a rather better job.
The net result, says Mr. Fennell, was that
"not a drop of water was applied to the fire nor any fire extinguishers used by the London Underground staff."
That is the most incredible indictment of a management that had the safety of millions of passengers in its hands, and it inevitably raises an issue that has been underlying this debate so far—the relative priority given to safety on the London Underground system.
I do not think any hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House would argue that the management of London Regional Transport or of London Underground Limited deliberately and cold bloodedly sacrificed safety standards in the search for profits. That is not the argument. Surely the argument is that safety was not given the level of priority that it ought to have been given. The management seems to have relied on a faith that concern for safety was part of the railway operating ethos. Clearly, one ought to have been able to look to London Regional Transport, as the supervisory body, to take responsibility for monitoring levels of safety on the Underground.
That inevitably brings us to the famous letter of 20 July 1984 from the then Secretary of State to the chairman of London Regional Transport. It was not just any old letter. It did not suddenly come into the Secretary of State's head to write to the chairman. The letter was written on the foundation of the organisation, a new body just established under the 1984 legislation. Here was the Secretary of State writing to the brand new chairman of London Regional Transport, setting out four tasks, none of which embraced safety.
The Secretary of State may argue—perfectly justifiably —that the legislation placed a duty on London Regional Transport to have due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation. That is absolutely right, but all the four prime tasks set out by the then Secretary of State related to efficiency and economy; not one of them related to safety.
In that sort of climate, that sort of environment, London Regional Transport and London Underground Limited, and indeed the Department of Transport, were clearly all more concerned about improving value for money and about reducing the burden on the ratepayers and the taxpayers—about economic efficiency—than about safety. If one wants the underlying proof of that, it is to be seen in the very different set of objectives that the current Secretary of State has given to the new chairman
948
of London Regional Transport—placing first, and giving the highest priority to, the issue of safety. To that extent, I welcome very much the change that has occurred.
Chapter 15 of the report quotes a very wide range of evidence, including that of ROSPA, suggesting that the level of staff training in safety issues on London Underground was totally unacceptable. The chapter goes into great detail about the inefficiency and the inadequacy of training. It says the staff really could not be expected to deal with a situation of this sort, because their levels of training were totally unacceptable. It is quite true that London Underground and London Regional Transport reacted quite swiftly to these indictments about staff training, but it is also clear from chapter 15 that Mr. Fennell was not very impressed with the first steps they had taken to improve the quality of staff training.
I accept that these were the initial, short-term reactions, and that totally different systems are planned in the longer term, and I welcome very much the fact that London Regional Transport has accepted the recommendations about the need for much more professional levels of staff training. I welcome particularly what the Secretary of State has said about joint exercises taking place at least twice a year. But surely it is important to monitor those joint exercises and the level of training to make sure that the standards that we are entitled to expect are reached.
This raises the issue of the level of monitoring safety activities generally on the London Underground. I am very glad that the concept of a safety audit system has been accepted, but we must be assured that those involved in the safety audit operation have the sort of clout within the management of London Regional Transport that they need if safety is to be given top priority. If there is to be any clash between profitability and safety, we need to be assured that safety will be given top priority.
I endorse what other hon. Members have said about information on safety improvements and safety activities being made available to the public regularly. It is quite true that passengers have a right to know about the safety systems that are in operation for their protection. Most important of all is the recommendation that the Secretary of State receive from London Regional Transport regular reports about the implementation of all recommendations in this report. I hope that the reports go further than that and do not deal only with the implementation of the recommendations. There should be regular progress and performance reports on London Regional Transport's general record of safety on the Underground and throughout its systems on London's public transport generally.
Welcome though the steps undoubtedly are that have already been taken by London Regional Transport and London Underground Limited, it is essential that this burst of activity is not allowed to run down. There must be the continuing process that the Secretary of State mentioned. We all recall that, after the Oxford Circus fire in 1985, a major report was produced by the London Passenger Transport Research Group and was taken seriously by London Underground. Several steps were taken on that report, but many of its recommendations had not been implemented by the time of the King's Cross fire. We must learn from that lesson.
In the light of the tragedy that took place on 18 November 1987, I believe that the travelling public will be

949
looking to the Secretary of State to ensure that never again will complacency about safety put lives at risk on the London Underground.
6.20 pm
Mr. Steve Norris: In November 1987 I had no idea of the impact that the King's Cross tragedy would have on my own life. I was not then a Member of the House, but shortly after the accident Des Wilson, whom I had met as a co-chairman of the admirable Campaign for Freedom of Information, telephoned me. Knowing that I was not engaged on business in the House, he asked me if I would run the Christmas King's Cross disaster appeal while the disaster was fresh in people's minds.
I spent the three weeks before Christmas 1987 in a Portakabin at King's Cross station. The support that we received from members of the public, every one of whom volunteered their services entirely free, was tremendously heart-warming. Hon. Members may know that on the station near the Portakabin people put a most wonderful tribute of flowers and notes and messages of one sort or another. I watched that spot for the entire three weeks up to Christmas eve 1987; it was extraordinary that, three weeks later, the flowers were being changed and fresh flowers brought.
We had no legal right to operate a collection other than on the days when the Metropolitan police gave us permission to do so. They exceptionally gave us, at very short notice, permission to mount a three-day collection for the King's Cross disaster fund. However, we literally had to start a collecting box because of the number of people who pushed open the door of the Portakabin and said, "There but for the grace of God go I." They made substantial donations, obviously at some cost to themselves. People helped who were unemployed and some people took holiday leave specifically to be able to work in the campaign. The effort that they put in was absolutely marvellous and made a great impact on me.
The only other point that I shall make in that regard is that I remember talking to one of the reporters who came to follow our progress. That reporter had been with a camera crew on the night of the fire at King's Cross. Following the moving remarks of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I should add that the reporter told me that he had been in a lot of tough places with tough teams of people who had had to follow and to photograph disasters of one sort or another, but that he had never seen a group of people so moved as they were by the King's Cross disaster. The sheer horror aroused by it and the feeling, "There but for the grace of God go I", had a most powerful effect on a great many people.
By one of those strange ironies, since the by-election at Epping Forest in December, I now represent many constituents who use London Underground daily, and my interest in Mr. Fennell's excellent report and in the action taken by the Government as a result of it has therefore been heightened.
What do we make of London Underground Limited in the period leading up to the fire? What I make of it is that it was, and to some degree still is, an absolutely classic example of a public sector operation where, sadly, management accountability had been all too clearly lost, where there was a compartmentalisation of functions as
950
people went about their daily business—I do not wish to imply any individual imputation but make the point simply by way of illustration—and where one might have said that the business would have run terribly well if it were not for the customers.
Then we come to the events of that night. The most important question to ask ourselves is whether one can reconcile the statement that Mr. Fennell made in chapter 19, which I shall not repeat as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) read it to the House, which effectively said that finance was not the issue, with the £266 million that the Government have laudably pledged to put right the apparent under-funding. I believe that it is perfectly proper for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to say, "How do you reconcile that? On the one hand you say that money was not the problem, whereas on the other hand £266 million is needed to bail us out.".
I do not believe that there is any inconsistency. If I may be forgiven for quoting briefly from the report, the answer lies in a chapter to which no hon. Member has yet referred, chapter 4, in which Mr. Fennell describes what he calls
"The Ethos of London Underground",
and states:
"An understanding of the way in which the actions of London Underground and its predecessors have been conditioned by the management style and nature of the organisation, and the way in which they are likely to be so in future, goes to the heart of this Investigation and the lessons to be learned."
Management style and the management of LRT are crucial to the King's Cross disaster.
Listen to these damning words—damning in the sense that they could ever have been written about the staff of LRT at the time—that Mr. Fennell uses about the engineering directorate in paragraph 3 of chapter 4:
"There was a clear demarcation between each of the four disciplines within the Engineering Directorate, and Mr. Lawrence, the Engineering Director in post at the time of the Investigation, described his main task over nine years as that of breaking down the boundaries between the different engineering disciplines. Moreover there was little cross-fertilisation between Engineering and Operating Directorates and even at the highest level one director was unlikely to trespass on the territory of another. Thus, the Engineering Director did not concern himself with whether the operating staff were properly trained in fire safety and evacuation procedures because he considered those matters to be the province of the Operations Directorate. However such matters clearly had a bearing on the safety of passengers in stations for which he shared corporate responsibility, and the security and maintenance of the assets for which he was directly responsible."
In describing the operations directorate, Mr. Fennell states:
"Mr. Clarke, the Operations Director in post at the time of the Investigation, for his part did not concern himself with the state of the escalator machinery and machine rooms, or decisions concerning the replacement of wooden components on escalators or re-siting of water fog controls. These were seen as being in the province of the Engineering Directorate."
In paragraph 12, Mr. Fennell makes what I believe to be one of the most telling comments in the whole of the report:
"It was, therefore, a matter of some concern to me that the directors of London Underground should still subscribe to the received wisdom that fires were an occupational hazard on the Underground."
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) has referred to that telling indictment.
I shall not quote any further from the report, because it is there for all hon. Members to read, but I make no apology for having done so because those quotations

951
illustrate one of the most crucial truths about LUL in advance of the fire—that the necessity to spend £266 million now can be reconciled with the fact that money was not the issue, because nobody had the management accountability to consider safety and to take it on board so as to ensure that out of the many hundreds of millions of pounds of resources that circulate annually within LRT a suitable amount was devoted to safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) made a statement that produced some consternation among Opposition Members, when he said that nobody could have foreseen the fire. He later explained that what he had meant was that nobody could have foreseen the extent and the sheer horror of the fire. Of course, he was right, but hon. Members might have been right to pick him up on the point that the fire could have been foreseen. The report makes that clear.
Therefore, it is crucial to note that the management style of LUL was defective in that there was not a proper process of accountability which brought the seriousness of the issue sufficiently to the attention of senior management. Indeed, senior management itself was conditioned to working in boxes. There is a reference to Dr. Ridley's evidence in which he said that he took the operations director and the engineering director pretty much at their word on the issues because they were extremely experienced. In other words, he had enough problems of his own, and if he could not let the engineers get on with things, what else could he do?
It is not an easy job running an organisation like LUL; it never was and it never will be. Since 1982, when Dr. Bright undertook the first strategic management review of LUL, there has been a tremendous improvement in productivity and revenue. Productivity in terms of passenger usage is up by 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. Even with fares being held at the same level since 1983, overall revenue has gone up 15 per cent. in real terms. There is a tremendous management task, but it is clear that it may be necessary to accelerate the level of capital investment that is required to put right not only the safety problems but the fact that in my constituency the Central line still runs on rolling stock introduced in 1962, on signalling equipment manufactured in 1940 and on the original power supply equipment put into the line in the 1930s.
Before Opposition Members start to make a great issue of that—I am glad to see that they are not; I appreciate that that might have something to do with my speed of delivery—let me point out that successive Governments have in a sense under-estimated the importance of management in such a great transport operation. The issue of replacement of rolling stock and equipment, of renewal and of an accent on constructive reinvestment has been there for half a century. It is a tragedy that it has taken until the 1980s for us to take up seriously the challenge of regenerating London Underground Limited. I pay tribute to the management of London Underground Limited, past and present, for the tremendous efforts it has made to put right the lack of investment in our mass transit system in this great capital city.
I shall put down a marker which may not please my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In a debate on how to operate a mass transit system in a capital city, it is necessary for hon. Members on both sides to consider
952
common sense before dogma. Bearing in mind the fact that Underground travel has such a profound effect on congestion above ground—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham referred when he talked about the difficulty of getting emergency service vehicles through —and on pollution of the environment, the desirability of operating an attractive mass transit system is considerable.
That desirability should, if necessary, be enhanced by operating a service financed not just by the users but by central Government, so that there is a positive incentive for people to move to that system. For example, people in my constituency could take the Central line from Loughton and reach the House in about 45 minutes. At the moment they might not use the Underground for that journey because of the frequency with which it becomes a journey of one and a half hours. The most frequent comment I heard from the great number of hon. Friends who came to canvass for me during the election was, "I wish you had not told me to come on the tube. It has taken me all day to get here. I hate to think how long it will take me to get back." Thank goodness their efforts had such a welcome result.
I put down that marker. It is pivotal to the decision to inject £266 million into LUL. We ought seriously to consider at another time the overall impact of a mass transit system on a capital city and the way that it should be financed and used.
On publicity and safety, the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Holborn and St. Pancras raised an extremely important point—the public's right to know that dangers exist and that those dangers are being dealt with. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has time to be with us. I know that she was detained elsewhere and could not be here for the earlier part of the debate. She has brought to the House a Bill of which I am proud to be a co-sponsor, the Public Safety Information Bill. Over 350 hon. Members from both sides of the House support that Bill and over 150 local authorities of all political complexions have also pledged support for it.
I draw the attention of hon. Members to page 156 of the Fennell report. In paragraph 21 on public safety information Mr. Fennell made the following statement:
"I view with dismay the suggestion that information gained by a statutory authority which has a bearing on the safety of the public using a system for mass transportation should not be made publicly available. The travelling public have a right to know about the safety arrangements made by transport operators and the safety of places in which they habitually gather."
Later, he said:
"I attach considerable importance to this and would hope to see the principle followed more widely in areas where the safety of the travelling public may be at stake."
Mr. Tony Banks: The Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred is an excellent Bill, and he is right to draw the attention of the House to the enormous support that it has. Why does he think that the Government are blocking that Bill?
Mr. Norris: I prefer, for reasons that I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, to leave that question hanging in the air for other hon. Members to contemplate. I have made my views clear, as the hon. Gentleman understands. I believe that it is a necessary measure. I recognise that there may be technical difficulties in its drafting. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has made it clear that he

953
supports the principle of the Bill but believes that there are drafting problems. The principle is sufficiently important for those difficulties to be considered in Committee. That point is known publicly, and I am pleased to restate it now.
I want to underline a point made by Mr. Fennell in paragraph 24 on page 157:
"My preference would be to have London Regional Transport publish an annual report, perhaps addressed to the London Regional Passengers' Committee, in which progress, achievements and proposals of the safety programme are set Out."
That is vital. Among the most important recommendations of Mr. Fennell in chapter 13 on the management of safety is no. 46, in which he says:
"Copies of the reports shall be sent to the Chief Safety Inspector and Railway Inspectorate and arrangements shall be made by London Underground to publish the reports in consultation with the London Fire Brigade and the London Regional Passengers' Committee."
We cannot afford to take lightly the public's right to know about safety dangers. The country took a great step forward when the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988 introduced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) reached the statute book. That was a private Member's Bill, which regrettably had to be forced through tooth and nail. I am sorry that I was not in the House at that time to give it the support that it deserved.
The important issue is that Mr. Fennell is in no doubt that the public have a right to know. He says so quite unequivocally. I see that not as an invitation to know what disaster may befall one, but—referring back to the management accountability of London Underground Limited—how one would make that accountability work would be to ensure that public interest and indignation was raised by the clear indication of unsatisfactory safety practices, which would force the management of the day to take them on board and to do something about them.
It is sometimes said ex post facto that steps could have been taken that could have prevented the tragedy. I believe that, if UT, and other parts of our public transport service, had actually been faced with public pressure to do something about safety, because of the publication of reports on safety, there is a substantial chance that the sensible work on safety that the Fennell report tells us was carried out on the Underground would have received much more attention. That is a crucial absence and we should consider that as one of the cardinal lessons of the report.
It is directly relevant to the Fennell report on the King's Cross disaster that there are similar tragic parallels to be drawn in at least two cases—that of the Bradford City fire and that of the Zeebrugge ferry disaster—because those disasters, too, did not arise entirely without foreknowledge or without any evidence that they might occur. There was evidence that they might occur, but management, because of secrecy and privacy, was able to get away with doing nothing about it.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and other members of the Government to remember that issues of secrecy are not party political issues, but are about the citizen's right to know in a democracy. The healthiest part of an open society is that it improves the accountability of those who work in the public sector. It means that there is a discipline on
954
management to care about such issues as safety, which otherwise it would be all too easy to push to the bottom of the agenda.
If the House is so minded, it should not only pass the excellent private Member's Bill standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, but should move to a comprehensive freedom of information Bill, which would have among its provisions the opportunity for us to ensure that the kind of absence of public information on safety that we saw at King's Cross does not recur, and that future tragedies of this sort are prevented.
6.42 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: On behalf of those of my constituents who died in the fire at King's Cross and their families, and on behalf of those working in the emergency services based in my constituency who responded so magnificently on the night of the fire, I express appreciation for the detailed work contained in Mr. Fennell's report. I have, of course, criticisms about the remit that Mr. Fennell accepted and those aspects which were deliberately excluded from his sphere of investigation. However, the work that he and his officers carried out in ascertaining how the fire started, how it spread and how such an event could be prevented in the future was impeccable and deserves gratitude.
Because of the terrible and terrifying nature of the event, even through the clinical prose of the Fennell report comes a moving and tragic account of individual pain, of individual heroism and of human fragility in the face of unprecedented and uncontrollable forces. In Mr. Fennell's report, of course, there are many detailed, practical recommendations. A large number of those recommendations are, I am delighted to say, already in the process of implementation. A major question that we are, of course, entitled to ask is: will the funds that the Government say that they are making available—the £266 million spread over three years—be sufficient to enable all the recommendations of the Fennell report, in capital terms, to be carried out? If the answer is yes, I hope that the Minister can tell us so when he replies. If the answer is no, we are entitled to ask how else the recommendations and the work that is requested to be carried out will be financed. Will it once again be the travelling public, through their fares, who must pay for the long-overdue improvements to the Underground service?
The Government and Government Back Benchers have made much in the debate about the increases in capital funding that are now available to London Regional Transport and London Underground Limited. Of course, increases in capital funding, which many of us have been urging on the Government for many a long year, are welcome. However, how are those increases in capital funding being deployed? In some respects, expenditure is welcome. I have long been hammering at the doors of London Regional Transport and of the Government to ensure that Angel station in my constituency gets the desperately needed work that has now at long last been agreed. It took a long time coming but, nonetheless, it is welcome. I shudder to think what would happen to the island platform at Angel station if a major disaster were to occur at platform level.
Other aspects of London Underground Limited's capital expenditure, however, are not so welcome. The most obvious one that springs to mind, and to which

955
reference has already rightly been made, is the installation of the new ticket barriers. I believe that the total cost of the new Underground ticketing systems is some £165 million. That money is being spent on systems and barriers about which Mr. Fennell expressed considerable disquiet. Money is being spent on barriers that, universally among Londoners, are detested and feared, because they are well aware of the inconvenience that in day-to-day use those barriers represent, and the potential dangers to safety that they represent in the event of a fire or a major disaster underground.
The Government have admitted that there are circumstances in which the barriers will not automatically open in the event of a disaster. Until those problems are put right, we rely on the presence of staff to operate the barriers and to keep them open in an emergency. That is the key point. We need a guarantee from the Government and from London Regional Transport that there will always be the requisite number of staff on hand—adequately trained and aware of what to do—to ensure that those barriers can be opened immediately if they need to be. The story, however, that we read in the Fennell report is one of inadequate staffing in the running of a large number of aspects of the system.
Two large unanswered questions arise out of the Fennell report. The first of those questions relates to the level of staffing at stations on the Underground system. Here there is an inner contradiction within the Fennell report. In paragraph 6 on page 152 of the report Mr. Fennell says:
"I found no evidence that the reduction in the number of operating or maintenance staff contributed directly to the disaster at King's Cross."
No doubt the Government will quote that passage extensively in the months and years ahead.
We may pause at the word "directly" because in some other places in the report a contradictory impression appears to be given. On page 136 Mr. Fennell addresses the issue of station operations rooms. He says that the operations room was not manned by a London Underground supervisor. He says:
"I was disturbed to learn that this had been the position since 1984, when a station inspector's post had been withdrawn and the practice of manning the station operations room had ceased."
Mr. Fennell was disturbed by that. In some ways paragraph 16 on page 141 is one of the most damning paragraphs of the entire report. Mr. Fennell says:
"London Underground set great store by the use of trains to evacuate passengers from the tube lines platforms in an emergency."
We know that that was the way in which many passengers who were due to alight at King's Cross on the night of the fire managed to escape from the conflagration. He goes on:
"However, this procedure depended critically on the availability of staff to communicate with the train drivers, to stop passengers getting off and to ensure evacuation of passengers already on the platform."
The crucial point of the paragraph is the part which says:
"In the event there was a crucial absence of adequately trained London Underground staff to cover the six tube lines' platforms prior to the flashover."
On those two specific occasions in his report Mr. Fennell clearly lays a portion of the blame for the events that led to the disaster on the inadequacy of the staffing arrangements at King's Cross on the night in question. All
956
that ties into the crucial issue of the revenue subsidy available to London Transport. Of course the numbers and availability of staff for proper deployment in case of an emergency depends not on the capital subsidy available from the Government, but on the revenue that London Transport needs to run a full and safe Underground system. Over the last four or five years the Government have consistently cut the revenue subsidy.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend has spoken about the importance of the reduction in staff and the importance attached to that by Mr. Fennell. Is he aware that while the Government cut the revenue support they gave £45 million to London Regional Transport to pay for staff redundancies?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right, and highlights not just the absurdity but the tragedy of Government policy. London Regional Transport did not fight against reductions in staff: it insisted on reducing staff even further.
The revenue subsidy figures speak for themselves. In 1984 the Government gave London Regional Transport nearly £200 million in revenue subsidy. In 1990 the amount will be £7 million which will be specifically directed at the running of the dial-a-service. That shows the scale of the reduction in revenue subsidy that the Government have imposed on London Regional Transport.
I am sick and tired of hearing Conservative Back Benchers say how wonderful the Government are because they are gradually—but belatedly—increasing the capital subsidies to London Regional Transport. However, at the same time they are drastically cutting the revenue subsidies. Safety does not rely on physical work alone. It resides also in the availability of staff to cope in an emergency. The availability of staff is also crucial to ensure the availability of alternative exits in the event of a disaster.
On 26 March at Finsbury Park Underground station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) only one set of stairs was in use. Two alternative exits were blocked with gates that had been deliberately padlocked. No keys were available and in the event of an emergency all exiting passengers would have had to funnel through only one exit with a very narrow passageway. On the same day at Highbury and Islington tube station in my constituency the passageways between the Victoria line and the Great Northern electric line platform were gated and padlocked. In the event of fire only one exit would have been available for passengers trying to escape. The reason given for the blocking of those exits and the locking of the gates was lack of staff.
The inadequacy of staffing continues in London Regional Transport, and the Government, Mr. Fennell and all the lessons that should have been learned subsequent to the King's Cross fire seem to have taught London Regional Transport absolutely nothing about the need to ensure that stations are properly staffed.
The other principal question that seems to arise from the Fennell report is about the role of the railway inspectorate. Mr. Fennell is shocked, to say the least, in his criticism of the railway inspectorate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has said, it is almost unbelievable that throughout 1987 one quarter of one person in the railway inspectorate was detailed to supervise the conditions at London Regional

957
Transport Underground stations. A year after the fire the situation was precisely the same. Although the Secretary of State for Transport now tells us that the railway inspectorate is almost up to complement, he has offered no explanation in response to the questions that I asked him on 10 November about, why for a year following the King's Cross fire, the railway inspectorate was not as a matter of urgency brought up to complement even before the findings of the Fennell report were published.
We are now entitled to ask the Secretary of State to answer the two questions that I asked him then. Why was the inspectorate not brought up to strength during the year following the fire? Will he also tell us not about the entire complement of the railway inspectorate, because that is the figure we so often get. but about precisely what resources the inspectorate, now that it is almost up to full complement, is able specifically to devote to safety at London Underground stations? It would be extremely revealing to know the precise answer to that question.
Of course I accept and fully support what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) said about the need for greater openness and the public being able to know what the safety inspectorates are doing. The Bill that I introduced last year and to which the hon. Gentleman in his private capacity gave considerable support outside the House had to be carried through in the teeth of opposition from Government Whips who blocked it week after week until we finally shamed them into accepting that it should be placed on the statute book. It was a minor measure designed to give the public some degree of access to information about reports and notices issued by the safety authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has a Bill now before the House which would go further. Again, it is a modest but important measure, and again the Government Whips, led by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), block its progress. May we have an assurance that my hon. Friend's Bill will at least have the chance of a Second Reading and a debate in Committee so that any detailed points can be sorted out? It is time that the Government gave that commitment, as a practical response to the points that Mr. Fennell makes about the need for openness, disclosure and public access.
Other important issues relating to the future of King's Cross are at stake. Dr. Ridley's comments at page 154 show that he regards congestion as one of the major problems for public safety. King's Cross, as Mr. Fennell reports, is the most congested set of Underground stations on the London tube network. About 250,000 passengers pass through that station on an average weekday.
It must therefore give pause for thought when BR, together with London Underground, present the King's Cross Railways Bill, a private measure which includes proposals designed to increase congestion at that station both below and above ground. It will shortly come before the House for Second Reading. I hope that hon. Members will take to heart the points Mr. Fennell makes about congestion and safety when they consider that that Bill would add yet another Underground station to the existing five clustered together below ground at King's Cross.
Mr. Dobson: Will my hon. Friend confirm the preposterous intention of BR to build a vast cavern underneath the existing tube station and main line station at King's Cross so that Britain's second Euro-station will
958
be the famous concrete hole in the ground to which the chief inspector referred when he was talking about a smaller cavern that BR is building at Heathrow?
Mr. Smith: That is precisely what BR is proposing. If I have anything to do with it, it will not proceed. King's Cross is already too congested above and below ground. It cannot cope with an additional international terminus located below ground such as BR and London Underground are proposing.
There are major lessons from Mr. Fennell's report yet to be learned—lessons about the level of revenue subsidy as well as capital subsidy that is available to the Underground system; about the level of staffing at stations; about the role and nature of inspection; and about the future of King's Cross. There is no sign that LRT or the Government have learned those lessons. For the sake of the travelling public, and the memory of my constituents in particular, we deserve a better response.
7.4 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It is important to consider the background to the Fennell report, and I am pleased that the two members of the shadow Cabinet who have spoken in the debate, the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), praised the report and welcomed Mr. Fennell's comments.
When Mr. Fennell was asked to chair the inquiry he was considerably rubbished by Opposition Members, who claimed that he would not do a fair and reasonable job but would merely report what the Government wanted. I hope that they will now accept that Mr. Fennell did a comprehensive job and that we have before us a fine report which, hopefully, will lead to improved safety on the Underground.
I regret that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said that the Opposition would force a vote at the conclusion of the debate. Labour Members seem to have found an excuse to vote against the report. That is a pity because it sends out the wrong signals about the way in which we should be approaching the report. We should be considering it constructively and ensuring that all its recommendations are implemented.
A paramount question is whether in recent years the underground system has improved or deteriorated. Oddly, perhaps, the answer must be yes to both parts of that quesion. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said that there had been a 70 per cents increase in six years in the number of passengers using the Underground. For LRT that has been a magnificent triumph. Those who were concerned with the Underground some years ago would have considered such a turnround in the situation to have been impossible. We recall how, whichever body was running London Underground, the rate of passenger use decreased by 1 or 2 per cent. a year. Since LRT took over—perhaps since political interference was removed from the system—there has been a tremendous increase in usage.
It is because of that increase that the system has deteriorated. People boarding Underground trains on the Metropolitan line at Pinner or the Piccadilly line at Rayners Lane suffer dirty and crowded trains in which they cannot get a seat when they manage to board, and the platforms are crowded.

959
Despite that—indeed in response to it—there has been a large increase in capital spending. The Government are now giving LRT, for capital spending on the Underground, double that allocated by the GLC in its last year of existence. The GLC's spending plans would have kept capital investment levels constant. That must be borne in mind when Labour Members complain about the sums that should be spent on London Underground. Their comments on that score are claptrap because it is clear from the spending plans approved by the GLC in the last year when it had responsibility for the Underground that spending levels would have remained constant.
It is no good the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) complaining that ail he hears from the Conservative Benches are comments about increases in capital investment. He will hear a lot more about that because those increases will bring about the safety measures that we all want.
The revenue subsidies which were poured into LRT by the GLC were largely a complete waste of money. The hon. Member for Finsbury, South and Islington and other Opposition Members will be aware that that money was used to keep fares artificially low. It is clear that increases in fares have not deterred passengers because of the increase in passenger usage. Fare levels are not a huge consideration.
Uncharacteristically, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury did not include any figures in his comments. I rather suspect that he has examined the figures already and is aware that the reduction in revenue support matches the amount of money which has not been used for subsidising fares. It has not been removed from revenue support for staff, safety or running the system.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why transport systems in other capital cities in Europe still receive about 80 per cent. in terms of revenue support to keep fares low? That is the big attraction of the Paris Metro. Why are they doing that in other countries?
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) probably spends most of his time in his chauffeur-driven car. If he travelled on the Underground, he would be aware of the fact that it is sometimes impossible to get on a train. The hon. Gentleman can hardly claim that the level of fares acts as a deterrent to passengers. What is the point of pouring public money into subsidising fares if they do not act as a deterrent? The hon. Member for Newham, North-West and his colleagues on the GLC milked the capital investment which should have been invested in LRT and perhaps that caused some of the problems that we have now. They used that money to subsidise fares. I do not believe that that did Londoners or London Underground any good.
Mr. Tony Banks: Since the Conservative Government abolished the GLC, I have not had a chauffer-driven car at my disposal, as the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is well aware. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Yes, it is a shame.
I can assure the hon. Member for Harrow, West that I use the Underground and British Rail every day to get to the House. However, will he answer the question that I put to him? Why are the operating costs of systems in other
960
capital cities subsidised to a much higher level, in some cases at about 80 per cent., while in London there will soon be nil revenue subsidy?
Mr. Hughes: At last the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has provided me with a good reason why the GLC should have been abolished. It took him out of his chauffeur-driven car and put him on the Underground.
Mr. Dobson: If depriving my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of a chauffeur-driven car is the sole justification that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) can think of for abolishing the GLC, that is hardly a proper justification for transforming the whole of local government in London.
Mr. Hughes: I would not disagree with that.
A comparison between our transport system and that of systems in other capital cities is not reasonable. As has been said, our system is much older and larger. If revenue subsidies are not needed—and I do not believe that large revenue subsidies are needed—I do not understand why the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is arguing for them. We need more capital expenditure.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) is now a London-ish Member and able to make a good contribution to our debate. I join him in saying that the Government should not be afraid of saying that if more capital subsidy is required, it must be provided. The need for extra subsidy is the major subject on which I receive letters from my constituents. The number of hours that my constituents have to spend on London Underground makes their lives a misery.
We should welcome the fact that the Autumn Statement provides £266 million over three years for the Fennell report to be implemented in full. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that if that proves not to be sufficient, and if more money is needed, the Government should respond generously. The Government's record in that area suggests that they will consider the matter generously and be prepared to provide the necessary money.
No reference has been made in the debate so far to the exchanges between counsel on behalf of the National Union of Railwaymen and the inspector. Mr. Cooper, the counsel for the National Union of Railwaymen, admitted during the inquiry that the fire was not the result of inadequate investment in the Underground. The exchange went as follows. The inspector said:.
"It is the allocation of resources that I at the moment am persuaded about. I do not believe that there was a shortage of money; it was a question of allocation of it."
Mr. Cooper said:
"Quite so, sir, and the wider aspect that another party was pursuing on that."
The inspector said:
"I do not think that the disaster is about costs, if I can use that phrase?"
Mr. Cooper said:
"It is the allocation, getting priorities right."
To which the inspector agreed.
I believe that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was rather confused when he opened the debate for the Labour party. If the management structure was poor, it was simply not up to making safety the required priority. There is no doubt that good management and safety go hand in hand in industry, whether in the public sector or the private sector. If there is not good safety, we can

961
guarantee that there is not good management, and vice versa. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East understands that. He does not understand that simply because the money is available that does not mean that it will be spent on the right things if there is poor management.
As has already been mentioned, it came as a shock to all of us who have examined this matter to discover that it was not LRT's policy to call the fire brigade immediately in the event of a fire. Smoke was obvious earlier in the evening and had the fire brigade been called when the smoke was first spotted the tragedy would not have occurred.
I welcome the fact that the London fire brigade claims that it now has a good relationship with LRT. It is called out on every occasion and, more to the point, it wants to be called out on every occasion as it would rather attend a series of false alarms than not be there on the spot when it is needed.
Opposition Members have referred to fire safety certificates which relate to the Fire Precautions Act 1971. It was thought that King's Cross did not need a fire safety certificate and it did not have one. Apparently no one thought that an application needed to be made. According to the Fennell report:
"Broadly speaking, the fire certificate may impose requirements for securing that the means of escape are adequate to meet the circumstances of the case, and are properly maintained and kept free from obstruction; that firefighting equipment is sufficient and satisfactorily maintained, …that employees are appropriately trained to deal with fire and its consequences."
That seems to be very sensible and it is welcome that fire safety certificates will be applied for by other stations. However, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East did not say that that applies only to the larger stations.
The Fennell report, on page 241, continues:
"It should be observed that a significant number of smaller underground stations would fall outside the ambit of section 1 of the FPA 1971, owing to the employment limits not being satisfied."
I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that the Angel, a station that I use fairly frequently, may not fall within that Act because it is relatively small. My hon. Friend the Minister should consider whether all Underground stations should be required to have fire safety certificates.
Hon. Members have already covered the detailed specific recommendations in the report, but I want to make one point about the King's Cross management. On page 18, the report says:
"London Underground did not guard against the unpredictability of fire."
That is strange. I have never run a large concern, but in doing so surely safety must come first. It is interesting to compare what I have read in the report and what I know about London Regional Transport as a result of being involved with it on the GLC with my experience over the past few months while doing an industry and parliamentary trust fellowship with a chemical company. It is noticeable that in that chemical company, engaged in dangerous processes where people could be hurt making highly flammable chemicals, safety is the first item on the agenda at every executive and local board meeting and at meetings between management and trade unions. Safety is a primary issue.
One question that I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider, the answer to which I cannot find in
962
the report, is whether London Regional Transport or London Underground Ltd. has a director not primarily, but solely responsible for safety. I genuinely believe that without that the safety audit that is talked about in the report will not do the job that we want done. We need a man on the board to be in charge of safety.
We welcome the new and experienced chairman, Mr. Newton, at London Regional Transport. We have to give him time to come up with the goods to provide the underground system that we need. He deserves a year before we judge whether he has done that job. His task will be to take a proper management grip on London Regional Transport. There are visible signs that we should look for. A tiny but important example which could cause a problem is the indicator board at Baker Street, a station which my constituents use when travelling on the Metropolitan line. That board is the only way in which in advance of announcement people know from which platform their train will leave. A light on that indicator board has not been working for three years. A management which had a grip would have replaced that bulb. My message to Mr. Newton is that I and my constituents will be looking closely to see whether that bulb is replaced. That may sound a light-hearted matter but, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) knows because his constituents use the same line, many people have to move a long distance and that could cause a considerable problem.
We shall want to see that rubbish is cleared away from the Underground system. Knowing that I would seek to catch your eye this afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was looking at litter when I travelled to the House of Commons today. I was not very impressed with the rubbish and the lack of cleanliness in the various stations that I used. I have no objection to people using bicycles —how could I when at the general election I voted for my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) —but I found it rather surprising to see someone take a bicycle on to a District line train today. That is not very safe and I wonder whether that should be reconsidered.
We shall also look for visible signs of security and safety on the trains. New Metropolitan police have been allocated to the Underground. I do not want to go into this in detail as other hon. Members wish to speak, but the response of the management and the Metropolitan police to the Guardian Angels was that the assistance of citizens was not needed or wanted. Whether the Guardian Angels are a reasonable group of people, or whether they were right for the London Underground, is not relevant. Such a group, even if it had to go under a different name, could have been managed by the Metropolitan police as a new branch of the specials. Citizens want to improve physical safety on our trains and platforms and they should have been encouraged to do so, not snapped at. They would have been a great benefit to the community. London Regional Transport's management should see whether we can encourage people to help with security.
Overcrowding on platforms is also a problem. At the last meeting that I had with Dr. Ridley before he resigned I raised the problem of overcrowding, particularly on the Victoria line at Victoria station where it is dangerous day after day. I may have taken some time to find out about that, but Dr. Ridley clearly did not know about it. It is still going on and we look to London Regional Transport to do something about it.

963
London Regional Transport should give real decision-making power to lower management. That has been done in connection with buses and in my constituency the bus service has improved as a result. After some initial teething troubles, Harrow Buses now runs a more comprehensive and reliable system than at any time since I have been a Member of Parliament. I have not had one complaint about the buses for six months. I shall probably now receive a torrent of letters complaining about them. Nevertheless, I have not had one complaint and that is a tribute to Harrow Buses. Real power has been given to local management and that could work on London Underground.
This is a good report. It has not been allowed to gather dust as so many reports do. It is a blueprint for a safe and easy-to-use Underground system. I commend the report and I commend the Government's response to it so far.
7.27 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a moving spech, as he did at the time of this particularly unfortunate tragic event. He paid tribute to the emergency services in London and elsewhere. We should be far more mindful of those services, not just when there is a tragedy—I regret that there have been too many transport tragedies recently—but all the time.
Words are cheap in this place. In some cases they are almost useless. We should not just wait for the occasion when the House unites in expressing profound regret at some calamitous event and then pays its normal orthodox tributes to the emergency services. Our capital city has superb emergency services. In many respects they are far better than we deserve, given the resources we make available to them. I hope that we shall return to provision for the ambulance service, the fire brigade and the police on an occasion other than after some tragedy that concentrates our mind. Then perhaps we can speak with a clear and easy conscience in the House. As far as I am aware, there are not many dangers in being a Member of Parliament. The only thing that we are likely to die of in this place is boredom. We do not face dangers such as those who serve the people of this country in the emergency services face daily.
I shall not go through the various points in the Fennell report in a forensic way—that has already been done for some time now. I want to draw some general conclusions about transport in London from the report. I was grateful recently when the Secretary of State found time, as they say, during his busy day to come to a meeting of the London group of Labour Members for a general discussion about transport facilities and provision in the capital. The right hon. Gentleman was helpful; there was no great meeting of minds, but we were grateful to him for listening to our points and trying to answer some of them.
The Secretary of State said one thing that shocked all our members. We had pointed out that there were so many reports and inquiries in London at present that we wondered who was taking a strategic overview of transport in London. From the chair, I asked him whether, since he had removed the strategic authority—the Greater London council—he was now effectively the strategic transport authority for London. He said that he was not.
964
My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) invited him to assume that responsibility. This is one of the gravest problems we face in London. No one is looking at the overall pattern of transport provision. That is a fatal weakness, and the Government must deal with it soon.
Mr. Spearing: I would not have intervened but for the fact that I tabled a question to that effect, to which I have just had a written answer. The Minister for Roads and Traffic said that legislation had
"established London Regional Transport and charged them with the duty of planning and providing passenger transport services for Greater London."
Apparently, the duty now devolves on LRT, which does not fill me with confidence.
Mr. Banks: That does not sound like what really happens. I cannot see how LRT can be responsible for the whole transportation system in London. Network SouthEast might have a few words to say about that.
I went to see British Rail board members about the siting of the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I asked British Rail about the strategic implications of more and more people coming through King's Cross station area and the problems that that would cause for central London. British Rail board members said that they were sorry but that British Rail was a commercial transport undertaking, charged by the Government with being just that. They said that British Rail was not the strategic transport authority for London or the south-east—and that is correct.
All this is nonsense. The CBI has now decided to make some noises about the chaos that is beginning to overtake London transport. It is not good enough for the Government, the Secretary of State, Ministers or their apologists on the Back Benches to say that the market can somehow deal with all those matters and that there is no need for a strategic transport planning authority in London—there manifestly is. Such authorities exist in other capital cities in Europe; the Government must deal with this problem forthwith.
I should like to discuss capital and revenue subsidy for LRT and London Underground Limited in the context of what was done when the GLC was responsible. The Government have consistently pointed to high levels of capital investment on the Underground. I put it to the Minister that some of that capital expenditure makes the Underground system less safe. I refer immediately to the £165 million that is being spent on the Underground ticketing system and those infamous ticket barriers. They have been installed not for safety but to try to cut fare evasion. We join Conservative Members in saying that it is wrong for so many people to evade their fares. They make honest fare-paying passengers pay more. However, given the level of unemployment and social deprivation in London, it is not surprising that, with fare levels rising, people evade payment.
That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who said that no disincentive was caused by high fares. There is disincentive; it arises from people not paying the fares and still using the system. Then expensive capital investment is needed to cut the fare evasion that was created by sticking up fares in the first place. The hon. Gentleman needs to adopt a more sophisticated approach.

965
The other point about deterrence is that it begs the question: how does the hon. Member for Harrow, West know how many people who are not travelling on the system because of high fares have been deterred by them? If he claims that the answer shows up in the level of passenger usage, I put it to him that, because of the chaos on the roads, more and more people are using the transport system, not because they think it wonderful or comfortable but because it is the only way in which they can travel. Some people cannot exercise any choice. The hon. Member for Harrow, West should take other social factors into account before saying that higher fares do not constitute a disincentive.
We have heard about the failure of the gates. One does not need a Ph.D in transport management to work out, having used them, that the gates are highly inconvenient at the very least, particularly for people with luggage, children and pushchairs. They have made it more difficult and inconvenient to travel on the system. As was shown with the introduction of one-man operated buses, LRT could not give a monkey's toss for what the customer wants on the Underground or the buses. It receives plenty of complaints and just ignores them. Unless the Government are prepared to exercise their function as the transport authority to which London Regional Transport reports, customers of the Underground and bus system will complain into empty air.
One quarter of the capital investment for the Underground outlined in LRT's annual business plan for 1987–88 for the three years to 1989–90 was allotted to stations. In 1985–86, £34 million was spent on station modernisation.
"The refurbishment of stations has done little for passenger safety. At some stations refurbishment has meant covering up old wiring and asbestos panels with plastic, creating new fire risks."
That is the opinion of the London Hazards Centre. The hon. Member for Harrow, West mentioned overcrowding on station platforms—yet much of the modernisation has had the effect of reducing platform areas. They may look prettier when passing through but for those standing on them they become less safe. This problem, too, needs attention.
The Government and Conservative Members have argued that they are spending more than the GLC did. I looked up the figures, because I guessed that the subject would come up in debate. The Government prevented the GLC from spending money on the Underground. I served on the Standing Committee considering the London Regional Transport Bill, in which the Government took responsibility for LRT from the GLC and vested it in themselves. That was done not because it was considered to be in the interests of the fare-paying public in London; it was done as a prelude to the abolition of the Greater London council.
The then Secretary of State for Transport—the present Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—was warned time and again. I have been reading the report of our proceedings, and recall that I was one of those who kept jumping up to say, "You are going to cut back on safety." The right hon. Gentleman pooh-poohed it—as he always does—saying, "Nonsense. I have complete confidence…" and so on.
We were saying all this long before the tragic disaster at King's Cross, and we need no lessons from Conservative
966
Members who say that we are trying to gain a party political advantage from that disaster. We are not doing that, but we certainly do not intend to say nothing and to allow the tragedy to cover up the real political battles that have taken place in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Unless we fight and win such battles there will be more King's Cross disasters, and no hon. Member wants that to happen.
The GLC wanted to spend £669 million on transport in 1983–84, its last year as the body responsible for LRT. The Government accepted expenditure of £461 million. At the time, the GLC said:
"These cuts have meant that the programmes devised by the council to maintain and modernise London's transport infrastructure have not been fulfilled. In particular London's 10-year programme to modernise the Underground"—
we must remember that nearly all the central London system is more than 70 years old—
"had to be curtailed."
That was the result of a decision made by the Government on purely party political, ideological grounds. They wanted to ensure that the GLC did not invest in the London Underground system, and they wanted to cut public expenditure.
Capital investment may well have increased under the present Government, but subsidy has virtually disappeared. That cannot be ignored by the hon. Member for Harrow, West or his hon. Friends. When the Government took over public transport in London in 1984, the last year of GLC control, operating subsidy stood at nearly £200 million. For 1988–89, subsidy is expected to be £39 million:, next year it will be down to £7 million—and the only reason for that £7 million is a Government grant to LRT to operate the grossly under-funded door-to-door service for the disabled, dial-a-ride. That too was originated and paid for by the GLC.
It should at least concern us that in the mid-1980s public transport in, for example, Turin covered 87 per cent. of operating costs. In Rome the figure is 81 per cent. In Amsterdam it is 80 per cent., in Paris 54 per cent., in Brussels 74 per cent., and even in that home of capitalism, the United States, Chicago and Washington have figures of 47 per cent. and 51 per cent. respectively. Why should the position be so different in London? The hon. Member for Harrow, West said that it was because we have the oldest and most extensive system, but that is an argument for funding it, and for funding it more generously than other capital cities fund theirs.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: No. That is an argument for spending more on capital, not for revenue subsidy. It was the hon. Gentleman and his friends on the GLC who did the opposite and caused so much damage.
Mr. Banks: I realise that the hon. Gentleman was chatting away when I read out the figures for capital and revenue, but he cannot keep repeating this one. It simply is not true. I thought I had explained at the beginning of my speech why I believe that it is possible through spending on the revenue side to avoid spending so much on the capital side—although I accept that capital investment is needed. The revenue side covers the number of uniformed staff who operate on the tranport system. That means that it is unnecessary to put capital investment into these ridiculous gates.
If we are serious about dealing with crime, safety problems and ticket evasion, we should consider the

967
revenue subsidies that would provide adequate staffing levels. Not only are they needed; they are what the public demand. We need not one or the other, but both. At least the hon. Member for Harrow, West has come halfway to agreeing with us that not enough is being spent on the capital side. I hope that eventually he will also see the sense of investing far more on the revenue side, for the two cannot be divorced in the simple way that he suggests.
If the Government are serious about Underground safety, why are they allowing LRT to get rid of all the guards? It makes no sense. I will say for the Minister that he is far more attuned to safety needs in the transport system than the former Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury—would ever have been. He showed not the slightest interest in, or concern about, London's transport system. In the enormous letter that he sent to the chairman of LRT, he did not mention safety once. That was how much such priorities obsessed him: he could not care less. It is he who should be here in the dock today having to answer for what happened at King's Cross and elsewhere, but of course he has got out from under and is causing mayhem somewhere else in the body politic.
The Bakerloo line will be the next to lose all its guards. What will happen to passengers if there is a fire in a tunnel which incapacitates the driver? That is a serious possibility. There were 1,248 fires on the Underground in 1988, compared with 844 in 1987. A spokesperson for the London fire brigade tells me that there has been an increasing incidence of fires in tunnels. When the guards have gone, who will be responsible for safety if something happens to a driver?
According to a report in The Observer of 19 February 1989, there is still no automatic override to prevent driver operators from opening the doors on the wrong side. If the Government have really established the safety culture of which the Minister speaks, they must consider such matters, and I expect the Minister to do just that.
Let me conclude by asking the Minister a few specific questions. The Fennell report's verdict on the railway inspectorate is that it is mistaken in its interpretation of the law, which has been too relaxed, and that it has misunderstood its responsibilities. That is indeed an indictment. What progress has been made on Fennell's recommendation that consideration should be given to the establishment of a single passenger safety inspectorate, charged with monitoring and supervising standards in all passenger transport? If the Minister wants to prove his worth as one who subscribes to the idea of the safety culture, he should put it into effect. We do not want words; words are cheap in this place. What we want is a testament that there will be action.
Let me also ask the Minister why journalists and Members of Parliament still find it difficult to obtain information about safety from both LRT and London Underground Limited. Fennell says that the travelling public have a right to know about the safety arrangements made by transport operators, and the safety of the places in which they habitually gather.
The Minister knows, as I know, that the new ticket barriers are not safe. He gave assurances to the House in good faith, but then had to write letters to hon. Members saying that he had been misled. I hope that he kicked the
968
posteriors of those who inadvertently misled him into misleading us. If those new barriers are unsafe, why did not LRT employ an independent safety consultancy to look at them instead of Mott McDonald, a civil engineering consultancy that has worked with London Underground Limited many times before? Will the Mott McDonald report be made public when it eventually lands on the Secretary of State's desk?
What progress has been made in involving the unions more closely in safety matters? Fennell says:
"There must be more employee participation in the preparation and execution of London's underground safety programmes."
The management of London Underground Limited is still mediaeval. There is to be another strike next week. If the Minister is interested in safety he must investigate the present industrial relations in London's transport system.
The Government have been monumentally complacent about the underground system and, as the Secretary of State admitted, they have denied any responsibility for the strategic overview. In the past, they have shown themselves unfit to run the Underground and bus system of the capital city. I remember the former Transport Minister telling the House:
"Ratepayers are well satisfied at finding less than half the sum which the GLC would have required in subsidy to mop up the industry. Neither I nor the management are complacent."—[Official Report, 23 February 1987; Vol. 111, c. 9.]
I wish that Ministers would meet the travelling public in London more often. Then they would realise just how dissatisfied people are. The Fennell report reveals exactly how complacent the Government and London Regional Transport have been, and indicts the Government as derelict and unfit to be responsible for the running of a transportation system. That is the accusation I level at the Government tonight.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. There are still eight hon. Members, four from either side of the House, hoping to speak in the debate. Time is getting short, so I hope that hon. Members who are called will be fair to others by making brief speeches.
7.50 pm
Sir George Young: I shall honour your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and be brief. I apologise for not having heard the two opening speeches, but a member of the royal family was opening a hospital in Ealing and that detained me.
I shall make two quick introductory points. First, quite rightly, smoking is banned on London Underground, but a number of stations, including Ealing Broadway, are joint British Rail and London Underground. Platform 4 of British Rail backs on to the Central line platform eastbound. Smoking is banned on London Underground but not on British Rail. There is a common booking hall and other common parts of the station. It would simplify matters if smoking were banned throughout joint British Rail and London Underground stations as it would avoid the present confusion. Secondly, 18 months after the tragedy at King's Cross one man who died is still unidentified. It is sad that we live in a society in which someone can die and no one notices—no friends, no family

969
and no employer. If it is tragic to die in circumstances such as the King's Cross tragedy, how does one describe a death that no one notices?
I wish to make three points about the Fennell report which is excellent. In particular, I pay tribute to the diagrams which are essential if one is to understand the three-dimensional nature of the problem. Although the Fennell report relates to King's Cross, much of it has a much broader application. Chapter 14 on "The Auditing of Safety" recommends a structural response to safety issues which is equally relevant to construction companies and the airline industry. The concepts of introducing safety audits paralleling the financial audits, setting standards of safety and monitoring progress towards them are extremely relevant. I hope that the recommendations will be read not only by people responsible for London Underground but by people who have broader responsibility for safety throughout commerce and industry.
The same is true of chapter 15 which deals specifically with "Station Staffing and Training." The approach that it recommends is equally applicable throughout British industry. The concept of proper training, proper fire prevention drills and the evaluation of job training and joint exercises with the emergency services have a much broader application than London Underground. One can well imagine the shambles described in chapter 10 being replicated in other parts of our society if there were a similar fire. Much in the report has general application and I hope that the coherent response on safety issues that is recommended will be taken up more broadly.
Secondly, I wish to raise some of the specific action taken by British Rail to deal with the recommendations. I declare an interest—sadly, not a financial one—as a sponsor of the British Rail (King's Cross) Bill. Much in that Bill will not be controversial. Part of the work suggested involved an escalator and a subway connection between the Circle line platforms and the three tube line platforms. That will allow passengers to change lines without passing through the ticket hall as they do at present. That work would reduce the pedestrian flow through the ticket hall by about 30 per cent. and release enough space to accommodate further growth in demand for several years to come. I hope that there will be no difficulty about that. There are also plans to enlarge the existing underground ticket hall on the north and west sides to provide additional circulating space to deal with further growth in demand.
An eastern ticket hall under the Bravington block on the corner of York way and Pentonville road is to be constructed to serve the three tube lines and the Thameslink platforms. That will replace the existing street entrance in Pentonville road, but it is in a far better position so is expected to take pressure off the existing entrances to the Underground and the ticket hall. The relocation of the Thameslink station, the expansion of the Thameslink services and the new subway connections between the Thameslink platforms and the main line platforms at King's Cross will segregate the British Rail traffic from that on the London Underground and avoid some of the congestion that has been referred to.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who is not in his place, said that if King's Cross were to be the international terminal the problem would be made worse. I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate the matter more fully, but one can
970
argue exactly the opposite with some force. If King's Cross were chosen as the second international terminal for London, it would reduce the number of passengers who would otherwise have to cross London from Waterloo, many using the Underground. If there were through trains to the north going through London it would reduce even further the number of people who would have to travel to King's Cross to change trains. Therefore, the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury are not all one-sided and one can argue the opposite. Doubtless we shall do so on a suitable occasion.
Thirdly, the problem at the heart of the Fennell report and our debate is congestion. Page 153 of the report states:
"We heard evidence about the greatly increased use of the Underground system in recent years and the effects of congestion on passenger safety at King's Cross station and more generally."
Almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has mentioned congestion on the Underground. All the forecasts that I have seen suggest that it will get worse. So we are confronted with the problem of increasing capacity. We have squeezed almost all the capacity out of the existing system. We could create some marginal extra capacity by introducing new signalling systems, new rolling stock and perhaps some adjustments to platforms, but ultimately we need new tube lines in London to reduce pressure on the existing system.
Finally, given the understandable constraints on public expenditure to which all Conservative Members subscribe. will my hon. Friend the Minister explore to the full the opportunities for joint funding of new tube lines in London? Will he engage urgently in negotiations with the private sector to find some way of expanding the public transport network in London without relying wholly on public sector finance? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Department have done sterling work by getting the private sector to invest in transport. The Dartford crossing is a good example and the Heathrow express linking Paddington to the airport will be privately funded. There is an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to pursue even further the initiatives on which he has already embarked to get at the heart of the problem underlying our debate. There is simply not enough capacity on the public transport system to cope with London's booming economy. If we are not to bust the public expenditure constraints which we accept, and if we are not to put up with the congestion, we shall have to look urgently at the solutions that I have mentioned to see if, as Conservatives, we can get the private sector to invest in the improvement of the capital's infrastructure and resolve the problem at the heart of our debate this evening.
7.58 pm
Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State said that the lessons of Fennell go wider than London Underground. That is true. The lessons of the Fennell report go to the heart of the Government's attitude to public service and public spending and I shall return to that later in my speech.
Like thousands of my constituents in Hackney, I use King's Cross station and termini every day. Like thousands of people throughout London, when I heard the news of the King's Cross fire and heard about the dreadful way in which those people died, struggling to get to the surface, like millions of Londoners who are regular commuters, I thought, there but for the grace of God….

971
I remember—I doubt whether the Secretary of State or Ministers do because they do not use the tube regularly —travelling through King's Cross station the day after the fire and looking at the set expressions on commuters' faces. It will not avail Conservative Members to read from the Whips Office briefing. It will not avail the Secretary of State to talk about more money being spent and more capital investment. I have used London Underground since I was a schoolgirl travelling to Harrow County school for girls on the Metropolitan line. I, like millions of lifelong London commuters, have seen its decline in the past decade under this Government. I have seen an increase in squalor, overcrowding and crime and I have seen the extent to which people, particularly women, are frightened to travel at night.
There is no doubt that, whatever their political persuasion, Londoners have seen a public transport system which was the envy of the world decline to a state of sad and seedy squalor. As this is now the triumphant 10th anniversary of Thatcherism and as the decline has occurred in the decade of Thatcherism, one does not need to be a political scientist or an expert on the politics of transport to know where to point the finger of blame. The finger of blame for the squalor, decline and seediness of the underground system points squarely at the Government. Every London commuter knows that.
I want to raise three main points. I have been approached by some of my constituents and by members of the unions concerned to raise with the Minister the fact that on the very day of the King's Cross fire employees of London Regional Transport who tried to hand out leaflets to passengers explaining the safety problems on the London transport system—problems which have been fully justified and supported by the Fennell report—were disciplined for their pains. I also understand that in the aftermath of the Clapham accident employees were disciplined or threatened with disciplinary action for trying to raise those important safety issues.
I ask the Minister to respond to that claim, which was widely aired in the newspapers at the time, and to give the House an assurance that in the future no employee of LRT or British Rail will be disciplined for trying to bring to the public's attention the very real safety problems. There is nothing that members of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen or the National Union of Railwaymen have said about safety on London's transport system that is not amply borne out by the Fennell report.
We have listened to speeches from some Conservative Members claiming that the problem was not a lack of investment. However, as has been pointed out, even by some Conservative Members, the Government are boasting that their main response to the Fennell report is an investment of £266 million. One cannot square the fact that their response to the report is that much-needed shot of extra investment with the claim that investment was not the problem. If it was not a problem, why is there to be new investment? It is obvious to every traveller on the Underground that it is suffering from a lack of capital investment and revenue expenditure.
Only a Government with a fixed and dogmatic opposition to public expenditure and the public sector in general could deny that public expenditure and investment
972
in public transport in the capital city ought to be the highest priority. The Government should be ashamed that public investment and public subsidy for our transport system in London have fallen so low. I should like the Minister at the Dispatch Box to defend that position. The level of investment and subsidy for London Transport is among the lowest in Europe.
The Secretary of State has made great claims about the new safety culture. That is not before time. I was horrified, in the same way as anybody who read the Fennell report must have been, to read that there was nothing explicitly about safety in the standing orders of either LRT or London Underground. That has now been rectified, but it was clear that until the tragedy which took so many lives the priority of the managements of LRT and London Underground was profit.
As the Secretary of State said, the lessons of the Fennell report go wider than London Underground. For a decade we have had a Government who say that the market and profit are all-important. They believe that the public sector, those who work in it and anything it does should be denigrated. Therefore, it is no surprise that we end up with public sector services in the poor state of London Underground today. The Government put mammon before everything and their motto, as J. Galbraith said, is public squalor and private riches. Therefore, it is no surprise that we had a terrible disaster such as that we saw at King's Cross.
Opposition Members hope, speaking for the millions of people in London who depend on public transport, that the terrible disaster has changed the Government's mind and forced them to focus on the importance of investment in the public sector together with the importance of public transport to London and a high level of subsidy. At the Dispatch Box today we have seen a Secretary of State who is perhaps, unfortunately, on his way out. Let us hope that the debate will encourage a new culture among the Government in which there is pride in public transport and the public sector. Let us hope that money for public transport is on its way.
8.8 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: What the debate ought to be about and what it is about are two different things. It should be about the points made in chapter 2, paragraph 14, of the Fennell report. It should be about finding the cause of the disaster. I stress the word "cause" rather than "blame" because those two words are also different. It should be about ensuring that such a tragedy never happens again. In fact, the debate has been about who is to blame and what produced the causes rather than about the causes themselves. That amounts simply to raking over the past for cheap party-political gain.
We should have been debating the importance of improving the future of our transport system and reassuring the travelling public. We should have been asking constructive questions such as whether the Fennell recommendations are the right recommendations to which we may wish to add—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has come back to listen because I listened to his speech. I did not try to interrupt him, so I hope that he will listen to what I have to say in the same spirit.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, I did not hear a single constructive comment.

973
It was a knocking job from start to finish and his message boiled down to an assertion that the Government were to blame for the tragedy and that cuts caused the fire. He is wrong on both counts but, as we have seen in the past, being wrong does not bother him a bit. Facts must not be allowed to stand in his way when he wants to kick about. The needs of the public must not be allowed to stand in his way when he is searching for a scapegoat.
Ms. Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman cease his personal attacks on my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and turn to the issues raised by the Fennell report?
Mr. Wilshire: I am most grateful for that intervention. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) could have seen my notes here.
So far, we have heard nothing constructive from the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] If Labour Members are prepared to press their case, I am prepared to examine it in exchange. Labour's case is founded on the concept of the Government being to blame for everything—any Government, not necessarily the present one. Apart from naked self-interest, why do Labour Members say that? The reason is simply that they are still hooked on a Socialist ideology. To a Socialist, when discussing matters such as the King's Cross fire, every problem is the fault of somebody else. To a Socialist, every solution must come from the nanny state. Socialists need to be able to blame the Government to justify the Government taking over and running our lives in future.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman cease his strictures on the nature of Socialism today and get back to the Fennell report? It is far from him to accuse us of not being constructive when all he has done is to attack my hon. Friends and Socialism. Let us hear about the Fennell report and safety for the people who use the London Underground.
Mr. Wilshire: I find such interventions fascinating. The Opposition are prepared to hand it out, but if someone tries to repay them in kind, they cannot take it.
Building on false foundations, the Labour party's detailed case on the report is equally flawed. Throughout the debate, Labour Members have been citing a lack of money. They have tried to ignore paragraph 3 in chapter 19. I shall quote it once again. It says:
"In my judgment there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to London Regional Transport was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending and maintain safety standards. I accept the evidence…that if funds were needed, funds were available."
Throughout the debate, Labour Members have ignored the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). When the inspector said:
"I do not believe there was a shortage of money",
counsel for the National Union of Railwaymen said,
"Quite so, Sir."
Labour Members have also ignored the huge boost in investment by the Government in the Underground system since the Greater London council lost control of it. The best they have been able to do is to try to muddy the water by pointing to subsidised fares in other European countries. Yet subsidised fares simply mean cheaper, not necessarily safer, journeys.
There are some issues in the report that arise out of the question of money. The report refers to the state of mind
974
within London Regional Transport. If those managers began to take the view that there was no more money available, the Labour party should be feeling guilty, because it has been saying over and over again that there is no more money. Labour Members can hardly be surprised when people start to believe them.
The second issue raised in the report is that of under-spending. It is made clear that money was available for spending, but was not spent. That gives the lie to the claim that money was not available and also highlights, yet again, one of the classic weaknesses of public bureaucracies the world over, which is that they find it difficult to meet their spending targets.
Mr. Prescott: Of late, I have heard the hon. Gentleman saying that a privatised airport at Heathrow was not up to dealing with safety. His point about whether money could be saved was addressed by Dr. Ridley himself, who said that he did not spend the full amount of £5 million because of pressures from the board to save and contribute towards cutting costs. The hon. Gentleman would have seen that in the Fennell report if he had read it, instead of taking selected bits and speaking on them.
Mr. Wilshire: I have done my level best to digest all the facts and to listen to the nonsense spoken by the Opposition. The truth is in the report. There are ample instances of under-spending against allocations and a higher level of safety could have been achieved if the money had been spent. That is a classic case of what happens in a bureacracy.
The third lesson that I draw about money is the issue of management criteria. One telling example in the report is the comment made about using train miles as a measure of expenditure when passenger miles might have been a better yardstick. If we are to go down such an avenue and if we, as politicians, are to allow ourselves to be drawn into management details at that level, heaven help the travelling public. It is the worst possible action for politicians to meddle in detailed management..
The second plank in Labour's case is the lack of staff. Labour Members ignore another section of the Fennell report, paragraph 6 of Chapter 19, which says:
"I found no evidence that the reduction in the number of operating or maintenance staff contributed directly to the disaster".
If there are any issues about staff numbers arising from the report, they concern staff attitudes, skills and training—in other words, they concern quality rather than quantity. Those are the areas covered by some of the most fundamental recommendations in the report.
The only response from the Labour party to such issues is that we should be spending more and that we should be employing more people. It just goes to show how little they have learnt in 10 years of opposition. I also find it interesting to notice what has not been said by the Opposition. What about the thrower of the match? We have heard nothing about him or her from Labour Members because it would not suit them to mention that point. If we start talking about individual responsibility or if we say that individual members of the public should show some initiative, we are doing the opposite of what the Labour party wants in this country. It is equally fascinating that Labour Members have said nothing about the staff who ignored the debris.
Mr. Dobson: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had read the report rather than the extracts supplied by the Government Front Bench. He would note that Mr. Fennell made it clear that no responsibility lay with what he regarded as the humble members of staff for the cause of the fire or anyone's response to it. Before the hon. Gentleman directs his attention to the weakest, the poorest and the most over-worked in his nasty, slanderous and unpleasant way, can he turn a little attention to his hon. Friends on the Front Bench? He should remember that they run a Department and are responsible for a railway inspectorate, which either ought to have known or did know about everything that was wrong with safety on London Regional Transport and which did nothing. That is confirmed in the report.
Mr. Wilshire: The great difficulty with an issue of this sort is that, to try to give it comprehensive coverage, we must tackle difficult and emotive subjects such as individual people and members of staff. Far be it for me to repeat what Labour Members have been saying all day. They are only points about the role of the Government, and they have been made time and again. It must fall to somebody to tackle the issues which, for whatever reason, Labour Members do not wish to be tackled. We must ask questions about individuals who throw matches and ignore smoking rules, and about individual people at work. Individual people at work are capable of showing initiative and of taking responsibility. Again, if people at their workplace do things of that sort, it is the exact opposite of what the Labour party wishes to see.
Mr. Dobson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, with omniscience denied to the Fennell panel, the thrower of the match has been identified as a member of staff? That is the logic of his argument.
Mr. Wilshire: All I am suggesting is that the Labour party would have us believe that the Government must do something and that no one else need take any responsibility for what happens in this country. That is crazy.
Sixteen months ago, an awful tragedy took place in this country. The whole nation—every single one of us—shares the grief of all those who were bereaved. The whole nation shares the admiration for the rescue services that took part in dealing with the tragedy. The whole nation shares appreciation and respect for Desmond Fennell and the recommendations in his report. But the whole nation also shares my disgust at the Labour party's response to recent transport tragedies. Time and again, we have heard the same response. On transport matters, Labour Members increasingly appear like a flock of vultures, wheeling overhead waiting to swoop, and trying yet again to score cheap party political points. They are almost willing some other tragedy to happen so that they can blame the Government and, if possible, berate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. They should be ashamed of themselves.
8.22 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) spoke about individual responsibility. I disagree with the tone and content of his speech. For the first time in the House, I publicly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). He rightly praised
976
ambulance men and women, but he talked about the magnificent emergency services. Magnificent they could be, but, alas, the London ambulance service is far from magnificent. As a London Member, irrespective of his party, the hon. Member for Spelthorne has a public responsibility to do something about it.
I have had three Adjournment debates on the chaos that now exists in the London ambulance service. That chaos is caused by a lack of funding and the lack of the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health. This debate is not about health; it is about the problems that arise from disasters. Individual ambulance men and firemen perform magnificently, but, in terms of back-up to the London ambulance service, for which he has a personal responsibility to the public and to the House, the hon. Gentleman should do something about the chaos. If he does not know about the chaos, I will tell him about it.
That brings me to the subject of the debate. On the terrible day after the King's Cross disaster I had the good or bad luck to put a written question to the Secretary of State for Transport, asking him to list the incidents on London underground railways which had caused risk to human life from electrical, mechanical or human failure. For too long before the King's Cross inquiry, London Members were concerned about the issue and were exercising their individual responsibilities to try to do something about it. I now put to the hon. Member for Spelthorne something which I hope that he will accept as wholly constructive. I also put an oral question to the Secretary that day. At the opening of the Liverpool-Manchester railway, a well-known Member of the House, the then Secretary of State for Trade, was killed. Since that day the House has properly been concerned with railway safety.
During the 19th century, a series of regulations were adopted, first by the then Board of Trade and then by the Department of Transport and its inspectorate, which established a threshold to protect human life. If one did that on the basis of free market economics, it would probably be worthwhile for aircraft operators or London Transport to pay out large sums of money for compensation to balance the additional safety costs. Hon. Members rightly believe that market forces should not operate in such matters. I hope that I take the hon. Member for Spelthorne with me in that respect. I wish to operate in the spirit of cross-party accord. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me when it comes to aeroplanes or other forms of mechanical transport.
We are told that safety should have been uppermost in the minds of the operators. It is in the Act, even if it was not in the long, additional and unnecessary instruments which the then Secretary of State, the present Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), brought forward. As we know from the Fennell report, there was no item on the agenda of any board meeting in which safety was mentioned. That is remarkable. Underground railways are endemically liable to fire. They are full of high tension and low tension electric currents, and insulation can break down. There are accumulations of rubbish and building adjustments—such as those at Tottenham Court road—where fire originates. There are false draughts, chimney effects and the damaging effect of smoke underground. All that has been known for 70 or 80 years, yet, for reasons which I cannot understand, safety was not a regular item of report at board meetings.

977
That is rather surprising, in view of the number of underground fires. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) said that there were 1,000, particularly on escalators. From the Fennell report we learnt that, in 1944, an escalator at Paddington was gutted by fire. It was known that escalators, particularly the type at King's Cross, were an endemic risk, and sprinklers were fitted to try to minimise it. The Fennell report tells us that sprinklers were originally switched on every day to keep things damp. It was then found that they corroded the mechanism, so the practice was changed to once every fortnight. Paragraph 15 of chapter 7 of the report states:
"As a compromise it became the practice to apply the water fog about once a fortnight. In recent years however the water fog equipment has not been operated regularly."
I was sorry that Fennell did not investigate that matter and ask why it was not operated regularly. I will not say that, if the supervisors at King's Cross knew where the valves were and that if the valves had been operated regularly, it might have been enough to dampen the fire. It was certainly an important link in the chain of the cause and events of the fire. It is a chain of events with about 14 sequences. If any one of them had been broken, the fire would not have occurred. Therefore, I am sorry that the Fennell report does not examine that matter to the degree that it might, particularly as it was recognised after the Tottenham Court road and Oxford Circus fires that passenger safety was at risk.
A report from the London Passenger Transport Research Group—"Passenger Safety and Protection from Fire on London's Tube Railways"—which was published on 15 February 1985, said:
"By definition, inadequate precautions against fire and smoke is unsafe practice. Since Oxford Circus there have been other instances where deep-level LRT tube stations have been temporarily closed because of fires, one of which was in the escalator shaft at Green Park, another busy central London station. This incident blocked the final means of exit from the Piccadilly Line platforms precisely the danger that the London fire regulations seek to avoid by insisting on two means of exit. An alternative way out was fortunately available at Green Park, through a lengthy passageway from the Victoria Line. But if the fire had broken out in the combined Piccadilly and Bakerloo escalator shaft at Piccadilly Circus…
In recent years, London Transport, now London Regional Transport, have been extremely fortunate that no lives have been lost in fires on the Underground. There is little doubt that a major catastrophe was averted at Oxford Circus owing to the initiative and quick actions of the Underground's staff.
Luck has a habit of running out."
Well, two years later luck did run out. We have to acknowledge that that was due partly to lax management, for the reasons that I have outlined.
But I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there was another factor. He may have knowledge of business and may agree that in business—certainly any business that I have known—the people who are listened to and the people who are promoted are the ones who go with the current trend. They may be concerned with installing computers, with a new type of marketing, with some new idea that has come out from some college, or with some technique that has only just been discovered. At any rate, these specialists suddenly shoot to the top. For good reasons or bad, London Regional Transport was being asked to cut costs.
I put it to the hon. Member for Spelthorne that the atmosphere at that time will have been helpful to those with bright ideas about how to reduce costs. Such people
978
will perhaps have been promoted, having been investigating that particular frontier of activity. Those who could produce ideas for cutting costs will have been listened to, and promoted above others, because that was the aim of the organisation at that time. Indeed, the preoccupation of the board was probably not at all with running the railway as it was; the board was looking ahead at financial matters and all sorts of things. I suggest that that is the psychology of the situation that we all experience in one way or another, and I challenge the Minister to deny it.
Mr. Dobson: Does my hon. Friend not agree that information that came to me by way of a leaked early draft of the London Regional Transport business plan made this clear by saying that there was no scope for efficiency savings last year because the money had to be spent on safety?
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the point. This is where I hope I can take both sides of the House with me.
The Minister will agree that this House, on advice from the railway inspectorate, must set the standards below which public safety cannot be allowed to go. We all agree with the fire regulations in regard to cinemas and shops. A t one time there were no such regulations, but we insisted on them. I challenge the Minister to say that the railway inspectorate, or any equivalent, is part of the nanny state. It is not; it is part of the way in which the public protects itself. The public protects itself with an ambulance service and a fire service, as well as sound standards of operation on the railways. I am not sure that at present we have got all three right. In any case, that is not the nanny state; it is just public protection of life. I hope that the Minister is with me on that point.
We now have to ask ourselves whether the lessons of King's Cross have been learned. I am afraid that they have not. On 13 March I pointed out to the Minister for Public Transport the number of shortcomings still existing in London Regional Transport. Indeed, I have heard of some more. I understand—this is subject to checking—that the covering of footbridges, to prevent people from chucking stuff over the top, has been postponed. I understand that walking of the track has been reduced, even in the last few months. Certainly there are threats of still lower manning levels in the central London stations—something that is surely quite wrong. In a detailed letter to the Minister, I referred to the one-person operation of deep tube railways in London. I believe that that is inherently dangerous. increases risk. It puts another weak link in the chain of the protection of life, and that is something on which Members on both sides of the House can agree.
On 19 November 1987 I asked the then Secretary of State for Transport, who, I am sorry to note, has just gone, a question following his statement on the King's Cross tragedy of the previous day. I said:
"Does he agree that in striking a balance that is always present between efficiency and safety, the regulations and management decisions inherent in that balance should receive the widest possible consent and agreement between those employed on the underground and those who travel on it?",
the people who travel on it being us. To his great credit, the Secretary of State immediately said:
"I am sure that as a general statement that must be right." —[Official Report, 19 November 1987; Vol. 122, c.1207]
But we have not got that. There is not that general consent about the balance between efficiency and safety that any Government, of any party, of any Parliament in the world,

979
surely requires of its public services, whether publicly owned or privately owned. That is one of the problems that the Government have got themselves into.
Until recently the referees were the railway inspectorate, somewhat at arm's length from the Board of Trade or the Department of Transport. It could say to the LNER, or to the Midland Railway, or to London Transport, or to the old Metropolitan Railway, that it must do this, this and this. But now we have people determining the running of the railways on the basis of commercial objectives, as is illustrated by that infamous letter from the then Secretary of State, who was also responsible for setting the standards. I believe that in a democracy that is an unacceptable conflict of interests. It has been suggested that the railway inspectorate might be transferred to the Health and Safety Executive, or at least away from the Secretary of State for Transport. There is an argument for that. It must be possible to demonstrate independence, but I believe that that lesson has not yet been learned. If it had been, there would at least have been a halt in the extension of one-person operation on the deep-level tubes in London, and there would be a better staff relationship.
It must be pointed out that the industrial problems that may emerge yet again on the London Underground are not a matter of pay and conditions, but have to do with the very thing that the Secretary of State left out—investment in human quality. He is right to say that the system is dependent on human beings, but I do not think that the relationship between the management and the workers of London Underground is as it should be. It has declined disastrously, even since King's Cross.
In conclusion, irrespective of our view about management, about funding or about ownership, the standards that we want to see inserted by law, by a technically competent body, in this mode of transport have not been inserted. They must be seen to be inserted and supervised, and they must have the confidence of those employees who operate the service and, above all, of those who represent the travelling public. It is quite clear that, despite what has happened since King's Cross, that confidence does not exist on either side of this House.
8.39 pm
Mr. Robin Squire: At this stage in the debate there is a danger of repetition, which I shall try to avoid, especially because at least two other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to crowd them out.
One of the measures of a civilised city is that it has a good public transport network—I take that phrase to include a safe public transport network. Like most other hon. Members who have spoken, I have Underground stations in my constituency. In fact, I have three and the Underground is therefore a main means of travel for my constituents. They have a natural concern about safety issues, over and above the normal human feeling that we all felt on the night of that dreadful tragedy.
I join virtually every hon. Member who has spoken in congratulating those who produced the Fennell report. This must be one of the rare occasions when we have produced an unusual animal—a popular barrister. However, the praise that has been heaped on Mr. Fennell has been well deserved.
980
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has rightly instructed the new chairman of LRT to give top priority to implementing the new safety measures and again that will be welcomed by all hon. Members. The sum of £266 million may trip off the tongue and has been much quoted, but it is a big sum to be given over the next three years and is ample evidence that safety is a top priority.
First, I want to put a small point to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport. Although I have put it to him previously, this is a good opportunity to repeat it. Several hon. Members who have spoken today—and many others—represent areas that are not in Greater London. Hon. Members who represent Greater London know that rates bills have recently leapt up considerably as a result of the LRT charge, the main element of which related to the improved safety measures. I have no complaint about the improved safety measures nor, I judge, has a single one of my constituents. However, it seems a little perverse to expect the full cost to fall on the residents of the London boroughs and none of it on, say, the people of Epping Forest, Chelmsford or many parts of Hertfordshire, or those who are just visiting London. In addition, as many tourists visit London, the Underground must be regarded as a national rather than a uniquely local system. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend again to review the spread of the percentages.
The second thing that I want to stress is the whole question of public safety information. Hon. Members will know of my long attachment to the need of promoting access to information both in local government—I refer to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, which I introduced—and in a whole range of areas, relating especially to safety. Paragraph 21 of chapter 19 of the Fennell report is worth quoting. It states:
"I view with dismay the suggestion that information gained by a statutory authority which has a bearing on the safety of the public using a system for mass transportation should not be made publicly available. The travelling public have a right to know about the safety arrangements made by transport operators and the safety of places in which they habitually gather."
I emphasise those points because over the years when I have pressed for greater access to information, I have been told, "The public won't know", or "The public won't care", or even, "If you give them that information, they may be alarmed." However, if we want the public to be better educated and to have, for example, a better means of measuring risk, we cannot deny them the means by which they will be better educated. We cannot cosset them and say at the same time that we expect them to be answerable for their decisions because they have no way of being able to know the facts if the facts are suppressed and kept from them.
I take issue briefly with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. On more than one occasion recently he has said—this was echoed by his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—that there is an exact equation between becoming more efficient and cost effective on the one hand, and cutting safety on the other. There must be no such equation, and in a well-run organisation there will not be one. It is akin to saying that it is impossible to run a profitable manufacturing company if one has to take account of environmental controls. One must take account of environmental controls and doing so is an essential payment for that business, just like heat and light, or

981
wages. It would be extraordinary if we became hooked on the belief that it is wrong to be cost-effective and to seek to make large undertakings more efficient because along the way they would ditch safety because, particularly in a transport undertaking, safety is a sine qua non of the operation.
I have two main concerns for my constituents and both impinge on safety issues. The first has already been touched on—the existing congestion. We must increase the number of trains and carriages and lengthen the platforms. Perhaps there could be new lines, but above all we need cleaner trains and stations. We want an Underground system to be proud of. We want one that attracts people to travel on it rather than making them feel that they are going through some sort of mangle twice a day just to go about their ordinary work.
My second concern relates to the safety of the individual. Because of its length it is difficult to read the report in detail, but I am appalled when I hear that surveys of travellers have shown a high fear of travelling on trains and on the Underground, especially at night and especially among women. I am not surprised by that, but I find it appalling. It is an unacceptable fear and, in passing, I should add that, financially, it is a silly position to be in. It may well be that people's perceptions do not represent the true position. People tend to exaggerate fear and the true danger that they face may be less, but it is the perception that matters because that is the factor that determines the way in which people do or do not travel. I should like the Underground to do much more in the next few years to increase protection for the traveller. I welcome unreservedly the investment in machinery and in mechanical means, such as personal radios, which have been mentioned. However, we must tackle the ghastly situation which deters women in particular from travelling on our great rail network late at night.
In conclusion—I promised to be brief—I believe that safety was not given sufficient prominence under the previous London Underground management and that that clearly contributed to the King's Cross tragedy. Most of the Fennell report recommendations have already been accepted and are already being implemented to the broad approval of hon. Members of all parties. However, as the report makes clear, it is a gross calumny to suggest that the accident was caused by a shortage of Government funds. It was caused by an excess of bad management.
8.47 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The fact that the debate has been dominated so far by hon. Members representing London constituencies should not be allowed to obscure the importance of the accident at King's Cross as being of national rather than simply metropolitan significance. The transport system of the capital city must be safe, not only for its residents but for citizens of the whole kingdom. That is especially the case for a main line railway station that serves the whole of the north and the east of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is possible to travel direct to King's Cross from my constituency.
In this most lucid report, Mr. Fennell, who does not seem to have been regarded with the same enthusiasm for his remarks as leader of the Bar in response to the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper, expressly said that he was not engaged in a prosecution. However, in effect, he handed
982
down an indictment and had I been prosecuting on that indictment I would not have expected the jury to leave the court before returning a verdict.
In my judgment, the single most important sentence of the report is in paragraph 14 of chapter 1, where Mr. Fennell states:
"it is my view that a disaster was foreseeable."
Foreseeability is a test of negligence and if the events were foreseeable, the absence of steps to prevent them was clearly negligent. When the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) said that, although a disaster was foreseeable, the scale of the disaster was not foreseeable, he seemed unconsciously perhaps to make precisely the point that ought to be made about the report and about t he attitude of London Underground. If the scale of a disaster is not foreseeable, that is all the more reason for taking steps to prevent any accident occurring. The notable feature of what Mr. Fennell found was that London Underground took precautions about outbreaks of fire but did not seem to have a philosophy that compelled it to take steps to prevent fire.
The truth is that the accident could have occurred on many previous occasions and could have caused the deaths of many more people. Why is that? Because London Underground took the view that fires were inevitable and did not take steps to prevent them. As Mr. Fennell found, London Underground had a blind spot about the hazard of fire on escalators. He also found that no one person was charged with overall responsibility for safety. For example, the director of operations and the director of engineering each thought that he was responsible for safety in his own division, but principally for the safety of his own staff.
The accident could have occurred before because specialist safety staff were in junior positions and were concerned with the safety of staff and not passengers. It could have occurred before because there was no system to train staff in fire drill or evacuation procedures. Of course, in London Underground, prior to the events with which the report is concerned, fires were described by the somewhat disingenuous euphemism of "smouldering". It was accepted that describing them in that way inevitably created a false sense of security. All of those defects were exhibited on the occasion of the tragic fire with which we have been concerned, when the response of the staff was described by Mr. Fennell as unco-ordinated, haphazard and untrained.
The purpose of the debate is to consider wherein lay the responsibility for those matters. If money was not a bar to putting into effect appropriate safety procedures, it makes all the more acute the negligence that gave rise to the accident that caused the deaths. Under the London Regional Transport Act 1984 responsibility for safety was laid on LRT. It believed that it could discharge that responsibility by delegating it to London Underground—an action of which Mr. Fennell expressly disapproved.
We are also entitled to ask, what of the Department of Transport and its Ministers? In the letter of 20 July 1984, to which reference has been made several times in the debate, four tasks were laid upon LRT in relation to Underground services—to improve the services, to reduce costs, to involve the private sector and to promote better management—but no mention was made of safety anywhere within the four corners of that letter. If safety is paramount now, why was it not paramount then?

983
The performance of those tasks must have been monitored by officials of the Department of Transport and also by Ministers. Why did no one ask about safety? Why did no one ask whether those tasks could be accomplished without prejudicing safety? One is entitled to ask what consideration the Department of Transport, through its Ministers or its officials, gave to the safety of the oldest Underground system in the world. If they gave none, in the light of the palpable and obvious defects which Mr. Fennell recites in his report, why did they not give consideration to those issues? If the negligence is as obvious as has been rehearsed in the report, why was it not brought to the attention of Ministers? Why did Ministers not seek out information of that kind for themselves?
It would be churlish to do other than welcome all the improvements that have taken place and that are proposed. But I ask myself again, if these improvements are now so obvious, why were they not obvious before the accident? Mr. Fennell has provided the answer to that question. He said that the accident was foreseeable. The disaster was foreseeable by London Underground, by London Regional Transport, by the Department of Transport and also by Ministers. On the occasion of this solemn debate the House is entitled to ask itself whether Ministers truly discharged the duties which their office laid upon them.
8.54 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I must first apologise to the House for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Two constituents had appointments to see me.
I want to concentrate on the workings of the Victoria line, which runs through King's Cross and also serves my constituency. Indeed, the last two stations at the northern end of the line—Blackhorse Road and Walthamstow Central— lie in my constituency. When the line was built 20 years ago, it was supposed to be fully automatic, fast and efficient, giving an excellent service from one end to the other. I am sorry to have to say that it no longer provides that fast and efficient service. A sizeable proportion of my postbag from constituents is composed of complaints about the Victoria line.
London Regional Transport is doing its best to maintain the escalators. However, the escalators at both stations in my constituency have been out of action for a considerable time. When I visited the constituency the other day, I was horrified to find that both escalators at Walthamstow Central were out of action. One was even denied the pleasure of trying to run up the downward escalator. If escalators are not working, it has implications for safety. When people have to carry heavy shopping, children and pushchairs down the stairs, there is obviously capacity for trouble. It only needs a toddler to trip on the top step and there may be disaster.
I have had several meetings with officials from London Underground. I have said to them, "Why not be sensible? If an escalator is out of action, you should put up a notice to say why it is out of action and how long it will be before it is fixed." They said, "What a good idea." The next time I went to my constituency they had indeed erected a sign. It said, "This escalator will be back in action on 28 January." It was not. They put up another sign saying,
984
"This escalator will be back in action on 3 February." It was not. The following day the notice disappeared completely. I wish that someone would drive the lesson home to London Underground that if it is going to go through exercises in public relations, it has to get them right; otherwise the public will be cynical, and say, "All their efforts are in vain. Why don't they get on and fix the escalator"?
Overcrowding has been mentioned several times. Overcrowding is highly dangerous. Anyone who uses the tube as much as I do for my journeys to and from Walthamstow Central has to use Victoria station. There is no option; one has to change there to get on to the Victoria line. On one occasion both escalators were out of action and the overcrowding had to be seen to be believed. With the press of people on the platform and trains discharging more all the time, the passengers could not get out of the station. Overcrowding is mentioned in the report. The management of London Underground has not addressed that problem sufficiently.
One more thing about the Victoria line got my goat the other day. I received a press release saying that London Underground was putting one more train on the Victoria line. I read it and said to myself, "Wow, one more train on the Victoria line, great stuff." It also said, "We will no longer be stopping at King's Cross." The usual euphemism is "change" or something similar. In other words, it kicks the passengers off and makes them wait for the next northbound train. It said that that would no longer happen and I thought to myself, "What a good thing." However— the House will not believe it— on my next southbound journey, the driver came on the intercom and said, "Everybody out at Warren Street". I have lived in London for 10 years and never in my experience has a train going southbound on the Victoria line stopped and kicked out the passengers at Warren Street. Clearly, LRT has said, "We will not kick them out at King's Cross, but we will get our own back and kick them out at Warren Street instead".
The state of the Central line is a disgrace. It is the most appalling line. I always try to avoid it if I can. I would much rather use the District line. Sometimes, however, I must use the Central line. I hear the trains arrive with that characteristic iron rattle. They are covered with graffiti on the outside and on the inside. All the people on the inside seem to look revolting as well. I am not sure whether they take on the characteristics of the train in which they are travelling. On one occasion I saw a couple of yobs smoking in the carriage. I thought of saying to them, "You should not be smoking. It is dangerous." Then I had another look at them and thought to myself that I still have all my own teeth so I would not take the chance.
What we need is more staff on the trains to look after the passengers. We do not need the staff sitting in those little boxes collecting tickets, looking thoroughly bored and not caring a damn if someone puts down 20p and makes a bolt for the exit. Staff should be on the trains looking after the passengers, and that, I fear, is where London Underground management is going wrong.
I know that one more hon. Member wishes to speak. I believe that he has been in his place since the start of the debate, so I will sit down at this point and give the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) the opportunity to play his Brent harp.
9.3 pm
Mr. Paul Boateng: The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) missed the opening remarks of the Secretary of State. We have heard the hon. Gentleman's explanation as to why he was not here, and, of course, one accepts them wholeheartedly. I assure him, however, that he did not miss much, because there was nothing new in what the Secretary of State said and still less anything memorable. However, there were some new buzz words, which will last in our memories, if not in fact, for some time. Those words were "safety culture". Of course, the old buzz words were also about culture, about the "enterprise culture". We are debating a report that came out of events which took place sadly and tragically when the enterprise culture had the Underground system in its grip. Of course, in the enterprise culture public ownership is bad, and, if possible, public investment is to be avoided, and public regulation is to be minimised. Those are the characteristics of the enterprise culture.
Second to the enterprise culture— an afterthought coming out of this tragic incident— we have the concept of the safety culture. Our concern is that the safety culture should not be subordinated to the enterprise culture. If there is one thing that we have learnt from these tragic events, it is the deadly danger of subordinating safety to enterprise. In a Socialist definition of enterprise, safety and concern for the environment go hand in hand with efficiency and growth. I say to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that the Opposition make no apology for talking about the importance of safety and putting that first, because without safety there is nothing.
If the new buzz words "safety culture" are to mean anything, we would say that they must be based on two critical matters, both of which were highlighted in Mr. Fennell's laudable report. The first, importantly, is the encouragement of workers and management at every level to be involved in and committed to the safety process. The second is information. Information should be made available to the workers, to middle and lower management and to staff at every level within the enterprise of London Underground, but, above all and importantly, information should be made available to the general public. Without that information, there is no way in which safety can be monitored and preserved in the interests of safety first.
We want from Ministers tonight a clear indication that they accept those two basic principles. If they do not, and if they hedge around, those words "safety culture" will be no more than words in the mouth of a Minister under attack and fighting for his political career. We want more than that.
I am afraid that there are indications at this time that the lessons have not been learnt by London Underground. I want to raise one specific matter that is vital not only to the Underground system but, I believe, to the welfare of my constituents. It relates to a matter that is directly of concern to them and to me as users of Alperton station. We are reminded of what Mr. Fennell said about the travelling public's right to know about safety arrangements made by transport operators and of the importance of them knowing about the safety of places in which they habitually gather. One would have thought that that lesson would have been learnt. However, lo and behold, there is now in existence traffic circular No. 11, which was published by London Underground on 20 March. That is
986
London Underground under new management which we have been told has been cleansed and adheres to the lessons of Fennell.
What does that traffic circular say and how, more importantly, is it prefaced? It is prefaced with these words: "PRIVATE: not for publication". No safety document produced by London Regional Transport should ever again be prefaced by those words. Nothing about safety in the Underground should ever be outside the public domain. Unless the Ministers can assure us that there never will be again anything about safety in London's Underground that is outside the public domain, all they have said counts for nothing.
The circular gives details of the arrangements for the inspection of escalators for fire and smoke. Paragraph El2 says:
"The escalators shown below must be inspected every two hours for signs of fire or smoke. This is because they do not meet a necessary standard of cleanliness."
I see that the Minister is looking perturbed, as well he might. He should give us an undertaking that he will publish that traffic circular and lay it in the Library of the House, because we are entitled to know what it says.
Having listed those escalators that have to be inspected every two hours because they do not meet the necessary standard of cleanliness, the circular gives an even longer list of other Underground stations where the escalators or lifts are either completely out of operation or have had to be reduced because of safety and because of the failure of those stations to comply with the necessary safety standards. After the publication of the Fennell report and these tragic events, why are such circulars still published?
The circular gives another list of stations that have no escalators at all, and that list contains Alperton station on the Piccadilly line in my constituency. I used the escalator in the station just a few days ago, and on numerous occasions I have raised safety issues about its operation. But apparently Alperton station does not have an escalator. For years I and tens of thousands of my constituents have been travelling steadily up towards the platform on something that does not exist. According to traffic circular No. 11 of 20 March, which is private and not for publication, that escalator has no substance. We want answers about why such a document was produced. Either I and thousands of my constituents have been under an illusion about that escalator all these years, or Ministers are under an illusion tonight.
9.11 pm
Ms. Joan Ruddock: With a few notable exceptions, the debate has been conducted in the serious and responsible manner that the House expects for a matter of such personal tragedy and public importance as the fire at the King's Cross Underground station. In winding up for the Opposition, I join the many hon. Members who have expressed sympathy to the bereaved and injured and admiration for the emergency services. We especially commend the bravery of Police Constable Hanson and the bravery and sacrifice of Station Officer Colin Townsley whose family live in my borough of Lewisham. Despite the passage of time, I am conscious of the fact that for survivors and the bereaved alike, life can never be quite the same again. Tragically, many may still relive their torment through having to pursue wholly unnecessary court actions in order to gain the compensation to which they are entitled.

987
As hon. Members have said, in comparison with other modes of transport London Underground is a very safe system. I concede that that is true, especially when compared with the appalling daily loss of life on our roads. At the heart of our debate is the consciousness, perhaps the consensus, that the tragic loss of life and injury in the King's Cross fire could probably have been prevented. As Mr. Fennell said on page 17 of his report:
"it is important to note that the circumstances in which the fire could develop all arose from the condition of the escalator on that night. Thus it is my view that a disaster was foreseeable."
By delaying the debate on the Fennell report, the Government put themselves in a position whereby the Secretary of State was able to come to the House today with a list of the many positive steps taken by London Regional Transport and London Underground Ltd. We do not complain about that. We are delighted that progress has been made, but it would have been quite wrong for that satisfaction to deflect us from a critical evaluation of the report's findings and from the wider issues arising from the tragedy itself.
Anyone who has read the report cannot but be appalled at the complacency of management about the occurrence of fires in the Underground system and the unprepared-ness of staff at all levels in the face of an emergency such as that which occurred on 18 November 1987. Today the Secretary of State reminded us of the age and complexity of the London Underground system, 80 per cent. of which is more than 70 years old. It has 260 miles of track and 130 underground stations. Of course those facts are not new. They were well known to the Government when they decided to assume responsibility for the underground system through the creation in 1984 of London Regional Transport.
The Secretary of State's letter of 20 July to the chairman of London Regional Transport, to which a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who made an outstanding contribution, referred, shows a total lack of concern for the safety problems that might arise in a system of that age and complexity and in which passenger demand was already growing. I shall re-emphasise what my colleagues said about the contents of the letter. Improvements were to be made within the resources available. Costs and the call on ratepayers' and taxpayers' money were to be reduced and services were to be privatised. It is quite clear from the Fennell report that at the highest level in London Regional Transport and London Underground Ltd. those objectives were vigorously pursued.
At that highest level was Dr. Tony Ridley, the chairman and chief executive of London Underground. In evidence to the inquiry he described how he set about changing not just the structure but the culture of London Underground when he took over in 1980. Whatever Dr. Ridley's laudable aims might have been at the outset, it seems highly improbable that his objectives were not influenced by Government attitudes from 1984 onwards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was right to talk about a financial climate influencing decision-making relevant to safety. Ministers' attitudes to the financing of London Underground have been paraded annually in the House
988
during debates on London ratepayers' contributions. I remind the House that two thirds of the £286·6 million grant to LRT this year will come from London's ratepayers. In the debates on the ratepayers' levy in 1985, 1986 and 1987 the matter of safety did not once pass the lips of Ministers. They were preoccupied with efficiency, unit costs and savings. In 1986 the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said that LRT's aim was
"to secure better services and an improved passenger environment …by reducing costs in all areas. Cost-cutting is the key to LRT's success."— [Official Report, 28 January, 1986; Vol. 90, c. 902.]
Even more astonishing is the letter sent to London Members just two weeks after the King's Cross fire. In that letter the Minister of State boasted again of the reducing burden on London's ratepayers brought about by cost reduction. He produced figures to show that public subsidy was to be reduced year by year. The significance of all that lies in the style and priorities of management that were created by that financial climate. Nothing in the Fennell report contradicts that hypothesis.
I shall now deal with the escalator evidence about which my hon. Friends have spoken. Mr. Styles, the lift and escalator engineer, told the inquiry that staff were much occupied between 1985 and 1986 in getting the new management system running in preparation for competitive tendering. He acknowledged that he did not succeed in monitoring escalator cleaning standards to his satisfaction and that he did not have enough staff to do so. The maintenance manager said that the organisational changes had the effect of delaying improvements in the arrangements for escalator cleaning. We cannot dismiss, as Conservative Members would have us do, the importance of those statements, because Mr. Fennell found that the condition of the escalators made the tragedy possible. Even so, to anyone who has not read appendix J of the report or heard the speeches of my hon. Friends, it might appear that only through the tragedy of the King's Cross fire have we been able to learn lessons about the escalators. As the Secretary of State knows all too well, that is not so.
Mr. Fennell refers to 46 serious escalator fires on the Underground, and in 32 of them the cause was established or attributed to smokers' materials. But did LRT learn the lesson? Unhappily, it did not. Appendix J shows how devastating its complacency was and how ineffective the inspectorate was in changing London Underground's priorities. The Minister will need to be extremely determined if he is to ensure that there is, as he promises, a lasting change in attitudes in London Underground.
The House should take note of the analysis of six escalator fires which occurred between the major Oxford Circus fire of November 1984 and the King's Cross fire of November 1987. In one case after another, smokers' materials and accumulated rubbish and/or wooden panels were implicated. Time and again, similar recommendations were made about better cleaning of escalators, replacing wood, use of water fog and alerting the fire brigade.
What does the Minister think were the preoccupations of management that they failed to heed those findings? How does he explain the fact that the internal inquiry which followed a serious escalator fire at Green Park in June 1987 found the same probable causes— a discarded

989
cigarette end or match— and made the same recommendations as were made when fire broke out on the same escalator two years previously?
Mr. Fennell said, and Conservative Members have repeated today, that he found no evidence that reduction in operating or maintenance staff contributed directly to the disaster. Furthermore, he judged, there was no evidence that the overall level of subsidy was inadequate. As we know, he chose not to take all that evidence. But he questioned the priorities of how the available resources were allocated, and it remains our contention that the cost-cutting priorities of the Government conditioned the management ethos of London Underground Ltd.
How else can anyone explain why, when serious escalator fires occurred year after year since LRT's inception, and internal inquiries recommended obvious but costly changes, the escalator manager should say that he did not press for changes because he felt that there was only "a thin chance" of them being authorised? Why, when one inquiry after another implicated smoking materials and waste in escalator fires and recommended better cleaning, does the Minister think the cleaning establishment was reduced? Was it not just to save money, regardless of the consequences? And why, within an aging system carrying unprecedented numbers of passengers, should there have been an underspend of £1·4 million in the lift and escalator department in 1987–88?
Mr. Fennell's report concludes that management complacency towards fires resulted in lack of action. We cannot contest that, but neither can the Secretary of State escape his responsibilities. Why did he not ask just how was so much money being saved?
That brings me to further consideration of the balance of responsibilities between the chairman of LRT, Sir Keith Bright, and the chairman and chief executive of London Underground, Dr. Tony Ridley. As the House will recall, both men resigned on the eve of the publication of the Fennell report. It later transpired, however, that Dr. Ridley for some months after his resignation—until he took up his new post at Eurotunnel— continued to use his executive facilities at London Underground Ltd. Furthermore, in a recent settlement, he received £30,000 and protected pension rights.
I can only deduce from those facts that Dr. Ridley's contract with London Underground Ltd., which provided for such perks, was honoured. That begs the question whether the Secretary of State considered Dr. Ridley to be in breach of his contract. It strongly suggests that he did not. Will the Minister now say whether he accepts that his Department's cost-cutting priorities affected Dr. Ridley's prime duty to run a safe railway? That question must be answered. Who was really responsible?
I come to the question of the implementation of the recommendations of the Fennell report. The Secretary of State welcomed the setting up by London Underground of the safety audit, and we join wholeheartedly with him in that welcome. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, Mr. Fennell called for more. He suggested that further consideration should be given to a review of the railway inspectorate. He suggested that perhaps it should become part of a passenger safety inspectorate.
What is the Minister's attitude to that? Does he favour such a proposal, or is it still his view that, despite all that has happened, his Department should continue to be responsible for the railway inspectorate? If it is, what
990
changes does he expect to bring about in the inspectorate to ensure that there is a change of attitude and that never again will that cosy relationship exist between the inspectorate and part of the service that it is supposed to inspect?
Nobody will be satisfied by the attitude that was expressed in the letter, so much quoted today, of the chief inspector to the chief officer of London fire brigade. As that letter has not been read in full, I will quote from it. In the letter, which was with reference to Heathrow central station and its pedestrian subways, the chief inspector wrote:
"You may or may not be correct in your legal assertions"—
dealing with the question of certification for the station—
"and certainly, not to put too fine a point on it, there are those who believe that your definition of 'building structure' etcetera is hardly applicable to a concrete hole in the ground."
That is the kind of attitude that we cannot accept from an inspectorate that is responsible for public safety within the Underground system.
It will be clear to the Minister from the contributions of my hon. Friends that there is still much cause for concern. In the financial year just ended— the figures have been provided by London Underground— there were 4,038 reported fires on London Underground. Of those, 135, or more than two a week, were on escalators, and 36 of those escalator fires were serious enough to have to be put out by the London fire brigade.
The travelling public rightly considers that this is a situation in which real hazards exist. Many feel a deep sense of unease, if not fear, whenever trains stop inexplicably in tunnels or smoke can be smelled at stations. Opposition Members remain deeply concerned about the many changes being brought about by London Underground against this background of perceived and real risk.
A number of my hon. Friends have referred to the Underground ticketing system and the intense level of public concern about safety in relation to the gates. Our confidence was not much boosted when we received the Minister's letter telling us about the possible failure of the emergency system about which previously he had given us much reassurance.
The Minister had been asked repeatedly if all the ticket gates would automatically be opened in the event of a power failure. He said in good faith that that was his understanding. We were reassured then, although we still had objections about the gates. However, in another letter he wrote:
"LUL tell me that a circumstance has come to light in which this might not happen."
On receiving that letter I assumed that someone who was currently reviewing the system had worked out from some first principles of physics that that might occur. It was extraordinary therefore to find that the Minister was not telling us about a theoretical possibility, but about something that really happened
Mr. Hanley: In the circumstances that the hon. Lady has just described about the gates not being opened, will she admit that one in three of the gates at most might not be able to be opened? Does she accept that there is a full implementation programme to ensure that those gates are fully repaired over the next three months and that there are numerous safety devices to ensure that all gates can be opened by alternative means should the need arise?.
Ms. Ruddock: The public will not be reassured by the hon. Gentleman's comments. The prospect of three out of every 10 gates not opening in an emergency is horrifying. Although the hon. Gentleman referred to alternative provisions, he must be reminded that the only alternative is for a human being to be present to observe the situation and to deal with it. Much of our criticism has been aimed at staff cuts and the lack of transport staff eyes and ears to identify a difficult situation
Mr. Harry Ewing: To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, is she aware that this morning at the Barbican station— a station at which the gates have been in operation for only three weeks— three of the gates were inoperable? The staff were busily trying to direct passengers who were arriving from trains through one gate and passengers arriving to catch trains through another. That caused absolute chaos. Those gates are simply very dangerous in an emergency.
Ms. Ruddock: Many passengers travelling on LRT today will have experienced similar difficulties.
I am sure that the Minister is as aware as I am that the fire brigade believes that section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 is but a stop-gap measure. The fire brigade is looking forward to full certification. Will there be full certification? Will it cover all the stations in the London Underground system? If that means that there will be greater costs for any changes which must be made, will the Government guarantee that the money will be available?
The Minister must acknowledge that urgent action is required because of the way in which the fire brigade could predict these tragic events. Is the Minister satisfied about co-operation and progress with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, given that a special working party set up in 1985 to consider fires underground did not meet until a few weeks before the 1987 tragedy? Can he assure us that no fire fighter will now be sent to an underground fire with plastic over-trousers or the PVC gloves which melted so horribly at King's Cross? What progress is being made with the provision of new breathing sets, given that the heat and stress at King's Cross caused fire fighters to exhaust their air supplies in 17 minutes instead of the planned 36 to 40 minutes? Will he now instruct London Underground to hold exercises involving the public, the fire brigade and London Underground itself so that we can be certain that if another emergency. occurs the public is fully aware of how best to behave?
It is a measure of both the previous extraordinary state of neglect and complacency about safety within the Underground system and the thoroughness of Mr. Fennell's report that so many recommendations for action should have been placed before the Secretary of State. There will be relief in many quarters that much is being done. However, there will also be horror and anger that repeated warnings, inquiries and recommendations of the kind which have now been accepted were so blatantly ignored for so many years.
The London Underground system is a vital and intrinsic part of the life of this capital city. It is crucial to our economic life and for the social and recreational lives of millions of our citizens. Despite the additional Government and ratepayers' money being applied to implement the recommendations, the Government are still intent upon imposing their reckless ideology on LRT.
992
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) showed how passenger revenues have not made up for the loss of subsidy. The cost is there to be seen by all. Staff cuts are taking guards off trains and people off stations. Those changes will continue to have safety implications, especially given the alarming number of reported fires still occurring in the system. The public have the right to know, and the Secretary of State must ensure from now on that there is no limit on the freedom of information in matters of public safety.
The lessons of the Fennell inquiry are far-reaching for London Underground, but they have wider implications too. We have 38 km of rail tunnel currently being dug under the Channel and British Rail plans to tunnel 19 km under London to secure a new rail link to the coast. Tens of millions more people are to entrust their lives to such systems, and, if British Rail has its way, millions more will be delivered to King's Cross.
The public demand and have the right to expect that safety is the priority of those who provide our public transportation systems now and in the future, and that financial considerations do not stand in their way. I commend the Opposition's amendment to the House.
9.35 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I begin by picking up a point made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) whose constituency interest was most closely touched by what happened on that night. He referred to reading the Fennell report and finding it a moving document. I concur with him fully in that. He talked about the heroism of the people whose acts that night are depicted in the report and he referred to the number of people who said that they were merely doing their job.
The only matter on which I would go one stage further than the hon. Gentleman is in mentioning also those members of the public who were not doing their job that night but who simply came to the aid of the victims— their fellow citizens. I think of one in particular whom I had the honour to meet, Mr. Palmer, who played a heroic role that night. I felt privileged and humbled to meet those people who conducted themselves so bravely that night.
There have been many interventions during the debate from hon. Members from the south-east, and London in particular, who felt on that evening the chill that was so well expressed by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) when she said that there but for the grace of God could have gone any of us.
We have heard many interventions, best put by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), welcoming Mr. Fennell's report as being so comprehensive. It is in no way sparing in its analysis of the events of that night. Nor is it sparing of criticism where Mr. Fennell believes that to be deserved.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), speaking for the Opposition, to some extent began to struggle with what the Fennell report did not say. In much of what he said, and in the Opposition's amendment to the Government's motion, he was concerned with what he says Mr. Fennell found to be ultra vires. My understanding of the report is that Mr. Fennell did not want his investigation to be side-tracked into a full-blown inquiry into London Underground finance.

993
That he ruled to be ultra vires. But he was interested in everything that he thought was relevant to the fire. He said:
"I went on to make it clear that I would allow proper questions directed to the underlying philosophy of the management towards safety and how decisions were made, together with the basis upon which they were made, insofar as they related to what happened in the disaster."
I take this to include the financial basis; and indeed that is implicit in the fact that Mr. Fennell considered evidence on finance from LRT and LUL, indeed reproduced much of it in the report, and felt able to conclude that there was no evidence that subsidy was too low, and that there had been a tendency for London Underground to underspend its budget. On that basis, Mr. Fennell heard evidence on financing which is presented in his report in chapter 19 on page 149. That evidence showed that from 1984–85 to 1987–88 the Underground had more subsidy available to it than it spent, and that over the same period investment expenditure increased by about half in real terms.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was also at pains to talk about the culture within London Underground that militated, as he thought, against requests for further investment. I refer him to page 149 of the report, where Mr. Fennell says:
"I accept the evidence of the most senior management in London Regional Transport and London Underground that if funds were needed, funds were available."
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned about cuts in staff. Again, I refer to what Mr. Fennell said, as opposed to what he did not say, on page 152:
"I found no evidence that the reduction in the number of operating or maintenance staff contributed directly to the disaster at King's Cross …In my view the issue is not purely the number of staff in stations but rather the need to establish a proper level of safety at each station which can then be met by the provision of either automated aids or the proper disposition of staff."
That is an important point.
The hon. Gentleman and several others have referred to the important issue of fire certification. Mr. Fennell found that there was ambiguity about this and that it should be cleared up. The Government will clear it up by applying regulations under section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to Underground railway stations. It is quite clear from the clarification that we have made that an Underground railway station would be required to be certified unless section 12 regulations applied to it. The section 12 regulations will specify the facilities, precautions and practices that are necessary at Underground railway stations.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) asked me whether we envisage certification in the longer term. That is a possibility. Important research should be conducted to determine whether it is appropriate. It will hinge particularly on the control of smoke in Underground stations, which is a complex matter and different from the control of smoke in buildings above ground, for instance. Depending on the outcome of that research we may decide to continue section 12 regulations, or conclude that certification is required in the longer term. In either case, matters to do with the control of fire in Underground railway stations which may have been ambiguous until now will be put beyond any shadow of doubt.
A number of points were made about the criticisms which have been made of the railway inspectorate. I know that every hon. Member has read the Fennell report, in
994
which the criticisms of the railway inspectorate are plain to see. It stands accused of too cosy a relationship with London Underground. There were too few inspectors. It is pointed out that they misunderstood the breadth of their responsibilities under the health and safety at work legislation, which was held by Mr. Fennell to extend to passenger safety. All those points have been accepted and my right hon. Friend has described the means by which the railway inspectorate is being brought up to strength.
Let us be clear that none of these things removes the central point that the responsibility for the safety of an operation must lie with the operator. No matter how active or commendable the railway inspectorate may be, that will always remain the case.
A number of hon. Members wanted to know how the Government will respond to the recommendation about the future of the railway inspectorate that Fennell put forward for consideration. I accept that there is a need for a fresh look at the arrangements for the railway inspectorate. The Government are undertaking a review to determine whether further changes are necessary in the interests of effectiveness across all the functions performed by the inspectorate, and we shall announce our conclusions in due course
Mr. Prescott: I have read the latest review, established, I think, in 1987. The Minister makes it clear in recommendations to the House that he is not prepared to consider the separation of the inspectorate from the Department, although I believe that there is a conflict of interests. Is that ruled out in the review that the Minister has just mentioned?.
Mr. Portillo: No. Nothing is ruled out. We approach the matter with an entirely open mind.
There has been considerable debate about the words that appeared in the London Regional Transport Act 1984, which required the management to be responsible and to
"have regard to … economy, efficiency and safety"
Those words have a long pedigree. The Transport Act 1947 imposed a duty on the British Transport Commission in similar terms, although the wording was not precisely the same, and the Transport Act 1962 and the London Transport Act 1969 contain the same words in the same order.
I do not believe that at any time the order of those three words was considered to imply that safety should come last. I think that the way in which the words were put together derived from the understanding that an efficiently organised railway would be run economically, efficiently and safely. It is difficult to imagine a railway being run safely without also being well managed. The dichotomy proposed by Opposition Members between efficiency and safety strikes me as false: it has been recognised by legislators and parliamentary draftsmen for many years that safety, economy and efficiency go hand in hand
Mr. Spearing: Surely economy and safety do not necessarily go together. Costs could be cut in various ways, which I shall not explain to the Minister, and many measures that were more economical could well be less safe. Safety might be prejudiced by a combination of events hitherto unforeseen. That, surely, is the essence of today's debate
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is a thoughful person; he must not try to parody my argument. I am

995
saying that a management that does not have systems to enable it to control its finances is not a management that I would greatly trust to control its safety. Management systems are required for both functions, and legislation has put them together over the years
Mr. Dobson: I think that we all accept that a management that was generally efficient would be likely to be efficient in discharging its safety functions, but is not one of the problems that, under pressure from Ministers, LRT experienced a conflict between efficiency and safety? That is why the draft of the business plan for LRT last year, after the King's Cross fire— which came into my possession— contained words to the effect that LRT would not be able to make as many efficient savings because it was having to spend money on safety
Mr. Portillo: Hon. Members must read the Fennell report and reach their own conclusions, but I believe that many of the advances made in efficiency did not compromise safety. Increased revenue, achieved through the elimination of inefficiency practices, enabled the railway— at a time when it was running many more passenger miles than ever before— to make substantial advances which did not prejudice safety.
Hon. Members have often referred to the letter from my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport to Dr. Bright in 1984. It refers to the 1984 Act, which contains those three ingredients. My right hon. Friend was also at considerable pains to refer to
"a programme of investment to modernise the public transport systems",
to
"a steady programme to improve facilities for passengers, including interchanges"
and to better management— which, as I have said, is intimately related to safety.
Since the Fennell report has been published, London Underground has responded to it and has been reporting to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on some occasions through me, on its progress in implementing the Fennell recommendations. The document produced by London Underground in response to the 157 recommendations is remarkable and on the whole has been extremely well received. It is a painstaking review of procedures, structures, organisation and training to which the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred.
London Underground has accepted the vast majority of the recommendations and is close to schedule on the major projects, although it admits to some slippage on some of its response to the 157 recommendations. The management of London Underground has a tremendous task before it in terms of the capital re-equipment of stations — for example, to strip down the escalators and remove the wooden parts. The public in London sees that happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) painted a graphic picture of the discomfort and disruption that that is causing to passengers. He is right to say that that in itself has safety implications. That is why there is a certain speed at which London Underground can proceed with that vital work. The public in London recognises that the work is being carried out to improve safety.
The £266 million that the Government have allocated for the implementation of the Fennell recommendations
996
has been provided by the Government in accordance with a promise that my right hon. Friend gave that finance would be no barrier to implementation. It was made perfectly clear to the House during the debate on the London Regional Transport. (Levy) Order 1989 that the moneys that were necessary were being raised from the ratepayers of London and the taxpayers of the country. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) that it is being provided from both sources. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) was right to say that there was no inconsistency at all between providing the £266 million and the Fennell finding that subsidy had not been the problem underlying the King's Cross fire.
There was a tragic blind spot in London Underground in the matter of fire safety. That ignorance was universal, not simply within London Underground. As the Fennell report says, the disaster was foreseeable but the extent of it was unimaginable and the trench effect which we now know about was unknown. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was right to say that it was remarkable that the management had that blind spot, given the dangers of fire underground. But he will appreciate that we all know with 20–20 hindsight very much more than was known at the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) was right to say that the lessons of Fennell apply generally to employers throughout the country in various enterprises, and if they were put under the microscope in the way that London Underground has been scrutinised we should not be pleased at what we found.
I understand hon. Members' concern about the Underground ticketing system because its introduction coincides with our new awareness of the risk of fire in Underground stations. We must rely on expert advice and hon. Members are unwise to pick and choose between the expert advice that they like and that which does not fit in with their views. The London fire brigade and the railway inspectorate have repeatedly taken the view that the Underground ticketing system could be installed. Consultants are now considering the operation of that system. My right hon. Friend and I asked London Underground to take that fourth opinion on whether the Underground ticketing system was safe, and London Underground happily accepted our recommendation.
In his amendment to the early-day motion on the Order Paper my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) made a series of very good points referring to the fact that the Underground ticketing system replaces fenced areas and small exits in small numbers in railway stations. Certainly in larger stations the Underground ticketing system offers a considerably larger number of places through which people can pass in an emergency than the fabric which preceded the system
Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm the statement that the Underground ticketing system was safe or the advice received from the fire brigade, London Regional Transport and the railway inspectorate was received before it was discovered that the system was not failsafe and in certain circumstances failed to danger point? That invalidates any confirmation that has been received from any of the authorities that the Minister has quoted
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman may think that he is on to a good point, but he is not. The railway inspectorate

997
has been back to consider the matter since it was pointed out to me that there was a single phase power failure. The inspectorate noted that not all the gates remain shut but that the majority of them fly open if there is a single phase failure— [Interruption.] Hon. Members wish only to knock the inspectorate. The members of the inspectorate are the expert advisers to the Secretary of State. I have no doubt about its expertise in this matter.
In some stations the Underground—
Mr. Dobson rose—
Mr. Portillo: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice already.
In some stations the Underground ticketing system will release ticket collectors who can give advice and assistance to passengers and look out for problems. After all, a ticket collector has little opportunity to look up from his job of taking tickets to see whether he can give assistance. I am amazed that the Opposition do not want staff to be released from ticket collecting to more interesting and worthwhile jobs where they can give more direct help to passengers. That is what they are enabled to do by the Underground ticketing system
Mr. Fennell said:
"In my view, the issue is not purely the number of staff in stations but rather the need to establish a proper level of safety at each station which can then he met by the provision of either automated aids or the proper disposition of staff."
LRT staff numbers are now increasing. If the House doubts that, it is reported in the journal of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association for everybody to see. With the Underground ticketing system and aids such as close circuit television, their effectiveness is increasing. Many of the overseas metro systems which are held up for our admiration by hon. Members use Underground ticketing-system style gates. For example, they are in use in Hong Kong, Singapore, Washington and on the Paris RER
Mr. Boateng: I asked the Minister specifically whether he would authorise and instruct LRT to publish traffic circulars that related to the issue of safety. Will he do that or will he continue to allow his Department to preside over a situation in which London Transport inspectors are riding up escalators once every two hours because of defective cleaning when, at the same time, cleaners are being laid off? It does not make sense
Mr. Portillo: I was afraid that when the hon. Gentleman made his speech he was ignorant of LRT's response to the Fennell report. If he looks at the response to recommendation No. 38 he will see set out the position on escalator cleaning which covers the hon. Gentleman's point
Mr. Cohen: Did not the Minister admit in an answer to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) that on any day 18 barrier gates do not open? If the barriers were in every station, 30 gates a day would not open. That is the position while the barriers are new. What will happen when they are old? A much higher number will not open. What confidence can we place on assurances that they will always open in an emergency?.
Mr. Portillo: That has been investigated by the London fire brigade and the railway inspectorate. We will shortly have the consultants' report on that. I hope that the report will reassure the hon. Gentleman, but if it does not, action will have to be taken.
998
The fire on 18 November 1987 was a terrible event and 31 lives were lost. Many others were injured and many hon. Members have referred to the scars that remain for all those who were in any way affected by that event. It was a night of heroic actions and I again pay tribute to Mr. Fennell for the report which enables us to make improvements to safety in the future. He has made a series of recommendations—157 of them—and they have nearly all been accepted. Many of them are now well on the way to being implemented.
The response of London Regional Transport has been remarkable. It was accused of having an unco-ordinated, haphazard and untrained response and it is reacting to that by a series of most important management changes. I am impressed by the determination of the new management to see through the changes necessary. Every person must understand the importance of safety and his or her role within London Underground in fulfilling that. The staff at London Underground are better trained now and more certain of their responsibilities. The priority of safety has been reasserted. Management is giving a clearer lead—
Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to
Question put, That the amendment be made—
The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 265

Division No. 157]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cousins, Jim

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Cox, Tom

Allen, Graham

Crowther, Stan

Alton, David

Cummings, John

Anderson, Donald

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cunningham, Dr John

Armstrong, Hilary

Dalyell, Tam

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Darling, Alistair

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Dewar, Donald

Barron, Kevin

Dixon, Don

Battle, John

Dobson, Frank

Beckett, Margaret

Doran, Frank

Beith, A. J.

Douglas, Dick

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Duffy, A. E. P.

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

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Bermingham, Gerald

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Bidwell, Sydney

Eastham, Ken

Blair, Tony

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Boateng, Paul

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Bradley, Keith

Fatchett, Derek

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Faulds, Andrew

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Fearn, Ronald

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

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

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Fisher, Mark

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Flannery, Martin

Buckley, George J.

Flynn, Paul

Caborn, Richard

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Callaghan, Jim

Foster, Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Foulkes, George

Campbell;Ron (Blyth Valley)

Fraser, John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Fyfe, Maria

Cartwright, John

Galbraith, Sam

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Clay, Bob

George, Bruce

Clelland, David

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Cohen, Harry

Golding, Mrs Llin

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Gordon, Mildred

Corbett, Robin

Gould, Bryan

Corbyn, Jeremy

Graham, Thomas

999

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

O'Brien, William

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

O'Neill, Martin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Parry, Robert

Grocott, Bruce

Pike, Peter L.

Harman, Ms Harriet

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Henderson, Doug

Prescott, John

Hinchliffe, David

Primarolo, Dawn

Holland, Stuart

Quin, Ms Joyce

Home Robertson, John

Radice, Giles

Howells, Geraint

Randall, Stuart

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Redmond, Martin

Hoyle, Doug

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Reid, Dr John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Richardson, Jo

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Robertson, George

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Rogers, Allan

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rooker, Jeff

Illsley, Eric

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ingram, Adam

Rowlands, Ted

Janner, Greville

Ruddock, Joan

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Salmond, Alex

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Sedgemore, Brian

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lamond, James

Skinner, Dennis

Leadbitter, Ted

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

Lewis, Terry

Snape, Peter

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Soley, Clive

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spearing, Nigel

Loyden, Eddie

Steinberg, Gerry

McAllion, John

Stott, Roger

McFall, John

Strang, Gavin

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Straw, Jack

McKelvey, William

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McLeish, Henry

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McWilliam, John

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Madden, Max

Turner, Dennis

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Vaz, Keith

Marek, Dr John

Wall, Pat

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Wallace, James

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Walley, Joan

Martlew, Eric

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Maxton, John

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Meacher, Michael

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Meale, Alan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Michie, Bill (Sheiffield Heeley)

Wilson, Brian

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Winnick, David

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Morgan, Rhodri

Worthington, Tony

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Wray, Jimmy

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mullin, Chris

Tellers for the Ayes:

Nellist, Dave

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Mr. Robert Wareing.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bevan, David Gilroy

Aitken, Jonathan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Alexander, Richard

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Amess, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Amos, Alan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Arbuthnot, James

Boswell, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bottomley, Peter

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Ashby, David

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Aspinwall, Jack

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Atkins, Robert

Bowis, John

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Baldry, Tony

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Brazier, Julian

Batiste, Spencer

Bright, Graham

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

Beliingham, Henry

Browne, John (Winchester)

Bendall, Vivian

Bruce, lan (Dorset South)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Benyon, W.

Burns, Simon

1000

Burt, Alistair

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Butcher, John

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Butterfill, John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Carrington, Matthew

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Carttiss, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Cash, William

Irvine, Michael

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Jack, Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Jackson, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Janman, Tim

Churchill, Mr

Jessel, Toby

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Conway, Derek

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Key, Robert

Cope, Rt Hon John

Kilfedder, James

Couchman, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Cran, James

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Critchley, Julian

Kirkhope, Timothy

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Knapman, Roger

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

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Day, Stephen

Knowles, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knox, David

Dover, Den

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Durant, Tony

Latham, Michael

Dykes, Hugh

Lawrence, Ivan

Eggar, Tim

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Evennett, David

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fallon, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Favell, Tony

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lightbown, David

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lilley, Peter

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lloyd, Sir lan (Havant)

Forman, Nigel

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lord, Michael

Forth, Eric

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Franks, Cecil

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Freeman, Roger

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire).

Fry, Peter

Maclean, David

Gale, Roger

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gardiner, George

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Gill, Christopher

Madel, David

Glyn, Dr Alan

Major, Rt Hon John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Malins, Humfrey

Goodlad, Alastair

Mans, Keith

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Maples, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marlow, Tony

Gow, lan

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Gregory, Conal

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Miller, Sir Hal

Ground, Patrick

Mills, lain

Grylls, Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hague, William

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hanley, Jeremy

Moss, Malcolm

Hannam, John

Neale, Gerrard

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

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Norris, Steve

Harris, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Haselhurst, Alan

Patnick, Irvine

Hayes, Jerry

Portillo, Michael

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Rathbone, Tim

Hayward, Robert

Rhodes James, Robert

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Riddick, Graham

Heddle, John

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hordern, Sir Peter

Rost, Peter

Howard, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

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

Ryder, Richard

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Sackville, Hon Tom

1001

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Tracey, Richard

Sayeed, Jonathan

Tredinnick, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Trippier, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Twinn, Dr lan

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Viggers, Peter

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Shersby, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Sims, Roger

Waldegrave, Hon William

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Walden, George

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Waller, Gary

Squire, Robin

Ward, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Warren, Kenneth

Stern, Michael

Watts, John

Stevens, Lewis

Wells, Bowen

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wheeler, John

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Whitney, Ray

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Widdecombe, Ann

Summerson, Hugo

Wiggin, Jerry

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wilshire, David

Taylor, lan (Esher)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Winterton, Nicholas

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wolfson, Mark

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Woodcock, Mike

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thornton, Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the thorough and comprehensive report by Mr. Desmond Fennell QC on the investigation into the King's Cross Underground fire; endorses the Government's commitment to invest in the improvement and modernisation of the Underground and its decision to provide £266 m over the next three years for the implementation of the report's recommendations; notes London Regional Transport's constructive response to the report; and looks forward to continuing vigorous action by London Underground to implement its recommendations

National Health Service (Charges)
10.14 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 396), dated 8th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be annulled
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss the 11 other National Health Service prayers:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 392), dated 9th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be annulled
That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Dental Charges) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 394), dated 8th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be annulled
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 1989(S.I., 1989, No. 363), dated 7th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be annulled
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 419), dated 9th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be annulled
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 326), dated 3rd March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be annulled
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) Amendment Regulations 1989 (S.I1989, No. 395), dated 8th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be annulled
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Service) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 387), dated 8th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be annulled
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Amendment Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 517) dated 20th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th March, be annulled
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty., praying that the National Health Service (Travelling, Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) Amendment. Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 393), dated 9th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be annulled
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 614), dated 6th April 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be annulled
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 616), dated 6th April 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be annulled
Mr. Cook: Twelve prayers relating to the Health Service are before the House tonight and all relate to charges for drugs and appliances. I trust that the House will forgive me if I do not divide my time equally between the 12 prayers. Several matters of substance are raised in the regulations, but I must confess that Opposition Members do not hold strong views about the price of wigs prescribed on the National Health Service. Although I know that the price of wigs is on the way up, I am greatly relieved to note—
Mr. Frank Dobson: Is there a special concession for wigs for members of the legal profession?
Mr. Cook: I think that on this occasion I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on behalf of the Government that wigs for the legal profession are not under discussion.
I am relieved to note that, whatever the rate of inflation for human hair wigs, it is at least not as high as the rate of inflation which appears to be affecting the budget for advertising—
Mr. Bowen Wells rose—
Mr. Cook: How could I resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Wells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the question relating to wigs should be taken separately?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point which, of course, has been a matter of discussion between the Front Benches. I must advise the hon. Gentleman that our difficulty is that prayers, unfortunately, do not get the same protection in terms of time before the House that orders get. If the hon. Gentleman would like to join us in pressing for the same amount of time for debate on prayers as the House provides for debate on orders, I should be happy to ensure that there were separate rounds of debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have adequate time to deploy his point and if he chooses to seek to divide the House on the basis that the charge for wigs is an unreasonable imposition, I shall give favourable consideration to advising my colleagues to join him in the Division Lobby.
I am relieved that the rate of inflation in the charges in the regulations on wigs, other appliances and drugs is at least not as high as the rate of inflation that the Department of Health has just applied to its own advertising budget, because it has been discovered that the rate of inflation for that for the current year is no less than 87 per cent. Opposition Members urge the Department of Health to apply that uprating to its expenditure on patient care rather than on its expenditure on advertising it.
I do not propose to delay the House further on such matters because the matter of substance to which I wish to draw the attention of the House and to which I shall be directing the remainder of my remarks is the instrument providing for the exemption from the charges for eye tests. That is something of real substance which touches on a matter of great public policy. It has been an issue of considerable controversy in the House, both between the different parties in the House and among Conservative Members.
The particular issue for debate tonight is why the regulations providing for exemption from charges do not provide for exemption from the charges for pensioners.
1004
After all, pensioners make up the majority of those coming forward for eye tests. Indeed, pensioners represent 60 per cent. of the people who go to opticians for eye tests. Pensioners are not automatically exempt under the provisions. Tonight I wish to challenge whether, in the light of the evidence that is now available to us about the charges for eye tests, it is right to continue to exclude pensioners from exemption from the charges.
I recall that we last debated this matter on 1 November, when the Secretary of State for Health, whom I am delighted to see has been able to free himself from other engagements to join us on this occasion, made the central point that the charges for eye tests would be so low that it was not necessary to worry about those groups that were not exempt. If I may say so, he was characteristically robust in stating his view. In the course of the debate he asserted that it was his strong opinion that competition would drive down charges for the eye test.
I shall share with the House a couple of quotations from the Secretary of State's speech. He said:
"I do not believe that all opticians will maintain a charge for a sight test which is equivalent to the present NHS fee".
Later he said:
"even in rural areas, I cannot believe that opticians will be too far away from other opticians for such pressures not to exist. Although they may have a slightly protected market, they will not sustain their position if it is clear to their rural customers that in nearby towns such as Leeds or Hull there are no charges for a test."— [Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, cc. 928, 930]
That was a clear statement of faith that a number of opticians would charge less than the NHS fee, including, for a curious reason not immediately clear to me, particularly opticians in Leeds and Hull. The NHS fee was then £9·75.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second statement of faith was that not only would some opticians charge less than the NHS fee, but a number— at times in this passage of his speech he appeared to think that it would be the norm— would make no charge at all. It was on that basis that he invited the House to approve the charge for eye tests. On that basis the House approved the charge, without agreeing to an exemption for pensioners and in the full knowledge that the regulations before us now would be laid without providing such an exemption.
Last week, my office carried out a survey of opticians in a couple of dozen towns throughout Britain, from Aberdeen to Falmouth, covering twice as many opticians. Nowhere among the 50 opticians whom we sampled did we find a single optometrist offering an eye test free. Nowhere among the ones that we sampled did we find anyone offering a test for less than £.10·40. Boots, which caters for 26 per cent. of the market, is charging an eye test fee of £10·50. Dollond and Aitchison, the next market leader, charges £10·40. Between them, those two firms have 40 per cent. of the market, so those are not untypical figures which we specially searched out. They represent the market leaders.
Among the independents, we identified opticians who were charging between £10·50 and £12·50 as a norm. Quite a number of the optometrists that we sampled were charging £15. We even found one optometrist who was charging £17·50. Ironically, I am bound to say that was the optometrist nearest the Department of Health, from whom the Department could most readily have sought advice.

1005
We included Leeds and Hull in our sample. There we found that the eye test was not free, nor indeed was the charge £9·75 or less. The optometrists that we sampled at random in Leeds and Hull were charging between £10·40 and £12·50.
As the Secretary of State knows, I wrote to him giving the results of the survey. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene, I shall give way. I am unable to follow his sedentary interruption. The Secretary of State replied to me on 10 April. I was rather distressed that his letter commenced, "Dear Mr. Cook". That is a sad comedown from the days of the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who always started her letters to me, "My Dear Robin".
In his letter, the Secretary of State admitted that he would not disagree that some opticians had set their charges at £10 and £12. It would have been very difficult for him to disagree. I am sure he will agree that I am a fair-minded man who would not seek to deny him credit where it is due. I will give him the credit that he managed to find one optician, whom he named, who is providing a free sight test—a Mr. N. J. Bailey, an optician in Dover. In the length and breadth of Britain, we have one optician in Dover providing free sight tests. I regret to say that I have not been able to discover the cost of a second-class return rail fare from London to Dover, but I doubt whether the competition of one optician in Dover providing free sight tests will significantly depress the market in central London.
Of course, before my survey we knew that the Secretary of State was well aware of what was happening in the market. We knew, too, that he was aware of the fact that optometrists, contrary to his assurances to the House, were not only charging the equivalent of the full NHS fee, but were actually charging more. We knew that because, on 13 March, the right hon. and learned Gentleman issued a consultative document to the optometrists' profession proposing a cheapie—a quick eye test that would simply test whether the person coming into the optometrist's premises could read without glasses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) will be developing the medical points at issue in the proposed two-tier eye test. All I wish to do at this stage is to draw the House's attention to the fact that this circular document, and the proposal contained within it, is in flat contradiction to the assurance that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave the House when we debated this matter on 1 November. I am sorry to see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is shaking his head, because I shall read his own words as they are recorded. He said:
"I believe that the bulk of responsible optometrists and opticians give a full sight test …and we have the powers to specify the extent to which the patients and customers are tested. We shall look at the necessity to use them if necessary if we find that people are given quick sight tests and not screening for glaucoma… What I said is important and is relevant to the detection and treatment of glaucoma."— [Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 932.]
Far from using the powers to which he referred in that exchange, the Secretary of State has circulated the profession before coming to Parliament and asking for powers to make it legal not to screen for glaucoma and to introduce a cheap formal eye test that will meet the form of an eye test without meeting any of the substance of the examination of the eye. I serve notice on the Government
1006
that, when that order is brought before the House—if they are so ill advised as to persist against the unanimous advice of the profession not to do so— it will be our intention to divide the House and to invite Government Back Benchers, who were taken in by the Secretary of State's assurance on 1 November, to join us in voting it down.
In the meantime, we are left with tonight's regulations, on which I would wish to make three observations arising from the evidence that I have paraded in the course of my speech. My first observation is that it is now clear—certainly allowing for the fact that Boots and Dollond and Aitchison corner 40 per cent. of the market—that the great majority of optometrists' clients are being charged a fee for the eye test that is not only equivalent to the previous NHS fee, but in many cases represents a generous mark-up on that fee.
The conclusion must be that competition within the Health Service, far from forcing prices down— as the right hon. Gentleman promised us only six months ago—has the effect of driving prices up. That is not especially surprising, because what has happened with the passage of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 is that the NHS has given up its advantageous position as the monopoly purchaser of eye tests. Having given up that role, it need not surprise right hon. and hon. Members, with their understanding of market mechanisms, to discover that the effect of the NHS withdrawing as monopoly purchaser has been to allow the market to drive up prices rather than to lower them.
Secondly, we must form some conclusions from the events of the past six months and the assurances given to the House on 1 November about the conduct of the Secretary of State for Health. The Secretary of State has plainly been proved wrong in his promises about what would happen to the charges for eye tests. He has not been merely proved wrong; he has been proved wrong in glorious technicolor panorama. In itself, that is not unique in politics. What is interesting about the Secretary of State's predicament and mistake is that he got it wrong precisely because he refused to listen to the profession that advised him not to persist with abolishing the free eye test. The profession warned him that the charge for eye tests would be between £10 and £15. I remember seeing that advice when we debated this matter last autumn. In his speech on 1 November, the Secretary of State said that he did not believe the optometrists who were offering that advice.
There is a clear parallel between the Secretary of State's refusal to listen to the advice of the informed profession in that case and his current conduct in relation to the White Paper on National Health Service reforms. In the consultative period— there is always a consultative period — on the White Paper, the Secretary of State has again been fond of asserting his strong opinions. He has refused to listen to the detailed, cogent criticisms of the profession which understands better and knows at first hand the needs of the Health Service; therefore, he has every prospect of being equally wrong in the conclusions that he draws from the White Paper debate.
The second and rather more worrying conclusion from the events of the last six months, in particular the production of the consultative document of 30 March, is that the Secretary of State does not keep his word. In November, he assured the House that he would not stand for a reduced-price, quick eye test. In March he proposed to make such a test legal. That is no comfort to those in the

1007
Health Service and to those who depend on it who are being invited to trust his assurances on the White Paper. To get it wrong was forgiveable but to break a pledge to Parliament is not.
I now come to my last observation on recent evidence. It relates to pensioners who are not exempted by the regulations. In the original debate the House voted by a narrow margin to approve the charges for eye tests. It did than on the assurance that the charges were likely to be less than £9·75 and might well turn out to be free. They have turned out to be anything but free. The charges range from £10·40 to £17·50. I need hardly explain that pensioners cannot readily afford such charges.
Many pensioners will now fail to turn up for regular eye checks. Some of those who fail to do so will put their sight at risk. I regret to tell the House that we cannot amend the regulations. We can only reject or pass them. I cannot advise the House to reject them because they provide for limited exemptions. Regrettably the exemptions do not apply to all pensioners. I invite the Under-Secretary of State to reflect on the evidence that is now available to the House and which was not available in November about the reality of eye test charges. In view of that serious evidence and the assurances of the Secretary of State, I invite the Under-Secretary to come back with further regulations to provide the same exemption to all pensioners. If he does that, he will not only safeguard pensioners but rescue the reputation of the Secretary of State
10.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in opening the debate covering all 12 instruments, dealt selectively with one of them, that concerning the exemptions for sight tests, and I note that he does not intend to advise his hon. Friends to divide the House, presumably on all 12. He made three points, and I shall deal with those before dealing with each of the 12 instruments.
His first point concerned pensioners and the eye test. I remind the House that about 2 million pensioners who are in receipt of income support will have full access to free National Health Service sight tests. Further, as anyone who has taken the trouble to study the measures will see, those with an income of just above the levels of income support will also qualify for assistance for the eye test on a scale which declines according to the income of the individual and the family. So a substantial number of pensioners will qualify for the free eye test.
We believe that a charge of £10 every, say, three years is a reasonable and fair cost for a pensioner to bear, bearing in mind that the income of pensioners as a whole has risen substantially in the last decade and that pensioners, like other members of society, with increased income and increased disposable resources, will be able to make sensible decisions about what to do about taking care of their health.
Next, the hon. Member for Livingston talked about the levels at which private sight test fees were settling. His quotations from the letter from the Secretary of State for
1008
Health were selective. He glossed over the fact that it is clearly far too early, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out in his reply, to draw any conclusions.
The hon. Member for Livingston and anyone with experience of the interplay of market forces in this, as in any other sphere, knows that it takes time for the participants in that market to make sensible decisions about where to pitch their fees. It is too early to make a judgment, and for the hon. Gentleman to quote the range of from £10 to £17 is not a fair representation of the present position.
Of the largest suppliers, Boots is charging £10·50 and Dollond and Aitchison £10·40. The hon. Gentleman knows that the reimbursement figure for the NHS sight test is £10·40. It is far too early to make a judgment about where other competitors in the market will pitch their fees. They will wish to see what degree of business Boots and Dollonds attract at that level
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend said in answer to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that he believes that a pensioner will need to have his or her eyes tested once every three years. Why did he select that time scale? I thought that elderly people might need an eye test at least once a year. On that basis, £10 every year for a pensioner is a heavy financial burden
Mr. Freeman: I would not wish to prescribe what is the correct frequency, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not do so either. I was suggesting the sort of frequency for those who do not have disease. Under the regulations, those with diabetes and glaucoma, and those related in families to people who are so suffering, will continue to have free tests.
While I was not suggesting the frequency of testing, on average— and we know that there is no such thing as an average pensioner— the Government believe that going for a test, assuming that one is free of disease and free of a history of disease, every three years and paying about £10 is a reasonable expense set in the context of growing disposable income on the part of the retired.
The hon. Member for Livingston then referred to private sight tests and the consultation document which has been circulated by the Department of Health. It is a consultative document and we are still consulting on the possibility of regulating those who choose to have a private sight test and who might not choose to have an examination as part of that test, doing so perfectly understanding that they are not having a full examination of the eye.
These regulations are about increasing the resources for the National Health Service through reasonable charges and sensible policies about the provision of optical services whilst ensuring that people who cannot afford to pay for various NHS services are protected.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I consider the regulations in the order in which they appear on today's Order Paper. There are 12 instruments in all, six for England and six parallel instruments for Scotland. I will begin with the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Regulations 1989 and their Scottish equivalents.
These regulations provide a new scheme for vouchers to be issued in appropriate cases for help with the cost of a private sight test, increase the value by 5 per cent. overall of existing vouchers for glasses and extend on a statutory

1009
basis the voucher scheme for the repair and replacement of spectacles under certain circumstances. In particular, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the provisions which allow help for those on low income towards the cost of a private sight test. That meets a commitment we agreed during the debate on the Health and Medicines Bill.
Briefly, the regulations will ensure that those who are assessed as being able to contribute from their income an amount less than the current NHS sight test fee of £10·40 will he eligible for a voucher towards the cost of their private test. The actual value of the voucher will vary in each case according to the private sight test fee and the amount of the individual's assessed contribution.
The regulations also introduce arrangements which will allow help under the voucher scheme to extend to the repair and replacement of spectacles in certain circumstances. Children will continue to receive help no matter what the circumstances of the damage or loss to their spectacles. Under these regulations, however, for the first time adults will receive help where the loss or damage has occurred as a direct result of illness. We have deliberately taken a wide definition of illness so that family practitioner committees will have discretion to decide whether or not to allow the claim, after making such inquiries as they think fit. I am sure these arrangements will be welcomed by both sides of the House.
We are, therefore, through this set of regulations giving help with the cost of the private sight test, increasing voucher values and introducing a new repair and replacement scheme for spectacles for those adults suffering from illness who get help under the voucher scheme.
The National Health Service (Dental Charges) Regulations 1989 and their Scottish equivalents fulfil the commitment we made during the passage of the Health and Medicines Bill to extend the system of fully proportional charges for dental treatment to include dentures and bridges, which were previously on a fixed scale of charges. This means that all charges for dental treatment in the general dental services, and the charges for dentures and bridges in the hospital service— the only charges levied in the hospital dental service— are now on a uniform charging basis as a fixed proportion of cost. That proportion remains at the level fixed last April for dental treatment, namely 75 per cent. There is no change in the maximum charge for a course of treatment, which remains at £150.
There is no increase in charges for routine dental treatment as a result of these regulations. They remain at 75 per cent. of the fees payable to dentists, and will therefore increase only when those fees are increased and in the same measure. As a result of bringing dentures and bridges within the same proportional system as other treatment, there is an increase in denture charges of an average of about 10 per cent. to bring them up to 75 per cent. of costs. They were previously charged at a flat rate which was fixed originally at 75 per cent. of the fees. However, they did not go up when fees were reviewed last October, and they are now being brought back into line with other treatment. Charges for most bridges are not being increased because there was very little change in their costs when fees were reviewed last October.
The dental profession has long advocated proportional charging and warmly welcomed our decision to introduce it for routine treatment last year. It also welcomes these
1010
regulations inasmuch as they complete the simplification process by bringing dentures and bridges within the proportional system. Consumer interests have also welcomed these measures as fairer and simpler all round.
I should add in all fairness that the profession and other groups have argued that the 75 per cent. rate is too high. That is not an argument that the Government would accept. It is much less than the 100 per cent. that applied to millions of small courses of treatment before April 1988. An estimated 6 million courses of treatment were cheaper in cash terms in 1988–89 than the year before. There is certainly no evidence that the current level of charges is proving a deterrent. The number of courses of treatment in 1988–89, the first full year of proportional charging for most treatment, up to February, which is the latest month for which we have figures, is up by no less than 5·6 per cent. on the corresponding period in 1987–88. We are heading for the largest year on year increase since 1973. That continues an upward trend which has seen the number of courses of dental treatment rise by 19 per cent. in England and Wales since 1979, from 28·5 million in 1979 to nearly 33·8 million in 1987–88.
The cost for a dental examination is £3·15 and that charge should bring in about £50 million in 1989–90 for the benefit of the NHS as a whole. The 75 per cent. rate, with the exemptions which apply to about 40 per cent. of the population, means that the taxpayer is paying about two thirds of the cost of all general dental treatment. The patient pays in aggregate about one third
Mr. John Greenway: There has not yet been any consumer resistance to the charges, but is my hon. Friend aware that many patients are expressing to their dentists considerable surprise that the examination fee is as little as £3·15?.
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that the charge for a dental examination will be £3·15.
The National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 1989 and their Scottish equivalent introduce a modest increase in prescription charges. They also consolidate the existing regulations with some minor amendments. The prescription charge rose by 20p on 1 April from £2·60 to £2·80—an increase of 7·7 per cent. which will represent about 43 per cent. of the average prescription cost. We believe that it is right for those people who can afford to do so to make a contribution towards the cost of their medication by paying a charge. Equally, we think it is right and proper to increase that charge in line with the increasing costs of the NHS. The increase will provide an extra £10 million in income during this year. Therefore, the extra money raised by the charges represents a real and valuable addition to the total resources available to the NHS.
More than three quarters of prescriptions are dispensed free of charge because of the wide-ranging exemption arrangements. In addition to those on a low income, no prescription charges are paid by pensioners, children under 16, students under 19, expectant and nursing mothers and people who suffer from a number of specified medical conditions. Only people who can afford to pay the charges have to do so. What is more, there are arrangements to protect those even in that group who need a large amount of medication.

1011
There are available pre-payment certificates, or "season tickets", which, in effect, set a maximum to the amount that any individual has to pay. Nearly 5 per cent. of prescriptions now go to holders of season tickets. The regulations also increase the charges, roughly proportionately, for the annual and four-monthly season tickets. Season tickets continue to represent excellent value. They will save money for anyone who needs more than 14 items in a year or more than five prescriptions during a four-month period.
There is no evidence that increases in charges deter people from getting the medicines they need. Last April we put the prescription charge up by 20p, just as we are doing this year. Last year 3461 million items were dispensed in England— an increase of 11 million over the 1987 figure which was nearly 13 million over the 1986 figure. Indeed, apart from the year when we introduced the elected list, the number of prescriptions dispensed has risen regularly since 1981.
The National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) Amendment Regulations 1989 and their Scottish equivalent restrict National Health Service free sight tests to certain restricted categories, comprising about 40 per cent. of the population. We concluded last year that it was right that those who could afford to should pay for the cost of a private sight test. The moneys saved, an estimated £85 million a year in Great Britain, are to be used in various initiatives— primary care services such as facilities in general practice, health education and improving the availability and quality of general dental services. Hon. Members will recall that we promised during the passage of the Health and Medicines Act 1988, under which these regulations are made, that those who could not reasonably be expected to pay for a private sight test and those who for medical reasons needed to have sight tests more frequently would continue to benefit from free National Health Service tests. For this reason, the regulations provide that the following groups remain under the umbrella of the National Health Service: children under 16, full-time students under 19, people and their partners receiving income support or family credit, those on a low income who have been assessed as being entitled to full help with National Health Service costs, the registered blind and partially sighted, people needing certain complex lenses, diagnosed diabetics and glaucoma patients and close relatives of glaucoma patients aged 40 and over.
Additionally, people who are required as part of their treatment under the hospital eye service to have regular sight tests, for example, those awaiting an operation for a cataract, will continue to be eligible for free National Health Service sight tests when these are undertaken by a high street optician. These arrangements will, I estimate, cover about 40 per cent. of all sight tests. I have already mentioned that other people whose income is just above the level at which they would qualify for full help with National Health Service costs will be able to get a voucher towards the cost of their private test.
I would now like to touch on the effects of our proposals on those who will have private sight tests. As I said, it is too early to draw conclusions from the fees that opticians are talking about at the moment. But already we can see variety coming into the market, and it will clearly
1012
pay the customer to shop around. As I said earlier, the big multiple chains seem to have settled for the moment on a fee of around £10, in line with the National Health Service fee of £10·40 reimbursed to the optician for those who qualify for a free test. But I have to say that, even at a fee of £10, it seems to me unreasonable to argue that a customer is likely to be deterred from having a test about once every three years.
We stand by these regulations. We believe that they are right and that they will ensure that help is given where it is needed most
Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister has now twice relied on saying that the charge made by Dollond and Aitchison is equivalent to the new NHS fee, which came into effect on the same date as charges were abolished, and which is now £10·40. I remind him that the Secretary of State said on 1 November:
"I do not believe that all opticians will maintain a charge for a sight test which is equivalent to the present NHS fee". —[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 928.]
If the Department's view is now that it is acceptable that opticians charge a fee for sight tests which is equivalent to the NHS fee, will the hon. Gentleman at least admit that the Secretary of State's advice was wrong, and that the House was invited to approve the charges for the eye test on the basis of mistaken assurances from the Secretary of State?
Mr. Freeman: I entirely reject that charge. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the free market takes time to have an effect. He cannot expect market forces in the first week of a new regime to alter charges out of all proportion to those being charged by two of the major suppliers.
The hon. Gentleman quoted selectively from my right hon. and learned Friend's reply. He gave the example of a company— Specialeyes—which has 59 outlets throughout the country and which will charge most people £9·25, while offering pensioners sight tests for £2·50. The hon. Gentleman deliberately ignored that large chain in his selective quotation. Replying to the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. and learned Friend concluded:
"I have no doubt that as time goes on we shall see prices reduced to levels lower than the National Heath Service sight test fee."
With patience, and with the full effect of a new and competitive market, we shall see the benefits of competition being reflected in lower prices, to the benefit of all who choose sight tests.
I commend the regulations to the House and invite my hon. Friends to reject the prayers.
10.54 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I am extremely pleased that the House has been given another opportunity to debate this tiresome subject— the controversial issue of charges for dental and eye examinations— and to discuss the recent increase in prescription charges. In such circumstances it is difficult not to repeat what I, along with many other hon. Members, have said on numerous occasions here and elsewhere, but as the Government have a tendency to bury their head in the sand it is often necessary to keep digging until the argument hits home.
Charges for eye tests and dental checks contradict an important factor in health care— prevention. The health of the nation will be the poorer for such a move; more

1013
disgracefully, the nation's poor will suffer most. Charges deter people from seeking help and treatment, despite what the Minister has said. I find it remarkable that the Government can brush off the introduction of such charges with comments implying that, because the charge will be only £3·15 every six months or so, it will not act as a deterrent. Even if we ignore the fact that many people detest going to the dentist in any case and that any excuse not to do so will be jumped on, such comments highlight the extent to which the Government are out of touch with what is happening in a large part of our society
Mr. John Greenway: The Gentleman cannot have been listening to what my hon. Friend the Minister said in his speech, that in 1988–89 the number of courses of dental treatment rose by 5·6 per cent. How does he square that statistic with what he has just said about dental attendance?
Mr. Fearn: Certainly the information given in publicity has induced people to go for tests in the last year, but now that the charges are coming in I am sure that those figures will drop.
When a family's income in take-home pay can be as little as £70 a week, £3·15 is a lot of money— particularly when we add the prescription charge of £2·80 per item and the £10 to £18 which may be charged for an eye test. I know that some categories are exempt from charges, including those in receipt of family credit or income support; but I also know that the take-up rate for those benefits is very poor, despite the recent adaptation of the statistics by the Department of Social Security. A number of factors could account for that. Some people are too proud or too independent; others cannot cope with the interminable form-filling and questions, the long wait— the whole degrading exercise. Yet others have not the wherewithal to make it through the bureaucratic jungle. There is no doubt that they will suffer as a result of the charges.
Then there are the low-income groups who are not entitled to support, but who nevertheless struggle every week to make ends meet. Children, because they are exempt, may not be harmed by the regulations, but parents may well put off visits to the optician, dentist and doctor because their children need a pair of shoes or other article of clothing. Our senior citizens, who have contributed to the health and welfare of the country all their lives, should be entitled to seek the health care that they need regardless of their ability to pay, to ensure a decent quality of life without the hindrance and encumbrance of state administration.
Even those who are allowed to claim may find that they cannot obtain vouchers because— as we have been reading lately— backlogs cause them to be "out of time". Regulations should allow discretion for late claims. The elderly may suffer the most, although they are the people who should be using the services the most. Regular inspection by a dentist can identify pathological changes in tissue and bone structure, and an eye examination can pick up many diseases. Regulation 13B in statutory instrument 1989 No. 395 and regulation 14B in No. 387 (S.41), although welcome in the circumstances, rather miss the point. Many people will be deterred from visiting an optician for an eye test and therefore the diseases which would place them in the exempt category will not be detected.
1014
I mentioned earlier that the Government justified the introduction of dental charges by claiming that the charge was small at £3·15. I recall others claiming that market forces would reduce or even eliminate charges for eye tests. The recent survey, reported in most newspapers, certainly has shown how wrong the Government are to rely on market forces. The letter which the Minister issued as a press release dated 10 April, obviously because he was proud of its contents, shows how unfair, unpredictable and unreliable the market is and that it certainly should not be one of the determinants as to the availability of health care for any particular individual. Not everyone can shop around. The elderly, the disabled, young parents, those who cannot afford fares or those who do not have adequate public transport facilities cannot always do so. Others in rural areas do not have the outlets from which to choose. Unfortunately, not everyone lives in Dover or Witney in Oxon where we are told that charges are below £10. It is quite inappropriate that a crucial factor in the good health of individuals should be left to the whims of the market and could mean that one pensioner pays £2·50 while another pensioner in a neighbouring area may pay as much as £17·50 for an eye test. Does the Minister really believe that the latter will not be deterred from seeking help?
It is never very clear exactly what we are talking about in terms of charges for eye tests. Are we talking about a full eye examination or an eyesight test only? Will consumers be aware of exactly what they are paying for? As I understand it, and I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, patients who are exempt from charges can be sure of getting a full eye examination while those who have to pay do not have such a guarantee. What type of test will a pensioner who has to pay only £2·50, as per the Minister's press release, receive? Of course the full eye examination is most beneficial as diseases and other problems can be detected during that exercise.
Another group of people who will be adversely affected and do not appear to be exempt are those who receive a disability allowance but are not on income support. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position of such people. By definition it is more difficult and often more expensive for them to go about their daily business. They are often pushed to make ends meet, but because their allowance is 20p or 40p more than social security regulations state, they are not entitled to income support or other benefit. When they need to have their eyes tested or their teeth checked, will they have to undergo the bureaucratic nightmare of a means test to find out whether they are entitled to full payment, part payment, third payment, quarter payment or any of the other possible combinations?
Statutory instruments Nos. 517, 393, 614 and 616 seek to increase the amount of deductions to be calculated before entitlement, in line with social security upratings. That is yet another example of the Government not living in the real world. They automatically assume that life is hunky-dory, full of happy families who are all aware of and are fulfilling their responsibilities to each other. But life is not like that. Many families have non-dependent relatives living with them who cannot or will not contribute £12·50. In the case of young dependants or others in low-paid work, they often cannot afford to contribute. The parents are keeping their children's heads

1015
above water. In other cases family and communications break-downs may have been brought about by poor living conditions and lack of finances.
Why is it that whenever the Government introduce legislation or make regulations, whether to introduce charges or give taxes away, it is always those who are already struggling who are hit the hardest? I believe that it was Sir Keith Joseph who first referred to the "cycle of deprivation" and said that it must be broken. Every move that the Government make adds to that cycle and it becomes a vicious circle.
The good health of individuals is paramount to the wellbeing of the nation. Ill health is a serious restriction on the freedom of any individual. The promotion of good health through prevention, diagnosis and treatment can benefit all collectively and individually. Charges deter people from using the Health Service and contribute to a system in which there is provision for the rich and provision for the poor.
We are told that the total charge for NHS services amounts to £640 million. We know that the present charges are designed to save between £50 million and £70 million. Those are large amounts but represent only 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. of the total cost of the Health Service. I am certain that if the Government so desired they could easily transfer such charges to levies on some industries such as, for example, tobacco, alcohol and many others which could have the added benefit of contributing to good health promotion.
Elimination of the present charges would reduce the administrative burden and make life a great deal easier and healthier for us all.
11.6 pm
Mr. John Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that we have just completed a long and involved debate on the King's Cross fire and the Fennell report. The Secretary of State for Transport told us that the delay in holding the debate was because he wanted to give the House the fullest amount of information concerning that terrible tragedy.
During the debate the Secretary of State was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on the relationship between the Home Office and the Department of Transport and on matters concerning the emergency and fire services.
During the debate a story appeared on the tapes saying that the Department of Transport has now ordered an investigation into some allegations made in a letter in The Times this morning. I read that letter, which was from Sir Keith Bright who was in charge of the services. I considered it to be partly due to sour grapes.
To find out from the tapes tonight that the Department has ordered an investigation is a matter of subtance and concern. If it is true and the Secretary of State withheld the information from the House during the debate, it would amount almost to contempt of the House. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, through the offices of the House, if you will ask the Secretary of State to make a statement and, if it is not possible tonight, he should make a statement tomorrow because he has a sad history of withholding informaton from the House
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am not sure to what extent that is a matter for the Chair. Doubtless what has been said will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and conveyed to the Secretary of State. In any case, I shall ensure that Mr. Speaker is aware of what has been said.
11.8 pm
Mr. Michael Carttiss: My contribution to the debate can, I am happy to say, be brief. However, unhappily, I have to repeat that I have not changed the view that I held and expressed in the House last April and when we debated the Health and Medicines Bill. I listened to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with great care, but I am still unable to acknowledge that there is not a fundamental principle at stake. I do not intend to enter into arguments about deterrence, what people can afford or what market forces will produce in terms of the eventual level of charges. My argument has always been and is confined to the fact that I was proud that in our National Health Service we had the fundamental right to free inspections of teeth and eyes. I have not opposed, and do not oppose tonight, the increases in prescription charges. I acknowledge that within these regulations there are wide exemptions and that many people will not find themselves in great difficulties. But the issue of people being entitled to have their teeth inspected without a charge is fundamental to the concept of preventive medicine.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who made the point that some people are surprised that they are being charged only £3. I am not surprised that some people are surprised. But for many people in my constituency, where we still have an unemployment rate of 10 per cent.—well above the national average and dramatically above the East Anglian regional average, which is much lower than the national average— £3 for teeth inspections and £10 for eye tests has an effect. The fact that innumerable of my hon. Friends who represent wealthy areas in south-east England find that their constituents are surprised that the charge is a mere £3 does not have much impact on the elderly folk who come to retire in Norfolk, as well as those who were born and bred there and who live in an area of low average incomes, apart from the high unemployment which I have already mentioned.
The Government have had a most successful economic policy and are talking about repaying billions of pounds of the national debt— for very good reasons. They are now talking about £50 million or so to do away with what has been a fundamental right within the National Health Service. Notwithstanding all the logical arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister tonight and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in previous debates, it is still what I called last year a piddling measure. I repeat that tonight and I go further. It is an idiotic measure. I am not surprised that few people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale are worried about £3. They are probably so overwhelmed by the general unpopularity of what the Government are doing generally to reform the Health Service that they view the imposition of a fee for teeth and eye inspections as a minor feature of a rather bad story all round.
Before some of my hon. Friends think that I am opposed to the Health Service reforms, I must say that I believe that there is an enormous amount of good in the White Paper. However, the regulations require us as Conservative Members to vote for measures that are
1018
unnecessary, ineffective, and merely upset people so that they will not then see the value of the enormous and successful work that the Government are doing.
I must record that I cannot support the charges. If an opportunity were to arise in the ballot for private Members' Bills, the issue that I would want to put at the top of my list of priorities would be to restore the free tests. I hope that even at this late hour my Front Bench colleagues will take back the regulations. It does them no credit to be here at this time of night asking us to support them again.
11.13 pm
Mrs. Audrey Wise: The press statement issued by the Department said that the regulations were not imposing a charge, but removing a subsidy. That curious use of words typifies the attitude of dissimulation and deceit which surrounds this affair. The Minister has said that it is too early to make judgments about the prices being charged for eye examinations by opticians, but his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was willing to make forecasts and judgments about that even before the Health and Medicines Bill became an Act.
We were told that market forces take time to operate. But we were not told why on earth market forces should lead people to work for nothing. That does not happen in any other field, so why should it happen in this one?
Why should eye examinations, which may or may not lead to the prescription of spectacles, and which involve a most highly skilled person who has had long and most exacting training, be free? I can conclude only that it exposes ministerial ignorance of anything to do with eyes, eye examinations or optical practice. There is no way that opticians can recoup the cost of eye examinations if they offer them as freebies. If that cost is thrown in with the rest of the transaction, opticians will come a cropper, because there may be no "rest" of the transaction. Between one fifth and one quarter of eye examinations do not result in a prescription for glasses. Therefore, an optician cannot even add the cost to that of the spectacles, yet I have no doubt that that is the basis on which the ministerial forecasts were made. It is impossible for people to offer services or goods for nothing, whether we have a market economy or whatever. It will not happen with optics.
The Minister's statement about three-year frequency was rightly challenged by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). He went on to repeat the claim that every three years is the appropriate frequency. How then can people have the National Health Service eye examination to which they are entitled without question once a year? Why is the normal advice to people without problems that it is a good idea to have an eye examination every two years? The three-year period is simply a device to try to minimise the effect of what the Government are doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that he will not advise Opposition Members to oppose the measure in the Lobby tonight, and he gave one or two reasons for that. However, the overwhelming reason is that it is actually now in operation. It is a peculiar Parliament which discusses the propriety and appropriateness of regulations 12 days after they were put into operation. We should protest about that.
I have one or two more things to say about the date of operation. I do not know whether the Ministers realise it.

1019
but family practitioner committees throughout the country were unable to give authoritative advice to opticians about the date of operation of the change within two weeks of it being due to come into effect. Family practitioner committees were telephoned by opticians within a fortnight of 1 April, asking, "Is it 1 April? When is it? We do not know. We have had no information." The committees had to say, "We do not know. We have had no information either." That is an extraordinary way to proceed.
I have sat through proceedings in which the phrase "removing burdens from business" has been repeated ad nauseam. I am amazed to find that people who use that argument as a justification for removing rights from working people should be so insensitive to the needs of business as to carry out this change in such a way. I will tell the House exactly what has happened. The Minister has not bothered to do so. The date of operation was a dark secret even from family practitioner committees, on whom opticians rely for their authoritative information. Family practitioner committees received the appropriate forms only within a few days of the magic date of 1 April, so in many areas the forms had to be delivered by hand to opticians in order that they might have them when they would have to be used.
When the opticians got the forms they looked at them. What did they find? I do not know how much the Minister knows about this matter. In fact, I am working on the basis that Ministers know nothing, but I thought that someone in the Department would know one or two things. I thought that after more than 40 years of printing forms for eye examinations the Department would know that opticians, and everybody else who has anything to do with eye examinations or with the prescription or provision of glasses— indeed, anything at all to do with eyes— works on the basis of "Right first, left second." Everything is written in that way. This Government, who boast of removing the burdens from business, managed to produce an assortment of forms, all of which were printed on the basis of "Left eye first, right eye second." So the opticians, whom the Minister expects to give their services free, are having to cross out the wrong words and write in the correct words. That is having to be done for every patient in every optical practice— and, having seen the forms, I can tell the Minister that there is not much space.
This is the absolute botch-up, the howler of a procedure that the Government have presided over. Yet they are the Government who propose, within the next two years, to change the whole operation of every hospital in the country and GPs' practices— to do things for which no factual basis has been laid, things which, apart from the fact that they are wrong anyway, cannot be carried out in an efficient way.
This one limited area, involving such simple things as which eye is described first, could be taken as a tiny case study of what is likely to happen. I dare say that surgeons sometimes have to fill in forms and that they have procedures. I should not like them to mix up right legs and left legs, as opticians may be at risk of mixing up right eyes and left eyes.
But that is not the only error. It is not even possible to use carbon paper, so names and addresses have to be written in twice because the form is designed in such a way
1020
as to make it impossible to fill it in rationally. That is what the party of business— the party concerned to remove burdens from business— has managed to do to optical practices throughout the country.
But there is worse to come. Having failed to persuade opticians to give "freebies", the Government have introduced the idea of "cheapies". I shall not go on at length about this, though it is certainly relevant to the regulations that we are discussing. For example, if a person does not realise at the time of the test that he is entitled to a free National Health Service eye examination but realises later that he was so entitled, then he will be entitled to a refund of the cost of the test. I do not know what is in Ministers' minds, but if such a person were to opt for a "cheapie" test, if it ever became possible, what refund would he get? Having been entitled to a full eye examination, he would not have received one. So what would happen? The Government are getting into really deep water.
But, on the principle, they are getting into even deeper water. If optometrists or ophthalmic medical practitioners could invite patients to sign pieces of paper to the effect that it is all right if they are not given a full examination, that is tantamount to saying, "Sign to say that it is OK if I am negligent." The idea that that is in any way proper or desirable, or likely to lead to the protection of the nation's eye health, is just ludicrous. That, however, is what is proposed. At least that is the proposal which is the subject of consultation. I was surprised when the Minister told us that consultation is still taking place, but that gave me some hope, as the original time limit has expired. I hope that that example of unusual delicacy means that the Government are having second thoughts. I can tell the Minister that if there are not second thoughts, there will be severe trouble. Surely the Government are not prepared to say to professional people, "Ignore your common law duty of care to your patients; get them to sign to say that it is all right if you do not do it properly." Surely the Government cannot expect that approach to be accepted. As I wish trouble to be saved all round, I hope that the Government will proceed no further with that ludicrous suggestion.
If the Government take the matter further, it will be because they have been caught out after having promised that the cost of an eye examination would vanish into thin air, or that it would be provided as a mere bagatelle, for nothing or next to nothing. They will have been caught out in misleading the public and they will be looking for an alternative. The alternative will damage those who, because of lack of knowledge, or through poverty, succumb to the Government's blandishments. In effect, the Government will say, "It is all right. Assume that you do not really need a proper eye examination. Trust to luck and pay £5 instead of £10." Conservative care of eyes brings us to that.
11.27 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealt in detail with the practicalities of the regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) spoke about the principle that lies behind the regulations and behind charging, and it is on the principle that I wish shortly to detain the House.

1021
Although the National Health Service costs the average family about £35 a week— about £1,820 a year—the service that it provides is all too often seen as costless by both those who use it and those who work in the Health Service. Payment for service is never mentioned. It is not discussed or itemised, and there are many who are unaware of or unconcerned about what the NHS costs. That has important implications for the use of the services that are provided.
It is right that the NHS should be free to those who need its services at the time that they need them, and be paid for mainly out of taxation. That has been the principle of the NHS ever since it came into being in 1948. From almost the first day of the service, however, it became clear that there would be concern about costs. Whenever NHS charges are introduced or debated in the House, or in the country, there is a tendency for the Opposition, and some of my hon. Friends, to treat them as the first charges to be introduced. Charges were first introduced by the Labour Government who introduced the NHS in 1948. By 1949, they had had to introduce charges. They recognised that it was impossible to sustain the costs of the NHS without charges.
One of the criticisms made about the measures that the Government intend to introduce is that they may reduce spending on the NHS. That was one of Beveridge's intentions. He and those who introduced the NHS thought that by having a National Health Service that would improve patient care the amount of money spent on the Health Service would be reduced. The NHS was introduced in 1948 on that basis.
The Labour Government soon found that if there was infinite demand, there was an infinite cost. Therefore, by 1949— only a year later— Cripps, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was obliged to bring in legislation to introduce prescription charges. They did not become effective until 1951 when Gaitskell was Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the Budget of that year, on what did that same Labour Government introduce charges? I will tell my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth: they introduced charges on teeth and spectacles. So there is nothing new about charges for some items. They have been in force almost as long as the National Health Service itself.
The charges that were introduced in 1951 did not apply to needy categories of patients who were exempt. I strongly suspect that if we were to check what categories were exempt in 1951, we would find that they do not differ substantially from the categories which will be exempt now.
There is nothing new in the concept of charges for certain items under the National Health Service. That concept was introduced as far back as 1949 by the Labour Government, the very same Government that only a year before had introduced the National Health Service. They brought in the charges because they recognised that there were certain items for which there was a need to raise money; they also recognised that there was a need to ensure that people had some appreciation that those services were not totally without cost.
When we are debating the National Health Service in future I hope that there can be at least a little intellectual honesty about the history of the introduction of the service. Hon. Members should realise that while we are giving a first-class service through the NHS it is on occasions necessary to make modest charges for certain items.
11.31 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: Understandably my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) concentrated on the new arrangements for eye examinations and the charges being introduced by the Government. I agree entirely with his comments and with the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise).
I want to deal with a different aspect of the regulations. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State emphasised that we are debating 12 separate statutory instruments. I listened carefully to what he said. He stopped, as I thought, in mid flight and unfortunately made no reference to the last four statutory instruments on the Order Paper. I refer specifically to the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Amendment Regulations 1989. There are four sets of regulations on that matter, Nos. 517, 393, 614 and 616.
The first two of those statutory instruments— Nos. 517 and 393— affect the amount of contribution assessed for a non-dependant living in the home of someone who is applying for a voucher for glasses. The second pair of regulations amend the first two, because the Government got it wrong when they published the original regulations in March.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) referred to these regulations, but even he underestimated the effect of the increases in the contributions that are assessed for non-dependants living in the homes of people who are applying for assistance for the cost of glasses. He rightly pointed out that there is a deduction for housing costs for the assessed contributions which will affect the amount given to assist someone who has a voucher. The real effect is not just £12·50 at the top of the scale. It could be as much as three times that amount.
If the hon. Member for Southport works through the calculations, he will find that the excess of income over resources for any applicant for assistance is multiplied by a factor of three. It follows that, if income equals requirements—according to the income support regulations and calculations— that applicant will find that he or she is contributing three times the amount of the deduction from housing costs. It can be three times £12·50 in a family where one non-dependant has an income of more than £52·10 per week. A penal contribution can be expected from someone who has a voucher.
The Under-Secretary of State told the House that the value of vouchers has been increased by 5 per cent. and that in his opinion the charges were reasonable. As I have already mentioned, he did not touch on those four statutory instruments and, therefore, he did not give himself the opportunity to point out the amount of the increase in those assessed contributions towards housing costs for non-dependants living in the homes of applicants for help. If he had touched on that, he would have had to tell the House that the Government have introduced a contribution for a non-dependant who is under 25 years old and receiving income support. That new contribution is introduced by these regulations at the rate of £3. That contribution of £3 can be multiplied by a factor of three, so that the parent— who may be a man or woman pensioner— can be asked to contribute as much as £9 towards the cost of glasses as a result of that under 25-year-old person on income support living at home. That, of course, is a new introduction and the increase is

1023
infinite. However, the increase is more than double for someone in the middle of the scale, because the contribution is being increased from £3·45 to £7·20 for a non-dependant whose income is less than £49·20. At the so-called top end of the scale, for someone whose income exceeds £52·10 a week the contribution is being increased from £8·20 to £12·50, which is an increase of more than 50 per cent. Those are massive increases by any stretch of the imagination or calculation. They are increases that, by definition, are being applied to families who are living in poverty. It is, in effect, increasing a tax that is paid by poor families. It is paid often by pensioners, who are applying for assistance with the cost of necessary glasses, and who happen to have a non-dependant— often a grown-up son or daughter— in their homes.
The Minister did not give himself the chance to tell us how many people are affected by those increases. I hope that, when his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies to the debate, he will tell us how many people will be adversely affected by the increases in the contributions of non-dependants covered by the four statutory instruments.
I want to mention another aspect of the regulations because the House should be concerned not only with what is happening under these regulations, but with what has happened as a result of the regulations that the statutory instruments amend. In other words, the House should be concerned about what has happened during the past 12 months.
My interest in this detailed but important aspect of the regulations arose as a result of a constituent's inquiry. I engaged in correspondence with the Department of Health about my constituent's case. My constituent is a pensioner and his wife is also receiving a retirement pension. Their combined pensions mean that they have an income slightly in excess of the level for income support. Therefore, a voucher is needed for glasses for the husband. Their grown-up son lives in their home and that son did not want to tell his parents—and did not see why he should tell the Government— the amount of his wages every week. Under the old regulations, before the changes that were made about a year ago, he did not have to reveal his wages because the contribution towards housing costs was a standard amount and there was no inquiry into income or means or into the financial affairs of a non-dependent grown-up son or daughter living with retired people. The Government have now introduced a means test for such non-dependants and that son now has to tell the Government and his parents, because he has to put his income on the form, the amount of his weekly income. He refused to do that because he said he did not see why he should have to provide that information.
I wrote to the Minister and asked the reason for the information about income. I received a courteous reply, but the letter did not tell me what I most wanted to know, which was what would happen if my constituent's son still refused to give the information. I received another reply from the Minister who told me that the non-dependant's contribution would be assessed at the maximum rate. The Minister's letter contained detailed figures. When I checked those figures with the assistance of the Library
1024
staff, I found that they bore no relation to the figures that had been approved by the House a year ago in statutory instruments. They were on a different scale.
Within 24 hours I contacted the Minister's office and 10 weeks later I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security telling me that the instructions issued to the agency benefit unit were incorrect. That was in the middle of January. For months the agency benefit unit had been assessing non-dependant's contributions on incorrect instructions. In every case, the non-dependant's contribution was assessed at £3 more than it should have been under the regulations approved by the House.
I have already explained how the amount to be paid by a person with a voucher is calculated. The penalty, the excess which someone— often a pensioner— has to contribute, can be as much as £9, three times the £3 mistake. In his letter the Minister was kind enough to tell me that fresh instructions would be issued to the agency benefit unit. The House will be pleased to learn that after 10 weeks the Government took the action that was necessary to correct their inaccurate instructions. Can the Minister say how many people were adversely affected by the mistake? How many paid £3 or £9 or an amount in between which they should not have paid for glasses? What have the Government done to refund the money that those people have paid? I await answers to those questions with great interest.
11.42 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I shall be brief. I should like to make a comment and a plea to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. My comment is that, in this debate and in the other debates that we had on these charges in November and seven or eight months earlier, it has been said that the amount raised by these charges is insignificant. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) spoke about a "piddling measure". There is some uncertainty about whether the amount raised by the dental and optical charges will be £140 million or £150 million. That amount is by no means insignificant.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has just left the Chamber, because I wanted to remind him and the House of what he said in the Budget debate. He spoke about the likely cost of the tax relief of £40 million a year for private medical insurance for old age pensioners. He said:
"£40 million is sufficient to pay the annual salaries of 3,000 nurses or 1,000 consultants. It is enough to purchase 20,000 ventilators or 1,300 ambulances. It is enough to meet the operating costs of 35,000 cataract removals or of 17,000 hip replacements."— [Official Report, 16 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 569.]
That is what can be done with £40 million. These measures raise about three and a half times that figure, so we are not talking about an insignificant amount.
The Minister pointed out that the take-up is increasing. It happens when charges are changed— this has occurred for the last 30 or 40 years— that for a month or two there is a small reduction in demand. Over a period— say, when we review the position in a year or two— we will find that there has not been a significant change.
In the three speeches that I have made in the House on this issue I have appealed to the Government to introduce a new contract for general dental practitioners. Members of the dental profession are disappointed that negotiations

1025
on a new contract have not yet commenced. There is fear that perhaps the profession has missed the boat and that the new contract will not appear.
It is appreciated that, with the general practitioner contract being in the forefront of the Government's mind, the dental profession may have to be patient. I hope that the Minister will repeat the assurance that was given as long ago as last June— that the Government are determined to negotiate and introduce a new contract for general dental practitioners.
The present arrangements for remunerating dentists are 40 years old and out of date. We must have a new arrangement which reflects modern trends in dentistry— the reduction in dental decay— and which will be more beneficial to patients and the profession.
When we discussed these issues on 1 November last, I said that the introduction of charges of this type was often an unpopular step. But I urge hon. Members to reflect that an unpopular measure does not always mean that what is proposed is unreasonable. What the Government propose is right and is in the interest of the NHS, and I hope the House will not divide on it tonight.
11.47 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: At this hour I will be brief and simply put a few questions to the members of the Treasury Bench, and particularly to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who will reply to the debate. My hon. Friends will be aware that I was one of those on the Government Benches who strongly opposed the introduction of charges for dental inspections and eye examinations.
Does not the introduction of charges in these spheres fly in the face of the philosophy of preventive medicine, which I thought was a No. 1 priority with the Government? Preventive medicine can save money. After all, if relatively cheap treatments are carried out early enough, the heavy cost of certain eye and dental treatments can be avoided. In other words, the small sums of money to which we are referring in these charges could be dissipated in other ways.
Is the Minister aware of the co-operation which to date has often existed between opticians and optometrists and eye hospitals in centres of excellence, where competent and able professional optometrists have assisted eye hospitals and taken the pressure off those hospitals, to the advantage of the NHS as a whole? I understand from the profession of optometrists and opticians that, because of the implementation of charges, that relationship is likely to be destroyed or, at best, undermined.
My colleagues on the Conservative Benches often talk about the great benefits of the untrammelled free market. We have seen the problems that can occur with the untrammelled free market in the City and the disasters that resulted from that. It would be constructive, rational and sensible to discuss these proposals with the professions that will be involved, as they are intimately well informed about these matters. The professions should be consulted before the Government introduce measures—and in this case charges— which will affect two very important sectors of the National Health Service.
I believe that the professional services do not always need to be open to the free market to provide the best possible service to the people of this country. As I have said, in certain areas we can see that the Government are
1026
forcing the free market upon the professions. The morality, discipline and self-discipline of those professions are disappearing and the public are suffering dramatically as a result. Costs are also rising.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that people will be able to shop around. Should people who require professional skilled help have to shop around? Do they not go to a professionally qualified person and expect to receive good and reliable treatment? If they have to pay for that treatment, do they not expect it to be provided at an acceptable and reasonable price?
I do not believe that costs are involved in the issues that we are considering today. Many people who require help are least able to shop around and take advantage of what my hon. Friend the Minister described as the free market. I speak with some knowledge about these matters as I have served on the Select Committee on Social Services for many years and I have met many people concerned with the professions who have expressed dissatisfaction and unhappiness that the Government are following this road. They do not believe— and I do not believe— that the public and those who require treatment and assistance will benefit.
It is extraordinary that the House should debate a matter at this time of night which involves a maximum, as I understand it, of £60 million, when these measures will result in substantial additional costs on the Health Service in future.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench realise that opposition to the charges does not rest exclusively with the Opposition parties. It is felt very deeply on the Conservative Benches as well— and not because we are dogmatic or trying to appeal to groups outside the House whose votes we may need at the next election. Those of us who voted against the charges during debates on the Health and Medicines Bill did so because we were convinced that the Government had not presented a good case and because going against the philosophy of preventive medicine would not benefit the people of this country.
11.53 pm
Mr. Sam Galbraith: I want first to thank the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). He dealt with the broad general principles involved with the charges for eye tests and the question of preventive medicine. We have debated those issues before and, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield spoke about them so eloquently, he has removed from me the obligation to deal with them tonight. I am grateful to him for his contribution about the general principles.
As the Minister said, there are 12 sets of regulations before us, half referring to England and Wales and the other half to Scotland. There are no significant differences between those two groups so I shall not confine my remarks to one or the other.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), I want to concentrate on the regulations which deal with charges for general ophthalmic services and those dealing with exemptions. Having heard the hon. Members for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I take more than a passing interest in the. regulations dealing with charges and, in particular, wig charges in the NHS. That is not because of my particular problem in that regard. I take a passing interest having

1027
been responsible for great charges for wigs in a former life because of the nature of my work. It was part of my work dealing with patients who had what is known as traumatic alopecia, which involves having one's head shaved prior to a particular procedure. That was expensive, but I was not aware of the charges at that stage.
The hon. Member for Ryedale pointed out that it was important to know of the charges because that reflected a discipline within those who work in and use the services. I changed my practice so that that expense did not fall on the NHS. I did so with no knowledge of the charges, simply because I thought that it was necessary. My point is that it is not necessary to know of the charges in order to change practice. I also did so without a budget of my own and without my hospital opting out. I think that saved the NHS a considerable amount. That is one reason for my interest in that.
I was interested to hear the hon. Members for Banbury and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) talking about the introduction of charges. When the Health and Medicines Bill was debated in Committee I made a deal with the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) that as long as I accepted that the Labour party was the first to introduce charges, he would never mention the matter again.
However, the important point about charges, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, is that the charges that we are debating are different in concept. Previous charges have been made for the provision of treatment. These charges are for screening processes. If someone has a problem and needs treatment for which there is a charge, there is a deterrent effect, but the treatment is likely to be taken up. However, if someone is told there is probably nothing wrong with him but it would be useful to be screened for which there would be a charge, that does have a deterrent effect. There is an important quantitative difference in charges for screening processes.
The Minister said that he thought that it would be— to use his word— unlikely that charges would have a deterrent effect. When we debated the Health and Medicines Bill in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston read out various statements that were made, such as that it was unlikely that the charge would stay the same, that the charge would go down or that it was likely to go down. That has not been borne out by fact.
I have no confidence that, as the Minister suggested, the market will regulate costs and the price will go down. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield said, the market is not quite the same in health care as elsewhere. A colleague of mine in private practice wished to reduce his work load. He thought that the way to do that was to put his prices up. Much to his amazement, rather than reduce it, it significantly increased the number of people who came to him. It is an American philosophy, apparently, of which I was not aware, that the way to attract patients is to put the price up because they think that they are getting a better service. I am not confident that prices will fall. The market does not operate in health care. All our experience of health care systems that operate a pricing mechanism is that prices inevitably rise.
The Minister said that prices will not prove a deterrent. He said that 2 million pensioners will be exempt. He did not mention that that means that 7·7 million will not be.
1028
He said that even those who are not exempt will be eligible for subsidy if their income is just above income support level. I hope the Minister realises that, to get the subsidy, people have to fill out a lengthy form. It will surprise such people to be asked on the form
"Are you going to visit someone in prison?"
Pensioners and others who want to claim for an eyesight test will wonder what on earth that has to do with their vision.
This complex application form includes many questions:
"Do you and your partner have a home improvement loan or loan for repairs? …We will get in touch with you about this …Do you or your partner get housing benefit? Tell us the full amount for rent and rates and the amount for rent after housing benefit is taken away. This will be the actual amount of rent you pay …If you or your partner are a council tenant, or if you agree that the council will pay housing benefit straight to your landlord or landlady …"
and so on. I hope that the Minister gets the point. These complicated methods of claiming help for those just above income support are a disincentive to claiming.
The regulations on general ophthalmic services list those who will gain exemption. The Minister also read out the list of those who will be exempt; I ask him for an assurance that it will be kept under review. One or two necessary exemptions may not have been included. These exemptions were wrung out of the Government in Committee and on Report. One of the concessions that we obtained was that for people aged 40 or over who are the parents, brothers, sisters or children of people diagnosed as suffering from glaucoma. Grandparents are missing from the list. Will the Minister include them? There are not many of them, and I see no valid reason for their exclusion.
Will the Minister consider exempting patients with cataracts? By that, I do not mean those whose condition has been dealt with— they will be eligible because of their complex optical appliances— but those who have been diagnosed and are having regular examinations.
On Report, the Minister of State gave an undertaking that the uptake of tests and waiting lists in hospitals would be closely monitored. What systems are in place to enable that monitoring to be done? If there is evidence of lower take-up, will the Government reconsider this matter?
The Minister asked for our comments on a matter that is not in the regulations; I am only too pleased to give him mine. I was surprised that the two-tier sight tests were proposed at all. On Report, the right hon. Member for Braintree introduced what is now section 14 of the Act. He told us then that new clause 15 was
"essentially a consumer protection provision"
He said that it differed from the original clause, and had therefore been tabled rather than a mere amendment, in that
"we have decided that it is right to take the power, which curiously does not exist at present, to specify clearly in regulations what duties a practitioner must perform as part of a sight test
As the House is aware, the sight test is generally understood and expected to include a test to establish whether spectacles are required, and an eye examination in which signs of injury …may be detected …It is our intention that, under whatever arrangements people receive a sight test, there should be certainty about what they are getting and that it should include a proper eye examination."—[Official Report, 13 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 226.]
The right hon. Gentleman did not say that it might. He did not say that there would be a differential in sight tests. That is what we were led to believe, and that was our understanding. Imagine our surprise when we found that

1029
the proposal was not for a proper eye test, but for a two-tier test. One tier will be for refraction of vision; the other will be the full eye test.
I ask the Minister to consider that proposal very carefully. He said that he might be swayed by argument, and I trust that I will be able to persuade him not to introduce the two-tier test. For ophthalmic medical practitioners it will pose considerable ethical problems, based on what is expected under the General Medical Council's "fitness to practise" rules and regulations, under which it is incumbent on them to do whatever they think necessary.
I understand that under the proposals the ophthalmic medical practitioner or optician will have to state clearly that two sight tests are available, and that one will not include the full examination. What will be the position should a patient present to an ophthalmic medical practitioner or optician and agree to the simple sight test but not to the full examination? In the course of that test, either from the history or from the initial sight test, what will happen if the practitioner feels, on the basis of either the patient's history or the initial test, that a further examination is necessary? Will the patient be entitled to that further examination free, or will he have to pay for it? Can he opt out of having the test at all? That will, as I have said, present an ethical problem; more important, it will present a considerable health problem for the patient.
Throughout the Committee and Report stages of the Bill much emphasis was put on the need for a full eye examination, rather than an examination limited to a test of vision. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully before proposing regulations for a two-tier examination. I assure him that Opposition Members will vote against any such regulations.
12.7 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am happy to give the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) the assurance that he sought that the exemptions will be kept under review. I am sure that he will recognise that as we are currently considering the results of consultation on the question of a two-tier test— as he describes it— his comments will have been heard by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and will be taken into account.
The concept of asking patients to make a contribution towards the cost of their treatment is not new, and certainly not original to the present Government, as the hon. Gentleman himself acknowledged and as was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). It is therefore difficult to understand the protests being made about the rational development of that principle. What is even stranger is the challenge to measures concerned with providing relief from charges for those on low incomes.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden asked me whether there would be proper systems to review the take-up of sight tests, both private and NHS. We will certainly undertake a survey of private tests through NOP in the autumn. He also asked about cataract sufferers, who will be able to obtain free NHS sight tests if they are referred by their hospital consultants.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden complained
1030
about the problems of form filling, particularly for the elderly. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for Southport's complaints about form AG1, which is a daunting prospect for some people, although research has shown consistently that the key element as to how well claimants deal with forms is the clarity of individual pages and not the overall length of the form. However, I dare say that the hon. Gentleman's experience. like mine, is probably not entirely in line with those findings. He will be delighted to know that we are currently reviewing the form to find out how it can be improved. I stress that people receiving income support or family credit get free treatment automatically and others on low income can claim help.
The hon. Member for Southport also asked about the sight tests being provided through British Home Stores at £2·50 for pensioners. He asked whether they were proper sight tests. I understand that they include a full eye examination, so what my right hon. and learned Friend said to the House appears to be taking place.
A number of points were raised by the hon. Member for Southport, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the deterrent effect of charges. It is not accepted and never was throughout the debates on the Health and Medicines Act that charges will have any deterrent effect. When the supply of NHS spectacles ended it was argued that people would be deterred from going to the optician. That has not been the case and spectacle sales and sight tests have increased. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) stressed that point in respect of dental examinations and charges. That did not persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) or my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield who were concerned about the apparent contradiction between bringing in charges for dental examinations and our clear commitment to preventive medicine.
The dental examination charge is in no way contrary to the philosophy of prevention set out in "Promoting Better Health". It still pays to visit the dentist regularly. Moreover, the charge will help to release some £50 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale pointed out, for positive measures to encourage the prevention of dental disease, including fluoridation, improved and more widespread vocational and postgraduate training for dentists and a new programme to promote dental awareness among young people. It will also help to finance preventive measures in other primary care services.
The hon. Member for Southport asked about backlogs and the use of discretion for late claims for refunds. He is quite right that there have been some delays in processing claims for help with NHS costs. However, I am pleased to say that from a peak of more than 9,000 cases, the agency benefits unit had reduced the stockpile to about 2,500 cases on Monday and had cleared it completely by this morning. People who have incurred NHS costs while waiting for their claims to be assessed will be able to claim a refund and will include those who have purchased glasses or contact lenses following a sight test. The normal one month for claiming a refund will not apply. I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth asked about the cost of dental and sight tests for the unemployed. The unemployed people who are receiving

1031
income support, as most unemployed people are, get free dental and sight tests, free dental treatment and full-value vouchers for glasses as well as free prescriptions.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) complained about the design of the forms which have been issued. The first two batches of forms from the printers did have reversed prescription details. That error has now been corrected and the forms which are due for delivery to family practitioner committees next week are correct. The hon. Lady was also concerned about a delay in issuing instructions. Revised instructions were issued to health authorities and family practitioner committees to arrive no later than 21 March. That gave them sufficient time to issue them to their practitioners, but I understand that some delayed issuing them until Friday 31 March.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) complained about the regulations amending the scheme for helping people with low incomes and about incorrect instructions being issued. The amending regulations simply ensure that the scheme for help with NHS costs is kept in line with the income support scheme on which it is based. The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of people who had been affected because for part of the year 1988–89 the agency benefits unit was not assessing claims strictly in accordance with the 1988 regulations. The cases concerned will be reviewed and we will be writing to the people concerned to find out whether they have paid more than they should have done
Mr. Terry Davis: Given that the letter admitting that the incorrect instructions had been issued was sent to me by a Minister three months ago, surely the cases should have been reviewed by now
Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman would like me to I shall ensure that I write to him to explain the background. It is a complex matter and I am sure that he will understand that every effort is being made to identify the people who may have suffered and to ensure that they are properly treated. I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman if that will be of assistance to him.
Mrs. Wise: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) appreciates the offer of a letter but this matter affects us all. The Minister should come to the House and explain how many people were wrongly assessed and tell us specifically when it is put right
Mr. Forsyth: I understand that about 15,000 claims were affected by the error, but that does not mean that that is the number of people who will lose out. The hon. Lady should be concerned, as I am sure we all are, with the particular circumstances of those affected and I can give her an assurance that everything is being done to put matters right
Mr. Terry Davis: The Minister would have had more time to obtain the information for which we are asking if his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had given way during his speech because I would have put some questions to him which might have saved us all some time. The Minister has told us that 15,000 people have been affected. Can he tell us how many cases have been reviewed during the three months since the Government admitted to me that they had made a mistake? After all, it took them 10 weeks to write to me with that admission
Mr. Forsyth: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that we will be writing to the people concerned to find out if they have paid more than they should and that we will ensure that the matter is put right. I would have thought that he would accept that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale asked about the new dental contract. I can give him the assurance that he sought. Negotiations will begin soon and I can repeat the assurances that have already been given to the profession about that. I am sure that he will welcome that.
I think that I have covered all the points raised in the debate. The regulations ensure that proper exemptions are made and that a balance is reached between obtaining a proper contribution from those who are able to afford it and those who are not. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and negatived

Industry (Subsidies)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Maclean.]
12.19 am
Mr. Jerry Hayes: The debate tonight concerns unfair competition in the European Community and direct subsidising, which are against article 92 of the treaty of Rome and which deliberately and unfairly undercut jobs and industry in this country. Before going into the general, I want to go into the particular. I am speaking about a company in my constituency, Cossor Electronics, which has been there for a long time. It has a large, dedicated and professional work force who have worked hard to make the company the world leader, not only in electronic components, but especially in air traffic control. As it is the world leader, no one could have been more horrified than myself and my constituents to hear that in the past few weeks it has lost contracts in air traffic control to the value of £80 million, not through lack of keenness, competition or misunderstanding the market, but simply because of unfair competition from abroad.
That has happened in Australia, Thailand, Turkey and central America, and it could happen in other countries. The facts are simple. Two European member states— France and Italy— have been directly and illegally subsidising unfair competition, so much so that on the air traffic control contract that was awarded to the French and the Italians a few days ago in Australia they were able to offer their products at 40 per cent. below their own catalogue prices.
After dealing with the particular, I shall turn to the general. In the run-up to 1992, state aids could be used as an alternative to tariff barriers and other forms of protection. Uncontrolled state aids could be a threat to the unity of the Common Market and to the system of free competition. There is a danger that the combined effect of independently applied national policies would lead to incoherent, contradictory results at Community level. Only further Community control can ensure that any benefits obtained from state aid outweigh the resulting distortions in competition.
An interesting report was issued by the Commission only a few weeks ago. It is a survey of state aids and says that the total annual volume of state aid in 1986 amounted to about £65 billion, which represents 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, or £517 per employed person. The amounts are so high that not only are the effects on competition pronounced, but their macroeconomic impact cannot be ignored. Aids exceed direct taxes on companies, and constitute an important factor in budget deficits in certain member states.
It is worth looking at those countries which are abusing the system. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is present. He has been working hard on behalf of his constituent company, Plessey, against unfair practices, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who cannot be present this evening but who supportss what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and I say.
We must look at the main villains. Italy gives about five times as much as France and Germany. Of the small member states, Greece and Ireland give a significant volume of aid. In 1986, the United Kingdom gave £1·9 billion in aid, France gave £3·6 billion, Germany gave £4·9
1034
billion, and Italy gave £16 billion. In other words. Italy is now giving nearly nine times as much as the United Kingdom. Those results alone must show that a review of policy is essential.
In most member states, grants and straight lax reductions were the most common form of intervention. We must take into account that France and, to a lesser extent, Italy have been using more opaque forms of aid, namely equity participation, guarantees and soft loans. But we are talking about £65 billion of Community money being spent on feather-bedding industries. Of course one must understand that, to a certain extent, strategic industries and industries in difficulty— for example, coal, steel and railways— must be protected. But if one forgets those industries, over £30 billion of member states' money is being deliberately and illegally spent on unfairly feather-bedding industries and undercutting competition.
Just as the United Kingdom has been remarkable for its modesty in state aid, Italy has been remarkable for the extent of the aid that it has given. It has the most expensive regional policy for the less prosperous peripheral regions — one cannot complain about that— and it also has the largest interventionist industrial policy aids and the largest aids granted through public holding companies. In addition, apart from France, it has the largest aids for exports and, apart from Germany, the largest aids for research and development.
Yesterday, I flew to Brussels and had the opportunity of speaking to Sir Leon Brittan, the Commissioner with responsibility for competition policy, financial institutions. I am delighted to say that he gave a significant undertaking. He said that he intends to use much more actively the Commission's powers under article 93.1 to review the important existing aids which, by their nature and volume, adversely affect competition and intra-Community trade. Perhaps most important of all, although the Commission takes a strict line against aids for exports to other member states, no action has ever been taken on aids to exports to Third world countries. There is no doubt that such aids can distort competition inside the Community. The sheer volume of the aids and the large differences between member states make it essential to consider the position afresh.
The feather-bedding of nationalised industries must stop. There can be no room for policies that have the effect — even if it is not always the intention—of discriminating against the private sector. The private sector must be allowed to compete on equal terms. It must be the market, and not state aid, that is allowed to rationalise the industrial structure and determine the number of firms that should be allowed to compete
Mr. Neil Thorne (Ilford, South): Is my hon. Friend aware that the bid by GEC—Siemens for Plessey will be particularly affected by the fact that, because the German telecommunications industry is heavily subsidised, the real cost of producing equipment in Germany is considerably higher than it is here? Consequently that company will not be able to compete internationally. In those circumstances, unemployment will be created because Japan and other countries would be able to undermine our industry
Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend makes his point very well indeed. This is the difficulty. More than £30 billion of Community money, member states' money, is being spent on feather-bedding state industries, at the expense of fair

1035
competition. Let us have a free market, let us have a situation in which we can compete, but let us compete on equal terms. Let us have a level playing field. At present the playing field is not level; it is slanted against the companies in my hon. Friend's constituency and in my constituency.
Let us make no mistake it is not only firms and jobs in Ilford, South and in Harlow that will be at risk; firms and jobs in every constituency will be at risk unless the Commission acts quickly, and unless—and this is where I bring my hon. Friend the Minister in— the Department of Trade and Industry makes it absolutely clear that it will not put up with unfair competition. My hon. Friend will have to say, "Let's have the evidence", but he knows as well as I do that this is going on. If this is what the French and the Italians are doing to British industry now, what on earth will happen to jobs in our constituencies, to the people who have been working hard to make this country competitive and a great exporter again, after 1992 unless the Government and the Commission act quickly?
12.33 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on raising this topic. We have come to expect him to show, on any occasion, that he is happy to draw attention to the interests of his constituents. The case that he made tonight, and has made on other occasions, is one that we view with considerable concern. Obviously, I am impressed that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is in the House. His presence adds weight to the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow makes.
It is worth dealing specifically with the case of Cossor, which I know is dear to my hon. Friend's heart, and which he raised with Sir Leon Brittan yesterday. My experience of the aerospace industry, both with my hon. Friends on the Back Benches and now as a Minister, leads me to believe that there is quite a lot going on about which we might be concerned. However, my hon. Friend, as a lawyer, will understand better than most that demonstrating proof is very different from having suspicions. We have to consider how best to go about doing just that.
I am aware that Cossor Electronics, which is a fine company— as is Plessey, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South— and the United Kingdom ground radar industry generally, is meeting strong competition from other European suppliers and overseas markets. The consequences of a continuing loss of business in this market are of great concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow rightly stressed that his constituency and others will be affected if the loss continues.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is aware, my Department stands ready to intervene on the company's behalf, with the appropriate authorities, providing that real evidence can be presented on the origin and destination of the alleged subsidies. It is regrettable that at present we have seen no hard evidence, although we may have some suspicions. I am alive to those suspicions becoming hard evidence. If my hon. Friend can give me more information, or if company representatives can do
1036
so, I shall be more than happy to act and to encourage the Department to pursue the matter with the Commission. I await that information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow touched on the general principle of state aids, and I shall dwell on it in a more general sense as I believe that the House will value my doing so. One of the Government's basic aims is to encourage and secure an environment in which business can operate freely on the basis of fair competition in an open market. In the European Community too, competition policy has been seen as crucial to securing the Community's basic aims.
With the coming of the single European market, state aids and other elements of competition policy become even more important. Once the single market is established, state aids will be virtually the only remaining instrument of protection available to member states against competition within the Community. Firm and even-handed enforcement of the state aid rules is therefore a vital factor in the creation and maintenance of a genuinely single market. It is essential that barriers to trade within the Community are not replaced with illegal or unjustified subsidies which serve only to protect uncompetitive industry. Indeed, industry in the Community will not win in world markets through that sort of protection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow referred to feather-bedding, and his point was well taken. Efficient companies, which should benefit from the single market, would be prevented fully from using the advantages that they have gained through their efficiency. They may be deterred from exploiting their advantage if they believe that this may provoke distortions of competition in other member states. As a member of the international trading community, the EC cannot only look inwards. It must uphold and respect the rules imposed under other international agreements. It is therefore especially important for the Community, as well as for the United Kingdom, that the state aid regime is enforced rigorously and even-handedly. I should make it clear exactly what that regime is.
The rules are laid down in the treaty of Rome. They concern any aid granted by member states or through state resources which distorts, or threatens to distort, competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods. The treaty does not identify what counts as an aid. It can be any form of subsidy, any relief from financial burdens such as taxation or social security benefits or interest on loans, or any other measures with similar effect. All aids are considered to be incompatible with the Common Market in so far as they affect trade between member states, unless they can be justified by providing some compensating Community benefit.
The treaty of Rome lays down those general rules. It also gives the Commission power to enforce them and lays down the procedure for so doing. Member states must notify to the Commission all plans to grant aid or to change their arrangements for granting it. This applies to schemes for granting aid and, sometimes, to individual projects. The Commission is then responsible for scrutinising the proposal to determine whether it is compatible with the Common Market. If it cannot agree following this examination, it can open a formal investigation procedure and consult all member states

1037
about the proposal. The Commission may then agree the proposal, amend it or impose conditions, or reject it entirely.
Member states may not pay aid until their proposal has been agreed by the Commission. If a member state pays an illegal aid, the Commission can order the aid to be repaid — that means clawing it back from the recipients— and it can take member states to the European Court of Justice to have its decisions supported.
The Commission can also investigate aids which are being paid by member states under schemes already in force, either on its own initiative or as a result of a complaint. I anticipate such a complaint from my hon. Friends in due course. If the aid is found not to be compatible with the Common Market, the Commission can order the scheme to be changed or stopped or, in extreme cases, the aid reclaimed.
All that underlines the fact that clear rules exist in the Community to secure fair competition and to ensure that subsidies do not distort trade. The key point is to have the rules enforced by the Commission in a rigorous and even-handed manner. My hon. Friend emphasised that strongly. The Commission has been tightening up markedly over the past few years, and it intends to continue doing so.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the visit and to the comments of our erstwhile colleague, Sir Leon Brittan. He said only a few weeks ago that firm control can ensure that the benefits derived from state aids will outweigh any distortions of competition. He pointed to recent work by the Commission to identify the full extent of aids granted by the different member states. My hon. Friends will be pleased to know that the United Kingdom came out of the analysis relatively well.
Since the early 1980s, the level of United Kingdom subsidies has been on a firm downward trend, while that in other major member states has been upwards, in some cases markedly so. My hon. Friend referred to some of those countries. The Commission believes that little of the aid has been accompanied by positive benefits, that it has simply served to cancel out similar aids in other member states. The Commission therefore intends to review all existing aid schemes, as well as new schemes for which the Commission's approval is being sought. Without a firm and comprehensive policy of this kind, Sir Leon saw little possibility of completing the single market, and he committed himself to allowing undistorted competition to play its rightful role. The Commission's analysis is not yet complete, but Sir Leon has said that it is already clear to him that urgent action is needed, and clear also where changes have to be made.
My hon. Friend made several references to cases and countries that he knows of, and to the figures involved. Sir Leon is addressing the matter in the terms that my hon. Friend has talked about. I trust that in due course, although it may take longer than my hon. Friend and I wish, we will be able to resolve the problem. I can assure the House and my hon. Friends that the Commission will have the Government's full support in its work. The creation of the single market requires no less if we are to secure its benefits.
1038
The position of individual British companies must also be considered when they run up against unfair competition from elsewhere in the Community. It is worth distinguishing here between subsidies which are illegal—that is, those that have not been notified to the European Commission or are not covered by an approved scheme — and subsidies that have been notified and approved by the Commission. In the case of illegal subsidies, the Government will do their utmost to pursue with the Commission the cases of British firms which have suffered because of illegal subsidies granted to their competitors.
My officials are always ready to discuss with firms what it takes to mount a persuasive case. The main requirement is to obtain hard evidence that the European competitor has received a subsidy and that the subsidy is likely to fall outside schemes which have been approved by the Commission. This is an area in which the Commission is particularly concerned, and I have every confidence that it will follow up complaints to the best of its ability. It has at its disposal the range of sanctions to which I referred earlier.
In the case of legal subsidies, the scope for immediate action is more limited, but where subsidies can be shown to put British firms at a disadvantage, we may be able to persuade the Commission that wider Community principles are at stake. As Sir Leon Brittan said, the Commission is concerned about the high level of subsidies which it has itself approved over the years and it intends to review these comprehensively. The Government would certainly urge the Commission to give priority to those which clearly disadvantage British companies as well as distorting trade within the Community more generally.
To sum up, the Government believe that rigorous and even-handed enforcement of the state aid rules is crucial to securing free and fair competition within the European Community. That in turn is vital for creating and maintaining a genuinely single market in Europe. We shall do our utmost to ensure that British firms have the opportunity to share in the benefits which an open market can bring.
Both of my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and for Ilford, South, who have addressed the House cogently and articulately on the problem, are to be congratulated on the concern that they have shown for their constituents. They have my assurance that I and other Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry will do all we can to ensure that British companies get a fair crack of the whip on an even playing field or, indeed, according to any other analogy that can be drawn.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has seen fit to draw this matter to the House's attention. If he or a company in his constituency or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South can find the hard evidence, I assure them that we shall wage war to the highest possible level to ensure that all is fair in that difficult area.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to One o'clock

NATIONAL FINANCE

  MEPs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what payments are made to European Members of Parliament for(a) salary, (b) office, research and secretarial allowances, (c) daily allowances for attending meetings on parliamentary business and (d) allowance per mile for travel on parliamentary business, expressed in (i) pounds sterling and (ii) European currency units.

  Mr. Brooke
  The European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 stipulates that salary payable to United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament shall be the same as a member of this Parliament's ordinary salary (currently £24,107) except that, where an MEP is also a member of this Parliament, he or she will receive only one third of that salary in addition to his or her Member of Parliament's salary. The Act also stipulates that the salary be paid into a United Kingdom bank account in sterling.

  The European Parliament has laid down a number of allowances for its Members to defray the expenses which they incur in the performance of their parliamentary duties. These allowances are as follows at 1 January 1989 (sterling rates are approximate and will vary with exchange rate fluctuations; the rates used here are based on the average for 1988: £1·0 = ecu 1·51):

  (1) General Expenditure Allowances

  Ecu 2,246 per month (£ sterling 1,487). This allowance is intended to defray, for example, Members' expenses on office management costs, telephone, postage and travel within their member state. In respect of Members who, for no valid reason, have failed to attend half the number of plenary sittings, the allowance is halved.

  (2) Secretarial-Assistance Allowance

  Up to ecu 3,635 (£ sterling 2,407) per month. This allowance is intended to defray the expenses arising from the employment or the engagement of the services of one or more assistants. It is paid only upon production of supporting contracts.

  (3) Subsistence Allowance

  The daily allowances are:

  (a) For travel within the Community 156 ecu (£ sterling 103).

  (b) For travel outside the Community 78 ecu (£ sterling 52).

  (4) Travel Allowance

  (a) For official travel within the Community:

  0·6 ecu (40 pence) per km (1 km = 0·62 miles) for the first 400 km of both inward and outward journeys;

  and

  0·32 ecu (21 pence) per km thereafter.

  (b) For official travel outside the Community:

  return air fare by the most direct route on presentation of the ticket, plus a lump sum travel allowance (as at (a) above) in respect of the journey between the point of departure and the nearest international airport.

  Children
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in work and responsible for children will have earnings below the tax threshold in the current year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1989–90, it is estimated that some 1·8 million people in work (including part-time workers and self-employed) with children earn less than the weekly equivalent of the personal allowance to which they are entitled. Of these, 1·4 million are married women. This suggests that there are 400,000 tax units with children, where the head of the household is in work and has earnings below the tax threshold.

  These estimates are based on projections to 1989–90 of weekly earnings recorded in the 1986 family expenditure survey.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax-paying units in the current year will contain children; and how many will be(a) married couples with the wife earning and (b) single-parent families with earned income.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1989–90, it is estimated that there are some 5·3 million taxpaying tax units with children. Of these 3·4 million are married couples where the wife has earned income and 0·3 million are working single-parent families. These estimates are based on projections of data collected in the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and 1986 family expenditure survey.

  Retirement Pensions (Tax)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage of income tax revenue received from income tax paid on retirement pensions.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 14 November 1988 at column 525.

  Age Allowance
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people will benefit by the extension of the higher rate of age allowance to those aged 75 and over;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of people who will benefit from the extension of the higher age allowance to those aged 75 and over in (a) the Brighton travel-to-work area, (b) the parliamentary constituency of Brighton, Kemptown and (c) the parliamentary constituency of Brighton, Pavilion.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that in 1989–90 about 400,000 single people and married couples, will benefit from the proposed extension of the higher level of age allowance to those aged 75 and over. Estimates are based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. I regret that corresponding information for Brighton and the surrounding area is not available.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to public funds of the visit of a Lords
  521
  Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, the hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean) to the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on Monday 20 March; and from which vote the expense was met.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: I understand that the visit in question was made in connection with ministerial business. Consequently, the cost will be borne on the Cabinet Office (OMCS) Vote. Details of the cost of the visit are not yet available.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much of the Medical Research Council's 1988–89 and 1989–90 budgets were committed to research on(a) mental health and (b) schizophrenia; and what percentages these figures represent of the total budgets.

  Mr. Jackson
  The most recent information available is for 1987–88, and I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to him on 28 November at column 82–83.

  Polytechnics
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's policy on the re-location of existing polytechnics from Inner London.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for the institutions in the first instance, in collaboration with the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, to consider whether relocation would assist them in meeting their aims and objectives, and help secure more effective and economical provision of higher education in London, the south-east region and nationally. The PCFC is responsible for the effective investment in higher education of the substantial sums of public money available to the sector, and the Government look to the council to help secure, through its arrangements for the allocation of grant to institutions, higher education which meets the needs of students both regionally and nationally.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many specialist teachers are provided for dyslexic children by Liverpool local education authority; what is the number per thousand pupils; what are the comparable figures in other local education authorities in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if his Department has recommended that local education authorities provide a minimum standard of specialist teaching for dyslexic children; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the provision of specialist teaching for dyslexic children.

  Mr. Butcher
  Under the 1981 Education Act, local education authorities are required to identify children with 522
  special educational needs and to make appropriate educational provision for them. In the exercise of these statutory duties, it is for individual local education authorities to decide on the level of employment of teachers and their deployment.

  National Union of Students
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many responses he has received concerning his inquiry into the status of the National Union of Students; what was the balance of opinion in these responses; and if he will list the organisations and institutions that have responded, and place their responses in the Library.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department has conducted a survey on student unions and their links with the National Union of Students. Factual information was sought and received from 70 institutions of further and higher education. In addition, since the announcement of the survey in April 1988, we have received 109 separate representations about the National Union of Students, either in correspondence from the general public or forwarded by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents. Of these, 66 (60·6 per cent.) were in favour of a change in the status of the National Union of Students, 43 (39·4 per cent.) against.

  As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on 10 June 1988 at column 691, I do not consider it appropriate to deposit such correspondence in the Library.

  Academics (Earnings)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply of 4 April,Official Report, column 7, what evidence he has that the earnings of academics have increased in the same way as the earnings of other people.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department does not collect information about the levels of non-pay earnings among academics.

  Parent Registers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all those organisations who are to be allowed access to the parent registers presently being compiled by local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There is no legal requirement for local education authorities to compile parent registers. Access by local education authorities to school admission registers is governed by section 80 of the Education Act 1944 and the Pupils Registration Regulations 1956, as amended, which limit access to authorised officers and for the purposes of the Education Acts. Legislation and regulations on the community charge require local education authorities to supply information about individuals to community charge registration officers only where it is within their possession or control.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what date his Department's document "National Curriculum: From Policy to Practice" was made available to schools in England.
  523
  Mrs. Rumbold
  "From Policy to Practice" was published on 23 February and copies were sent directly to maintained schools in England during the first week in March.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the proportion of gross domestic product in 1975, 1979, 1983, and the latest available year which was represented by public expenditure on(a) schools for ages 5 to 16 years; (b) pre-five education; (c) further education and training; (d) higher education by each of the countries of the European Community, other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, on the best available and most comparable data.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Some relevant data are given in the "UNESCO Statistical Yearbook" for 1988, tables 4.1 and 4.3 (pages 4.5 to 4.22 and 4.44 to 4.55). A copy is in the Library. Some care is needed in interpreting the figures, because countries have differing procedures for allocating expenditure between the various levels of education, and these procedures may have changed over the years.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total cost in 1988–89 of (i) initial teacher training and (ii) in-service training, of teachers.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Funding for higher education institutions is not allocated according to subject. However, an estimated £145 million, including fees, was made available to institutions in England and Wales for initial teacher training in the financial year 1988–89. It will be for institutions to decide on how they spend the resources at their disposal. In addition, the total cost of the maintenance element of mandatory awards in respect of students on initial teacher training courses is estimated at around £49 million. In the same year, local education authorities in England planned to spend £290 million on in-service training for teachers and others employed in the education service.

  Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has conducted any research into(a)the cause and (b) the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from this Department, is the main agency through which the Government support medical research. It is funding research into the cause of systemic lupus erythematosus at its clinical research centre and at the clinical science laboratory of Guy's medical school. Other relevant research may also be supported by university medical schools from their general funding.

  Higher Education (Access)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps the Government are taking to widen access to higher education; and if he will make a statement.
  524
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Access courses provide an important means of increasing the participation in higher education of mature students without the traditional qualifications for entry to degree courses. My Department has encouraged the Council for National Academic Awards and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to devise a national framework for the recognition of such courses, and a steering committee was established to oversee this work. That committee has now proposed a transbinary framework to be administered by a central body which will invite higher education institutions and consortia validating access courses to apply for a franchise through which their courses will acquire a kitemark' of national recognition. I have written to the chairman of the CNAA, Sir Bryan Nicholson, and to the chairman of the CVCP, Sir Mark Richmond, to invite the CNAA and CVCP jointly to administer the recognition scheme on behalf of both the universities and the polytechnics and colleges. The establishment of a national framework marks an important step towards improving access opportunities for mature students.

  Nursery and Primary Education
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many nursery school places have been available in each local authority for each of the last 10 years both as a total number and as a percentage of all three and four-year-olds.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: Information on nursery school places is not collected centrally. The number of pupils under five in maintained nursery schools and the percentage of the estimated three and four-year-old population in January of each year from 1979 to 1988 in each local education authority in England is given in the table. The figures do not include pupils in nursery classes in primary schools.

  Number of pupils under five in maintained nursery schools January each year

  1979

  pupils

  percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  426

  6·4

  Bexley

  175

  3·3

  Brent

  282

  4·7

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  316

  4·2

  Ealing

  438

  6·3

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Haringey

  247

  4·9

  Harrow

  92

  1·9

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  80

  1·5

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  233

  7·9

  Merton

  399

  11·1

  Newham

  1,074

  18·1

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  50

  1·5

  Sutton

  220

  5·7

  Waltham Forest

  433

  7·9

  ILEA

  3,876

  8·0

  Birmingham

  2,122

  8·4

  Coventry

  274

  3·4

  Dudley

  562

  7·5

  Sandwell

  223

  2·9

  Solihull

  0

  0

  525

  1979

  pupils

  percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Walsall

  893

  13·0

  Wolverhampton

  842

  12·6

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  591

  5·0

  St. Helens

  63

  1·2

  Sefton

  291

  4·1

  Wirral

  251

  2·9

  Bolton

  566

  8·0

  Bury

  138

  2·9

  Manchester

  383

  3·7

  Oldham

  182

  3·1

  Rochdale

  812

  13·9

  Salford

  582

  9·9

  Stockport

  667

  9·1

  Tameside

  307

  5·4

  Trafford

  76

  1·4

  Wigan

  247

  2·8

  Barnsley

  320

  5·7

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  362

  5·4

  Sheffield

  658

  5·6

  Bradford

  670

  5·3

  Calderdale

  73

  1·5

  Kirklees

  883

  8·8

  Leeds

  284

  1·6

  Wakefield

  503

  6·4

  Gateshead

  121

  2·4

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  533

  8·7

  North Tyneside

  239

  5·2

  South Tyneside

  817

  22·3

  Sunderland

  786

  10·1

  Avon

  1,425

  6·7

  Bedfordshire

  1,192

  8·4

  Berkshire

  1,661

  9·4

  Buckinghamshire

  498

  3·3

  Cambridgeshire

  735

  4·8

  Cheshire

  655

  2·8

  Cleveland

  659

  4·3

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  98

  1·0

  Cumbria

  658

  5·8

  Derbyshire

  975

  4·4

  Devon

  91

  0·4

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  2,034

  13·9

  East Sussex

  245

  2·0

  Essex

  247

  0·6

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  240

  0·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  40

  0·2

  Hertfordshire

  1,734

  7·4

  Humberside

  926

  4·2

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Kent

  84

  0·2

  Lancashire

  3,010

  8·9

  Leicestershire

  48

  0·2

  Lincolnshire

  319

  2·3

  Norfolk

  340

  2·0

  North Yorkshire

  282

  1·9

  Northamptonshire

  547

  3·8

  Northumberland

  140

  1·9

  Nottinghamshire

  465

  1·9

  Oxfordshire

  780

  6·0

  Shropshire

  220

  2·2

  Somerset

  77

  0·8

  Staffordshire

  1,839

  7·0

  Suffolk

  122

  0·8

  Surrey

  483

  2·1

  Warwickshire

  578

  4·8

  West Sussex

  368

  2·6

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  England

  48,477

  4·3

  526

  1980

  pupils

  percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  428

  6·6

  Bexley

  175

  3·4

  Brent

  246

  4·2

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  334

  4·6

  Ealing

  458

  6·7

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Haringey

  227

  4·7

  Harrow

  50

  1·1

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  80

  1·5

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  234

  8·1

  Merton

  208

  5·9

  Newham

  1,062

  18·6

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  58

  1·9

  Sutton

  228

  6·2

  Waltham Forest

  438

  8·3

  ILEA

  3,808

  8·1

  Birmingham

  2,086

  8·5

  Coventry

  244

  3·2

  Dudley

  537

  7·6

  Sandwell

  213

  2·9

  Solihull

  0

  0

  Walsall

  883

  13·6

  Wolverhampton

  832

  13·0

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  558

  4·9

  St. Helens

  74

  1·5

  Sefton

  298

  4·4

  Wirral

  252

  3·1

  Bolton

  582

  8·7

  Bury

  134

  3·0

  Manchester

  387

  3·9

  Oldham

  181

  3·2

  Rochdale

  840

  14·7

  Salford

  687

  12·5

  Stockport

  660

  9·4

  Tameside

  295

  5·6

  Trafford

  75

  1·5

  Wigan

  247

  3·0

  Barnsley

  326

  6·2

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  372

  5·8

  Sheffield

  665

  6·0

  Bradford

  672

  5·4

  Calderdale

  77

  1·7

  Kirklees

  879

  9·2

  Leeds

  268

  1·6

  Wakefield

  537

  7·2

  Gateshead

  124

  2·6

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  579

  9·7

  North Tyneside

  231

  5·4

  South Tyneside

  882

  25·2

  Sunderland

  734

  9·8

  Avon

  1,428

  6·9

  Bedfordshire

  1,258

  9·2

  Berkshire

  1,693

  9·8

  Buckinghamshire

  477

  3·2

  Cambridgeshire

  711

  4·8

  Cheshire

  670

  3·0

  Cleveland

  701

  4·7

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  98

  1·0

  Cumbria

  666

  6·2

  Derbyshire

  1,028

  4·8

  Devon

  91

  0·5

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  2,054

  14·6

  East Sussex

  254

  2·1

  Essex

  246

  0·7

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  256

  0·7

  527

  1980

  pupils

  percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Hereford and Worcester

  40

  0·3

  Hertfordshire

  1,659

  7·3

  Humberside

  941

  4·5

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Kent

  82

  0·2

  Lancashire

  3,018

  9·2

  Leicestershire

  49

  0·2

  Lincolnshire

  326

  2·5

  Norfolk

  351

  2·2

  North Yorkshire

  287

  2·0

  Northamptonshire

  539

  3·8

  Northumberland

  130

  1·8

  Nottinghamshire

  458

  2·0

  Oxfordshire

  801

  6·4

  Shropshire

  224

  2·4

  Somerset

  64

  0·7

  Staffordshire

  1,827

  7·4

  Suffolk

  132

  0·9

  Surrey

  488

  2·2

  Warwickshire

  590

  5·1

  West Sussex

  374

  2·7

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  England

  48,456

  4·4

  1981

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  452

  7·2

  Bexley

  175

  3·6

  Brent

  252

  4·4

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  334

  4·6

  Ealing

  526

  8·0

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Haringey

  217

  4·6

  Harrow

  50

  1·1

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  87

  1·7

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  230

  8·2

  Merton

  208

  6·1

  Newham

  1,008

  18·0

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  72

  2·4

  Sutton

  228

  6·2

  Waltham Forest

  443

  8·5

  ILEA

  3,751

  8·1

  Birmingham

  2,126

  8·8

  Coventry

  392

  5·2

  Dudley

  503

  7·3

  Sandwell

  209

  2·9

  Solihull

  0

  0

  Walsall

  815

  13·1

  Wolverhampton

  818

  13·4

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  561

  5·0

  St. Helens

  73

  1·6

  Sefton

  278

  4·2

  Wirral

  251

  3·2

  Bolton

  586

  9·0

  Bury

  127

  3·0

  Manchester

  365

  3·8

  Oldham

  179

  3·3

  Rochdale

  838

  15·0

  Salford

  706

  13·3

  Stockport

  696

  10·2

  Tameside

  287

  5·6

  528

  1981

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Trafford

  80

  1·6

  Wigan

  227

  2·9

  Barnsley

  345

  6·8

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  340

  5·5

  Sheffield

  713

  6·7

  Bradford

  641

  5·1

  Calderdale

  70

  1·6

  Kirklees

  713

  7·6

  Leeds

  268

  1·7

  Wakefield

  520

  7·1

  Gateshead

  115

  2·4

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  573

  9·7

  North Tyneside

  242

  5·6

  South Tyneside

  831

  24·4

  Sunderland

  749

  10·0

  Avon

  1,452

  7·3

  Bedfordshire

  1,260

  9·1

  Berkshire

  1,709

  10·1

  Buckinghamshire

  492

  3·3

  Cambridgeshire

  658

  4·5

  Cheshire

  740

  3·3

  Cleveland

  452

  3·1

  Cornwall + Isles of Scilly

  99

  1·1

  Cumbria

  625

  6·0

  Derbyshire

  1,023

  4·9

  Devon

  154

  0·8

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  2,089

  14·8

  East Sussex

  273

  2·4

  Essex

  246

  0·7

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  257

  0·8

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0·0

  Hertfordshire

  1,651

  7·4

  Humberside

  951

  4·7

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Kent

  82

  0·2

  Lancashire

  3,099

  9·8

  Leicestershire

  49

  0·2

  Lincolnshire

  329

  2·6

  Norfolk

  351

  2·3

  North Yorkshire

  302

  2·1

  Northamptonshire

  467

  3·4

  Northumberland

  117

  1·7

  Nottinghamshire

  482

  2·2

  Oxfordshire

  806

  6·6

  Shropshire

  224

  2·5

  Somerset

  27

  0·3

  Staffordshire

  1,820

  7·6

  Suffolk

  131

  0·9

  Surrey

  486

  2·3

  Warwickshire

  584

  5·4

  West Sussex

  397

  2·9

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  England

  48,154

  4·5

  1982

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  472

  7·3

  Bexley

  175

  3·6

  Brent

  267

  4·5

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  358

  4·8

  Ealing

  622

  9·1

  Enfield

  0

  0

  529

  1982

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Haringey

  227

  5·0

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  107

  2·0

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  230

  7·9

  Merton

  207

  5·9

  Newham

  1,046

  18·4

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  70

  2·3

  Sutton

  231

  6·2

  Waltham Forest

  452

  8·5

  ILEA

  3,916

  8·2

  Birmingham

  2,161

  8·7

  Coventry

  360

  4·8

  Dudley

  545

  7·8

  Sandwell

  155

  2·2

  Solihull

  0

  0

  Walsall

  855

  13·6

  Wolverhampton

  807

  13·0

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  526

  4·6

  St. Helens

  78

  1·7

  Sefton

  315

  4·8

  Wirral

  256

  3·2

  Bolton

  598

  9·1

  Bury

  136

  3·2

  Manchester

  385

  3·8

  Oldham

  79

  1·4

  Rochdale

  846

  14·8

  Salford

  752

  14·2

  Stockport

  742

  10·9

  Tameside

  306

  6·0

  Trafford

  79

  1·6

  Wigan

  241

  3·1

  Barnsley

  147

  2·9

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  332

  5·4

  Sheffield

  732

  6·8

  Bradford

  672

  5·3

  Calderdale

  71

  1·6

  Kirklees

  863

  9·2

  Leeds

  281

  1·8

  Wakefield

  517

  7·1

  Gateshead

  53

  1·1

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  565

  9·4

  North Tyneside

  259

  5·9

  South Tyneside

  762

  22·4

  Sunderland

  817

  10·6

  Avon

  1,410

  6·9

  Bedfordshire

  1,367

  9·6

  Berkshire

  1,715

  9·9

  Buckinghamshire

  501

  3·3

  Cambridgeshire

  640

  4·3

  Cheshire

  757

  3·4

  Cleveland

  441

  2·9

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  96

  1·0

  Cumbria

  642

  6·2

  Derbyshire

  1,099

  5·2

  Devon

  144

  0·7

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  2,121

  14·9

  East Sussex

  262

  2·2

  Essex

  246

  0·7

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  255

  0·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1,704

  7·6

  Humberside

  951

  4·7

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Kent

  85

  0·2

  Lancashire

  3,195

  10·0

  Leicestershire

  48

  0·2

  Lincolnshire

  342

  2·7

  530

  1982

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and4

  Norfolk

  332

  2·2

  North Yorkshire

  308

  2·2

  Northamptonshire

  474

  3·4

  Northumberland

  126

  1·8

  Nottinghamshire

  476

  2·1

  Oxfordshire

  834

  6·8

  Shropshire

  238

  2·6

  Somerset

  30

  0·3

  Staffordshire

  1,813

  7·4

  Suffolk

  127

  0·9

  Surrey

  485

  2·3

  Warwickshire

  605

  5·5

  West Sussex

  447

  3·1

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  England

  48,989

  4·5

  1983

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  489

  7·2

  Bexley

  175

  3·4

  Brent

  277

  4·5

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  384

  4·9

  Ealing

  626

  8·8

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Haringey

  226

  4·8

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  101

  1·8

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  231

  7·7

  Merton

  208

  5·6

  Newham

  1,038

  17·6

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  70

  2·2

  Sutton

  232

  6·0

  Waltham Forest

  431

  7·7

  ILEA

  4,015

  8·1

  Birmingham

  2,092

  8·0

  Coventry

  387

  4·9

  Dudley

  475

  6·4

  Sandwell

  157

  2·1

  Solihull

  0

  0

  Walsall

  848

  12·7

  Wolverhampton

  823

  12·7

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  565

  4·8

  St. Helens

  74

  1·5

  Sefton

  312

  4·5

  Wirral

  240

  2·8

  Bolton

  599

  8·6

  Bury

  157

  3·5

  Manchester

  386

  3·6

  Oldham

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  870

  14·3

  Salford

  776

  13·9

  Stockport

  736

  10·2

  Tameside

  318

  5·9

  Trafford

  80

  1·5

  Wigan

  183

  2·3

  Barnsley

  165

  3·1

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  331

  5·0

  Sheffield

  741

  6·5

  Bradford

  571

  4·2

  Calderdale

  97

  2·0

  Kirklees

  849

  8·6

  531

  1983

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Leeds

  272

  1·6

  Wakefield

  478

  6·2

  Gateshead

  59

  1·2

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  592

  9·4

  North Tyneside

  307

  6·7

  South Tyneside

  806

  22·4

  Sunderland

  905

  11·2

  Avon

  1,477

  6·9

  Bedfordshire

  1,358

  9·1

  Berkshire

  1,740

  9·5

  Buckinghamshire

  507

  3·1

  Cambridgeshire

  647

  4·0

  Cheshire

  796

  3·4

  Cleveland

  445

  2·8

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  103

  1·1

  Cumbria

  681

  6·2

  Derbyshire

  1,115

  5·0

  Devon

  142

  0·7

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  2,206

  14·7

  East Sussex

  272

  2·2

  Essex

  248

  0·7

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  257

  0·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0·0

  Hertfordshire

  1,720

  7·2

  Humberside

  983

  4·6

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Kent

  87

  0·2

  Lancashire

  3,229

  9·5

  Leicestershire

  48

  0·2

  Lincolnshire

  358

  2·7

  Norfolk

  365

  2·2

  North Yorkshire

  311

  2·1

  Northamptonshire

  494

  3·3

  Northumberland

  155

  2·0

  Nottinghamshire

  513

  2·1

  Oxfordshire

  794

  6·0

  Shropshire

  157

  1·6

  Somerset

  28

  0·3

  Staffordshire

  1,838

  7·1

  Suffolk

  144

  0·9

  Surrey

  502

  2·2

  Warwickshire

  623

  5·3

  West Sussex

  454

  3·0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  England

  49,551

  4·3

  1984

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  496

  7·0

  Bexley

  174

  3·2

  Brent

  281

  4·3

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  426

  5·3

  Ealing

  630

  8·2

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Haringey

  219

  4·5

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  119

  2·0

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  237

  7·7

  Merton

  209

  5·4

  Newham

  982

  16·1

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  75

  2·1

  532

  1984

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Sutton

  233

  5·6

  Waltham Forest

  373

  6·4

  ILEA

  4,075

  7·8

  Birmingham

  1,973

  7·2

  Coventry

  402

  4·9

  Dudley

  472

  6·1

  Sandwell

  159

  2·0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  Walsall

  790

  11·1

  Wolverhampton

  831

  12·4

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  528

  4·2

  St. Helens

  75

  1·5

  Sefton

  311

  4·3

  Wirral

  263

  2·9

  Bolton

  614

  8·3

  Bury

  152

  3·3

  Manchester

  425

  3·8

  Oldham

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  891

  14·1

  Salford

  780

  13·2

  Stockport

  759

  10·1

  Tameside

  335

  5·9

  Trafford

  0

  0

  Wigan

  183

  2·2

  Barnsley

  161

  2·9

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  340

  4·9

  Sheffield

  735

  6·1

  Bradford

  565

  3·8

  Calderdale

  91

  1·8

  Kirklees

  751

  7·3

  Leeds

  265

  1·5

  Wakefield

  500

  6·2

  Gateshead

  59

  1·1

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  593

  8·9

  North Tyneside

  287

  5·9

  South Tyneside

  807

  20·7

  Sunderland

  927

  10·9

  Avon

  1,465

  6·6

  Bedfordshire

  1,366

  8·7

  Berkshire

  1,809

  9·3

  Buckinghamshire

  519

  3·0

  Cambridgeshire

  633

  3·8

  Cheshire

  810

  3·3

  Cleveland

  360

  2·2

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  96

  1·0

  Cumbria

  705

  6·1

  Derbyshire

  1,119

  4·8

  Devon

  140

  0·6

  Dorset

  0

  0·0

  Durham

  2,303

  15·0

  East Sussex

  274

  2·1

  Essex

  255

  0·6

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0·0

  Hampshire

  256

  0·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0·0

  Hertfordshire

  1,728

  6·9

  Humberside

  889

  4·1

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0·0

  Kent

  79

  0·2

  Lancashire

  3,330

  9·4

  Leicestershire

  50

  0·2

  Lincolnshire

  393

  2·8

  Norfolk

  363

  2·1

  North Yorkshire

  320

  2·1

  Northamptonshire

  499

  3·3

  Northumberland

  156

  2·0

  Nottinghamshire

  560

  2·2

  Oxfordshire

  539

  3·9

  Shropshire

  188

  1·9

  Somerset

  0

  0·0

  Staffordshire

  1,879

  6·9

  Suffolk

  172

  1·1

  533

  1984

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Surrey

  497

  2·1

  Warwickshire

  649

  5·4

  West Sussex

  452

  2·9

  Wiltshire

  0

  0·0

  ENGLAND

  49,406

  4·1

  1985

  pupils

  percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  500

  6·9

  Bexley

  175

  3·2

  Brent

  271

  3·9

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  410

  5·1

  Ealing

  605

  7·4

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Haringey

  216

  4·2

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  116

  1·9

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  238

  7·7

  Merton

  180

  4·4

  Newham

  962

  14·8

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  62

  1·6

  Sutton

  233

  5·6

  Waltham Forest

  339

  5·8

  ILEA

  4,208

  7·4

  Birmingham

  2,187

  7·9

  Coventry

  391

  4·9

  Dudley

  481

  6·2

  Sandwell

  155

  1·9

  Solihull

  0

  0

  Walsall

  753

  10·6

  Wolverhampton

  824

  12·3

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  555

  4·3

  St. Helens

  70

  1·5

  Sefton

  315

  4·6

  Wirral

  221

  2·5

  Bolton

  618

  8·2

  Bury

  146

  3·3

  Manchester

  512

  4·3

  Oldham

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  894

  14·0

  Salford

  812

  13·8

  Stockport

  773

  10·7

  Tameside

  325

  5·5

  Trafford

  0

  0

  Wigan

  190

  2·4

  Barnsley

  167

  3·0

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  365

  5·1

  Sheffield

  731

  6·1

  Bradford

  592

  3·9

  Calderdale

  95

  1·9

  Kirklees

  713

  7·0

  Leeds

  273

  1·6

  Wakefield

  472

  5·8

  Gateshead

  58

  1·1

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  579

  8·4

  North Tyneside

  276

  5·5

  South Tyneside

  797

  19·9

  Sunderland

  933

  11·2

  Avon

  1,465

  6·7

  Bedfordshire

  1,387

  8·8

  Berkshire

  1,941

  10·0

  534

  1985

  pupils

  percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Buckinghamshire

  514

  3·0

  Cambridgeshire

  631

  3·8

  Cheshire

  816

  3·5

  Cleveland

  279

  1·7

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  91

  0·9

  Cumbria

  701

  6·2

  Derbyshire

  1,127

  4·9

  Devon

  141

  0·7

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  2,272

  15·3

  East Sussex

  290

  2·2

  Essex

  259

  0·7

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  259

  0·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1,734

  7·2

  Humberside

  897

  4·3

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Kent

  90

  0·2

  Lancashire

  3,386

  9·7

  Leicestershire

  49

  0·2

  Lincolnshire

  335

  2·5

  Norfolk

  375

  2·3

  North Yorkshire

  322

  2·1

  Northamptonshire

  504

  3·4

  Northumberland

  131

  1·8

  Nottinghamshire

  557

  2·3

  Oxfordshire

  494

  3·5

  Shropshire

  160

  1·7

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  1,836

  6·7

  Suffolk

  157

  1·0

  Surrey

  506

  2·2

  Warwickshire

  665

  5·8

  West Sussex

  454

  2·9

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  ENGLAND

  49,613

  4·1

  1986

  pupils

  percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  495

  6·8

  Bexley

  175

  3·4

  Brent

  268

  3·9

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  411

  4·8

  Ealing

  610

  7·7

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Haringey

  213

  4·0

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  117

  2·0

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  238

  7·7

  Merton

  173

  4·2

  Newham

  979

  15·5

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  68

  1·9

  Sutton

  240

  5·9

  Waltham Forest

  292

  5·0

  ILEA

  4,152

  7·6

  Birmingham

  2,245

  8·1

  Coventry

  464

  5·7

  Dudley

  471

  6·4

  Sandwell

  208

  2·6

  Solihull

  0

  0

  Walsall

  770

  11·7

  Wolverhampton

  810

  12·3

  535

  1986

  pupils

  percentage of estimated population aged 3and 4

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  548

  4·6

  St. Helens

  76

  1·6

  Sefton

  316

  4·5

  Wirral

  219

  2·6

  Bolton

  601

  8·4

  Bury

  142

  3·2

  Manchester

  540

  4·7

  Oldham

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  885

  14·5

  Salford

  870

  15·0

  Stockport

  779

  10·7

  Tameside

  324

  5·9

  Trafford

  0

  0

  Wigan

  199

  2·4

  Barnsley

  173

  3·0

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  352

  5·2

  Sheffield

  722

  6·3

  Bradford

  510

  3·6

  Calderdale

  87

  1·8

  Kirklees

  699

  6·7

  Leeds

  275

  1·6

  Wakefield

  484

  6·1

  Gateshead

  64

  1·3

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  586

  8·9

  North Tyneside

  315

  6·7

  South Tyneside

  688

  18·6

  Sunderland

  927

  11·0

  Avon

  1,461

  6·6

  Bedfordshire

  1,320

  8·7

  Berkshire

  1,938

  9·9

  Buckinghamshire

  515

  3·1

  Cambridgeshire

  635

  3·9

  Cheshire

  819

  3·4

  Cleveland

  156

  1·0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  94

  1·0

  Cumbria

  694

  6·1

  Derbyshire

  1,129

  5·0

  Devon

  247

  1·1

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  2,266

  14·9

  East Sussex

  296

  2·1

  Essex

  249

  0·7

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  260

  0·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1,701

  6·8

  Humberside

  910

  4·2

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Kent

  84

  0·2

  Lancashire

  3,358

  9·5

  Leicestershire

  50

  0·2

  Lincolnshire

  284

  2·1

  Norfolk

  393

  2·4

  North Yorkshire

  315

  2·0

  Northamptonshire

  503

  3·4

  Northumberland

  136

  1·8

  Nottinghamshire

  536

  2·2

  Oxfordshire

  502

  3·6

  Shropshire

  160

  1·6

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  1,844

  7·0

  Suffolk

  167

  1·1

  Surrey

  404

  1·8

  Warwickshire

  726

  6·2

  West Sussex

  451

  2·9

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  ENGLAND

  49,383

  4·2

  536

  1987

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  520

  6·9

  Bexley

  175

  3·4

  Brent

  278

  3·9

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  404

  4·8

  Ealing

  577

  7·0

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Haringey

  201

  3·5

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  120

  2·0

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  244

  7·9

  Merton

  0

  0

  Newham

  952

  13·8

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  61

  1·7

  Sutton

  240

  5·7

  Waltham Forest

  329

  5·5

  ILEA

  4,150

  7·0

  Birmingham

  2,302

  8·0

  Coventry

  445

  5·4

  Dudley

  398

  5·4

  Sandwell

  203

  2·5

  Solihull

  0

  0

  Walsall

  727

  11·0

  Wolverhampton

  830

  12·6

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  550

  4·5

  St. Helens

  73

  1·6

  Sefton

  319

  4·6

  Wirral

  226

  2·6

  Bolton

  549

  7·4

  Bury

  145

  3·2

  Manchester

  540

  4·4

  Oldham

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  910

  14·9

  Salford

  862

  14·4

  Stockport

  771

  10·7

  Tameside

  332

  5·9

  Trafford

  0

  0

  Wigan

  193

  2·4

  Barnsley

  175

  3·1

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  336

  4·9

  Sheffield

  714

  6·2

  Bradford

  515

  3·6

  Calderdale

  88

  1·8

  Kirklees

  666

  6·4

  Leeds

  274

  1·6

  Wakefield

  464

  5·7

  Gateshead

  52

  1·1

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  621

  9·3

  North Tyneside

  286

  6·4

  South Tyneside

  695

  19·3

  Sunderland

  964

  11·3

  Avon

  1,459

  6·5

  Bedfordshire

  1,356

  8·9

  Berkshire

  2,015

  10·2

  Buckinghamshire

  512

  3·1

  Cambridgeshire

  655

  4·1

  Cheshire

  828

  3·5

  Cleveland

  156

  1·0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  92

  1·0

  Cumbria

  738

  6·5

  Derbyshire

  1,162

  5·2

  Devon

  257

  1·2

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  2,405

  16·0

  East Sussex

  285

  2·1

  Essex

  254

  0·7

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  258

  0·7

  537

  1987

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1,663

  6·8

  Humberside

  946

  4·4

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Kent

  78

  0·2

  Lancashire

  3,400

  9·4

  Leicestershire

  50

  0·2

  Lincolnshire

  282

  2·1

  Norfolk

  382

  2·4

  North Yorkshire

  314

  2·0

  Northamptonshire

  502

  3·4

  Northumberland

  134

  1·8

  Nottinghamshire

  500

  2·4

  Oxfordshire

  496

  3·5

  Shropshire

  160

  1·7

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  1,843

  7·0

  Suffolk

  162

  1·1

  Surrey

  420

  1·9

  Warwickshire

  730

  6·3

  West Sussex

  452

  3·0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  England

  49,502

  4·2

  1988

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  500

  6·6

  Bexley

  174

  3·2

  Brent

  274

  3·9

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  400

  4·8

  Ealing

  535

  6·6

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Haringey

  246

  4·6

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  120

  2·0

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  236

  7·6

  Merton

  0

  0

  Newham

  972

  14·5

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  64

  1·8

  Sutton

  240

  5·9

  Waltham Forest

  329

  5·5

  ILEA

  4,232

  7·2

  Birmingham

  2,317

  8·1

  Coventry

  443

  5·3

  Dudley

  401

  5·4

  Sandwell

  209

  2·6

  Solihull

  0

  0

  Walsall

  755

  11·1

  Wolverhampton

  843

  12·8

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  560

  4·6

  St. Helens

  66

  1·4

  Sefton

  315

  4·4

  Wirral

  262

  3·0

  Bolton

  553

  7·5

  Bury

  161

  3·6

  Manchester

  535

  4·4

  Oldham

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  910

  14·7

  Salford

  845

  14·3

  Stockport

  766

  10·4

  Tameside

  322

  5·6

  Trafford

  0

  0

  538

  1988

  Pupils

  Percentage of estimated population aged 3 and 4

  Wigan

  186

  2·3

  Barnsley

  181

  3·2

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  355

  5·2

  Sheffield

  738

  6·3

  Bradford

  502

  3·5

  Calderdale

  88

  1·7

  Kirklees

  651

  6·3

  Leeds

  254

  1·5

  Wakefield

  463

  5·8

  Gateshead

  50

  1·0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  623

  8·9

  North Tyneside

  291

  6·2

  South Tyneside

  713

  18·8

  Sunderland

  949

  11·3

  Avon

  1,420

  6·3

  Bedfordshire

  1,329

  8·8

  Berkshire

  2,021

  9·9

  Buckinghamshire

  512

  3·0

  Cambridgeshire

  637

  3·8

  Cheshire

  838

  3·4

  Cleveland

  153

  1·0

  Cornwall+Isles of Scilly

  101

  1·0

  Cumbria

  758

  6·6

  Derbyshire

  1,217

  5·4

  Devon

  255

  1·1

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  2,463

  16·5

  East Sussex

  284

  2·0

  Essex

  252

  0·7

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  260

  0·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1,733

  6·9

  Humberside

  963

  4·4

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Kent

  81

  0·2

  Lancashire

  3,399

  9·4

  Leicestershire

  50

  0·2

  Lincolnshire

  286

  2·2

  Norfolk

  399

  2·4

  North Yorkshire

  308

  2·0

  Northamptonshire

  525

  3·6

  Northumberland

  137

  1·8

  Nottinghamshire

  575

  2·3

  Oxfordshire

  499

  3·4

  Shropshire

  166

  1·7

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  1,824

  6·9

  Suffolk

  95

  0·6

  Surrey

  416

  1·7

  Warwickshire

  755

  6·5

  West Sussex

  446

  2·9

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  England

  49,786

  4·2

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Tropical Forests
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has reached a conclusion on the proposals put forward by the Timber Trade Federation to help countries with tropical forests to adopt practical forest management policies.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Officials in Whitehall are still considering the proposal put forward by the Timber Trade Federation for a levy on imports of timber from the
  539
  tropical forests, particularly in the context of the effectiveness and cost of such a scheme, GATT and generalised scheme of preference tariff levels, and its acceptability on an international level.

  Spirits
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received a copy of the European Community Spirits Producers Association's submission to the European Community Commission detailing the European Community spirit industry's objectives for the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers facing their products during the current Uruguay round of general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations; and if he will make it his policy to give maximum support to these objectives.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes. We have urged the Commission to give full weight in the Community's negotiating objectives to this submission and other representations from United Kingdom interests.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether during the recent visit of the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), to Austria, he raised with the Austrian authorities the problem of the proposed definition and labelling requirements for Scotch whisky; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes, I raised it with the Austrian Minister for Economic Affairs on 7 March. The Austrian authorities are actively pursuing this matter and I am optimistic that they will reach a solution that will satisfy the concerns of the United Kingdom industry.

  LINK Initiatives
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what resources were devoted to the LINK initiatives in 1988; and what resources are being committed in 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  Total Government funding authorised under the 10 LINK programmes announced in 1988 amounted to £59·3 million; additional support for programmes to be launched in 1989 is expected to exceed £70 million.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his urgent and thorough investigation of the leaking of the departmental inspectors' report on the acquisition of the House of Fraser.

  Mr. Maude
  The investigation is continuing.

  Inner Cities
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on recent developments in the inner cities initiative.

  Mr. Newton
  Since the launch of Action for Cities in March 1988 progress in the inner cities has been immensely encouraging. Unemployment has fallen by more than 20 540
  per cent. major improvements in training, housing and the infrastructure are taking place and the Government's commitment to its Action for Cities programmes has increased to £3·5 billion for 1989–90.

  Particularly encouraging are the increasing involvement and commitment of the private sector, and the growing extent of partnership between public authorities, the private sector, voluntary bodies and local people.

  On 9 March this year I launched the report "Progress on Cities", which gives a more detailed picture of recent achievements in inner city areas.

  Post Office
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about the future of the Post Office monopoly.

  Mr. Forth
  I have received a number of representations in recent months from Members of Parliament and from organisations and individuals proposing changes in the Post Office letter monopoly, including proposals to lower the monopoly price level or temporarily to suspend the monopoly. We keep the monopoly under review taking account of the representations received and have made clear that we would seriously consider suspending the monopoly in the event of a cessation or serious decline in the quality of the letter service.

  Airbus Industrie
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the future financial prospects for Airbus Industrie; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Airbus Industrie has more than 700 orders, options and commitments for its new A320 aircraft. It has some 250 orders, options and commitments for its planned A330 and A340 aircraft. A new management structure was inaugurated from 1 April 1989, with the aim of improving Airbus Industrie's efficiency and profitability. The future prospects of the consortium seem as bright now as at any time during its existence.

  Petrol Sales
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer to the Director General of Fair Trading the practice of petrol companies of putting up the price of leaded petrol rather than cutting the price of unleaded petrol in the light of the Budget tax changes.

  Mr. Maude
  No. The Government take the view that the level of petrol prices is a commercial matter for the companies involved. The Director General of Fair Trading has referred the wholesale supply of petrol to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Commission is due to report by 8 November.

  Privatisation (Accounting Practices)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the accounting practices employed on privatisation schemes since 1979 have been criticised in Department of Trade and Industry reports.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Ford Sierra (Manufacture)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) of 6 February,Official Report, columns 458–59, whether he has received any information from the Ford Motor company relating to the effect on the balance of payments of the transfer of the manufacture of Sierra vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has regular discussions with Ford about its manufacturing strategy and has recently discussed the transfer of Sierra production to Genk and the associated increase of Fiesta production at Dagenham. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade replied to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) on 6 February at columns 458–59, the balance of payments impact of these changes will depend on a large number of variables.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the increase in productivity in manufacturing industry per employee from 1979 to the latest figures available, expressed as a percentage.

  Mr. Forth
  In the three months to January 1989 manufacturing productivity, as measured by output per person employed, was 49 per cent. higher than the 1979average level.

  Visual Display Units
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total number of visual display units marketed in Britain in each of the past three years; and in each year, what percentage was also manufactured in Britain.

  Mr. Forth
  The information available is shown in the table:

  Visual display units

  £ million

  1986

  1987

  31988

  Manufacturers' sales1

  388

  339

  253

  Exports (fob)

  56

  72

  50

  Imports (cif)

  189

  225

  227

  United Kingdom market2

  521

  492

  431

  United Kingdom manufacturers' share of market per cent.

  64

  54

  47

  Source: DTI.

  1 The sales data refer primarily to units in the United Kingdom with a minimum employment of 50.

  2 United Kingdom market is defined as manufacturers' sales plus imports less exports.

  3 January to September.

  North-East (Inward Investment)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if there are any new developments in inward investment in the north-east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I am very pleased to say that Fujitsu, the Japanese electronics company, is today announcing that it will be setting up its first European semiconductor manufacturing plant at Newton Aycliffe, near Durham.542
  My Department will be providing £30 million regional selective assistance for Fujitsu to become established in this development area.

  The project will cost at least £400 million and will be one of the largest of its kind in Europe. It is expected to create more than 1,500 jobs by the end of 1994. The Fujitsu semiconductor plant will undertake full wafer fabrication, assembly and final test of dynamic random access memories for applications such as mainframe and personal computers and computerised equipment. The company will also be expanding its United Kingdom design capability as part of this investment. Both the United Kingdom and European industry will benefit from the increased access to the semiconductors that this project will provide.

  National Engineering Laboratory (Pollution Research)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on research being carried out by the national engineering laboratory into the elimination of pollution at source.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  Research at the national engineering laboratory addresses three major environmental concerns. These are the deterioration of the ozone layer, acid rain and the greenhouse effect.

  NEL is able to do this because it is a major centre of research into heat transfer, the properties of fluids and flow measurement. Research into these areas is necessary to achieve the elimination of pollution at source. The work is concerned with acquiring the data, developing analysis and design techniques, and providing the specialist test facilities needed to optimise pollution-reduction strategies. Furthermore it is evident that much of this research is of value in enabling industrial processes to become inherently more efficient and less hazardous.

  Ozone layer

  NEL is determining the physical properties of replacements for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This data is essential in order that equipment, particularly refrigeration/air conditioning plant, operates as efficiently using these replacement fluids as current equipment using CFC refrigerant.

  Acid rain

  NEL research on internal combustion engines is expanding the understanding of processes occurring within an engine. This will enable stricter emission targets to be met by improvements in engine design rather than by installing cleaning devices in the exhaust system.

  Greenhouse effect

  Research at NEL is concerned with understanding and improving both heat transfer and combustion of gaseous fluids. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fuel is recognised as the major contributor to the greenhouse effect. A reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide can be achieved by improving the efficiency of the extraction and transfer of thermal energy.

  NEL also manages the national wind turbine centre and has expertise in tidal power and water turbines.

  Glass
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish in the form of a table(a) the

  543
  amount of glass recycled by each west European country in 1988 and (b) the amount of glass recycled as a percentage of the total amount of glass used for packaging for each country.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: Figures for the amount of glass recycled by each western European country in 1988 will not be available until June. The amount recycled in the United Kingdom increased to 275,000 tonnes, 16 per cent. of the total amount of glass used in packaging. Figures for the amounts recycled in 1987 in western Europe are recorded in the table.

  Amount recycled (thousand tonnes)

  Percentage of total amount of glass used for packaging

  Austria

  85

  44

  Belgium

  127

  39

  Denmark

  35

  32

  France

  646

  26

  West Germany

  1,102

  37

  United Kingdom

  233

  13

  Eire

  7

  8

  Italy

  580

  38

  Netherlands

  320

  62

  Portugal

  29

  14

  Spain

  261

  22

  Switzerland

  140

  47

  Turkey

  34

  27

  Figures supplied by FEVE—the European Glass Containers Federation.

  British Shipbuilders
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much was paid by his Department under a single contract in 1986–87 in connection with the sale of certain British Shipbuilders' yards.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]:I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 13 March 1989 at column 100. The information is commercially confidential. The amounts involved do not, however, add significantly to the total of privatisation expenses that I quoted on 13 March.

  Beverage Containers Directive
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his Department's progress on implementing the requirements of the 1985 European Economic Community directive on beverage containers.

  Atkins
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: The United Kingdom programme for implementing this directive was submitted by the DTI in November 1987 following consultations with other Government Departments, local authority associations and 28 trade and industry organisations. It consisted of sub-programmes for containers made of glass, metals, plastics and paper composites and a cross-material submission on the soft drinks industry. Copies of the programme are available from the Libraries of both Houses.

  The United Kingdom programme is based on voluntary agreements and in line with the Commission's assurance to the Government when the directive was adopted in June 1985, there is not discrimination between different types of container systems or between different types of packaging.
  544
  Good progress is being made in the recycling of beverage containers. There was agreement at a glass recycling commitment conference in July 1986 to double the number of bottle banks to 5,000 over the next five years, equivalent to one bottle bank per 10,000 people. Nationally we are on course to reach this target and the one per 10,000 figure has already been reached in the north of England. With more retailers agreeing to bottle banks being sited on their car parks, the amount of glass recycled is increasing rapidly and reached 275,000 tonnes in 1988.

  The amount of metal recovered from cans is also increasing. "Save-a-Can" run by the can makers operates nearly 200 skips in England and Wales whilst the newly formed Aluminium Can Recycling Association hopes to have 100 recovery centres operating nationally by this summer. British Steel is encouraging local authorities to become involved in recovering steel cans from incinerated household waste and about 900 million cans a year are now being recovered this way.

  A full progress report will be submitted by the Government to the Commission later this year, four years after the original programme was drawn up, and every subsequent four years thereafter.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Leighton
  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 what have been the results of enlisting the assistance of managers of hotels used by homeless persons on establishing their residents' immigration status.

  Mr. Renton
  Under the Immigration (Hotel Records) Order, as amended, the keepers of hotels or similar establishments are required to keep a record of all persons aged 16 or over who stay at their premises. As part of their normal duties, the police may need to inspect these record 3 in order to establish the immigration status of any of the residents of such an establishment. We have no plans to seek any special report on the operation of these arrangements.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants were detected, other than at airports and seaports, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Renton
  Information for 1988 on the numbers of illegal entrants detected and of persons dealt with under the deportation process is published in tables 13 and 14 of Home Office statistical bulletin 10/89 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Fourth Quarter and Year 1988", a copy of which is in the Library. The great majority of persons dealt with under enforcement powers are identified after entry to the United Kingdom.

  The information in these tables does not include persons refused entry to and removed from the United Kingdom at airports and seaports: information on such persons is published in table 1 of the annual volume "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom".

  Fire Authorities
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each fire authority
  545
  (a) the date of first appointment of a brigade emergency planning officer and (b) the expenditure incurred on fire service civil defence activities and the amount of grant aid paid towards that expenditure for each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  The dates of first appointments of brigade emergency planning staff officers are shown in the table.

  Employment

  Region

  Regional Fire Adviser

  At time of appointment

  Now

  Date of appointment

  2.

  T. F. Elton

  CFO Tyne and Wear

  CFO Tyne and Wear

  November 1981

  3.

  P. H. Wilson

  CFO Nottinghamshire

  Retired

  December 1981

  E. Patterson

  CFO Nottinghamshire

  CFO Nottinghamshire

  February 1989

  4.

  R. C. Paramor

  CFO Essex

  CFO Essex

  February 1979

  5.

  R. A. Bullers

  CFO London

  Retired

  April 1981

  G. D. Clarkson

  CFO london

  CFO London

  August 1987

  6.

  J. R. Pearson

  CFO Hampshire

  CFO Hampshire

  September 1984

  7.

  J. Killoran

  CFO Devon

  Retired

  April 1984

  N. Wallington

  CFO Devon

  CFO Devon

  August 1987

  8.

  K. Hayton

  CFO Clwyd

  CFO Clwyd

  April 1984

  9.

  B. L. Fuller

  CFO West Midlands

  CFO West Midlands

  October 1981

  10.

  M. Killoran

  CFO Greater Manchester

  Retired

  April 1981

  D. T. Davis

  CFO Cheshire

  CFO Cheshire

  September 1986

  Expenditure claimedfor grantaidin 1986–87

  Fire authority

  Date of first apppointment

  Total expenditure reported

  Grant aid paid

  Avon

  27 October 1986

  12,901

  9,727

  Bedfordshire

  14 March 1988

  —

  —

  Berkshire

  13 March 1985

  23,054

  17,368

  Buckinghamshire

  22 January 1985

  24,389

  18,369

  Cambridgeshire

  21 February 1985

  25,296

  19,093

  Cheshire

  19 December 1984

  43,982

  32,986

  Cleveland

  23 September 1986

  25,022

  19,066

  Clwyd

  30 November 1984

  54,158

  40,619

  Cornwall

  21 October 1985

  24,485

  18,364

  Cumbria

  20 July 1984

  31,495

  23,866

  Derbyshire

  No appointment

  —

  —

  Devon

  10 December 1984

  50,149

  38,385

  Dorset

  24 March 1985

  21,707

  16,621

  Durham

  24 July 1985

  28,559

  21,488

  Dyfed

  4 April 1984

  17,716

  13,309

  Essex

  6 August 1984

  69,333

  58,810

  Mid-Glamorgan

  27 October 1987

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  No appointment

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  23 September 1986

  15,456

  11,643

  Gloucestershire

  15 May 1985

  —

  —

  Gwent

  14 April 1988

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  6 November 1984

  29,659

  22,244

  Hampshire

  28 August 1984

  55,299

  42,069

  Hereford and Worcester

  18 December 1984

  24,916

  18,689

  Hertfordshire

  22 August 1985

  18,783

  14,221

  Humberside

  5 June 1985

  27,106

  20,601

  Isle of Wight

  18 December 1984

  21,278

  15,958

  Kent

  12 June 1984

  26,229

  19,990

  Lancashire

  14 March 1985

  22,861

  17,190

  Leicestershire

  13 December 1985

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  26 October 1984

  22,551

  16,913

  London

  9 July 1986

  51,002

  39,085

  Greater Manchester

  18 March 1985

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  Appointment under consideration

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  16 February 1987

  28,030

  21,265

  546
  Figures for the expenditure incurred by each fire authority on civil defence activities and the amount of grant aid paid towards that expenditure for each year since 1979 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Amounts for 1986–87, the last year for which all audited claims have been received, are in the second table.

  Expenditure claimed for grant aid in 1986–87

  Fire authority

  Date of first apppointment

  Total expenditure reported

  Grant aid paid

  Norfolk

  25 September 1985

  21,492

  16,215

  Northamptonshire

  23 November 1984

  25,444

  19,122

  Northumberland

  25 November 1987

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  21 June 1984

  57,079

  43,160

  Oxfordshire

  31 May 1985

  22,451

  17,338

  Powys

  15 August 1985

  21,399

  16,049

  Shropshire

  26 March 1985

  —

  —

  Somerset

  11 June 1984

  29,033

  21,842

  Staffordshire

  14 September 1984

  20,462

  15,346

  Suffolk

  12 March 1985

  14,469

  11,066

  Surrey

  15 May 1985

  23,181

  17,657

  East Sussex

  11 June 1984

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  4 September 1986

  25,290

  19,050

  Tyne and Wear

  14 August 1987

  28,692

  21,519

  Warwickshire

  21 January 1985

  18,996

  14,361

  Wiltshire

  4 September 1986

  29,096

  23,061

  North Yorkshire

  23 September 1986

  15,876

  11,907

  South Yorkshire

  No appointment

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  8 May 1986

  27,001

  21,301

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the dates of all regional fire advisers meetings since 1979; if he will give details of the topics discussed at such meetings; and what is the date of, and the topics to be covered at, the next regional fire advisers meeting.

  Mr. John Patten
  The dates of regional fire advisers' conferences since 1979 were as follows:

  18 May 1979

  27 October 1982

  11 December 1979

  27 January 1983

  19 October 1981

  13 April 1983

  13 April 1982

  13 October 1983

  13 July 1982

  12 January 1984

  547

  3 May 1984

  24 November 1986

  14 November 1984

  28 April 1987

  24 April 1985

  20 October 1987

  8 October 1985

  26 April 1988

  29 April 1986

  18 October 1988

  The next such conference is today, 12 April. These conferences cover a range of matters concerning civil defence planning and training. In addition, regional fire advisers attend various other meetings concerned with civil defence planning.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the name, present employment, date appointed and terms of reference of the regional fire adviser for each year from 1984 to 1989, (b) the name, present employment and date appointed of the staff officer to the regional fire adviser for each year from 1979 to 1989 and (c) the expenditure incurred by the regional fire adviser and his staff on civil defence duties and the amount of grant aid paid toward that expenditure for each year from 1979 to 1989, for each civil defence region.

  Employment

  Region

  Regional Fire Adviser

  At time of appointment

  Now

  Date of appointment

  2.

  T. F. Elton

  CFO Tyne and Wear

  CFO Tyne and Wear

  November 1981

  3.

  P. H. Wilson

  CFO Nottinghamshire

  Retired

  December 1981

  E. Patterson

  CFO Nottinghamshire

  CFO Nottinghamshire

  February 1989

  4.

  R. C. Paramor

  CFO Essex

  CFO Essex

  February 1979

  5.

  R. A. Bullers

  CFO London

  Retired

  April 1981

  G. D. Clarkson

  CFO London

  CFO London

  August 1987

  6.

  J. R. Pearson

  CFO Hampshire

  CFO Hampshire

  September 1984

  7.

  J. Killoran

  CFO Devon

  Retired

  April 1984

  N. Wallington

  CFO Devon

  CFO Devon

  August 1987

  8.

  K. Hayton

  CFO Clwyd

  CFO Clwyd

  April 1984

  9.

  B. L. Fuller

  CFO West Midlands

  CFO West Midlands

  October 1981

  10.

  M. Killoran

  CFO Greater Manchester

  Retired

  April 1981

  D. T. Davis

  CFO Cheshire

  CFO Cheshire

  September 1986

  Latchmere House
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the estimated additional annual net costs for the immigration and nationality department of moving immigration detainees from Latchmere house, Ham, to Haslar, Hampshire.

  Mr. Renton
  All aspects of the possible move, including costs, are being examined. The main additional cost for the immigration and nationality department would probably be some £60,000 a year for additional transport and escorts.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act to make it an offence for a third party to require a data subject to seek subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act to personal data held by the police in order to show that third party the data subject's criminal record; and whether he will make a statement.
  548
  Mr. John Patten
  A list of regional fire advisers by region in England and Wales from 1984 to the present is given in the table.

  There are no formal terms of reference but a regional fire adviser is responsible for the co-ordination of emergency fire service planning in his region. The appointment of his staff officer is a matter for each regional fire adviser. Expenditure incurred in connection with regional fire advisers' responsibilities is not grant-aided, but is directly reimbursed by the Home Office.

  Figures for individual claims and those prior to 1984 could be calculated only at disproportionate cost but the total reimbursed expenditure since 1984 was:

  £

  1984–85

  7,206

  1985–86

  6,194

  1986–87

  7,170

  1987–88

  6,467

  1988–89

  5,169

  Mr. Renton
  No. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 protects rehabilitated persons by providing that, unless a post is exempted from the provisions of the Act, an employer may not refuse an applicant employment on the grounds of a spent conviction.

  Official Secrets Bill
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any recent representations from the National Union of Journalists about the Official Secrets Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The most recent such representation which I received was sent in January.

  Mental Illness (Prisoners)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the mental illness history of current occupants of Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  549
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on 8 December 1988 at column 283.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is collected by his Department about(a) the medical and (b) the mental illness history of persons found guilty of crimes by the courts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information is not collected centrally about the medical history, physical or mental, of persons found guilty by the courts.

  Woolwich (Court and Prison)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects construction of the new prison at Woolwich and the associated court complex to be completed; and when each is now planned to come into operation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The contract for construction of the prison is expected to be completed in December 1990. The target date for arrival of the first inmates is April 1991. The court complex is the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I understand that it is currently estimated that the court complex will be completed towards the end of 1991 and come into operation shortly thereafter.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest estimated cost of(a) the new prison at Woolwich and (b) the associated court complex; and what were the original estimates.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The original estimated cost for constructing the prison was £59·94 million (at second quarter 1986 prices). Associated advance works were estimated at an additional £4·08 million (at third quarter 1985 prices). The latest estimate for the project as a whole is £88·90 million, at 1988–89 prices. This is subject to adjustment, in the light of further cost increases in the construction industry.

  The construction of the court complex is the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor. I understand that tenders for this project are being currently evaluated. The provisional pre-tender estimate at second quarter 1988 prices was about £17·5 million. This did not allow for any additional cost arising from the incorporation of the changes subsequently recommended by the Royal Fine Arts Commission.

  Animal Experiments
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts are being made to discourage international and foreign regulatory bodies from requiring precise LD50 values.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Secretary is not responsible for the conditions under which LD50 tests are required: but I understand that the Departments concerned are making representations at EC, OECD and UN levels. In particular, the Department of Health is co-ordinating an international study on an alternative British approach to acute toxicity testing, which does not involve the generation of precise LD50 figures.
  550
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how effectively the project licensing system is being used to reduce and restrict performance of the classical LD50 test in Britain.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Applications to use animals for this purpose in this country are authorised only in strict accordance with the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Before granting a licence, my right hon. Friend is required to consult an inspector appointed under the Act.

  Football Grounds (Arrests)
  Mr. Allen
  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 what crowd trouble occurred inside and outside the ground at the Littlewoods Cup Final on 9 April; how many people were arrested, distinguishing between those arrested by mounted officers and others; how many people have subsequently been charged; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that no significant crowd trouble occurred inside Wembley stadium, but that there were incidents of crowd trouble outside the ground, the most serious of which happened at approximately 3 pm and required the assistance of mounted officers in order to separate rival supporters. Mounted officers were involved in 26 of the 66 arrests made. Sixty five people were subsequently charged. Such incidents demonstrate that further action is necessary in respect of football hooliganism. The Government believe that the proposed national membership scheme will help to break the link between violence and football by excluding from grounds, and thereby deterring from travelling to matches, those who cause trouble.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of prisoners held in police cells at the end of each of the last six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  The information requested is as follows. The number of prisoners held in police cells continues downwards and the situation is better than it has been since the end of 1986.

  Prisoners held in Police cells at unlocking on the last day of each month

  Number

  1988

  October

  1,531

  November

  1,025

  December

  87

  1989

  January

  349

  February

  219

  March

  71

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures have been taken
  551
  following his review of the circumstances which led to the escape by helicopter of two prisoners from Gartree prison in December 1987.

  Mr. Hurd
  In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harhorough (Sir J. Farr) on 21 January 1988 at columns 785–86 I said that a vigorous review of security measures had been carried out immediately at all establishments holding category A prisoners, and that a number of practical measures were taken quickly.

  I have now approved a number of other lines of action, including plans for the future shape of the dispersal system, and these are contained in a detailed statement of intention issued to the prison service by the deputy director general. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Diplomatic Passports
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether foreigners holding diplomatic passports, but not accredited in the United Kingdom, are exempt from normal entry procedures when visting this country.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 6 April 1989]: Possession of a diplomatic passport does not, in itself, afford the holder any special status or entitlement.

  Under the Immigration Act 1971, certain persons, including members of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom who meet the requirements of section 8(3) of that Act as amended by the Immigration Act 1988, are entitled to exemption from immigration control. Members of the family forming part of the household of such members similarly benefit.

  Certain members of diplomatic missions which are not based in the United Kingdom who are passing through this country while proceeding to take up or return to their posts, or who are returning to their own countries are, with their families, treated as being exempt from immigration control in order to meet the requirements of article 40 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations.

  London Underground
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance his Department has given towards reducing crime on the London Underground; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The primary responsibility for reducing crime on the London Underground rests with the British Transport police and London Underground Ltd. The Home Office provides guidance and advice to BTP and LUL, as it does in this context to the Department of Transport. My right hon. Friend has approved arrangements under which Metropolitan police officers have been lent to help police the Underground while BTP recruit and train new officers to fill their increased establishment.

  Rape
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken on the Women's National Commission's 1985 recommendation that the question of consent should be reconsidered with the aim of reforming the law on rape to make it clear that 552
  the alleged rapist's assumptions about the complainant's consent should be reasonable according to modern interpretations of women's rights to choose.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The law on rape provides that a man is not guilty if he believes that the woman was consenting to intercourse. Section 1(2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 provides that any jury considering a defence based on consent should have regard to the presence of absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief. In R v. Pigg (1982), Lord Lane CJ also ruled that a man who was reckless as to whether the woman consented should also be held guilty. I am not persuaded that the recommendations of the Women's National Commission would improve the present law.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  El Salvador
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conduct and outcome of the recent election in El Salvador.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that the last presidential election in El Salvador was held under free and fair conditions.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that the recent presidential election in El Salvador was held under free and fair conditions.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's Government's official observer, Dr. David Browning, attended the presidential elections in El Salvador. He is currently preparing his report, a copy of which will be deposited in the Library in due course.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America in relation to El Salvador.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have regular discussions with the United States on a wide range of topics, including El Salvador.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit El Salvador.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to visit El Salvador.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet representatives of the new El Salvadorean Government.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to meet representatives of the new Government of El Salvador.

  Anglo-French Relations
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-French relations.
  553
  Mrs. Chalker
  Anglo-French relations are excellent.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had useful talks with President Mitterrand at the Anglo-French summit meeting in Paris on 27 February. The two Governments consult closely on a wide range of issues. There are numerous ministerial and other contacts between the two countries.

  Middle East
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Secretary of State of the United States of America to discuss the middle east.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be visiting Washington on 16–17 April and looks forward to discussing a wide range of issues, including the middle east, with Mr. Baker.

  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a middle east peace settlement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There have been a number of positive developments; the PLO's renunciation of terrorism; Israel's recognition that the status quo is untenable; the constructive attitude of the Soviet Union and the determination of the United States to work actively for a settlement. We continue to believe that an international conference remains the most suitable framework for negotiations between the parties.

  Horn of Africa
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about political developments in the Horn of Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We remain in contact with the Governments of the Horn about the problems of the region, both bilaterally and with our partners in the Twelve. We are also in touch with other Governments. My right hon. and learned Friend discussed the Horn with Mr. Shevardnadze on 6 April and urged the Soviet Union to use its considerable influence in the area in a positive direction.

  Prime Minister Bhutto
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet Prime Minister Bhutto of Pakistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend met Miss Bhutto on 27 March during his visit to Islamabad. She has accepted an invitation to visit Britain later this year. We look forward to her visit.

  EC (Social Dimension)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make it his policy to support the social dimension in European Community affairs.

  Mrs. Chalker
  It has always been our policy to ensure, by avoiding unnecessary regulation, that the single market programme generates additional economic growth, and so more jobs.
  554
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to calls among the United Kingdom European Community partners for greater emphasis on the social sphere in the run up to 1992.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We strongly support the single market programme, which, by reducing barriers to enterprise, will mean higher economic growth, and so more jobs.

  Conventional Force Levels
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of recent negotiations on conventional force levels in Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Two negotiations—one on conventional armed forces in Europe and one on confidence and security-building measures—began in Vienna on 6 March. The discussions have got off to a good businesslike start. My right hon. and learned Friend presented radical western proposals for both sets of talks on 6 March. We now look for a response from the east.

  Mexican Foreign Minister
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his Mexican counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Eggar
  I met Mr. Solana in Caracas in January when we had a useful exchange of views on bilateral and international issues. I saw him again at the San Jose V conference in San Pedro Sula in February, and hope to continue our exchanges during my visit to Mexico later this month.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the United States Government to help stem the flow of funds and weapons to terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government of the United States share our abhorrence of the activities of terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. There is constant and continuing co-operation with them and this has significantly inhibited the flow of funds and arms into the Province. Our joint vigilance will not be relaxed as long as the terrorist threat remains.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has recently had with the President of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend had a brief discussion with President Vassiliou on the telephone when he passed through London on 4 April, on his way to New York for his meeting with the United Nations Secretary-General and Mr. Denktash on 6 April. We welcome the agreement reached at that meeting to prepare a draft outline of an overall settlement by the end of May. We urge both sides to work constructively towards that end.

  United States Government
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the new United States Administration concerning foreign policy matters in particular in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met Mr. Baker in Vienna on 6 March. He looks forward to further discussions with him in Washington next week.

  Hungarian Foreign Minister
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Hungarian Foreign Minister; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I both had talks with the Hungarian Foreign Minister on Wednesday 15 March during his visit to the United Kingdom. We had a useful discussion on bilateral matters, including trade, and on international issue. We also discussed developments in the internal situation in Hungary.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has had with other Foreign Affairs Ministers regarding Third world debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the written reply I gave him on 8 February at column 739.

  Tibet
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of China concerning recent events in Tibet.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Tibet with a representative of the Chinese Government.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend discussed Tibet when he met the Chinese Foreign Minister in Tokyo in February. My noble Friend the Minister of State also discussed Tibet with Mr. Zhou Nan, the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister during the latter's visit in March.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the subject of human rights in Tibet.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 March to the late hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, Mr. McTaggart, at column 728.

  Israeli Foreign Minister
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Israeli Foreign Minister of State; and what matters will be discussed.
  556
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his counterpart in the Israeli Government; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to visit Israel later this year, and looks forward to discussing bilateral and regional issues with Professor Arens then.

  Angola
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any representations about the economic prospects for Angola.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.

  South American Debt
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the light of recent events in Venezuela, what new initiatives he is planning to help south American democracies with their debt problems.

  Mrs. Chalker
  At the recent spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington, Finance Ministers of the leading industrialised countries, including the United Kingdom, agreed that the key principles of the case-by-case growth-oriented debt strategy remain valid. They encouraged the IMF and World Bank to take appropriate steps to support efforts to reduce the debt burdens of countries which are committed to substantial economic reforms, while emphasising that concrete negotiations are a matter for the debtor countries and the commercial bank.

  EFTA and Eastern Bloc Countries (EC Links)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what encouragement he will give to member countries of EFTA and Eastern bloc countries to forge closer links with the European Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We welcomed the agreement of EC and EFTA Ministers meeting in Brussels on 20 March, to consider jointly the promotion of closer and more extensive EC/EFTA co-operation. We also supported the establishment last year of official EC relations with all Eastern European countries except Romania, and are in favour of the trade or trade and co-operation agreements currently concluded or under negotiation with these countries.

  EC (Fraud)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent proposals he has made to combat fraud in the European Community.

  Mr. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the anti-fraud proposals endorsed by the Economic and Finance Council on 13 March and reported by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 15 March at
  557
  column 245. Those measures were based on suggestions put forward by the United Kingdom in the run-up to the Council.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement concerning relations between Britain and Pakistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  Britain and Pakistan enjoy a warm and friendly relationship based on strong historical ties. These have been reinforced by the restoration of democracy in Pakistan. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State paid a useful visit to Islamabad from 27 to 28 March. We look forward to welcoming Prime Minister Bhutto to Britain later this year.

  Portugal
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with Portugal.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our relations with Portugal are excellent. Portugal is our oldest ally, and we work closely together within NATO and the European Community. We are delighted that Portugal has also acceded to the WEU and that this took place under the British presidency.

  South-West Africa
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to make representations to the South African Government on its policy towards South-West Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Namibia when she met the South African Foreign Minister in Windhoek on 1 April. Subsequently we have been in daily, often hourly, contact with the South African Government in support of the United Nation's efforts to restore peace to Namibia.

  South Africa (Political Detainees)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa for the release of political detainees.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made frequent high level representations on behalf of those detained without charge in South Africa. We believe all those so detained should be charged or released unconditionally.

  Official Information
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in achieving better targeting and improved dissemination of official information to overseas media.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our posts abroad are required regularly to report back on the impact of official information on the overseas media, in particular through a full annual return which reviews output against objectives. We are refining posts' annual information reporting procedures to give greater emphasis to the definition of targets and objectives.

  The performance of suppliers is also monitored to ensure that services provided and resources used support FCO information objectives.

  Central America
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the countries of central America.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have normal diplomatic relations with all the countries of central America. Our policy towards the region is based on support for democracy and respect for human rights and the need for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of regional conflicts. We have therefore consistently supported the efforts of the central American states to resolve their problems within the framework of the Esquipulas II peace process.

  Spain
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Spain.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We enjoy excellent relations with Spain, which is a valued partner and ally in the European Community, NATO and the Western European Union. The importance and strength of our relations was well demonstrated by the visits to Spain by Her Majesty the Queen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last autumn.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps have been taken to help counteract international drug trafficking.

  Mr. Eggar
  A United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances was adopted in December 1988. The United Kingdom has signed subject to ratification. We have also signed bilateral asset seizure agreements with five countries, the most recent with Switzerland on 8 March. Similar arrangements have also been concluded with Bermuda.

  Mr. Jacques Delors
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met M. Jacques Delors to discuss developments within the European Community; and what specific matters were discussed.
  560
  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I last met M. Delors at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 20 March. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of 22 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) at column 623–24.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed southern African affairs with the South African ambassador; and what specific matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met the South African ambassador during the visit of the South African Foreign Minister, Mr. Pik Botha, on 15 March. They discussed a wide range of issues.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has at present no plans to visit Hong Kong.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received concerning the future of' Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  We regularly receive representations from organisations and individual members of the public, both in this country and in Hong Kong, about a wide range of issues connected with the future of Hong Kong. We are also in close contact with the Hong Kong Government, who have their own channels for consultation and monitoring of public opinion in Hong Kong.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in East Timor.

  Mr. Eggar
  We believe that respect for human rights in East Timor has significantly improved in recent years.

  Turkey
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on United Kingdom relations with Turkey.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I cannot add to the answer I gave on this subject to my hon. Friend on 8 March at column 556.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues he will raise at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 23 March to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and
  561
  Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) at columns 728–29.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Zimbabwe following the Prime Minister's recent visit.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We enjoy excellent relations with Zimbabwe. This was clearly evident during the Prime Minister's recent, highly successful visit.

  Gulf States
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the current state of relations with the Gulf states.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our relations with the Arab states of the Gulf are, without exception, excellent.

  Syria (Terrorism)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, during his meetings with Soviet leaders last week, the continuation of Syrian involvement in international terrorism was discussed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. And as at previous meetings we encouraged the soviet authorities to support our firm line.

  Turkey (Human Rights)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the Turkish Government regarding human rights abuse in Turkey.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I last raised the matter of human rights in Turkey with the Turkish ambassador on 2 February. He readily accepted the need for Turkey to abide by the terms and conditions of the human rights conventions to which Turkey is a party, and reaffirmed the determination of his Government to secure further improvements in the respect for human rights in Turkey.

  Pakistan (Afghan Refugees)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to help relieve the Afghan refugee problem in Pakistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  Refugees in Pakistan benefit from British humanitarian aid to the Afghans through international and non-governmental organisations. This totalled £10·5 million last year. We have so far announced a contribution of £2 million this year and are ready to provide further assistance as the need is established.

  USSR (Human Rights)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Soviet Foreign Minister on the question of human rights.
  562
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Human rights questions are a part of the regular agenda for our discussions with the Soviet authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made our views clear when he met Mr. Shevardnadze last week. A list of cases of public concern was handed over.

  NATO
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Secretary General of NATO; and what issues he discussed with him.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Secretary General of NATO and my right hon. and learned Friend both participated in the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council, held in Brussels on 8–9 December, at which a full range of Alliance security and arms control issues was discussed.

  Brazil
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for Ministers in his Department to visit Brazil.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no immediate plans for any Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers to visit Brazil. I visited Brazil in November 1988, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary visited in July 1985.

  Israel
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to hold further discussions with the Israeli authorities on middle east peace problems following the recent visit by the Minister of State.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. The next move will be the visit of Mr. Shamir next month. We shall continue to play our full part in efforts to prepare for negotiations. We have an active dialogue with all the parties.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Strychnine
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by year since 1979 for each of the three counties of Yorkshire the number of cases of abuse of pesticides involving strychnine; and if he will identify the domestic farm and wild animal species involved.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of incidents

  Animals involved

  County

  1979

  Nil

  —

  —

  1980

  1

  1 dog

  North Yorkshire

  1981

  1

  1 dog

  South Yorkshire

  2

  1 dog, 1 cat

  North Yorkshire

  1982

  1

  1 dog

  South Yorkshire

  1

  1 dog

  North Yorkshire

  1983

  2

  2 dogs, 1 cat

  North Yorkshire

  1984

  4

  4 dogs

  North Yorkshire

  1985

  1

  1 fox

  North Yorkshire

  1986

  1

  1 dog

  North Yorkshire

  1987

  1

  1 dog

  South Yorkshire

  563

  Year

  Number of incidents

  Animals involved

  County

  1988

  1

  1 woodpigeon

  North Yorkshire

  1989

  Nil

  —

  —

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions during each of the last three years he has initiated action following illegal use of strychnine-based pesticides.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  1986

  10

  1987

  7

  1988

  8

  White Willow Watermark Disease
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is undertaking on White Willow Watermark disease and its impact upon cricket bat manufacture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Research into the watermark disease of cricket bat willow is being carried out at the university of East Anglia and the Forestry Commission has provided some of the funding for this. It is not, however, undertaking any additional in-house research into the disease.

  Meetings held recently between growers of willow and the cricket bat manufacturers, which have been attended by a representative from the Forestry Commission, seem likely to result in a voluntary levy being applied to the clefts from which the bats are made. This will enable further research to be carried out.

  There has been a significant reduction in the number of diseased trees found in Britain over the last 15 years, largely because of control measures carried out under the Watermark Disease (Local Authorities) Order 1986 and its predecessors.

  Forestry Commission (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names, locations and purchase dates of blocks of land of areas greater than 100 hectares in the three counties of Yorkshire, which were newly planted by the Forestry Commission in 1987–88.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  There were none.

  Potatoes
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to how many European Economic Community countries impose quantitative restrictions upon the level of potato production.

  Mr. Ryder
  The United Kingdom is the only member state to impose quantitative restrictions. These are operated by the Potato Marketing Board, which controls production in Great Britain by regulating plantings under a quota system.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies have been made of the 564
  impact of the intervention policies of the Potato Marketing Board upon (a) the prices paid by the consumer and (b) profitability for growers.

  Mr. Ryder
  I am not aware of any studies on these specific points, but I refer my hon. Friend to two more general studies: "Potatoes in Surplus" by L. Hinton (Occasional Paper No. 37, Department of Land Economy, Cambridge University, 1987) and "An Econometric Model of the Maincrop Potato Market in Great Britain", by C. Ennew and B. White (Report No. 1/88, Department of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.).

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of imports of potato products during each of the past five years.

  Mr. Ryder
  The following tonnages of potato products were imported into the United Kingdom:

  Crop year (June/May)

  '000 tonnes

  1983–84

  411

  1984–85

  369

  1985–86

  348

  1986–87

  377

  1987–88

  430

  Source: Customs and Excise Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has made any financial appraisal of organic farming vis-á-vis existing production systems.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: No, but I am considering whether and how best to obtain the information required for such appraisals.

TRANSPORT

  M40
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State far Transport when the M40 from west London to Oxford was available for use along its complete length for the first time.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On 28 March 1974.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of the M40 are concrete and how many miles tarmac.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The answer is:

  Miles

  Concrete

  15·3

  Tarmac

  13·8

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost of repair and maintenance of(a) the tarmac sections and (b) the concrete sections of the M40 since the motorway was first opened for use.
  565
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The answer is:

  £

  Tarmac

  1,888,000

  Concrete

  3,629,000

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, since the M40 was first opened for use, how many months have been taken up with one or more lanes on the concrete sections closed for repairs.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Transport police have been in post in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  BTP figures for officers in post are as follows:

  End years

  Total

  1979

  1,899

  1980

  1,948

  1981

  2,138

  1982

  2,128

  1983

  2,052

  1984

  1,961

  1985

  1,817

  1986

  1,834

  1987

  1,846

  1988

  1,830

  11989

  1,820

  1 At 31 March 1989.

  The change in the total between 1984 and 1985 reflected the termination of arrangements between Associated British Ports and the BTP.

  Road Standards
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assumptions are made about minimum road standards serving conurbations of more than 25,000 inhabitants.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is Government policy that communities with more than 100,000 inhabitants should have easy access although not necessarily direct connection to a trunk road. The justification for trunk road schemes is based on a comprehensive appraisal of costs and benefits. Selection of the appropriate carriageway standards forms a part of the process.

  London Underground (Fires)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions are given to drivers on underground trains in the event of a fire occuring in the middle of the train with particular regard to helping passengers(a) between the driver and the fire and (b) between the fire and the end of the train; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Every effort is made to design underground rolling stock so that the risk of fire breaking out is minimized—or, if fire does occur, that it will not disable the train. In the event of a fire the driver's first responsibility is to get the train to the nearest station and inform the line controller by radio. No passenger has been injured by a fire on a train within the period 1984 to date.566
  I understand from London Underground Ltd. that a programme to remove inflammable material from rolling stock has begun.

  London Underground (Heart Attacks)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what facilities are available on the London Underground in the event of an individual suffering a heart attack on a train; and what instructions are given to staff on whether or not to move the sufferer.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that stretchers and first aid kits are available on the Underground but that staff are instructed to summon expert medical assistance in the event of someone being taken seriously ill. Staff are advised not to move any passenger suspected of suffering a heart attack.

  Central Line (Communications)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration has been given to the age and adequacy of current radio communications between drivers and guards on Central line underground trains; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Communication between driver and guard on the Central line is by "Loudaphone". This is a microphone and loudspeaker system, operated by a push button, which is built into trains. The railway inspectorate is investigating reports of poor quality voice transmissions. As an added safety measure, the driver is also in radio communication with the line controller.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the increase in the numbers of heavy goods vehicles taxed of the 38 tonne limit, expressed both numerically and as a percentage, as at year end 1988 compared with 1987; and how he measures the objective of reducing the numbers of heavy lorries in the light of these figures.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The stock of 38 tonne goods vehicles increased by 9,900 (24 per cent.) between the end of 1987 and the end of 1988. It is estimated that the introduction of 38-tonne vehicles since 1983 has led to a saving of about 9,000 other heavy goods vehicles that would have been required to cope with the current level of haulage activity. This saving is estimated by assuming that a 38 tonne vehicle has a 20 per cent. greater payload, by weight, than a 32·5 tonne vehicle, that in other respects, eg journey length, load factors, etc. the vehicles operate in the same way, and that no new traffic is generated by 38-tonners.

  Motor Car Statistics
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he possesses concerning the numbers of motor cars registered in Great Britain in the years 1959, 1969, 1979, and 1989, respectively, together with the estimated cumulative motor car miles run in each year and his projections of both figures for the year 2000 and beyond.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The available information is as follows:
  567

  Year

  Cars1 currently licensed: (million)

  Vehicle kilometres (miles) Cars3 and taxis: (billion)

  1959

  5·2

  54·7 (34·0)

  1969

  11·0

  132·0 (82·0)

  1979

  14·5

  184·9(114·9)

  1988

  18·9

  270·4 (168·0)

  Forecasts2

  2000

  21·1–22·7

  294–335 (183–208)

  2005

  22·0–23·9

  304–356 (189–221)

  2010

  22·7–25·0

  315–377 (196–234)

  2015

  23·4–26·1

  325–395 (202–245)

  1Figures are for vehicles with a car body type. Figures for years before 1988 are not available on this basis and estimates have been made from the number of cars taxed as private in those years.

  2Upper and lower forecasts are taken from the assumptions for car ownership used in the national road traffic forecasts.

  3The definition of cars is slightly broader than that used for cars currently licensed.

  The forecasts of car ownership and vehicle mileage are based on the national road traffic forecasts of 1984. It is expected that revised forecasts will be issued shortly.

  Transport Planning (Greater London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory powers were possessed by the former Greater London council in respect of transport planning in Greater London which are not now possessed by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Greater London council had a duty under section 2 of the Transport (London) Act 1969 to prepare transport plans for Greater London. This duty was revoked by the London Regional Transport Act 1984 which established London Regional Transport and charged it with the duty of planning and providing passenger transport services for Greater London.

  The highways and traffic powers of the council in respect of roads in London were reallocated to the London boroughs under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1985, apart from 70 miles of former metropolitan roads which were transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under the Metropolitan Roads Trunking Order 1986. At the request of the London boroughs, he is also responsible for the control, management, development and extension of London's traffic signals and urban traffic control system.

  Normans Heath (Bypass)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to announce his decision about a bypass scheme on the A41 at Normans Heath.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is among the many candidates nationally for possible inclusion in the trunk road programme following the current review. We hope to make an announcement later this spring.

  Motorways (Noise Barriers)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the provision of noise barriers alongside motorways close to a new housing development.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  When a motorway is built near to houses, the Department provides barriers in circumstances 568
  where these are cost-effective and cheaper and more effective than providing secondary glazing under the Noise Insulation Regulations.

  We will also, in appropriate cases, agree to a developer siting a noise barrier on motorway land, subject to our being satisfied on details and the developer bearing the cost.

  Any proposal for a barrier alongside a motorway, but on other land, is a matter for decision by the local planning authority, which may consult the Department about its effects on the highway.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the current position of the east London river crossing, indicating when he expects to announce the revised design of the new bridge and when he now expects construction to begin.

  Mr. Channon
  Further progress with the scheme is dependent on the outcome of the review of the River Thames bridge design being undertaken by consultants. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 23 March at columns 708–9 for the current position on that study.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has given to the report entitled "Airport Security: the Experience of Manchester Airport", a copy of which has been sent to him; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We received a copy of the report from the hon. Member on 7 April. It has been read with interest. The report was prepared by the TGWU branch at Manchester airport. The Union's representative on the National Aviation Security Committee (NASC) will be asked whether the union as a whole endorses the recommendations made by its Manchester branch, and if so whether, as a result, it intends to put forward proposals for consideration by the National Aviation Security Committee.

  Automatic Ticket Barriers (London Underground)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the safety implications of installing automatic ticket barriers on the London Underground; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In addition to three early-day motions, about 30 representations have been received from members of Parliament and members of the public since 1 January.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning the failure rate of those automatic ticket barriers which have been installed on the London Underground; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand from London Underground Ltd. that, on average, gates fail once for every 79,000 passengers using them. This represents approximately 16 single gate failures per day, each of which takes between 10 and 15 minutes for a fitter to rectify.
  569
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he is aware of any circumstances in which, in the event of a power failure, any of the new automatic ticket gates in London Underground stations would remain closed; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if London Underground Ltd. has informed him of any occasion on which difficulties occurring in the new automatic ticket gates at King's Cross station on the day of their official inauguration, 27 February, which would lead him to reconsider his assurances that in the event of a power failure, all the gates would open automatically;

  (3) if London Underground Ltd has informed him of any occasion on which an actual or simulated power failure has resulted in any of the new automatic ticket gates in London Underground stations remaining closed.

  Mr. Portillo
  As I told the hon. Lady in my letter of 4 April 1989, London Underground Ltd. (LUL) told me recently that in certain most unlikely circumstances failure of a single phase in the power supply would mean that not all the ticket gates would open automatically. It has assured me that, should such a failure occur, staff have been instructed to open all gates immediately by using the emergency opening arrangements which are unaffected by single-phase power failures. LUL is rectifying this problem by a programme of modification which will be complete within three months.

  I can add that the problem was first identified at King's Cross.

  Explosives (Carriage by Road)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the planned new regulations for Conveyance of Explosives by Road Regulations will(a) restrict traffic movements during severe weather or during periods of peak traffic, (b) introduce new standards to strengthen gas-carrying vehicles to withstand roll-over accidents, (c) insist on third party insurance that will be adequate to cover accidents such as the one at the Los Alfaques campsite, San Carlos, Spain, (d) impose new requirements for advance warning of planned journeys and routes to emergency services and (e) require escorts for vehicles paid by commercial companies.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The Road Traffic (Carriage of Explosives) Regulations laid before Parliament cover the transport of substances and articles classified as "explosives" only. The flammable gases are not covered. The regulations do not cover the matter of insurance.

  The regulations require that where more than 5 tonnes of particular explosives are carried on a vehicle, the route must be agreed with the appropriate chief officer of police. An approved code of practice which gives practical guidance on methods of compliance accompanies the regulations. Vehicle operators undertaking journeys involving explosives should take care in selecting routes, and consider security, roadworks, congestion and weather. Routes through built-up areas should not be used except when necessary to make a delivery. A two-man crew is required on the vehicle. A separate escort vehicle is not.

  Hazardous Cargoes
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department is monitoring the incidence 570
  with which containers of hazardous goods are lashed to the decks of cargo vessels when the hold is full; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The Department does not monitor the incidence with which cargoes are carried on the decks of cargo vessels, but in the course of their inspections marine surveyors in the Department may check that deck cargoes have been lashed and stowed correctly.

  Perishable Goods
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the enforcement of standards within road haulage vehicles used for the conveyance of perishable goods.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The carriage of all foodstuffs within the United Kingdom is subject to the requirements of the Food Hygiene (Markets, Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) Regulations, 1966, as amended. Responsibility for the enforcement of these regulations rests entirely with local authorities. Wider application of the storage temperature controls in these regulations is currently being considered and revised draft regulations will be issued for consultation shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will deposit in the Library the results of BMP Davidson Pearce's market research on attitudes to family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are arranging with the Central Office of Information for a copy of the results of the research, and some other background material relating to the family credit advertising campaign, to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many family credit claimants are also in receipt of housing benefit; how much of each £1 gained in family credit by these claimants is lost in housing benefit; and what effects he estimates this will have on the propensity of low income families to claim family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the number of family credit recipients who also get housing benefit is not available.

  Up to the point that housing benefit is extinguished, rate rebate recipients will lose 20p housing benefit for each £1 gained in family credit. Similarly, rent allowance and rebate recipients would lose 65p for each £1 gained in family credit.

  Some families may not realise that, although their housing benefit might change, they will nevertheless be better off overall if they qualify for family credit. This is one of the points which our forthcoming advertising campaign will address.

  Chief Adjudication Officer (Annual Report)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the Chief
  571
  Adjudication Officer's annual report for 1987–88 in respect of his comments on supplementary benefit claims, urgent need payments, sickness benefits and industrial disablement benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The chief adjudication officer's annual report for 1987–88 makes it clear that there were certain areas of the supplementary benefit scheme which were complicated to administer and to understand. The advent of income support in April 1988 has resulted in a simplification of the benefit system. Furthermore under income support the urgent cases provisions referred to are no longer present. A direct result of the changes is that the chief adjudication officer has noted that he finds that the overall level of performance on income support is encouraging.

  The chief adjudication officer's report also identified that there is still room for improvement in the standard of adjudication on sickness benefit and disablement benefit. Further guidance will be issued where it is considered appropriate.

  Industrial Injuries and Diseases
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will widen the definition of industrial diseases, for the purposes of pneumoconiosis and workers' compensation legislation, so as to include associated lung diseases such as chronic bronchitis where there is evidence that such a condition exists in a person who has evidence of any dust whatsoever on his lungs.

  Mr. Scott
  We are advised on the list of prescribed industrial diseases by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. Its report on bronchitis and emphysema published in May last year (Cm. 379) concluded that it is at present impossible to distinguish airflow limitation caused by dust from that due to other causes such as smoking (the most common cause of bronchitis and emphysema) and that the available evidence is that the scale of the effects of dust is in any case relatively small. It did not recommend any extension of the current prescribed industrial diseases provisions, and we agree with that view.

  Pensions
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the percentage of gross domestic product devoted to pensioners; and what is the percentage in other countries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest information available indicates that in 1983 spending on the elderly in the United Kingdom was third highest in the European Community as a share of GDP (9·6 per cent.), just behind Denmark and France. Partial figures for 1984 show increased spending in the United Kingdom, while spending in other states has decreased.

  Income Support
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in the Doncaster and Mexborough area of South Yorkshire, currently placed in board and lodging accommodation by local authorities and entitled to income support, will(a) have to make a
  572
  second, separate, claim for living expenses from the local Department of Social Security offices and (b) have to claim money for their housing costs from local authority housing benefits sections after April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Claimants in this group already receiving income support will not have to make a new claim for income support in April. Local offices are sending them the necessary forms to claim housing benefit from April. The number placed in board and lodging accommodation by local authorities is not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young people who have been in local authority care during the previous two years in Doncaster and Mexborough have lost entitlement to income support.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those on income support will receive(a) a partial increase and (b) no increase at all in their incomes because of being in receipt of transitional protection and in the current year (i) for the United Kingdom as a whole and (ii) for the social security area covering Nottingham.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available. The estimated number of income support claimants in Great Britain who will benefit from a partial increase at this year's up-rating is 610,000. An estimated 600,000 will remain at the same level of benefit. No estimates are available on a regional or local basis.

  Information for Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Training (Refusals)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young people in Doncaster and Mexborough in the county of Yorkshire have been referred to an adjudication officer for consideration of refusal of approved training during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During the 12 months ended 31 March 1989, a total of 106 claims for benefit have been referred to the adjudication office covering the Doncaster and Mexborough area for consideration of the question of refusal of approved training. Thirty two of the references were decided in the claimant's favour and 74 against. These figures, which are based on a 100 per cent. count of adjudication officer decisions, refer to the number of claims rather than to the number of individuals claiming. Some individuals may have had more than one claim referred for adjudication.

  Staff Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the present number of staff at his Department's offices at Irene house, Tooting; Arndale house, Wandsworth, and Crown house, Streatham; and what was the number of vacancies at each of these offices on 31 March.
  573
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Complement 1988–89

  Staff in post 31 March 1989

  Irene house, Tooting

  121

  118·5

  Arndale house, Wandsworth

  172

  179·0

  Crown house, Streatham

  120

  121·5

  Community Care
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide figures for the Walthamstow, Leytonstone and Woodgrange Park offices of his Department for the year ended 31 March of(a) their social fund amounts allocated sub-divided between community care grants and loans, (b) the amounts paid out, similarly sub-divided, (c) the amount which was paid out by each office in the previous year and (d) their allocation for the forthcoming year, similarly sub-divided.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about local office budgetallocations is available in the Library.

  Information about the numbers of social fund applications processed and amounts paid is available in the Library for the period April 1988 to February 1989. Information for March 1989 will be placed in the Library later this month.

  Information about local office expenditure on single payments for the period 1987–88 is also available in the Library.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional publicity his Department is giving to the availability of community care grants, following the low initial take-up of such grants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Local office managers have been asked to improve and maintain liaison with local statutory and voluntary organisations since these are often best placed to identify people who may be eligible for help. We also intend to produce additional information material on the social fund aimed at potential applicants. This will supplement the information already available in leaflet SB16 "A Guide to the Social Fund" as well as a variety of other leaflets and forms.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage of take-up of community care grants from the social fund.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Take-up of community care grants has continued to rise steadily. In February 1989, 42,000 applications were received compared with 24,000 in August 1988. Expenditure over the same period rose from £2 million to just over £6 million, representing 110 per cent. of anticipated monthly expenditure. Total expenditure to the end of February was £34·1 million.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had with local authority associations and voluntary organisations on the implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We agreed with the local authority associations last year that sections 1, 2 and 3 should be 574
  implemented together, and that detailed work on these should follow the conclusion of discussions on the implementation of section 7. Work on section 7 is still under way.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to introduce legislation to reform the system of disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  We need to wait until all the reports have been published on the OPCS surveys of disability, and their findings considered, before deciding whether and when to introduce legislation to reform disability benefits.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to introduce a partial incapacity benefit following the publication of all Office of Population Censuses and Surveys surveys on disability.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall look at the need for a partial incapacity benefit when we examine existing benefit provision against the findings of the OPCS surveys.

  Grants and Loans
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications were received in each month since 11 April 1988 for(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans in (i) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of the numbers of social fund applications received are not recorded. However, information on the numbers of applications for social fund loans and grants processed and awarded, listed by local office, including information on budget allocations and expenditure, may be obtained from the details held in the Library.

  Social Fund (Staff Ratios)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the staff-to-claimant ratios for social fund departments in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available in the format requested. Details of the staff days spent on social fund activity are, however, recorded monthly. The information available to 28 February 1989 is given in the table.

  February 1989

  Staff days spent on social fund

  lncome support load

  Scotland

  10,839

  512,671

  Strathclyde

  6,884

  276,125

  Greenock

  211

  11,394

  Port Glasgow

  147

  4,890

  Young Persons (Benefits)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole have lost benefits since September 1988 because they are unemployed or have been unable to take advantage of guaranteed YTS places; and if he will make a statement.
  575
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The guaranteed offer of a YTS place to all 16 and 17-year-olds not in full-time education or employment means that there is now no need for young people to be unemployed. We are satisfied that the training agency has more than sufficient YTS places available in Greenock and Port Glasgow, Strathclyde, and in Scotland as a whole.

  Disability (Survey)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the third report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on disability in Great Britain will be published.

  Mr. Scott
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) has today published the third report on the findings of the surveys of disability in Great Britain carried out between 1985 and 1988. The report covers the prevalence of disability among children. It is the third of six reports on the surveys' findings which will be published by the OPCS over the next three months.

  The report provides prevalence estimates from the OPCS surveys of disabled children under 16 in private households and communal establishments. OPCS estimates that 360,000 children in Great Britain have disabilities. Five thousand six hundred of the children live in communal establishments, the remainder in private households.

  We will welcome comments on this and the further OPCS reports as they are published.

ENVIRONMENT

  Trichlorophenols
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to prevent the contamination of water supplies with trichlorophenols.

  Mr. Moynihan
  It is currently the responsibility of the water authorities to take steps to prevent drinking water sources becoming contaminated with phenolic compounds which can be transformed by the chlorination process into trichlorophenol. The Water Bill will transfer this function to the National Rivers Authority and will provide strengthened powers of pollution control.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations concerning the fitting of catalytic converters to all new vehicles in order to reduce air pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 April 1989]: We have received a number of representations on the matter of catalysts to reduce motor vehicle pollution. The so-called Luxembourg package of vehicle exhaust emission standards was adopted by the Council of Ministers in December 1987 and last year we played a major role in the achievement of a common position on tighter standards for small cars. The common position now awaits further consideration by the European Parliament under the co-operation procedure. The directives specify the tightest standards that may be applied by Member states and, subject to confirmation of
  576
  the common position on small cars, we have decided to apply them all in the United Kingdom. We expect them to result in almost all cars in the United Kingdom requiring catalysts and to lead to a substantial improvement in air quality. It will, however, be possible for cars of less than 2 litres to meet these standards with lean-burn engines coupled with simple and robust oxidation catalysts. Lean-burn engines offer the prospect of significant fuel savings.

  Sewage Outfalls
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by location, the sewage outfalls to the sea in(a) the Yorkshire water authority and (b) the Severn-Trent water authority; and of these, if he will show in his answer (i) those that are primary treatment works and (ii) those that are long outfall.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Yorkshire water authority currently has the following outfalls which discharge direct to the North Sea:

  Scarborough (Northern, Southern, Wheatcroft)

  Bridlington

  Filey (Brigg)

  Whitby

  Hornsea

  Scalby (Scarborough)

  Staithes

  Robin Hood's Bay

  Runswick Bay

  Sandsend

  Ravenscar

  Withernsea

  At Withernsea, sewage currently receives primary treatment before discharge. There are long sea outfalls at Bridlington and Hornsea and a new long sea outfall is under construction at Scarborough to replace the existing outfalls. There are new sewage outfalls to the sea in the Severn-Trent water authority area.

  Employee Share Ownership
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what discussions have taken place as to the feasibility of introducing an employee share ownership scheme in any future privatisation that his Department may sponsor.

  Mr. Ridley
  In his reply on 15 March to a written question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), at column 238, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning announced that there will be special share offer arrangements for the employees of the new water plcs when the present water authorities are floated later this year. Discussions are in progress between my Department and the Water Authorities Association on the establishment of share schemes, approved by the Inland Revenue, as part of those share arrangements.

  In his statement to the House on 3 February 1988 at column 983 my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) made it clear that in evaluating private sector bids for the Crown Suppliers he would pay particular attention to proposals for the involvement of the staff in the success of the enterprise.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the differences in standards of construction between dwellings constructed and completed wholly by the housing association grant system and those either planned or completed through mixed housing association grant and private finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  To receive housing association grant from the Housing Corporation all schemes must meet appropriate standards of construction and provide accommodation appropriate for the intended use. The same design and contracting requirements are specified by the Housing Corporation, irrespective of whether the schemes are financed wholly by public funds or by a mixture of HAG and loans from the private sector.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent section 11(7) of the proposed Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations allows a community charge registration officer to provide the police, immigration authorities and the Inland Revenue with a copy of the publicly available extract of the register.

  Mr. Gummer
  Not to any extent whatsoever.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what timetable for implementation of the Community Charge (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989, (S.I., 1989, No. 438) his Department is working to.

  Mr. Gummer
  The operative dates of the regulations are set out at the beginning of the statutory instrument. The regulations are all now in force except for regulations 4 and 5, which will come into effect on 22 May. These two regulations will enable registration officers to require information from individuals for the purpose of compiling their registers.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether young people over the age of 18 years who are either(a) studying on a discretionary grant or (b) on employment training or a similar scheme will have their income adjusted to take account of their obligation to pay the community charge from April 1989 in Scotland and from April 1990–91 in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer, 6 April 1989]: Full-time students wil pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge, and people undertaking employment training will be entitled to claim rebates of up to 80 per cent. The level of discretionary grants is a matter for local education authorities and the level of training allowances is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to seek powers to enable him to charge for public inspection of definitive maps and statements of public rights of way, contained in section 57(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
  578
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Beaches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the cost of bringing beaches in Yorkshire up to European Economic Community standards; and from what date he is expects the standards to be met.

  Mr. Howard
  The costs and completion date of capital works currently planned by Yorkshire water authority for improving bathing waters are set out below:

  Water

  Cost £ million

  Completion

  Robin Hood's Bay

  1·3

  Spring 1993

  Scarborough (North and South Bays)

  26·2

  Summer 1991

  Flamborough South Landing

  1·0

  Spring 1992

  Withernsea

  3·8

  Spring 1992

  Only one of these waters—that at Flamborough south landing—failed to comply with EEC standards in 1988. However, it is expected that all Yorkshire Water bathing waters will reliably meet those standards once the improvement works have been completed.

  Dog Registration Scheme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the considerations which caused him to incorporate section 37 into the Local Government Act 1988;

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) of 14 February, on dog registration, Official Report, column 186, if he has any plans to repeal section 37 of the Local Government Act 1988;

  (3) if he has consulted local authorities and other organisations on the question of dog registration, as required by section 37 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Section 37 was inserted into the Act by another place against Government advice. We accepted it so as not to delay Royal Assent. We have no plans to repeal section 37. We do not intend to introduce a dog registration scheme so that the requirement to consult local authorities does not arise.

  Rates
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of total personal disposable income was expended on domestic rates in the years 1959–60, 1979–80, 1984–85 and 1987–88.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Domestic rate payments as a percentage of total personal disposable income in the United Kingdom are estimated to be 2 per cent. in 1979–80, 2·4 per cent. in 1984–85 and 2·6 per cent. in 1987–88. Information for 1959–60 is not available.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate what the level of the uniform business rate in England would have been(a) in 1987–88 and (b) in 1988–89, if introduced on existing business rateable valuations.
  579
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A uniform business rate for England set at the average level for 1987–88 would have been 224p in the pound. For 1988–89 it would have been 239·5p in the pound.

  Strategic Planning (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those statutory powers in respect of strategic planning in the Greater London area which were formerly held by the Greater London council which are now not possessed by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Chope
  The Local Government Act 1985 replaced the Greater London council's responsibility for preparing a structure plan under the former two-tier development plan system by providing that London borough councils prepare unitary development plans. Each plan, when it becomes operative will, for the area covered by the plan, supersede the Greater London developement plan. Since 1 April 1986 the boroughs have been responsible for handling all planning applications for which the former GLC held statutory responsibility.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, further to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, columns 359–64, to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), he will update the information provided where appropriate.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information I provided on 2 February remains the latest available.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish a list of those pesticides which he views as persistent and toxic and with a liability to bio-accumulate;

  (2) if he will publish a list of those pesticides which are on his Red List for priority review.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 April, which included the initial list of priority substances posing a particular risk for the aquatic environment (the Red List) selected primarily on the basis of their toxicity, persistence, and liability to bio-accumulate. Of the substances on that list, the following have been or can be used as pesticides:

  Some Mercury compounds

  gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane

  DDT

  Pentachlorophenol

  Hexachlorobenzene

  Aldrin

  Dieldrin

  Endrin

  Dichlorvos

  Atrizine

  Simazine

  Tributyltin and triphenyltin compounds

  Trifluralin

  Fenitrothion

  Azinphos-methyl

  Malathion

  Endosulfan

  Loughborough and Angell Town Estates
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to conduct a ballot of the tenants of the Angell town and Loughborough estates in Lambeth in relation to a housing action trust.

  Mr. Trippier
  Tenants in proposed housing action trust areas will be fully consulted before any ballots are held. We have already announced that the Electoral Reform Society has agreed to conduct ballots under the terms of section 61(3)(a) of the Housing Act 1988.

  New Dwellings
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings were completed by local authorities and new towns in England and Wales in 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is provisionally estimated that there were 15,400 local authority and new town completions in England for 1988. For information on housebuilding in Wales, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Empty Houses
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority voids there were in England at the latest available date; and of this total, how many were(a) actually available for letting, (b) in various stages of repair and (c) empty for over 12 months.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information for April 1988 was reported by local authorities in the annual housing investment programme return (HIP 1) and appears in the "Housing Needs Appraisal: HIP 1 for 1988, Grossed for England", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Stocken Hall, Rutland
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when a representative of his Department or of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission last visited Stocken hall, Rutland, to investigate the condition of that grade 2 listed building; and what action was taken as a result of those visits.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  An inspector from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission visited Stocken hall in April 1988, at which time certain wind and weather-proofing works were being carried out. Officials from the Department carried out a brief external inspection of the building in January 1989 following discussions with the local planning authority on future action in connection with Stocken hall. We understand that the building is being offered for sale.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to use the statutory powers available to him, or encourage the use of similar powers by the local planning authority, to bring about the immediate protection and preservation of Stocken hall, Rutland, a grade 2 listed building; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has held discussions with the local planning authority about the possibility of serving a notice under section 101 of the
  581
  Town and Country Planning Act 1971 on the owner of Stocken hall. My right hon. Friend will consider whether he should authorise the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission to serve such a notice when the outcome of present attempts to sell the building is known.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the specific action which has been taken since the reply by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton on 3 December 1986,Official Report, column 688, to repair and restore the grade 2 listed building, Stocken hall, Rutland; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We understand that since December 1986 the owners have carried out urgent repairs to wind and weather-proof Stocken hall. These works include patching a large hole in the roof with bitumen felt secured with wooden battens and boarding up and covering with plastic sheeting windows which were broken. These are the type of repairs which would in many circumstances meet the requirements of section 101 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

  Berne Convention
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is possible to keep, breed, sell, and kill for commercial purposes those animals listed in appendix 2 of the convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats known as the Berne convention.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In certain circumstances. I have written to the hon. Member with full details.

  Boreholes (Drinking Water)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the public buildings in Whitehall and Westminster in the care of the Property Services Agency which take drinking water from boreholes.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: Thames house south, Church house.

  Amazonia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the statement made on 13 March,Official Report, column 168 if he will make a further statement on the role Her Majesty's Government are playing in the intergovernmental panel on the climate change, and their work on clarifying the climatic consequences of deforestation in eastern Amazonia.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: The United Kingdom's delegate to the UNEP/WMO intergovernmental panel on climate change is Dr. John Houghton, Director General of the Meteorological Office. The IPCC has set up three working groups, on the science of climate change, on the impacts of climate and on formulation of response strategies. All are to report by mid-1990. Dr. Houghton leads the science working group. The Government are supporting a central unit for this group, based on the Meteorological Office, and is funding working and plenary meetings. It is also supporting Dr.
  582
  Martin Parry of the university of Birmingham, an internationally recognised expert on the impact of climate change, to contribute to the working group on impacts. Officials and experts from several Government Departments are contributing to the working group on response strategies. We have been assured that change in vegetation cover, which includes tropical deforestation, is one of the climate forcing factors being reviewed by the science working group.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Agency (Computer Information)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information is available to employers on computer assisted local labour information, developed by the Training Agency; what is the extent of the use of the system by employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The key information, in the main collected from employers, held on the computer assisted local labour market information system (CALLMI), includes work force characteristics, recruitment practices and difficulties, use of new technology, and training-related data. The system itself is not directly accessible to employers, but summary analyses and reports by the Training Agency are readily available to employers and employer organisations. It is not possible to say how many employers have received copies of these reports nor to what use they have been put.

  My Department, through the Training Agency and the establishment of training and enterprise councils, is committed to ensuring that all concerned with training, vocational education and enterprise have access to relevant and readily available information. CALLMI is a key tool in this process. We shall continue to seek ways of developing effective means of co-operation with other collectors and users of local labour market information, at the same time respecting the need for confidentiality concerning individual employers' data.

  Agriculture (Accidents)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will estimate the number of accidents that go unreported in the agriculture industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All cases of fatal injury in the course of agricultural work activities are reported to the Health and Safety Executive's Her Majesty's agricultural inspectorate. It is not known what proportion of other reportable accidents from agricultural activities go unreported, but it is thought to be more than 50 per cent.

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken up career development loans since the launch of the scheme in 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Since April 1986, 2,740 career development loans have been approved, 655 during the pilot phase and 2,085 since the scheme was launched nationally in July 1988. The total approved loan value is currently some £6·5 million.

  The growth in the number of career development loans since they became available nationally last year has been

  583
  very encouraging. It has shown that many people both employed and unemployed, are willing to invest in their own future by paying for vocational training of their own choice to improve their job prospects.

  Advertising
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the cost to his Department of producing the information leaflet "You and Your Union: The Employment Act 1988", and what has been the cost of advertising this package.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The cost to the Department of Employment of producing the information booklet "You and Your Union: the 1988 Employment Act" was £9,395. A further reprint of the booklet has been ordered to meet demand but the cost of this is not known yet. The total media cost was £277,337, excluding VAT.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest measurement of long-term unemployment in East Sussex.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is available from the Library. In January 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in East Sussex who had been unemployed for 12 months or more was 5,143.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the loss of working time resulting from mental illness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no firm figures but the booklet "Mental Health at Work", published by the Health and Safety Executive, estimated that some 30–40 per cent. of all sickness absence from work is attributable to some form of mental or emotional disturbance.

  University College of Wales
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give his support to the application by the University College of Wales Swansea (Computeraid Ltd.) for European social fund grant funding.

  Mr. Cope
  My Department supports all European social fund applications which meet the European Commission's eligibility criteria.

  Although my Department has not yet received formal notification of the European Commission's decision on United Kingdom social fund applications for 1989, we understand that the scheme to which the hon. Member refers was refused funding on what appears to be a technicality. A request therefore has been forwarded to the European Commission to review its decision.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish his Department's internal review of employment services for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 7 November 1988 at column 54.

  Tourism (Bristol)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans further to assist Bristol city council to increase employment in tourism-related industries.

  Mr. Lee
  The English Tourist Board, on behalf of the Department of Employment, will be running one of its "Vision for the Cities" seminars in Bristol on 20 April 1989, as part of the Government's action for cities campaign. The aim of the seminar is to stimulate further development and investment which will expand tourism employment within the city.

  Accidents
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of reported accidents were investigated by the factories inspectorate in 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1987–88. 4·9 per cent. of reportable accidents reported to the factory inspectorate were investigated. All accidents involving fatal injuries were investigated. Reported accidents are selected for investigation after considering the gravity of the apparent breach, the need to give advice and the value of any information that would be obtained to prevent similar accidents.

  EC Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the European Community Labour and Social Affairs Council held in Luxembourg on 5 April.

  Mr. Cope
  It was a very constructive meeting. The Council reached agreement on a common position on three draft directives concerning the minimum safety and health requirements in the workplace. These cover the workplace; the use by workers of machines, equipment and installations; and the use by workers of personal protective equipment. There was some discussion of a proposal for social measures to assist workers in the shipbuilding industry who are made redundant or threatened with redundancy; and family benefits for migrant workers. The Commissioner gave an oral presentation on a possible community charter of fundamental social rights. Finally, the Council reached agreement on a text of a resolution on continuing vocational training.

WALES

  Baglan Road
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the congestion along the Baglan road; and what further urgent work will be put in hand, in addition to the work on traffic lights to be installed by the West Glamorgan county council.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  A petition has been received from the Port Talbot Ratepayers Association regarding congestion at Baglan. The scheme to install part-time traffic lights at Baglan roundabout which will start in the summer, includes provision for increased carriageway widths.

  Domestic Rates
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of total personal disposable income in Wales was expended on domestic rates in the years 1959–60, 1979–80, 1984–85 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Grist
  The estimated percentages of total personal disposable income in Wales expended on domestic rates in the years 1979–80, 1984–85 and 1987–88 are as follows. Information is not available for the year 1959–60.

  Percentage

  1979–80

  1·47

  1984–85

  1·61

  1987–88

  1·90

  Pollution
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each county in Wales for each of the last three years the number of pollution incidents caused by(a) silage liquor, (b) farmyard slurry and (c) other pollutants.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held by the Welsh Office. I will ask the chairman of the Welsh Water Authority to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many households were accepted as homeless in Wales in the calendar years 1987 and 1988; and how many applications by households there were in those years.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of households accepted as homeless in Wales in the calendar years 1987 and 1988 were 5,683 and 6,818 respectively. The numbers of cases presented during those years were 8,423 and 10,018, respectively.

  Bathing Water Survey
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now in a position to place in the Library the results of the 1988 bathing water survey.

  Mr. Grist
  The results of the 1988 bathing water survey have already been placed in the Library. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for the Environment to the House on 21 February.

  Sewage (Sea Discharges)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the project on research that would determine the fate of viruses discharged into the sea in sewage has now started.

  Mr. Grist
  Yes.

  Inward Investment (Report)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish his response to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs' report on inward investment.
  586
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Shortly.

  Tony Ball Associates
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what payments have been made by his Department, in each of the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89, to Mr. Tony Ball and Tony Ball Associates, respectively; and in respect of what work or services.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Mr. Tony Ball undertook a study of the craft industry free of fees. He was paid £2,154 in 1987–88 and £350 in 1988–89 to meet his expenses. In addition, Tony Ball Associates were paid £63,269 in 1987–88 and £21,673 in 1988–89 exclusive of VAT in respect of the craft industry, the enterprise Wales and the Wales land of quality initiatives. All of this work was undertaken following a competitive tender, except for the craft industry element (£3,269 in 1987–88) which was paid for at cost.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department will make available to schools in Wales, the document "National Curriculum: From Policy to Practice."

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Because there are some differences in the content and implementation of the national curriculum in Wales, my right hon. Friend does not intend to circulate the Department of Education and Science document, "National Curriculum: From Policy to Practice" to schools in Wales. An equivalent Welsh Office document is being produced and will be issued to schools in the current term.

  Community Nursing Services (Report)
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish his response to the report of the review of community nursing services in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  A circular is being issued today giving the Departmental reaction to the Community Nursing Review (CNR) report "Nursing in the Community—A Team Approach for Wales" and guidance and information as to what the next steps are to be. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The report was, in my view, an excellent one and reaction to it has been overwhelmingly favourable. I am very grateful to Mrs. Noreen Edwards CBE, under whose chairmanship the review was conducted, and to her team for providing such a thorough analysis of community nursing in Wales and I am glad to be able to respond favourably to almost all the report's recommendations.

  I have been made particularly aware of the importance of proper training and education for community nurses in Wales and we will be making additional funding available for this and for specific support for them in the operational context.

  I am sure that the work stimulated by the report will have a major beneficial impact on the community nursing service in Wales for many years to come.

  Population Movement
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the numbers of people who have moved to live(a) into and (b) out of each district authority area in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Movements between family practitioner committee areas

  (in thousands)

  Year ended September

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  (a) Movements into:

  Clwyd

  13·4

  11·8

  10·7

  11·4

  11·1

  10·9

  12·1

  12·0

  13·4

  15·7

  Dyfed

  11·5

  11·6

  10·4

  10·0

  10·4

  10·3

  10·5

  11·6

  13·1

  15·3

  Gwent

  8·5

  8·1

  8·0

  7·7

  7·2

  7·8

  8·5

  8·4

  9·4

  11·0

  Gwynedd

  8·1

  8·2

  7·8

  7·8

  7·8

  8·4

  8·8

  8·4

  9·6

  11·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  9·3

  9·4

  8·8

  8·4

  8·1

  8·3

  9·2

  8·3

  9·2

  11·1

  Powys

  5·0

  4·1

  3·8

  4·2

  3·7

  3·9

  4·8

  5·0

  5·5

  5·9

  South Glamorgan

  12·0

  11·4

  11·7

  11·4

  12·9

  10·0

  12·2

  13·8

  13·6

  15·8

  West Glamorgan

  8·0

  7·0

  6·9

  5·9

  6·1

  6·7

  7·1

  7·3

  7·6

  8·7

  (b) Movements out of:

  Clwyd

  9·7

  9·4

  9·7

  9·3

  9·2

  9·5

  9·8

  10·1

  10·2

  11·6

  Dyfed

  8·9

  8·8

  8·4

  8·4

  8·4

  9·0

  8·9

  9·2

  9·6

  10·4

  Gwent

  9·3

  8·5

  8·9

  8·0

  8·2

  8·2

  8·8

  8·8

  9·1

  9·5

  Gwynedd

  7·4

  7·1

  6·8

  6·6

  7·0

  7·1

  7·0

  7·2

  7·7

  8·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  10·6

  9·9

  10·2

  9·2

  10·0

  9·5

  10·1

  10·5

  10·6

  11·3

  Powys

  3·9

  3·4

  3·3

  3·4

  3·4

  3·6

  3·7

  3·9

  4·0

  4·3

  South Glamorgan

  12·8

  11·9

  12·2

  11·5

  11·9

  11·2

  12·8

  12·3

  13·2

  13·7

  West Glamorgan

  7·8

  7·3

  7·0

  7·1

  7·2

  7·0

  7·2

  7·9

  7·9

  8·4

  Source:OPCS.

  Note: Figures are derived from re-registration of patients with National Health Service general practitioners; for 1979 to 1983 they are based on a 10 per cent. analysis of re-registrations. Movements to or from overseas are excluded.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Tax
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether, in setting the nuclear tax level at 10 per cent., he took into account the cost of reprocessing, decommissioning of plant and the disposal of waste;

  (2) on what basis the nuclear tax of 10 per cent. is expected to drop to 3 per cent. by the year 2000;

  (3) what difference in the price of generation between nuclear power and fossil fuel the nuclear tax of 10 per cent. represents;

  (4) whether the nuclear tax will take effect as soon as National Power begins operation as a private company.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The fossil fuel levy is not a nuclear tax but an allocation of existing nuclear costs. It will be levied on all sales of fossil-generated power by licensed suppliers and set at a level to recover any difference in price between the costs of meeting the non-fossil obligation and what would have been the cost of purchasing that electricity if it had been generated by fossil-fuel generating stations. Negotiations on contracts for generating capacity will not be completed until later this year. It is too early to say what the prices in these contracts will be or the implications for the level of the levy, either in 1990 or later in the decade.

  The contracts for nuclear generating capacity will take into account the anticipated costs of reprocessing, decommissioning of plant and the disposal of waste.

  The timing of the introduction of the levy will be dealt with in regulations made by the Secretary of State under clause 31 of the Electricity Bill.
  588
  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: Data from the National Health Service central registers (which relate to movements of persons on National Health Service doctors' lists) give an indication of migration into and out of Welsh counties. These are shown in the following table. Information is not available at district authority level.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Angola
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific aid has been given to the Angolan Government by Her Majesty's Government in the last two years; and for which specific projects.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1987, the most recent year for which final figures are available, expenditure was £211,000 on English language training projects and scholarships requested by the Angolan Government.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current value in pounds sterling of British Government aid to Angola.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Final expenditure figures for 1988 are not yet available. In addition to continuing projects, we pledged £750,000 for emergency relief through international and non-Government organisations.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current value of European Community aid to Angola; and how this aid is managed and deployed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Some £66 million has been allocated to Angola's country programme under Lomé III, which runs from 1985 to 1990. Commitments so far have been made to agriculture, fisheries, industry and health.

  Following the recent peace agreement, the Community plans to use some of the money which remains uncommitted to help with job creation and reintegrating former military personnel into civilian life. It also plans to give another £26 million for humanitarian, refugee and other assistance. In 1988 it gave some £6 million of food aid to Angola.
  589
  Proposals for aid allocations are approved by the Community member states. The Commission and its delegation in Luanda are responsible for managing projects and programmes, along with the Angolan authorities.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value of British Government aid to individuals and agencies in Angola not associated with the MPLA-PT Government of Angola.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1987, we provided £50,000 for relief purposes through international and non-governmental agencies.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees and mechanisms are in place to ensure that British Government aid to Angola is not used for military purposes.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In common with our aid to other developing countries, our aid is provided for specific purposes. In Angola these are English language training projects and scholarships.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from the Angolan Government concerning aid to Angola in the last two years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  There are regular contacts between the two Governments about our aid programme. I had friendly discussions with President dos Santos and Ministers during my visit to Angola in February.

  Developing Countries (Privatisation)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Monklands, West on 6 February,Official Report, column 470, (1) if he will name those developing nations which (a) reacted positively and (b) reacted negatively to that part of his Department's private sector development exercise relating specifically to the possibility of Britain offering assistance with the privatisation of nationalised industries;

  (2) what were the terms, financial or otherwise, offered to developing countries in exchange for British assistance (a) in the promotion of private sector development and (b) relating directly to the privatisation of nationalised industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The exercise comprised an instruction to British posts in developing countries encouraging closer consultation with their United States counterparts with a view to being able to respond more effectively to developing country needs in relation to private sector development, including privatisation.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if his Department has had any discussions with(a) bankers, (b) brokers and (c) management consultants concerning the possibility of Britain assisting with the privatisation of developing nations' nationalised industries; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether officials from his Department have had meetings with representatives of the overseas privatisation unit of NM Rothschild; and if he will make a statement.
  590
  Mr. Chris Patten
  A variety of discussions have taken place over time. It is widely recognised that Britain' private sector has a special expertise in this field.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has established a unit within his Department to examine the possibility of Britain offering privatisation expertise to developing nations.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I see no reason to establish such a unit. The Overseas Development Administration's arrangements for managing bilateral aid already enable it fully to consider proposals related to all aspects of private sector development including privatisation.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost to date of the exercise undertaken to identify opportunities for assisting developing countries with the promotion of private sector development, including privatisation.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The exercise has not resulted in significant additional expense. Providing the information requested would involve disproportionate cost, far exceeding any costs which the exercise itself has incurred.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to conclude agreements with developing countries which would include Her Majesty's Government assisting with the privatisation of nationalised industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  There are no immediate plans for the conclusion of such agreements, but we have always made clear that we are ready to consider helping where we can.

  USAID
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates and locations when his officials have met representatives of the organisation USAID over the past two years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, both at home and overseas, are in frequent touch with USAID officials.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Urban Development Grants
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which urban areas applications for urban development grants are now being accepted.

  Mr. Needham
  Applications for urban development grant funded by the Government are being accepted in Belfast and Londonderry. Under the second urban development programme funded by the international monetary fund for Ireland the advertised closing date for applications was 28 February 1989. Consequently, only in Belfast and Londonderry are applications now being accepted.

  Dwellings (Valuation)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many dwellings in Northern Ireland have a net annual valuation of less than £60.
  591
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent in Northern Ireland in the last year on the care and treatment of patients suffering from schizophrenia; and what percentage that figure represented of total expenditure on(a) mental and (b) all health services.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current annual cost per patient to the National Health Service in Northern Ireland of the care and treatment of patients with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available.

  Knackeries
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what study his Department has made of the Group Public Health Committee's report "The Unfit Meat Trade in Northern Ireland, Law and Enforcement Review" and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Departments of Agriculture and Health and Social Services are considering the detailed recommendations made in the report and will issue a response shortly.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to bring forward new measures for the control of licensed knackeries to prevent unfit meat entering the human food chain.

  Mr. Needham
  A draft order in Council is being prepared by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland which will provide for prescription in regulations of the standards to be met by knackeries, before such premises are licensed by district councils.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prosecutions have been brought against those operating illegal knackeries or trading in unfit meat during the last five years; what convictions have been obtained; and what penalties have been imposed.

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Aims Systems

  Structured Systems Analysis Design Methodology (SSADM) Consultancy

  Aims Training

  SSADM

  Anderson and Co.

  IT resourcing

  Apricot Ltd.

  Microcomputer Skills

  Associated Marketing (NI) Ltd.

  Marketing Appraisals

  W. S. Atkins Management Consultants

  Market Research

  Atkins Planning

  Marketing Appraisals

  592
  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Offence

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Total fines (plus costs) £

  (i) Operating illegal knackery

  11

  10

  350

  (ii) Trading in unfit meat

  42

  42

  42

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what specific and formal advice and assistance is available for those wishing to set up properly licensed and supervised knackeries to deal with fallen and casualty animals.

  Mr. Needham
  Any person wishing to set up a knackery can obtain advice from the environmental health department of the district council in whose area the proposed knackery would be situated. The advice would include information on licensing arrangements, siting and standards of premises and conditions to be observed in handling, treatment and movement of any unfit meat and the keeping of records.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list existing licensed knackeries, with the location of each and the service each offers to farmers.

  Mr. Needham
  There are two licensed knackeries in Northern Ireland—Lisburn By-Products Ltd., Moira road, Lisburn and Ulster Farm By-Products Ltd., Glenavy. Both knackeries provide farmers with an essential means of disposal of casualty and dead animals.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: The total amount spent on management and computer consultancy in 1988 was £4,402,979. The remainder of the information is as follows:
  593

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  D. E. Barnard Systems Ltd.

  Historic Monuments/Building Branch Strategy Study Country/Wild-life Branch Strategy Study Training Division Project

  Basil Singleton

  Assessing potential of Health Service sites for advertising hoardings

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Financial Appraisals and Marketing Appraisals

  Belmin Systems Ltd.

  Development of NI Parliamentary index

  BIC Systems Ltd.

  Microcomputer Skills

  Binder Hamlyn

  Industrial Science Division project

  BIS Beecom

  Management Information System Marketing Appraisals

  BIS Beecom (International) Ltd.

  Incentive Bonus schemes in DOE (NI) Works Service Specialised communication aspects of Integrated Computer System in DOE (NI) roads Service. Integrated Computer System in DOE Water Service. Monitoring Equal Opportunities in Public Bodies, Roads and Water Services integrated systems. User awareness— consultancy skills

  BIS Mackintosh

  Marketing Appraisals Information on EEC anti-dumping tariffs as applicable to electronics companies

  BPA (Tech Mangt) Ltd.

  Annual subscription to BPA Compass Scheme

  Brennan and Simmons

  Leadership Training Training for Trainers

  British Telecom

  Government Network

  Capita

  DENI IT Strategy Social Security Fraud Scrutiny Human Resource Management System Advanced Office Management Information System

  CARA Data

  Project Management

  CCTA

  Project Support IT Development Study Strategy enabling study Review of Bureau Services

  Centrehouse Management

  Financial appraisals

  J. T. Chambers

  Analysis of transportation costs for an inward investment company

  CIPFA

  Training for NICS Internal Auditors

  CIPFA Services Ltd.

  Integrated Computer System in DOE (NI) Water Service

  CI Training

  Microcomputer Skills

  Collingwood Harris

  Business Co-operation: Feasibility study Company Matchmaking in Maryland, USA

  Common Service Agency Scotland

  Community Health Index Project

  John Compton Associates

  Marketing Appraisals

  Computer Science Co. Ltd.

  Departmental Information Technology

  Construction Industry Computer Association

  Procurement of computer aided design system

  Consulting Partners International

  Marketing Appraisals

  594 595

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Coopers & Lybrand

  NI Emigration Package Development and implementation of information technology strategy for social security benefit payments

  Review of the Training Levy

  "Total Quality Centre" feasibility study

  Joint study with NM Rothchild & Sons Ltd—preliminary study on the privatisation of NIE

  Application of Clerical Work Measurement

  Project Sponsors

  Financial & Marketing Appraisals

  Company Appraisals

  To review the present arrangements for testing motor vehicles in Northern Ireland and advise on the feasibility of the privatisation of this function

  The supervision and monitoring the affairs of the NI Transport Holding Company and the three subsiduary transport operating companies

  Cork Gully

  Study into the Procedures for Investigating Personal Bankruptcy

  C S College

  PROMPT

  Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Integrated Computer System in DOE (NI) Roads Service Company Appraisals

  Financial & marketing Appraisals

  Department of the Environment

  Building project advice

  Department of Finance & Personnel (PPRU)

  Survey of the disabled

  Department of Information Services, University of Ulster

  Consultancy Services for Road Survey Vehicle project Support for software/electronics presentations in US Support for presentation to company in Switzerland

  D J S Consultants

  Marketing Appraisals

  Denham Nash

  Consultancy Skills Training

  User Awareness

  Diane Bailey Associates

  Staff Training

  Digital Equipment Co

  Office automation

  Elite Consultancy Services

  Project cost monitoring

  EOSYS

  Data Communication

  Ernst and Whinney

  Financial Appraisals

  ESCO Management Consultants

  European salary survey for software industry

  Analysis of large computer sites in Northem Ireland

  Pauline Farrell

  Leadership Training

  Training for Trainers

  FIRA

  Marketing Appraisals

  Flynn Moore

  Financial Appraisals

  Focon International

  Marketing Appraisals

  Furniture Industry Research Association

  Kitchen furniture—GB Market Survey

  Gilpin Black Associates

  Financial Appraisals Management Training for Professional Staff

  Gloria Henderson Management

  Consultancy

  Social Security Fraud Scrutiny

  Gryphon Group

  Provision Business Pack Stage 1, distance learning video/audio pack aimed at business management

  W. Halcrow

  Efficiency study in the DOE (NI) Environmental Protection Division

  Hanna Thompson and Co.

  Financial Appraisals

  Stephen Hughes Associates

  Marketing Appraisals

  596 597

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Victor Hausner and Associates

  Belfast Special Action Group/Belfast Initiative

  HAY-MSL

  Review of salaries of senior NI Housing Executive Staff

  IBI Corporate Services

  Financial Appraisals Study re sale of shares in textile company

  ICL

  Systems Performance and Data Communications

  Training Division Project VME

  Industrial Training Services

  Community Projects Branch—Staff Training Review of health service personnel function Community Workshops Evaluation Monitoring of Recognised Training Organisations

  Investment Bank of Ireland

  Study re sale of shares in textile company

  Jackson Andrews

  Financial Appraisals

  Mark Jampolc

  Business Co-operation: Feasibility report; then Company match-making; in North West Pennsylvania

  Kleinwort Benson

  Privatisation of Short Bros PLC

  Knight Wendling

  Technical Appraisals

  Knowledge Tech Ltd

  Training Division Project

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Report on the UK market for sheep's milk and sheep's milk products Update of study into the commercial viability of an irradiation facility in Northern Ireland. The original study was carried out in 1986

  Kurt Salmon Associates

  Study of the NI Clothing Industry

  Lazard Bros

  Privatisation of Harland and Wolff

  Learmont and Burchett

  Implementation of PROMPT Department of Agriculture Fatstock project—SSADM Project Control

  Lindsay Marketing

  Marketing Appraisal

  Gordon Lyell Associates

  The presentation and marketing of Historic Monuments in Northern Ireland, and in particular Carrickfergus Castle

  C. and K. MacFarlane

  Marketing Appraisals

  Stuart McKechanie

  Assignment Skills

  J. Leslie McKeown

  Financial Appraisals

  R. A. McLaughlin

  Assisting with the management of the EC Star (advanced telecommunications) Programme

  D. J. MacRitchie

  Financial Appraisals

  Mrs. D. Phillips

  To review the functions of the DOE (NI): Historic Monuments and Buildings Branch and the legislation under which it operates

  Practical Management Consultants

  Marketing Appraisals

  Price Waterhouse

  Evaluation of Training Programme for people in employment Study into the Comparative Corporate and Regional Tax Systems of the UK and ROI

  Statutory audit of Northern Heaith Board Company Appraisals

  Financial and Marketing Appraisals

  John McVeigh and Co.

  Financial appraisals

  Mandelo Development Consultants

  Study of contracting-out of economic development activities

  A. Manning Associates

  Team development

  Marceton Ltd.

  Marketing appraisals

  598 599

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Market Research Scotland

  Marketing appraisals

  Market Research UK Marketing and Management Information Services

  Marketing appraisals i Marketing appraisals

  Meconsult Ltd.

  Evaluation of Information Technology Centre

  Mindworks Partnership

  Business analysis training

  Muir and Addy Management Services

  Financial appraisals

  E. F. Munrose and Associates

  Marketing appraisals

  Netherlands Economic Institute

  Prospects of economic development in NI

  Northern Bank

  Pre-retirement

  NI Council on Alcohol

  Alcohol awareness

  North West Design Engineers

  Company appraisals

  Oracle

  Obstetrics project

  Oracle UK

  Oracle implementation

  4 G. L. training

  PA Consulting Services

  Introduction of a total quality management programme Preparation of guideline standards for work study

  PA Management Consultants

  Marketing appraisals

  Peat Marwick

  Company appraisals Financial-marketing appraisals Marketing appraisals

  P. E. Consulting Group

  Marketing appraisals

  Peterborough Software

  UNIPAY system

  Michael Peters Group plc

  Provision of design clinics for NI business community "Profit by Design"

  PRI Consultants

  Evaluation of Voluntary Organisations with regard to Grant Aid

  Queen's University, Belfast

  Administrative Law, Basic Book-keeping, Investment Appraisal, Management Accounting, Policy Management, Tuition for Institute of Internal Auditors Examinations, Understanding Company Accountants

  Quinn and Co.

  Financial Appraisals

  David Rigby Associates

  Company Appraisals

  Roffey Park

  Training for Trainers

  RMA Management Consultants

  Company Appraisals

  N. M. Rothchild and Sons Ltd.

  Joint study with Coopers and Lybrand—Preliminary study on the privatisation of NIE

  Saville/Holdsworth

  Block funding assessment project

  Sherwood Systems Ltd.

  Dataflex

  Shirley M. Holt Associates

  Marketing Appraisals

  Alan Smyth Associates

  Retention of services as IDB Quality Co-ordinator

  Software Ireland

  Management Information System, Valuation/Land office

  Stamen

  Horticultural activities for the mentally handicapped

  Strategic Training Ltd.

  Marketing training courses for NI business management

  Syntek Ltd.

  To review Transit computer procedures Training Division project

  600 601

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Telebriton Ltd.

  Pilot Study—Defence Sector Market Strategy for NI

  Identification of possible inward investment projects

  Identification of possible inward investment projects

  Software Fair in NIBC, London

  Time Consulting Group

  Software Strategy for NI—Investigation of the role of a Resource Centre

  Hans Tolin

  Business Co-operation:

  Feasibility report

  Company matchmaking with Swedish companies

  Touche Ross

  Privatisation and monitoring of Harland & Wolff

  Privatisation and monitoring of Short Bros PLC

  Financial/Marketing Appraisals

  Internal Audit Development

  Mental Health Service Audit

  Provision of NI Trade Director 1989 and Local Sourcing Database

  Analysis of transportation costs to and from various locations

  Market Research

  Company Appraisals

  Comparison of tax (personal and corporate) regimes in various European countries

  Training and Development Associates

  Young People's Programme

  University of Ulster

  Export Research Project

  Personal Computers Appreciation

  Policy Analysis

  Policy Management

  Report on research activities in informatics at NI universities

  United Medical Enterprises

  Studies in connection with the export of NI

  Health Care Expertise

  Ritchie Ward Associates

  Project Management

  Project Sponsors

  Warne Franklin

  RAPRA Project—Technological Consultancy

  Wilt Thornton

  Financial Appraisals

  Xentec

  To review Transit computer procedures

  Mr. William Strathearn
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letter from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) to the hon. Member for Brent, East on 4 September 1988 about Mr. William Strathearn.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: No. It is not our usual practice to publish correspondence of this kind.

  Regional Rates
  Mr. Clifford Forsyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will explain the methodology employed in striking the regional rate for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the explanation of the regional rate methodology given in the information note "Northern Ireland Regional Rate 1989–90" which is available in the House of Commons Library in support of the Rates (Regional Rate) Order (Northern Ireland) 1989 which was laid before Parliament on 7 March 1989.

SCOTLAND

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the number of overseas patients that can be treated in the self-managing hospitals proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We are considering how treatment of overseas patients in National Health Service hospitals, including self-governing hospitals, might best be administered in the context of the White Paper and the associated working papers.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received on the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Some 600 letters have been received, offering comments and suggestions in relation to various aspects of the White Paper.

  Private Secretary (Under-Secretary of State)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects a new private secretary for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Education, the hon. Member for Stirling, (Mr. Forsyth) to be in post.
  603
  Mr. Rifkind
  There are no immediate plans to replace my hon. Friend's private secretary.

  Conifers
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek to alter the different tree-planting grants to eliminate the 300 per cent. differential between farm schemes and commercial schemes in the planting of conifers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. Farmers have a choice as to which scheme they apply to enter.

  Edinburgh-Carlisle Trunk Road
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the schemes approved and their expected completion dates for improvements to the A7 Edinburgh-Carlisle trunk road.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The major A7 schemes in the trunk road programme are the north Middleton diversion, the Dalkeith bypass and the Langholm bypass. Works started on the north Middleton bypass in March. Advance works on the Dalkeith bypass are expected to start in May or June and the main works in October. The contract period for both schemes is 24 months and they should therefore be completed during 1991. The Langholm bypass will not complete its statutory and design stages before the mid-1990s.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority residential places are currently available for those discharged from mental illness hospitals in Scotland; what is the current rate of occupancy; and what are the projected figures for the next two years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about the provision of residential places is given in annual statistical returns from local authorities. At 31 March 1988 the provisional number of residential places in local authority establishments was 167; the occupancy rate was 61 per cent. The local authorities' returns do not extend to planned provision.

  University Grants
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the Scottish Education Department grant regulations which prohibit individuals who hold a higher national diploma qualification from receiving a full grant for a university course.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under present rules, eligible students who complete a course leading to a higher national diploma may qualify for a student's allowance for the third and any subsequent year of a full-time degree or comparable course.

  With effect from session 1989–90, my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that those higher national diplomates who wish to proceed to undertake full-time studies at degree level in the sciences, technology, or certain teacher shortage subjects will, exceptionally, be entitled to grant assistance for the second and any subsequent year of a degree or comparable course.

  Housing
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dwellings were completed by local authorities and new towns in Scotland in 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Although a number of returns have yet to be received, we estimate that almost 2,000 dwellings were completed by local authorities in Scotland in 1988. Returns submitted by new town development corporations indicate that 257 dwellings were completed during the year.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households were accepted as homeless in Scotland in the calendar years 1987 and 1988; and how many applications by households there were in those years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Returns submitted by local authorities indicate that during 1987, 23,882 households applied to be considered under the homelessness legislation. Of these, authorities assessed 9,317 as being homeless. A comparable figure for 1988 cannot be provided at present as most local authorities still have returns outstanding.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of unemployed people in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland who have been helped to start a business through the enterprise allowance scheme in each year since its inception; and how many of these schemes have failed in each year.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of unemployed people who started their own business with the help of the enterprise allowance scheme in each year since its inception in August 1983 in the areas requested is set out in the table.

  Enterprise allowance scheme

  Entrants

  Year

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1983–84 (August to March)

  26

  585

  2,249

  1984–85

  48

  1,352

  3,794

  1985–86

  79

  1,601

  5,311

  1986–87

  105

  2,386

  8,260

  1987–88

  122

  2,779

  9,894

  1988–89

  101

  2,558

  8,494

  Information on the number of these businesses which have subsequently failed is not available. However, the latest national survey shows that of those businesses completing 12 months on the scheme 74 per cent. were still trading 18 months after start-up with 65 per cent. still trading three years after start-up.

  Working Women
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time working women for each year since 1979 in (i) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland as a whole.
  605
  Mr. Lang
  The table gives the number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time women employees in employment in Scotland for September each year since 1979, and the available information on women employees in employment for Strathclyde region and Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency.

  Information for Strathclyde and Greenock and Port Glasgow is available only from the 1981 and 1984 census of employment. For 1981 analyses for parliamentary constituencies do not distinguish full-time from part-time employees.

  The figures for Scotland for 1984 onwards may be revised when the results of the 1987 census of employment available later this year.

  Employees in employment full and part-time women workers at September

  Thousands

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Scotland

  1979

  571·6

  330·8

  1980

  558·9

  331·5

  1981

  534·2

  337·8

  1982

  508·0

  340·4

  1983

  503·6

  336·8

  1984

  505·1

  346·0

  1985

  504·9

  363·2

  1986

  499·7

  366·6

  1987

  503·3

  380·7

  1988

  528·7

  381·9

  Strathclyde

  1981

  252·3

  146·9

  1984

  233·4

  144·4

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  1981

  13·7

  1984

  8·3

  4·6

  General Practitioners (Contract)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from general practitioners in the Eastwood constituency about a new contract for general practice in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In addition to the discussions with my hon. Friend and the representations he has received on behalf of general practitioners in his constituency my right hon. and learned Friend and I have received representations from general practitioners throughout Scotland many of which have been helpful to us in drawing up a new contract for general practice in the National Health Service in Scotland. That new contract has been sent to the General Medical Services Committee and I am sending a personal copy to every general practitioner in Scotland. The document is being published in Scotland today and copies have been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Alcohol Consumption
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the supply and consumption of alcohol on board Royal Navy vessels as it applies to(a) officers and (b) ratings.
  606
  Mr. Neubert
  Ratings on board Royal Navy vessels are limited in their daily onboard alcohol consumption. No specific limits are placed on officers but it is the responsibility of commanding officers to ensure that alcohol consumption of all personnel is not excessive. Drunkenness, even off duty and ashore, is an offence under the Naval Discipline Act, which can attract a punishment of up to two years imprisonment.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if submarines carrying nuclear weapons carry alcohol for consumption by the crew while the vessel is on active duty.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the navies which contribute to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will indicate which do and do not permit alcohol consumption on board vessels.

  Mr. Neubert
  As far as I am aware only the United States Navy does not permit alcohol consumption on board.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate, by type, of the alcohol consumed on board Royal Navy vessels in the latest available year; and if he will indicate consumption differences between the wardroom and lower deck.

  Mr. Neubert
  Records are not maintained centrally. To obtain the information requested would involve dis- proportionate cost and effort, requiring individual returns from Royal Navy ships worldwide.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the recent court martial of the commanding officer of a submarine, who because of alcohol consumption was unable to be on board at the time of sailing and whose intake of alcohol started on board, he will review the policy of allowing alcohol consumption on board Royal Navy vessels.

  Mr. Neubert
  No. The policy on alcohol consumption aboard Royal Navy vessels takes full account of operational safety and efficiency while allowing those who so desire a moderate level of alcohol consumption during off-duty hours. By virtue of being at sea, frequently for long periods, Royal Navy personnel are already severely restricted in their freedom of choice of off-duty activity without considering further curtailment.

  Specialist Staff
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has to suggest that it will be easier to recruit specialist staff for the directorate general of defence quality assurance in Teesside than in south east England.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The directorate general of defence quality assurance is currently experiencing difficulty in recruiting specialist staff to work in south-east England, despite the higher pay allowances offered.

  The level of unemployment in the likely travel-to-work area for the proposed site is considerably higher than in the south-east. We would expect to be able to recruit or train people with the technical skills and expertise we require from Teesside which has a strong heavy engineering, process and chemical engineering tradition.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many units of battalion or equivalent size, are currently serving in an infantry role in Northern Ireland, and as part of the permanent garrison are on short-term detachment; and what have been the figures in each year since 1969.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Soldiers (Costs)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual cost of a Regular Army soldier and of a Territorial Army soldier.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated annual cost at 1987–88 prices of a regular soldier is £14,100, and of a Territorial Army soldier £2,500. These figures cover pay and allowances, personal equipment and other support costs and in the case of the Regular Army soldier, elements for training and non-effective benefits. Training cost figures for Territorial Army soldiers are not separately identifiable without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Nuclear Convoys
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what prior warning was given to local authorities, both district and region, in the Clydeside area of the passage of nuclear convoys during the three weeks beginning Monday 20 March.

  (2) what is his policy for alerting local authorities to the imminent passage of nuclear naval convoys through their area.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been the long-standing practice of successive Governments neither to confirm nor to deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular location, and it is not our policy to inform local authorities of nuclear weapon movements. We do, however, inform local police forces, who are responsible for road traffic control.

  Anti-tank Weapons (Movements)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether light anti-tank weapons en route by rail and road from Royal Ordnance, Chorley to Ministry of Defence establishments are guarded by an armed escort.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It would not be in the interests of security to divulge the arrangements for the physical protection of military stores during transit.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the danger of theft of light anti-tank weapons in transit from Royal Ordnance, Chorley, to Ministry of Defence establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The danger of theft of these stores is constantly reviewed in the light of the security threat assessment. It would not be in the interests of security to divulge the current assessment.

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the value of headquarter
  608
  contracts awarded to Rolls-Royce Ltd. and Rolls-Royce plc by his Department for goods and services destined for the British armed services in each of the five years to 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: The value of headquarters contracts awarded to Rolls-Royce Ltd. and Rolls-Royce plc. for goods and services destined for the British armed forces in each of the five years to 31 March 1988 were as follows:

  £ million

  1983–84

  370·00

  1984–85

  390·00

  1985–86

  445·00

  1986–87

  300·00

  1987–88

  220·00

HEALTH

  Meningitis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been made available by his Department for research into the causes of clusters of meningitis; and if he will make a statement on what results have so far been obtained.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from this Department, is the main agency through which the Government support medical research. The council is funding a range of research into meningitis, and details are available in the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 21 December 1988 at column 291–92. The Council is not, however, funding research into the causes of clusters of meningitis.

  The council is always ready to consider soundly based scientific proposals for funding of new research, in competition with other applications.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department expects to publish the Government's response to the Griffiths report on community care.

  Mr. David Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now intends to implement the terms of the Griffiths report "An Agenda for Action."

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member and the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 6 April 1989 at column 291.

  Eye and Dental Examinations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department has on the numbers of people who currently have eye tests and dental examinations(a) in England and (b) in the appropriate area covering Nottingham.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 24 November at column 261. I regret that the local information requested is not available.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Trent regional health authority buildings have wet-air cooling air conditioning systems fitted; what action is being carried out to have them replaced by a different type of air conditioning system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information available centrally shows that the following buildings in the Trent region had wet-spray cooling towers in July 1986:

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  Leicester General Hospital

  Glenfield General Hospital

  Groby Road Hospital

  Derby Royal Infirmary

  Derby City Hospital

  Bassetlaw District General Hospital

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary

  Nottingham City Hospital

  Queens Medical Centre

  Q M C University Hospital

  Grantham Hospital

  Pilgrim Hospital

  Lincoln County Hospital

  Balderton Hospital

  Barnsley District General Hospital

  Northern General Hospital

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital

  Rotherham District General Hospital

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital

  Scarsdale Hospital

  The Department issued preliminary guidance in May 1987 and a detailed code of practice on the control of legionellae in health care premises in July 1988. Both the preliminary guidance and the code of practice recommended against premature replacement of wet-spray systems, unless these cannot be operated safely in accordance with specified technical criteria.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, of Tuesday 29 November,Official Report, column 187–88, whether all patients on the home treatment list for chiropody have received written confirmation of continuing home treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the management of local health services rests with the district health authority concerned (in this case Nottingham health authority). I suggest that the hon. Member contacts the chairman of Nottingham health authority for the information he seeks.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year from 1979 the estimated percentage of women delivering in the Trent regional health authority whose deliveries were(a) spontaneous, including abnormal presentation of head and breech spontaneous, (b) instrumental, including forceps, vacuum and for breech extraction, (c) caesarean section and (d) other unspecified means.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested. The table shows the mode of delivery for women normally resident in Trent RHA.
  610
  The estimates are derived from the hospital in-patient enquiry (HIPE) data collection which closed 1985. Data from 1981 is unreliable and has been excluded from the table.

  Mode of delivery for women normally resident in Trent RHA

  Percentages

  Year

  Spontaneous1

  Instrumental2

  Caesarean

  Other and unspecified

  1979

  77·0

  14·8

  7·8

  0·4

  1980

  75·1

  15·7

  9·1

  0·1

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982

  75·5

  14·3

  10·2

  0·0

  1983

  75·7

  14·3

  10·0

  0·0

  1984

  76·0

  13·8

  10·2

  0·0

  1985

  78·6

  12·6

  8·7

  0·0

  1 Includes abnormal presentation of head and breech spontaneous.

  2 Includes forceps, vacuum and breech extraction.

  n/a=Data not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year from 1979 to date the estimated percentage of women delivering in the Trent regional health authority(a) whose labours were induced, (b) whose labours were of spontaneous onset and (c) who had elective caesarean section.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested. The table shows the mode of delivery for women normally resident in Trent RHA.

  The estimates are derived from the hospital in-patient enquiry (HIPE) data, collection around in 1985. Data from 1981 is unreliable and has been excluded from the table.

  Induction of labour (with mode of delivery) for women normally resident in Trent RHA

  Percentages

  Year

  Induced labours

  Labours of spontaneous onset

  Elective caesarean sections

  1979

  25·1

  70·5

  4·4

  1980

  23·4

  72·9

  3·7

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982

  20·5

  75·0

  4·5

  1983

  21·6

  74·2

  4·2

  1984

  18·3

  77·1

  4·6

  1985

  18·1

  78·4

  3·5

  n/a = Data not available.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in implementing section 5 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in respect of its obligation to place duties upon educational authorities and social services authorities to identify, assess and provide for the needs of people with mental handicaps at the time that they move out of full-time education; and what arrangements have been made to ensure that these facilities are being monitored in respect of their implementation in terms of quality of life.

  Mr. Mellor
  Section 5 of the Act, which came into force on 1 February 1988, requires local authorities to identify all disabled school leavers, including those with mental handicaps, and assess their needs for welfare services. Although children leaving school in 1990 will be the first
  611
  group to fall within these provisions, we have asked local authorities to undertake similar functions for as many disabled children leaving school before that date as possible. The Department's social services inspectorate is undertaking two inspections of the implementation of sections 5 and 6 of the Act.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and whether he will meet the cost implications required to appoint authorised representatives for all people with mental handicaps in connection with the provision of services and the right to obtain relevant information to facilitate an informed choice of a selection of appropriate support services.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have accepted the view of the local authority associations that detailed work, including costings, on sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act should follow implementation of section 7.

  Immunopathology
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for the Trent regional health authority(a) the number and (b) the locations of consultants in immunopathology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The total number of consultants in post for immunopathology in the Trent region as at 30 September 1987 is five (3·3 whole-time equivalent). This includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  Consultant contracts are held by the employing regional health authority and teaching districts, so information is not available centrally on locations of those working in one or more districts.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the code of practice required under section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983 will be laid before the House.

  Mr. Freeman
  There has been extensive consultation on two drafts of the code. I have established a small working group of people with wide experience of mental health matters to consider the comments received and produce a final draft, which we expect to lay before the House this autumn. The composition of the working group is as follows:

  Chairman:

  Mr. A. J. Collier, CB—formerly deputy secretary, Department of Health and Social Security;

  Members:

  Mr. M. Brown—Director of nursing (mental health) west Lambeth health authority;

  Mrs. J. Miles—General manager, priority care services unit, Aylesbury Vale health authority;

  Professor E. Murphy—Consultant psychiatrist and deputy chairman, mental health act commission;

  Mr. N. Welch—Principal social worker, Oxfordshire county council social services department;

  Secretary:

  Mr. W. Bingley—Legal director of MIND, on secondment to the Department of Health while acting as secretary;

  Assistant secretary:

  Mrs. M. Houston—Department of Health.

  Census Information
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will authorise any extension to the release of information from censuses more recent than 1881.

  Mr. Freeman
  Public access to individual census returns less than 100 years old is not generally permissible. However, I am prepared to extend the existing special arrangements which apply to the censuses of 1891 and 1901 and allow, subject to the consent of the person concerned or of direct descendant, for the release to researchers of the information recorded about that person's age and place of birth. This information may now be released also in respect of persons who die childless, provided the consent of the next of kin is given, and it will be available additionally to public trustee administrators seeking to trace possible beneficiaries to the estate of a deceased person. A charge for this service, approximating to the cost of providing it, will be made by the registrar general.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from disability organisations on the National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received representations so far from three different organisations in the disability field. We are taking the opportunity of the response to emphasise to them that the continued provision of services for disabled and chronically sick people will be ensured by the White Paper proposals.

  Rheumatologists
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of health districts do not have a rheumatologist in post.

  Mr. Mellor
  Figures for September 1987 show than 34 per cent. of the 191 health districts in England did not have a rheumatologist in post.

  Systemic Lupus Erythernatosus
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to publicise the effects of systematic lupus erythematosus.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is not involved directly in publicising the effects of this disease, but welcomes the important work done by organisations such as Arthritis Care.

  Artificial limbs and Appliances
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State For Health if he will list all the bodies which have a statutory duty or powers to provide orthoses, prostheses or special equipment to people with disabilities; if he will specify in each case the particular circumstances in which such equipment can be provided and any restrictions on its use; if he has any plans to rationalise the provision of these services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  A wide range of bodies provide equipment to disabled people for purposes including education and
  613
  employment. Detailed responsibility in fields of health and social services with regard to equipment for disabled are as follows.

  The duty to provide the facilities in question for people with disabilities arises from the duty of the Secretary of State under the National Health Service Act 1977 to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service. This duty is discharged through various bodies.

  District health authorities may provide orthotic appliances, footwear and certain types of prosthesis, when the patient has been examined and the appliance etc. prescribed by or under the direction of a consultant, either at a hospital, or at a clinic or on the occasion of a domiciliary visit.

  Where provision or renewal of such appliances is recommended, the consultant may, if satisfied that the condition has reached stability, decide that supply be continued for a stated period of up to five years. In the case of breast prostheses and wigs, there is no such limit.

  Following referral from a general practitioner to a consultant ophthalmologist, low vision aids may be prescribed through the hospital eye service's low vision clinic.

  Hearing aids may be prescribed by a hospital consultant following referral from a general practitioner they are supplied and fitted on free loan by NHS hearing centres.

  Communication aids may be prescribed by a hospital consultant to help with speech and language impairment.

  Equipment to enable people to be nursed in their own home may be supplied free to out-patients being actively treated or to discharged in-patients, for as long as it is required. This equipment may be on loan and returnable; or consumable.

  General practitioners may prescribe certain equipment as items on the drug tariff. This includes some incontinence equipment (but not pads and garments which are obtainable, if necessary, through the community nursing services). People with stomas requiring ostomy equipment are permanently exempt from the usual charges.

  The Disablement Services Authority supplies artificial limb prostheses. Its doctors assess people who are referred by their surgeon or general practitioner.

  The Disablement Services Authority supplies on loan a range of wheelchairs on the recommendation of any NHS doctor. It will also meet the cost of repair to wheelchairs except in the case of misuse or neglect. Such equipment should be returned when no longer needed.

  The Disablement Services Authority also has powers to provide a range of services to war pensioners, including orthopaedic footwear, surgical appliances, hearing aids, wigs and home nursing equipment. (War pensioners may also obtain these services through their local district health authority.)

  The Department of Health provides certain services directly.

  The Artificial Eye Service provides artificial eyes, cosmetic shells and orbital facial prostheses through its clinics.

  Environmental control equipment for severely disabled people may be provided on free loan to people meeting specific criteria as assessed by certain doctors acting on the authority of regional medical Officers (this authority is devolved to district medical officers in some regions).
  614
  Where they are satisfied of need, local authority social services departments have a duty which includes the provision of facilities to meet the needs of a disabled person. Local authorities may make a charge for such services and, where appropriate, equipment should be returned when no longer required. This equipment includes wheelchairs for temporary use.

  The services of the Disablement Services Authority will pass to district health authorities on 1 April 1991 and negotiations are well in hand on the best way of carrying these services forward in future, in the light of local circumstances in each region and district.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has regarding the arrangements which exist for the interchange of information between ambulance services in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Regional ambulance officers are responsible for ensuring co-operation and co-ordination of ambulance services within their region and they hold regular meetings for that purpose with the chief ambulance officers of these services. Regional ambulance officers themselves form a group which meets regularly with departmental officials to facilitate the exchange of information between services. In addition, ad hoc seminars and conferences are held when necessary to discuss matters of national import.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current standards of training provided for ambulance crews in England.

  Mr. Freeman
  The National Health Service Training Authority is the body responsible for devising the programme of training and syllabi for ambulance staff and in addition it also monitors extended training in the skills of advanced resuscitation. Training is carried out by regional ambulance training schools.

  All grades of employees must attend appropriate courses as determined by their employing authority. To attain the grade of qualified ambulanceman, an employee must undertake a six-week approved course in ambulance aid; a two-week driver course; complete at least 12 months on operational duties and be assessed by the employing authority as competent over the whole range of duties. Qualified and leading ambulancemen must attend a two-week post-proficiency course in ambulance aid at intervals of no more than five years.

  NHS Finance
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects district health authorities and any National Health Service self-governing hospitals to be paying market rates of interest under the proposals on his capital charges working paper on the National Health Service on their land building and equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The rate of interest used in the calculation of capital charges will be set in line with the discount rate for the non-trading part of the public sector. The Chief Secretary recently announced that this rate will be 6 per cent. The capital charges scheme will not apply to
  615
  self-governing hospitals. Self-governing hospitals will have an intitial debt equal to the value of the capital assets transferred; the total arrangements for servicing the capital of self-governing hospitals will be consistent with the capital charging scheme.

  Benzodiazepine
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission the Institute of Psychiatry to carry out research into(a) the number of children in the United Kingdom addicted to benzodiazepines, (b) the number of adults in the United Kingdom addicted to benzodiazepines, (c) the number of people placed in psychiatric hospitals in the United Kingdom in order to withdraw from benzodiazepines and (d) the number of people on sick or invalidity benefit in the United Kingdom following benzodiazepine withdrawal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: There are no plans at present for the Department to commission research in the specific areas referred to by the hon. Member. However, the Department has sponsored a significant body of research relevant to benzodiazepines, mainly through the Institute of Psychiatry. In addition, the Medical Research Council, which is the main agency through which the Government support medical research in the United Kingdom and which receives its grant from the Department of Education and Science, is supporting a team at the Institute of Psychiatry which is examining the effects of benzodiazepines on mental function.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures are available showing the trend of benzodiazepine prescriptions in 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The number of prescriptions for benzodiazepines dispensed by community pharmacists in Great Britain in the period January to June 1988 compared with 1987 was as follows:

  Number of prescriptions millions

  January to June 1987

  12·7

  July to December 1987

  12·8

  January to June 1988

  11·9

  July to December 1988

  n/a

  n/a—Not available.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to prevent the prescription of benzodiazepines to children under the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: No. The benzodiazepines are clinically useful in treating children. Some of the drugs are essential for the treatment of epilepsy and they are valuable for short-term use to relieve acute anxiety. Occasional use of the drugs to treat night terrors and somnambulism may also be justified. It is up to doctors to prescribe the drugs properly in accordance with the guidance available to them.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he will request the Committee on Safety of Medicines to issue further advice to doctors in the light of the increase in prescriptions for benzodiazepines in 1987;
  616
  (2) what advice the Committee on Safety of Medicines is issuing to doctors about the prescription of benzodiazepines to children;

  (3) whether he will meet the Committee on Safety of Medicines to discuss the increase in benzodiazepine prescriptions in 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The Committee on Safety of Medicines published advice on the prescribing of benzodiazepines in Current Problems No. 21, issued to all doctors in January 1988; a copy is in the Library. Its advice, which is still valid, is directed towards the treatment of all patients and is also summarised in the latest edition of the British National Formulary (BNF) which the Department issues to all doctors. The BNF also warns that hypnotics, the most common of which are benzodiazepines, should rarely be prescribed for children. I have no present plans to meet the Committee or to ask it to issue further advice on this subject.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take following the increase in the number of prescriptions for benzodiazepines dispensed by community pharmacists in 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: Since 1979 the overall trend in the number of prescriptions for benzodiazepines has been downwards. We estimate that in Great Britain, 25·4 and 25·5 million prescriptions were dispensed for benzodiazepines during 1986 and 1987 respectively. These estimates are based on a sample of approximately one in 200 prescriptions dispensed by retail chemists and appliance contractors in England and Wales. For Scotland, the sample is one in 100. The difference between 1986 and 1987 figures is within sampling error and is not statistically significant.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of people put on benzodiazepines during 1988 who have taken them for longer than the period advised by the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: This information is not collected centrally.

  Medicines (Safety)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list all issues of the Committee on Safety of Medicines bulletin entitled "Current Problems" which have been withheld from publication after initial preparation in the last 12 months, giving the reasons in each case;

  (2) what steps he intends to take to ensure that the Committee on Safety of Medicines is able to issue advice to doctors on Bolvidon.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: Only one article approved for issue by the Committee on Safety of Medicines was withheld from publication in this period. This article entitled "Mianserin and White Blood Cell Disorders in the Elderly" was withheld from Current Problems Bulletin No. 24 (published in January 1989) because of a High Court injunction. An article on this subject was subsequently published in Current Problems No. 25, in March 1989, and sent to all doctors. Bolvidon is referred to in this article since mianserin is its active ingredient.

  Optical Equipment (Non-qualified Staff)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about auto refractors and auto optitesters being used by non-qualified optician staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: We have received representations from a number of organisatons and individuals about the use of auto refractors and auto optitesters by non-qualified staff. The Opticians Act 1958 provides that sight tests using such instruments may be conducted only by a registered medical practitioner or a registered ophthalmic optician. We have no plans at present to change this requirement.

  BM Test BC Strip
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will consider making BM test BC strip available on prescription; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: I would consider any application from the suppliers for the inclusion of this strip on the list of chemical reagents prescribable by general practitioners. Whether such an application would be successful would depend on the likely level of demand and the price. The strips currently prescribable meet the needs of most diabetics. Other types of strip are available through the hospital service.

  Brain Injuries (Rehabilitation)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has made to evaluate the services available 618
  within Britain for the rehabilitation of the brain-injured, including the centre for brain injury rehabilitation and development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: I understand that the Centre of Brain Injury Rehabilitation and Development is located in Wales and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has provided funds for an evaluation of the centre. Officials from this Department are considering the scope for sponsoring research related to services in England for those suffering from traumatic brain injury.

  Drugs (Safety)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what adverse reports have been received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines about the effect of the drug Bolvidon on patients.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: There are two branded medicinal products containing the active ingredient mianserin; one of these is Bolvidon. To date, the Committee on Safety of Medicines has received just over 1,700 reports of adverse reactions which may be associated with mianserin. These reports describe more than 360 separate reactions. A report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean a causal relationship. The Committee carefully monitors all issues of drug safety, and where necessary, issues advice by means of their bulletin "Current Problems" to doctors, dentists and pharmacists. In the case of mianserin, "Current Problems" has drawn attention to various adverse reactions in December 1981 (No. 7), October 1982 (No. 8) April 1983 (No 10) and March (No. 25). Copies are in the Library.

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

Student Grants
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will increase the value of the student grant in line with inflation, pending legislation to implement the White Paper on student loans.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the rates of student grant for the academic year 1989–90 have already been announced. For students studying in London the grant will rise by 9·3 per cent. and for others the increase will be 5 per cent. The increase in the student grant for 1990–91 has not yet been decided.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he accept the figures in the Government's White Paper on student loans, which show that to increase the grant to the level of 1982 would require an increase of 21 per cent.? Does he accept the figures in that White Paper which show that undergraduate spending on accommodation has risen by 20 per cent. and spending on food has fallen by 24 per cent.? Does he further accept that, even if the White Paper is to be regarded as Queen's Speech material, it does not provide for anything to live on before 1990 and there is no assistance to current students?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, first, I should say that the figures in the White Paper on both the grants and the loans are illustrative and not definite. I think that that is quite a good answer. It is true that the value of the grant has declined in recent years, although that decline has not been so steep as has sometimes been suggested. However, I must emphasise that it has not prevented a steady increase in the number of those entering higher education.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at whatever level he sets the amount of student grants, many people who are great admirers of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education still have the gravest doubts about the proposals for student loans?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware of that. I shall certainly pass my noble friend's comments on to my right honourable friend.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the noble Viscount consider that the period of consultation is now over? Are we to expect legislation about loans?
Viscount Davidson: It is not yet over, my Lords.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that a combination of the Government's proposals on student loans (if they are implemented) and the doubling of tuition fees as announced by Mr. Jackson this week will mean that vast numbers of young people from poorer homes will not be able to aspire to higher education?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords, I do not believe that that is true. I can tell the House that the number of students in higher education has risen by 190,000 since this Government took office. The Government are fully committed to increasing access but we believe that it is time for the students themselves to bear some of the costs of their own support rather than increasing the burden on parents and taxpayers.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Viscount says that the figures in the White Paper are illustrative. Does that mean that they are accurate?
Viscount Davidson: They may well turn out to be so, my Lords.
Lord Addington: My Lords, if the level of financing is not to be increased dramatically, will the Government give us some assurance that there will be consideration of the regional elements which will mean that people in some parts of the country, usually the less prosperous parts, will be considerably better off than those in others? Will regional help be available for those in areas other than London?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is one of the points that will be taken into account by the Universities Funding Council.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I preface my question by declaring an interest, in that I am an honorary Fellow of a college in the university of the most reverend Primate, who is present in the Chamber today. Can the noble Viscount say whether the Government intend to increase the loans for students who are studying theology at all the colleges of this country?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not have the answer to that question. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness David: My Lords, further to one answer given by the noble Viscount, does he accept that students already contribute a great deal and pay for themselves in many ways, resulting in their getting into debt, which a large number of them are doing at the moment?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I believe that the average debt of a student at the moment is about £360, on which the current rate of interest must be paid. When top-up loans are introduced there will be no interest payable.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that at present there is very grave hardship which is not relieved by a proposal which will come into effect in 1990? When his right honourable friend

243
returns from his interrogation in another place, will the noble Viscount draw to his attention the question of whether there is a connection between teacher recruitment and student indebtedness?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a little complicated but I shall certainly draw the matter to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Houses: Starts and Completions
2.42 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many houses were started and completed by the public and private sectors during the last quarter of 1988 and the first quarter of 1989.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, in the last quarter of 1988 there were 48,300 private sector and 6,700 public sector dwellings started in Great Britain. The figures for completions were 46,800 and 7,700. The figures for the first quarter of 1989 will be available next month.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, are not the figures somewhat disappointing bearing in mind the size of the problem that we are now facing? Is the Minister aware that once again there has been a severe reduction in local authority house building and the availability of property in the private rented sector? All the figures show that ominously the incidence of homelessness is still increasing. According to a report by Shelter, the social security and housing legislation by the Government last year has driven young homeless people in their thousands on to the streets in major cities. Did the Government intend that? If they did not, will they do something to eliminate it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have a range of policies to encourage both public and private sector development. That is shown by the fact that the number of starts last year rose by 9 per cent. The noble Lord talked about public sector dwellings. Some 29,000 were started last year. However, it is interesting to note that if the trend in the public housing starts from 1974–75 to 1978–79 had continued there would have been no public sector starts by the year 1984–85.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is not the simplest and perhaps the cheapest way of providing some of the housing that is so desperately needed by the repair and restoration of some of the dilapidated houses that are at present lying empty? Am I not right in thinking that the resources required for that are merely labour, which is plentiful, and raw materials, which are home produced? That would prove no burden whatever on our balance of payments.
Finally, can the Government give a little extra help to some of the housing trusts that are doing such invaluable work in this regard?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree that there are too many houses empty in this country at the moment. As the noble Lord is aware, there are well over 100,000 in local authority ownership alone that should be brought back into use.
On the housing association movement, the noble Lord will be aware that we shall increase the funds to the housing corporation by 80 per cent. to about £1·3 billion in 1991–92.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will my noble friend say how many houses in the private sector have been finished for rented purposes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot at the moment, without notice.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, will the Minister give consideration to urging all local authorities to give discretionary grants for essential repairs? As I understand it, some do and some do not. If there were more discretionary grants available to repair roofs and such matters, it would stop the decline in housing and make more available.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the standard of housing has improved according to the last survey of English house conditions that your Lordships discussed not so long ago. However, the point of the discretionary grant is exactly that: it is up to the local authority. Noble Lords will be aware that we hope to change the home improvement grant system in the Bill that is currently before another place.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has given the House figures of house building in the public and private sectors. Will the Minister inform the House of the estimated shortfall between those figures and what is needed to satisfy the housing market?
Is the Minister unable to give the House any estimate of the extent to which recent legislation has enabled housing in the private sector to be rented? The Minister must recall that a major strand of the Government's housing policy in that legislation rested on the premise that thousands of privately owned homes would be brought into the private rented sector.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, overall there is not a shortage of housing in this country. Since 1961 there has been an excess of households over dwellings.
On the private rented sector, I told my noble friend earlier that I did not have the figures. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the purposes of the Bill that your Lordships discussed last Session was to increase the private rented sector. That was backed up by the BES schemes. When I have the figures I shall be able to give them.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, when does the Minister expect to give the House the number of starts under the HATs scheme which the Government are promoting? Will he give us the date when they are starting in the London boroughs, in

245
particular in Tower Hamlets which has perhaps the worst properties and the worst homelessness? Can he tell us when he expects to announce the starts?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, because no decision has been finally taken by the tenants on a vote. As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, we have decided not to proceed with the HAT in the Tower Hamlets area but have asked Tower Hamlets to come back to us with further proposals if they so wish.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was under the impression that in his last answer but one, my noble friend said that there was an excess of households over dwellings. I was a little puzzled by that in the context. Did he mean it that way round?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure that I did. I apologise. Perhaps I may make the position absolutely clear. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for permitting me to do so. The number of dwellings has exceeded the number of households since 1961.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his reply to my supplementary question the Minister referred to the last 12 months of the last Labour Government. If he was in the Chamber on Monday, he will recall that I was gently chided by his noble friend Lord Strathclyde for referring back to the last Labour Government. However, I have to challenge what the Minister has said. Is it not a fact that this Government's record in the public building sector is the worst of any government since the war? My noble friend and colleague Lord Graham has also referred to this fact. One of the major premises of the Housing Bill before your Lordships in the last Session—when I consistently challenged him on homelessness—was that the Government were pinning their hopes on the fact that the freeing of the private rented sector would diminish the number of homeless.
Is the Minister aware that nothing of that kind is happening and that the number of homeless, including single people being forced on the street, is increasing dramatically? When will the Government take positive action instead of merely talking about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord has gone very wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I should like to take this opportunity to remind him that we are currently reviewing all the homeless legislation and the reports that have been published. I shall announce the Government's response in the near future.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, are the Government prepared to encourage local authorities which still have money from the sale of council houses to use some of that for the repair of properties which could then be used?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is exactly what we are doing but some local authorities have not taken it up.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that is not true.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the figure of 100,000 empty properties but that figure is out of date. Can he give the figure for the number of private houses which have stood empty for some time, including government-owned property? He will find that it is far in excess of that owned by local authorities.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is true that the amount of empty property in the private sector is in excess of that owned by local authorities. But it is not true in respect of government-owned empty properties of which there are approximately 16,000. Of course, it was the rent law about which the Labour Government were so proud which denied any opportunity for the private sector. We reversed that by the Act which came into force on 15th January.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, if the Minister is right, there are approximately 100,000 empty properties under the control of local authorities. What are the Government doing to force the authorities to make that property available to people on the housing lists and the homeless?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we can but encourage the local authorities; it is their responsibility. I am sure that the noble Lord noted the recent case which was taken to the ombudsman. It concerned the length of the delay taken by the local authority to bring the property back ino repair.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is not the greatest need for houses to rent at a reasonable rate? Is not that problem continually exacerbated by the Government's foolish policy of selling council houses? They are lost for ever more to the rented market and are then resold two or three years later for three or four times the purchase price.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord wishes to deny the opportunity to someone who wishes to own a house. That is exactly why the "right to buy" has been so popular and why now more than 1 million people are owner-occupiers who were not so in 1979. The noble Lord has a point in saying that both the private and public rented sectors need support. For that reason we have given an increased amount to the Housing Association, and its starts increased by one-third last year.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the greatest need is in respect of people who have no homes within either sector because there are no houses to rent. It is that which I do not wish to see.

Newbattle Abbey College: Funding
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reason for ceasing to fund Newbattle Abbey College.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, the Government consider that the resources which are being spent in support of Newbattle Abbey College could be used to better effect by helping more people into higher education, through initiatives such as the Scottish Wider Access Programme. Consultations undertaken by the governors of the college showed that education authorities and other institutions did not see a significant part for Newbattle within their own activities to encourage wider access to higher education.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that the decision was taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland because, as he said, he was asked to do so by the Scottish Education Authority and he did so without consultation with the governors or trustees of the college? Is the Minister aware that at present there are 100 students in the college and that it is used during the year by 1,500 part-time students? Is the Minister telling the House that the last residential adult college in Scotland is to be closed and that Scotland, unlike England and Wales, will be left with no residential adult college?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, in December, 1987, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the withdrawal of our grant from the Scottish Office. My right honourable friend then announced that he would consider the various representations. The college governors set out to deal with the situation and after a period they reported back to us.
Having dealt with the situation the college governors could not persuade my right honourable friend that their evidence was sufficient to justify the expenditure on the college. It could attract firm commitments from other bodies amounting only to the value of £30,000 per year. Faced with the fact that £290,000 could be better spent on Scottish education through the scheme which I have outlined the Secretary of State took that decision.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, would it not be wise to delay the closure of this important education institution in order that the governors can look at the possibility of developing the 125-acre site? That may take two years but it would be sad if the college was closed while the negotiations proceeded. The development of the site may relieve the Government of the amount of money which they now spend. Finally, why is the government funding of £300,000 to be withdrawn from the only Scottish adult education college of this type, while Ruskin College in England—which I fully support—attracts £663,000 per annum and Coleg Harlech in Wales is similarly supported?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, those matters were seriously taken into consideration by my right honourable friend. We are also concerned with the number of people in education in Scotland where there are 7,000 entrants aged 21 and over to full-time higher education. I must point out to the noble Lord that in Scotland there is already a much higher rate of participation in higher education than
248
elsewhere in Great Britain. We seek to increase that level of participation still further with the help of a more effective use of the resources released from Newbattle Abbey College.
The noble Lord asked why we should wait for a further five years—and I must insist that that is what the governors ask for: a further five-year delay in making the decision. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State took that into consideration. The question relating to the disposal of land now rests with the trustees of the college. The noble Lord will understand that it is a most complex situation and one at which we have looked most carefully. The trustees must now address their minds to it.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the wider access programme, about which he spoke, will work in the more remote parts of Scotland to which the residential college at Newbattle was of particular value?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I recollect that of late out of a total of approximately 95 students there were three at Newbattle Abbey College from the Highlands and Islands area. As regards the swap arrangements for Scotland, we believe that by setting up consortia in its four major cities—and we now see evidence that in Glasgow the initiative is beginning to succeed—we are addressing the problem which we all wish to see resolved; that is, taking more people into higher education.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House a little more about the point of view of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which are the education authorities, on this subject? I understand that when the announcement was first made it agreed to attempt to quantify the kind of use which could be made of the college, about which it felt so strongly. Can the Minister tell the House what it came up with?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, my right honourable friend wished to see evidence of specific commitment from education authorities and higher education institutions. As I understand it, the total sum to which two local authorities and one university committed themselves was £30,000 per year, which was put into the report submitted by the governors of the college to the Secretary of State.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, can we take it from the answers so far given by the Minister that the Government have no criticism of the academic performance of Newbattle Abbey? If that is the case, can we take it that the Government have no desire per se to see the college closed down? If that is so, why could not the Government phase out the subsidy instead of abolishing it, thus giving the college some time to find alternative sources of finance?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we felt that the right way to proceed was to give the college governors a year in which to see whether there was support for the continuation of the college. A sum of £290,000 out of the Scottish Office budget, although it may not be so in other budgets, is a lot

249
of money which we feel can be better spent in pursuance of a policy to help people into higher education in Scotland.
Lord Morris: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what is so wrong with Newbattle Abbey that it can only attract £30,000 per year in funding?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I believe that that is something which the noble Lord would have to ask the principal and governors of the college. However, I note what has been said in that £290,000 from the Government is a very substantial amount of money against £30,000, which seems to me to be the amount promised by three institutions.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the £30,000 was promised some 18 months ago? However, the imminent approach of the final closure has greatly concentrated the minds of the supporters of Newbattle Abbey College. I understand that there was a meeting on Monday. I do not have the results of that and the Minister may have more knowledge on that than I have. However, I understand that education authorities and many trade unions, including the EIS, which I understand is a fairly wealthy union, were going to look at the matter in quite a different way, particularly since the question of the sale of land referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has come to the fore.
Does the Minister appreciate that Newbattle Abbey is a very special place which takes people straight from the workshop floor into higher education, which would otherwise be too big an initial hurdle for them to jump? Therefore, Newbattle Abbey has given generations of Scots in that situation a chance which they would never otherwise have had.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am aware that a meeting took place earlier this week, but I have no knowledge of the results of that meeting. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State looked very carefully at the question of the estate land and the constraints which may be placed on the trustees in that regard. We recognise that Newbattle Abbey has contributed a great deal over many years to an education facility. However, we felt and still feel that it is not worth the cost when we now have very much better ways of helping into education those people who have not had the benefit of higher education.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I probe the Minister on his answers? First, on the question of finance, is it not the case that there is a pledging fund still collecting money? That will take some time if, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, pointed out, it is allowed to sell part of the land valued at £5 million. Secondly, the noble Lord talks about the wider access programme, which I believe is being given £3 million by the Government. Is he not aware that that scheme has a quite different objective from that of Newbattle Abbey? It is not a question of how many students are in higher education in Scotland but what the prospect is for those students who
250
wish to partake in adult education as distinct from vocational education and who have not been able to do so because of their social and economic circumstances in the past.
Will the Minister ask his right honourable friend to look again at the possibility mentioned by my noble friend of at least giving some extra time to see whether this valuable jewel in the adult educational world of Scotland can be preserved for a little longer?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says. However, I must point out that the figure I gave of 7,000 entrants aged 21 and over to full-time higher education in Scotland is considerable. If one gauges that against the figures of 94, 98 and 94 for the last three successive years, it puts the matter in perspective. I am sorry, but I must say that we feel that the money spent in that area could be more wisely spent for the better use of further education in Scotland. I must remind the noble Lord, whom I know has great experience, having been at Glasgow University, that we are now 40 years on from that time and I believe that what I have said about higher education in Scotland is a credit to government in Scotland.

Mr. Salman Rushdie: Police Protection
3.8 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard Viscount Massereene and Ferrard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the approximate cost to date of the protection provided for Mr. Salman Rushdie by the police and how much longer they envisage this protection will be continued.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it would not be proper for me to disclose information about police protection which would indicate its scale in a particular case. It is envisaged that Mr. Rushdie will continue to receive protection while the threat to him remains at the currrent level.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I fully appreciate that this is a delicate question. However, does my noble friend not agree that Mr. Rushdie, whom I understand to be a British citizen, has through his writings, which in my opinion are scurrilous and blasphemous, greatly offended the Arab world and caused great offence to many devout Moslems? Does my noble friend not also agree that presumably Mr. Rushdie has made a lot of money out of his writings and that this matter has impaired our relations, certainly in the Middle East, with the Arabs? May I also ask— —
: No, no.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I can take the general tenor of my noble friend's questions. I point out straight away that Mr. Rushdie's private means are totally immaterial. His life has been threatened in a way which entitles him to request protection. The police have taken the action which they consider to be appropriate in the circumstances.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is there any monetary limit which a civilised state should adopt in endeavouring to protect the life of a writer, however misguided or not he may be, who is being officially and publicly threatened merely because of what he has written?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has posed an extremely difficult question to answer. The point is that, at the end of the day, it is a matter of morals and ethics. It is an interesting question and of sufficient interest, in my humble opinion, for me to pass it on to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does not my noble friend the Minister agree that Mr. Rushdie has written for personal gain? Therefore, does he not further agree that it might be a kind gesture for Mr. Rushdie to contribute some cash from that gain to the long-suffering British public?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can only say that that must be the opinion of my noble friend.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not time to put this matter in its proper perspective? If the police were not protecting Mr. Rushdie they would still be employed doing something else.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should be limited to a strict limit of 9 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Higher Education
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone rose to call attention to the problems of higher education; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I begin by saying how much I look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford and how glad I am that he has chosen to make his maiden speech in this debate.
More than a quarter of a century has now passed since Lord Robbins produced his report on higher education which advocated a major expansion in the number of young people attending our colleges and universities. No one in those optimistic days of 1963–64 could have imagined the sorry state of higher education in 1989. Few would have imagined as we enter the last decade of the 20th century, in
252
an economy in which income per head is so much higher than it was in 1964, that only 15 per cent. of our young people would enter degree level study.
No one would have anticipated that those who teach in higher education would be so demoralised that many of their most talented representatives would leave education altogether or seek jobs overseas. No one would have conceived of a university teaching profession so disillusioned and so depressed by a sharply falling standard of living in what is said to be a prosperous economy as to refuse to mark examination papers in an attempt to secure a fairer pay offer. No one would have believed that in an era of rapid technological change, an era in which economic strength is founded on talent and inventiveness, that the Government should be so short-sighted and so limited in their vision of the long-term needs of the economy as to constrain severely the opportunities for talent to be nurtured and for inventiveness to thrive.
In the 1990s higher education and academic research are not luxuries. They are economic necessities. If we do not at the very least match the investment which our competitors make in higher education, the economic future of this country is indeed bleak. We should not forget that in the next decade the number of young people aged between 16 and 24 will decline by 20 per cent. This is typically the most adaptable and most technologically sophisticated part of our population. That decline could inflict grave economic damage. If we are to prosper, we must greatly enhance the quality of education for the young and expand access to higher education, giving those groups which have not participated up to now every opportunity to do so.
In introducing this debate my primary purpose is not to speak for those who work in higher education but to consider, first, the nation's need for greatly increased numbers of students if it is to have the well-educated population it needs as we enter the 21st century; and, secondly, the nation's needs for properly funded research. Nor is it my intention to focus the debate on the universities. The role of the polytechnics and the colleges is every bit as important, particularly in relation to students. However, it would be a strange omission to say nothing about the university teachers' pay claim given that we are now awaiting the result of the AUT's national ballot on whether to settle or whether to continue the examinations boycott.
I should like to say only this. Whatever our views may be on the boycott, I am sure that there will be broad agreement in the House that the pay of university teachers should not be allowed to fall further in relation to other qualified people. I am sure that many will also agree that while the Government's offer of extra funding to allow the vice-chancellors to increase their offer from 3 per cent. to 6·5 per cent. is welcome, it is just not enough. The reason it is not enough is that it still means there can only be a pay increase below the rate of inflation in a context where university teachers' pay has fallen by 20 per cent. since 1979 in relation to average earnings and by considerably more in relation to comparable professional earnings.
In spite of that, I hope the AUT will settle. If it does it will have the benefit of public sympathy. This sympathy should stand the union in good stead when returning to ask for a well-deserved and bigger increase next year. In turn, it would be not just ill-considered but churlish if the Government fail to recognise this responsible action in their decisions on future funding. It would be a further signal to those who work or plan to work in higher education that the Government do not value their contribution and that they would be better off abroad or in another profession.
I turn now to the central question of student numbers. The Government will say that numbers have gone up since the early 1980s. I concede that they have, though most of the increase has been in part-timers in the public sector with very small increases in the universities. However, it is the rate of increase that counts and that has been much slower than in the previous two decades. Given that our participation rates are far below those of the USA, where 44 per cent. of young people are enrolled in higher education and well below those of Japan, West Germany, France and Italy, can we really afford to expand so slowly?
Given the increasing demand for highly qualified people in our workforce and the growing competition for graduates, surely we should be making faster progress in matching the rates of our main industrial competitors, most of whom are expanding their higher education faster than we are. Since 1979 the age participation rate has only increased from 12·4 per cent. to 14·7 per cent. With the benefits of demographic decline, it is projected to go up to 18·5 per cent. by the year 2000. This will leave us worse off in that year than our main industrial competitors are today.
In the circumstances, is it not absurd that universities, polytechnics and colleges are being constrained in the number of students that they can admit? Is it not also quite wrong that in certain subjects, including law, business studies, financial management and accountancy, applications have greatly exceeded the number of places available? Speeches from the Secretary of State claiming that he would like to see participation going up to 30 per cent. over the next 25 years sound like hollow rhetoric when his own plans only take us to 18·5 per cent. over the next 12 years.
Meanwhile, there is also a vast untapped reservoir of potential demand among adults who missed the opportunity to go into higher education at the conventional age. For every student who enrols at Birkbeck or the Open University, or one of the polytechnics, there are many more who would benefit from studying at this level. What many of them lack is an institutional and financial framework which encourages them to do so. Since the numbers of 18 year-olds are going down so fast, what are the Government intending to do to promote access for older students? When are they going to provide local authorities with specific grants to set up a framework to provide access courses—a network throughout the country—that will allow adults to prepare for higher education and acquire the confidence that many of them lack? Why should adult part-timers on
254
degree courses who already receive no maintenance grants be the only group that has to pay fees?
What do the Government intend to do to remove this inequity? It is an inequity that will be made greater if, as we read in the newspapers, the Government increase fees by a substantial amount —an increase that only part-timers will have to pay out of their own pockets. May we receive an unequivocal assurance that if this happens part-time students will be treated in the same way as full-time students and have their fees paid by their LEAs or come under whatever new bursary scheme the Government have in mind?
Here I must declare an interest. If that is not done, my own institution, Birkbeck College, will be bankrupted. Moreover the survival of the Open University, which has contributed so much, will also be seriously threatened. In replying to questions that may be raised in this debate the Government may well say that they are a matter for the funding bodies. However, fees are clearly a matter for the DES. In order to expand, higher education schemes must be devised with government backing to increase the numbers coming forward from those social groups that until now have been under-represented.
Whereas there has been a welcome increase in the participation of women, there is still a substantial gender gap that must be closed. There are far too few women studying engineering and not enough of them taking science courses. In the past, the Equal Opportunities Commission has been active in publishing this situation and in promoting various schemes to encourage young women to study these subjects. Will the Government consider establishing a development fund which may be administered by the EOC to provide the necessary resources to get experimental programmes started that will bring in more women?
There is much wasted talent in the black and Asian population. The polytechnics have proved much more successful in recruiting from the ethnic minorities. Again a Government initiative linking expanded local access courses, and perhaps funded by Section 11 money to particular universities as well as polytechnics, would be a signal to the black community of the Government's genuine wish to improve opportunities.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this Government's behaviour has been their tendency to manipulate government statistics to their own advantage. Being selective is one thing, but deliberately distorting the facts by misusing statistical data or by changing definitions, is quite another. Higher education has been no exception in this shoddy decline in integrity. For example, the Government recently claimed to have increased student numbers by 50,000. But their claims were based on a head-count increase when Ministers knew perfectly well that the full-time equivalent figure and not a head count is the figure that is always conventionally used. Perhaps today the Government will set out their intentions on just how many additional full-time equivalent places they intend to provide over the next five years and what that represents as a percentage average increase.
If the Government wish to widen access, they must be willing to spend some money. That means not only funding for pre-entry schemes of the kind that I have suggested, but providing higher education institutions themselves with sufficient recurrent and capital funding to allow them to admit more students. There is no evidence whatever that the Government plan to do this. The truly remarkable fact is that, as regards the universities, resources for the next three years fail to retain their real value by as much as 6 per cent. In the public sector additional resources have been made available in 1989, but it is now clear that rising inflation will erode much of the benefit.
If reductions in real resources had followed a long period of growth that had allowed institutions to invest in new young staff, libraries, equipment and buildings, there might be complaints but no one would be unduly concerned. In present circumstances, following a sustained attack for some years on public funding for higher education, it is quite astounding. Is there no conception of investment in our future on the part of Ministers? Capital expenditure is the key to modernising facilities in higher education as well as to bringing in more people. Since the Conservatives took office in 1979, capital expenditure on the universities has fallen by 16 per cent. in real terms. In the polytechnics and colleges it has fallen by 14 per cent., but with a much steeper drop in the past three years. Their capital allocation is paltry compared to their needs. No wonder staff complain that they cannot even provide their students with adequate skills in information technology.
We continue to turn out people who are computer illiterate simply because we cannot afford to provide the equipment. Those who work in higher education are being exhorted by the Government to obtain more funding from private sector sources. In the 1980s in the universities Exchequer grants and income from fees have declined as sources of income, forcing higher education institutions to obtain more income from research grants and contracts. Despite considerable efforts that have been made, particularly by the universities, the proportion of income from endowments and donations has hardly changed over the past 20 years. Yet the Government continue to expound the ridiculous myth that large sums of money can be raised by this means.
The USA is held up as a model for us to follow. In fact the idea that American higher education is predominantly privately funded is yet another myth. Four out of five students go to public institutions and the proportion is growing. State subsidies and research contract income—much of it from federally-funded programmes—are the main sources of income. The fact is that there is massive public funding of higher education in the USA. Will not the Government here accept that it is their duty to make available sufficient funds to create a buoyant system and that it is not the responsibility of the private sector or of individuals to finance a public service of this kind from which the whole nation benefits?
The Government's record on research is as lamentable as on places for students. No doubt the noble Viscount, speaking for the Government, will refer to the one-off extra £100 million for the science budget announced last autumn. That is just peanuts compared with what is needed. Moreover, the desirable increases in technician and research staff salaries will very quickly erode the modest gains it offered. What is needed is not one-off attempts to buy off the serious discontent among research scientists, but instead we need a commitment to scientific research that provides a sustained improvement in real terms for several years ahead.
Is it not shocking that our investment in knowledge and its application should now be lower than that of other large European countries? In the context of 1992, is it not a matter of great concern that their investment is rising as a proportion of gross domestic product whereas our investment is falling? What will happen to our reputation as a country of research, creativity and new ideas? Are we to be left behind in this respect as well as in so many others? In these circumstances, is it surprising that more than one-fifth of the Fellows of the Royal Society now work abroad? The latest evidence shows that outflows from the universities, especially among senior academic staff, now significantly exceed inflows. The most experienced and probably the most talented staff are leaving.
Both academic staff and those recently completing PhDs or post-doctoral fellowships are going abroad because they are so frustrated by the poor research facilities available to them here. It is unbelievably short-sighted to sit back and allow this to happen without intervening to greatly improve conditions here. In case anyone believes that I am unwilling to concede that the Government are doing anything right, let me reveal that for a long time I have advocated moving from the dual-funding system as it is known. That is what the Government apparently now intend. But if that happens it is vital to preserve a substantial capacity for the seedcorn funding of research. It is equally important to avoid a vastly complicated bureaucracy for allocating funds for research by the research councils.
It is enormously dispiriting if the valuable time of clever scientists and others is wasted filling out excessively complex forms and accounting for every tuppence-halfpenny of projected expenditure. It will be most helpful if today the Government can explain their intentions on the funding of research both as regards the mechanisms that they have in mind for distributing resources and the level of resources that they are planning to make available. Only a much increased amount can constitute a satisfactory reply. Finally, it would be remiss in a debate on higher education to say nothing about student support. Like other areas of expenditure, student maintenance has been subjected to ruthless reductions by the Government. For example, in the four-year period between 1982–83 and 1986–87 the real value of the student grant fell by more than 21 per cent. Mrs. Thatcher believes that people should live within their means. Why then is she willing to stand aside while the great majority of students get into debt with overdrafts at the bank?
She can hardly claim that students are being spendthrift when the Vice-Chancellors' survey of board and lodgings costs show that these costs account for more than 90 per cent. of the full grant in London and virtually 80 per cent. of it elsewhere in the country. This leaves little left for students' other needs. Meanwhile, the Government seem to have wasted two years studying ways of introducing a loan scheme and have come up with proposals which do nothing to improve access and are not even acceptable to the banks. Unquestionably, the current system needs reforming; but why, my Lords, should this generation of students suffer while the Government reduce its standard of living in relation to previous generations and preside over something of a shambles in relation to the reforms that are needed?
In this respect, as in many others concerning higher education, the Government's approach has been piecemeal and small-minded. They have focused excessively on saving money. They have tinkered with revising structures. It is, however, hard to discern what they really expect from our universities, polytechnics and colleges. Value for money certainly—and there is nothing wrong with that—but value for money without any sense of purpose, any idealism or any vision is penny-pinching and demoralising and, most important of all, will not work.
In the oil rich 1980s, a huge opportunity has existed to invest in developing the talents of able people, both young and not so young. The Government have failed to respond to this challenge. As we enter the 1990s the state of our system of higher education is one of which we could have been proud. Instead it is one about which we can only feel distress because of the wasted opportunities. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for moving this Motion today. It provides, I think, our first opportunity to discuss important higher education issues since our stimulating debates during the passage of the Education Reform Act last year. I should also like to say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford.
I shall of course be answering the debate later this evening but I rise now because I think it would be helpful to set your Lordships' discussions against the background of the facts about our higher education. I shall begin with resources. International comparisons are admittedly difficult. But it remains the case that the statistics available— which I am assured are well regarded abroad— show that we already spend in this country a higher proportion of gross domestic product on higher education than any other Western European country except the Netherlands.
Government grant to the university system for 1989–90 is some 5 per cent. up on 1988–89. This comes on top of increases of 10 per cent. for 1987–88 and 8 per cent. for 1988– 89. These are substantial
258
increases, not the miserly penny-pinching that some have claimed. And more money for universities' pay costs is on the table. Planned university funding from grant and fees in 1989–90 is 8 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979–80. The Government's grant to the PCFC for 1989–90 is 6 per cent. higher than that available to institutions in 1988–89 after taking account of various changes inherent in the new status of the polytechnics and colleges.
In addition, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting basic scientific research by providing substantial additional sums for the science budget. In the settlement announced in November, an additional £305 million was made available over the next three years. University research will benefit considerably. In particular, it will be possible to establish a further nine interdisciplinary research centres in universities, thus helping to ensure that our best scientists have the resources and facilities they need to be internationally competitive in important and rapidly advancing interdisciplinary areas of science.
I turn now to student numbers. The fact is that they are now at record levels. We also have record participation rates. Later this year we shall, for the first time, have more than 1 million students in higher education. Again, we do fairly well by international standards. The figures show that we are ahead of most countries in the European Community in the proportion of the relevant age groups gaining degrees and higher diplomas. The Government remain committed to the principle that places should be available for all with the necessary qualities to benefit from higher education.
On 1st April we saw the implementation of some of the key provisions of the Education Reform Act. The Universities Funding Council replaced the University Grants Committee. Perhaps more fundamentally, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council took on its responsibilities for funding English higher education outside the universities, and the polytechnics and higher education colleges maintained by local authorities achieved their independence. These institutions are now responsible for their own destiny. The PCFC also takes on responsibility for funding those already independent institutions of higher education previously assisted by local authorities, and the voluntary and other colleges previously grant-aided by the Department of Education and Science.
The creation of the new sector marks the coming of age of what used to be known as the public sector of higher education. I am happy to report that the transition is going well. The new arrangements give these institutions the flexibility to confront the challenges and seize the opportunities facing higher education in the years ahead, building appropriately on their enviable record of providing higher education which is highly relevant to the needs of the nation, at a high standard and in a cost-effective way.
Finally, by way of introduction, I should turn away from facts to philosophy. The Government are often accused of somehow not caring about higher education; of not appreciating the contribution it makes not only to economic growth but to the

259
intellectual, cultural and social health of a nation. But those who make such accusations fall into a simple trap. It is false logic to say that a government who attach priority to economic regeneration and, from that, to expanding markets and increasing the country's prosperity, necessarily lack the spiritual dimension to appreciate fully what higher education has to offer.
The Government have made clear their commitment to higher education in all its variety. None of your Lordships should disagree that meeting the needs of the economy is one of the aims of a dynamic higher education system. If the values of professionalism and enterprise are absent, how can our universities, polytechnics and colleges provide adequately for those many thousands of students who look to them to teach skills in the application of knowledge, and for those who look for professional updating and high level continuing education?
But, as the Robbins Report made clear, instruction in skills is only one of the aims of higher education. There are others: the promotion of the general powers of the mind, the advancement of learning, and the transmission of a common culture and common standards of citizenship. These are not unique to higher education, but they are an essential part of it.
The Government made clear in Cmnd. 114—Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge— that they fully recognise the value of research, and especially basic research, together with those areas of learning that have at most an indirect relationship with the world of work. That White Paper also fully recognised that the encouragement of a high level of scholarship in the arts, humanities and social sciences is an essential feature of a civilised and cultured country. I am glad to have the opportunity to restate those views today.
Our higher education institutions are rightly held in very considerable esteem in other countries for the level of their teaching and the quality of their research. Our system of higher education is without doubt among the best in the world. In any field I could mention we have talent in abundance. We have innovators to compare with the best in the world. It is disappointing that the present difficulties in universities detract from the proper picture of our higher education institutions as places humming with dedication and sheer hard work. But no area of our national life can afford to rest on its laurels. We have an opportunity today to discuss how, against the background I have described, higher education provision can be strengthened further. I look forward to hearing your Lordships' views on the issues this raises.
3.39 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for giving us the opportunity this afternoon to discuss this important subject. I am glad also that we shall hear the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford.
260
I was delighted to hear the noble Viscount say that he recognised that one of the major purposes of higher education is the development and the maintenance of a highly civilised society. I would put it slightly differently. That, in my view, must always be its first and its primary task. It also has the other very important task of assisting the development of the economy. Indeed, it is true—as I think the Minister implied—that unless the economy thrives it will not be possible to maintain the institutions which help to give us that civilised society.
I must say that I was astounded at the complacency of the Minister's speech. In his description of the universities, I could not recognise the scene that I see when I visit them; nor could I reconcile what I frequently hear when I am spoken to, as I frequently am, by members of university staffs. But, at least it is good to know that, in theory at any rate, the Government support the idea of universities being an essential part of the development of our civilisation, as well as being a very important instrument in the development of the economy.
There is no doubt that there is very great concern in the universities at present. Indeed, there is no such satisfaction as implied by the Minister. I shall not talk about the pay dispute, although I expect that others will do so. However, if the Minister really believes what he said, he must accept that it is a question of both quality and quantity; that is, that we need to maintain the quality, which means that we need to keep the people of the highest ability in this country.
The Minister cannot deny that many of our staff in the academic world have gone overseas because of dissatisfaction in this country. Therefore it is no good to say—as we were told from the Government Benches only the other day—that the brain drain is a myth. That is merely ignoring the fact that the quality of people leaving and the level at which they are doing so is of a quite different order from that of those who are coming into this country from overseas. I should remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Jenkins said not long ago that if we proceed as we are at present, in 20 years' time there will be no university of world class in this country. He may of course be wrong, but he is in a very good position to make that judgment, and it is indeed an extremely alarming one.
I was also delighted to hear the noble Viscount recognise that there was the need for expansion. I must say I found his claim that expansion is going on rather difficult to reconcile with what lie called the "facts". I must say that they are certainly not quite the facts to which my attention has been drawn. It is true, if you do not count part-time students as full-time students—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has already made—that we in this country have a far lower proportion of our youngsters going into higher education. I think it is in the region of approximately half of those who do so in the major countries with which we have to compete. Surely that should be a matter of the very greatest concern. In addition, there are a large number of mature people who ought to be going into universities, or into polytechnics, and thereby

261
gaining the educational opportunities which have been denied them in the past.
I should like to put one or two questions directly to the noble Viscount. In his speech he referred to my late colleague Lord Robbins and to the work which he carried out. He said that the Government are committed to the maintenance of what was the Robbins principle; namely, that those who are qualified and who wish to go into higher education should be given the opportunity to do so. Is that in fact the position of Her Majesty's Government, as well as the position of the Minister?
The noble Viscount will know that there have been frequent references in the press to a strong difference of opinion between the Department of Education and Science and the Treasury. The Treasury has suggested that the number of people going into higher education should be governed by its estimate of what will be required in manpower terms. This shows a most extraordinary confidence in its ability to carry out manpower planning, if nothing else. Previous attempts at such planning produced an extraordinary excess of doctors and vets at a time when they were not the professionals most greatly needed. In any case, we all know that long-term manpower planning never gets the answer right. Indeed, it is impossible to do so because of the rapidity of change in the economy. Moreover, it is nonsense to argue, in connection with controlling entry into universities, in terms of estimated manpower needs—not least because we do not know what kind of qualifications will be most beneficial to the economy in three years' time, let alone in 20 years' time.
It is a well-known fact that graduates in philosophy have been very much sought after by some of the leading American companies because the kind of qualities of mind that are trained in that discipline have proved unexpectedly—certainly, it would not have been the case in the eyes of the manpower planners that they should be producing philosophers—to be a great help in the development of industry. Yet, that has proved to be the ease. Can the Minister say that the Government as a whole are committed to the Robbins principle? If that is so, then this debate will have been of the highest value.
If the Government do mean that they are committed to that principle, then we must face the whole question of cost and the need for a great expansion. This is not just being said by academics; it is being said by the Council for Industry and Higher Education, on which board sit eminent and successful industrialists as well as academics. We need a great expansion which will continue in the traditional ways but which will also add quite different kinds of higher education.
How will this expansion be financed? The Government have been talking about "loans" for many months. Universities, schools, teachers—not least the young people themselves—need to know when they make their plans what the prospects for funding and finance will be. We understand that the Government's approach to the banks to make them carry the can has not been met with universal applause in the banking sector. Moreover, if loans it must be, a better way of dealing with the situation
262
has been suggested—most interestingly, I think—by my old institute, the London School of Economics. Many of us would say that given the government surpluses, and given the fact that education is an investment, some of that money could be used so that the problem of loans would be very much less acute.
However, if the funding is to be by way of loans, will the Government take the suggestion that the best way to do this is not, as they suggest, through the banks with enormous administrative costs, but that they should look at the proposal that it should be financed by direct loans from the banks, recovered through adjustments to the national insurance contributions of graduates when they enter into employment? That would be a very much more cost-effective way of dealing with the situation. We need to know about these matters. We have not been told anything about them and we have been waiting for a very long time to be informed. Expansion is urgent; new categories of young people, and of older people, must be able to go into higher education and therefore we need to know where the money will come from so that we can make plans and get on with a long overdue job.
3.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, there is a certain irony in my choice of this debate as the occasion for my maiden speech in this House, for I left school at the age of 14 and my higher education was gained in what is euphemistically called the "University of Life". However, in recent years I have endeavoured to remedy this deficiency, and through my membership of the Council of the University of Bradford and various of its committees, I have become aware of some of the very real problems confronting our institutions of higher education.
As a parent, I have become a consumer (albeit at second hand) of several of our universities and colleges, and so I know about the debates, and anxieties, surrounding such issues as student loans. As a layman, priest and bishop I have spent almost my entire life living and working in inner-city areas, and so I am conscious of the vast untapped resource of human skills and enterprise which so often remains trapped in these areas, waiting—usually unconsciously—for the challenges and benefits that further and higher education can offer.
The overriding impression that comes to me when working on the university committees is the constant, one might even say oppressive, battle to balance the books. On the one hand, we are being urged to take up new opportunities, to extend access, to think more creatively about partnership with industry, and to enter into collaborative programmes with other institutions. On the other hand, there is the constant factor of trying to minimise deficits, maintain efficiency and become more cost-effective. I recognise the importance of such constraints, and I want to pay tribute to the commitment and endeavour that I find in Bradford to deliver a service that is creative, imaginative, efficient and of a high standard. It is not easy, and we are not always helped by dictates that come from above.

263
Just across the road from the University of Bradford is the largest college of further and higher education in the country. Bradford and Ilkley Community College has 32,000 students and more than 500 full-time teaching staff. It is truly a community college, accommodating one fifth of the population between the ages of 16 and 20. It is well supported by local industry, and it continually receives excellent reports from its varied validating bodies. Its efficiency and cost-effectiveness match and exceed the target performance indicators set by the DES and local authority associations' Joint Efficiency Study. making its unit cost provision next to the lowest in England.
There is even more good news: the college's role in promoting inner city regeneration is in line with government policy and widely acknowledged, especially in meeting the professional and vocational needs of ethnic minorities. I give just one example—over 10 per cent. of its intake of teacher training students are black. That is an important factor in Britain today and one that is not without significance in the City of Bradford.
The college is an institution which fulfils the best and positive intentions of the Education Reform Act for further and higher education. There is wide and easy access to high quality programmes of education and training which are responsibly and flexibly geared to the needs of local industry and commerce. They offer hope and opportunity to a much wider range of people than would otherwise be able to benefit. In doing so they make a contribution to the regeneration of the whole of our metropolitan district, including its inner-city areas.
It is disturbing therefore to learn that those achievements have been hindered rather than facilitated by the implementation of the new Act. The new funding arrangements for higher education do not allow the college to compete on equal terms with other institutions of higher education that are members of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Despite many assurances to the contrary, the college finds itself disadvantaged, one might use the word "penalised", in several areas.
It is all very well for us to urge greater access, greater efficiency and greater co-operation with industry and commerce. In Bradford we have an example of just that and yet what I hear is terribly sad, for when the institution endeavours to put those ideals into practice, it feels hampered and disadvantaged. It would be a dreadful irony if that part of the Education Reform Act designed to make public sector higher education more businesslike, more vocationally relevant and more cost-effective, should prevent an institution which has been as successful and effective in achieving those objects as Bradford and Ilkley Community College, from continuing to do so.
In moving on, I cannot stress too strongly the contribution that our institutions of higher education can make to so many of our cities, especially in the North, struggling as they are with issues of urban deprivation and industrial decline. To have the skills of their staff resident in our
264
community, making contributions in so many areas of life, is an enormous resource, and one upon which I am often able to call. It is disturbing therefore to realise just how disaffected so many of the staff are. Feelings of disillusion, of not being valued or respected, can easily lead to feelings of resentment and cynicism.
If we were to look at education issues from the bottom up, rather than from the top down, I believe that we would become much more aware of the vast resources in our community which are not being tapped. It is such a waste. It is so uneconomic. Our local communities need signs of hope and confidence, and to know that the skills that they contain are appreciated and affirmed. The institutions of education, from the nursery classes to the universities, need encouragement to think and plan more creatively, with a vision of building a better, a more caring and compassionate society. For us in government, it is both our privilege and our duty to serve; to respond to the needs and concerns of education institutions; to have an overview that seeks to include rather than exclude; that seeks to enhance rather than to diminish; and to promote hope and confidence rather than cynicism and despondency.
As I walk around the centre of Bradford, or move around the more rural parts of my diocese, I am constantly aware of the skills, ingenuity and enormous potential of thousands and thousands of ordinary people, and I ask myself: are they being encouraged to think and act as creatively as they might? Are they aware of, and do they have access to, the kind of training and education which could enlarge their vision and cultivate their gifts? Are we doing enough to affirm and utilise their skills and gifts?
Speaking as the chairman of the Church of England Central Board of Finance Stewardship Committee, it is perhaps appropriate that I ask the question: are we being good stewards of all the talents that the people of our country have? To all those questions I have to reply in the negative. I do not believe that we are, and so we are in danger of minimising the contribution that they can make to our society and to its wealth creation, its corporate and communal life and to its caring. That surely, in anyone's book, is bad management of resources, poor economics and questionable government.
I remember and respect the valued convention of the House that maiden speeches should be non-controversial. I assure your Lordships that I have spelt the word "government" with a small "g".
3.58 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford and therefore to congratulate him on his maiden speech, which I do, according to custom, on behalf of the House as a whole. I am sure that I can say that we were moved and charmed by what we heard. The right reverend Prelate lists many special interests in Who's Who, which encourage me to believe that he will grace our debates on many and varied occasions. I certainly hope so.

265
We are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for giving us the opportunity to explore some of the outstanding problems of higher education and for her opening speech with which I found myself in wholehearted agreement as I also did with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
I should like to speak about the Universities Funding Council which came into existence on the 1st of this month. Before I do so, I must refer briefly to the unfortunate dispute over academic salaries. The present offer as regards the vice-chancellors, made with government support, is still far too low, but it is all that can be expected for the time being. I therefore hope that the AUT ballot will lead to acceptance of that offer. It can then be followed immediately—I speak as a member of the council of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals—by negotiations for a better settlement next year. Whatever the result of the ballot, however, I must put on record in the House my disapproval of the tactics adopted by the union. To put at serious risk the careers of our students by the boycott of examinations is unprofessional, unethical and totally unacceptable.
We welcome the appearance this month of the Universities Funding Council. I hope that it will introduce some sense of purpose into its funding mechanisms. We look to the UFC to provide broad objectives on the basis of which autonomous universities can develop into a heterogeneous system from which incidentally, I myself should not wish much longer to exclude the polytechnics.
The UGC had no broad objectives, either for itself or for the universities. All it had were our detailed academic plans, some reviews of research attainment and an arithmetic formula for assessment of grant. This has given rise to a monstrous bureaucracy, a Himalayan mountain of paper, an insidious form of state corporatism and the belief that universities can and should be managed in detail from Park Crescent.
Whatever the original intentions, it has had the effect of encouraging uniformity instead of diversity. In particular, it has stressed the virtues of research, almost to the exclusion of teaching. In its concentration on detail it has lost sight of universities as entire institutions. I hope that in the chapels of the UFC there will be no undue genuflection to the holy relics of the UGC.
There must be some long-term objectives. As a well-known American baseball philosopher once observed, "If you don't know where you're going, you'll maybe end up some place else". The first objective, a matter of high policy, really must be set by government. Are we to continue to be funded by some predetermined centralising formula or are market forces to prevail? If the latter, are we to be freed of Treasury rules which inhibit us from creating and responding to the market? The day may come when higher education is largely sustained from private sources, but government will have to take a major political decision, however unpopular, if it wishes to see that change coming quickly. It is no good proposing loan schemes that neither the Government nor the banks are prepared to finance.
266
it really will not do to pepper us with half-baked ministerial whimsies and hope that we shall take the unpopular decisions for them. We are not in a position to do so.
As for the other objectives, I hope that the UFC will consult us about what they should be. They should be sufficient to provide strategic guidance to development and a framework according to which we should be accountable for our actions and policies. I mean accountable for what we have done with public money after the event. They should not be detailed plans requiring agreement before action can be taken. The one leads to clear accountability, the other to bad management.
The prime objective, of course, should be the attainment of academic excellence in teaching, that which was so shamefully omitted by the UGC on the specious grounds that it found it difficult to measure—a clear case of not being able to see the wood for the trees. There is no formula that will ensure good teaching, but universities can and should be judged by the scholarly environment they create for their students.
Universities should also be encouraged to offer realistic research objectives. Long gone are the days—if they ever existed—when we could all pretend to be equal in everything. We have to pick and choose, but try to achieve a reasonable academic balance within our means and expect some rewards for high achievement. Each university, depending on its interests and local environment, should have realistic objectives for collaboration with industry and commerce and with other bodies in the community, as the right reverend Prelate stressed so persuasively. I believe also that universities should do more to encourage the home student, not only because that can be cost-effective but because it would help to strengthen local links.
Finally, among the objectives there has to be some element of manpower planning, however limited in scope. Not everyone can be a doctor. But, on the other hand, some subjects—medicine is one, certainly, and engineering is another—must be safeguarded for the sake of the economy as a whole. We cannot again risk the uncontrolled expansion of the social sciences that followed the Robbins Report. Student demand is important, but it is not sufficient. It is a matter that I hope the UFC will consider very carefully.
No doubt others will offer further objectives; I hope so. But the essential point is that whatever objectives are eventually adopted for a particular institution, they should form a strategic framework within which that institution can develop its own approach to the service of the community through academic excellence, and according to which the progress of that institution will be monitored by the UFC, from which its block grant will be obtained and through which it will be accountable to Parliament for its performance.
What I have tried to describe implies very strong central accountability according to agreed objectives, but decentralised management of a deliberately diverse system of autonomous institutions. What we have at present is growing

267
interference with management from a centre that favours homogeneity and no real accountability, except in strictly financial terms, because there are no objectives against which progress can be assessed. I hope that the Government will make very clear to the UFC which course it prefers and then fund it adequately.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I too welcome the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I agree with her and the other speakers that our future as a society and not only as an economy depends upon an ample supply of well-educated people in the humanities and in science, medicine, engineering and technology. But those subjects will not be enough unless we also have the prime movers, the entrepreneurs, to identify, pursue and satisfy markets at home and abroad. Any industrial society depends on such skills for its jobs and its prosperity.
Of course, higher education cannot teach such skills but it can discourage them by denigrating the business function. Many of our jobs and much of our standard of living, such as it is, compared with that of our neighbours, stems from entrepreneurs who—though in quite a different field like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford—never went on to higher education.
These entrepreneurs, many of whom did not go on to higher education, have opened up or revitalised business sectors and sub-sectors. They employ and cannot do without numbers of graduates across all disciplines. Some other countries perhaps have more entrepreneurs who did go on to higher education and kept—I am nearly inclined to say, despite their experience—or found entrepreneurial flair. I hope that there is less contempt here for business in some parts of some of our universities than there was.
I am not suggesting that business should be the main aim of universities; but nor should business be denigrated. My inclination at the DES was to free universities, with a dowry from the taxpayer. However the capital sums involved were impracticable. I very much welcome the Government's action in freeing, to some extent, polytechnics and colleges. I also wanted to shift the financing of students in part from grants to loans. I thought that students who were in most cases, although not in all, on their way to high earning careers, should not be so largely supported by taxpayers, most of whom were on modest incomes. Noble Lords may remember that I was neither popular nor successful. Most students objected and my then colleagues did not accept the idea either. Now I delight to see that the Government accept in principle the idea of student loans. I do not speak of the particular scheme; I simply welcome the intent to have a loan component.
Perhaps both the objectives make sense—loans for students and, through them, much more freedom for universities and perhaps more freedom still for polytechnics and colleges too. We could then hope to have more students motivated and more institutions concerned with quality, effectiveness, adaptability and value for money. What I suggest is that the
268
Government should aim over time towards much freer universities. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, will agree with that aim but not perhaps with the method of what 1 am going to suggest. Let me reassure my noble friends on the Front Bench that I certainly am not going to suggest a blank cheque on the Treasury. I shall explain briefly how I suggest that can be avoided.
Suppose that over the next period the taxpayer is asked by government to make a continuing fairly large contribution towards the expensive disciplines—for example, medicine, veterinary science, engineering, science and technology. I believe that those are the main expensive disciplines. Let us suppose that the taxpayer is asked to make a substantial contribution towards research and scholarship and a contribution for bursaries to encourage students from wage-earning households. Suppose that the Government retain buffer instruments and, through them, bid for a certain number of, say, scientists, doctors, dentists, vets, engineers and technologists. As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said, it would remain unnecessary to safeguard those disciplines to some extent. Suppose that the buffer instruments distribute money for research and scholarship, and suppose that the Government move towards student loans of some kind covering increasing proportions of the remaining maintenance and tuition costs—that is, the costs as reduced by taxpayer contributions towards the expensive disciplines and the cost of research, scholarship and some bursary schemes for students from wage-earning homes.
I like to think that, with such arrangements in place, and always in discussion with the buffer bodies, the higher education institutions would be freed to decide their own mix of subjects, numbers of students—including mature and part-time students—admission criteria, length of courses, staff numbers, staff pay and charges to students. They would, of course, have to include elements in those charges for capital costs, for research and for scholarship, for libraries and for other items not covered by the taxpayer. I like to think that, in order to stimulate the maturing of students, it would surely be best, wherever practicable, to involve them, even if only fractionally, at the leading edge of understanding where research and scholarship lie.
But what about quality and effectiveness? I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that both must be stressed. I believe that quality and effectiveness are best safeguarded by the pride and the self-interest of each institution. They will intensely desire the good opinion of students and of employers. Moreover, the buffer bodies will distribute their research and scholarship grants on their own judgment. Of course students will make use of their own, or often their school's, grapevine, which will sometimes inevitably be based on obsolete perceptions. No doubt "Which?"—type publications would arise spontaneously.
I realise that some of my suggestions raise difficult issues. The buffer bodies will need to make judgments on research, on scholarships and on standards. Peer review is the best method known. Performance indicators can help, where appropriate,

269
although they can he abused, as, in some cases, can market judgments.
However, I return to a key issue of how such a scheme can protect taxpayers and the Treasury from the blank cheque that could result if institutions are freed to set their own admission criteria and student numbers. "Wider access" is an ambiguous slogan. It could mean lower standards. Unless Ministers can be reassured, they will insist—and rightly in my view—on capping numbers, and much of the invigorating freedom of institutions will vanish.
The institutions will need in their dialogue with the buffer bodies to satisfy them that entry standards are maintained. I mean, by my suggestions, that no more public spending should be entered into than is implicit in present arrangements. When in due course schools and the mature non-graduate population together produce more candidates of suitable quality than is the case now, there will be a case for considering more spending.
I have seen reports in the press that the Labour Party proposes to abolish 'A' levels. That makes me suspect that what that party really means is a lowering of standards in universities and polytechnics. I leave out of account for this purpose the Open University and colleges: mature students will need to have their own admission criteria carefully worked out by institutions in agreement with the buffer bodies. My suggestion aims at more effective spending by way of a redivision of functions between the central buffer bodies and freer institutions of higher education with standards at least as good as they are now.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington:My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and I are old adversaries in education from another place, and, as the views of the noble Lord do not change, I am tempted to express my disagreement. However, in view of the time, we had better do that on another occasion. I hope the noble Lord will not disagree too much with my own remarks because I must say that my contribution to the debate today will be concerned solely with adult education and, in particular, with full-time and part-time courses at universities and polytechnics. I must say how delighted I was that my noble friend in her splendid speech in opening this debate made reference to adult education, of which she has so much experience.
I raise the matter of adult education because it has always been the Cinderella of education. From the evidence available, the present Government are even less interested in it than previous administrations. The Government have, not unusually, put down some fine words about their policy in this field. In Command Paper No. 9524, entitled The Development of Higher Education into the 1990s, the Government state:
"The Government is committed to the availability of higher education to mature students who are able to benefit from it".
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the Robbins principle, and that phrase I quoted reminds one of it. The noble Baroness asked the Minister whether that was still the Government's policy. I
270
shall not ask him that question because it is evident that the Government departed from that principle a long time ago. The situation has become worse every year during the decade in which the Government have been in power.
There are two very substantial reasons why any government, or indeed any nation, should be concerned about proper provision for adult education. First, there is the need for individual self-fulfilment. That sounds rather like a phrase from a textbook and something theoretical, ethereal and unreal. However, all I can say in response to that view is that to talk to someone who has had the opportuunity of undertaking higher education some years after leaving school is a very interesting and indeed touching experience. There are literally thousands of adults who yearn for that second chance, but unfortunately, for a number of reasons, most of them are not given the opportunity to experience it.
The second reason is a more practical one. It is that a well qualified person can make a greater contribution to the national good. It is interesting that already three speakers in the debate have referred to that same point. It so happens that the need for many more highly qualified people is greater than it has been for a long time. On the same day as the Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, announced the White Paper implying record levels of participation in higher education by the end of the century 22 top companies forecast a shortage of graduates to the detriment of the country's economy.
Every day we read of the sharp fall in 18 year-olds which is to take place in the next decade. The only possible way in which that shortfall can be made up is by an increase in the number of mature students. One hears that the mature student does not attain the results which would make an effective contribution to the nation's needs. That is not shown in the research conducted by the Council for National Academic Awards. That research states that older students without the standard university entrance qualification get better degrees than many students admitted with A-levels. Specifically, nearly 40 per cent. of entrants to full-time degree courses without the normal minimum qualifications went on to gain firsts or upper seconds.
I am certain that one ingredient in such impressive results is the sheer hard work and the desperate application to study which is shown by virtually every mature student. These are people who grab their second chance with both hands.
The thirst for higher education by mature students is clearly shown in the Department of Education and Science Statistical Bulletin. I have the most recent issue, on mature students in higher education, dated August 1988. I shall spare your Lordships too many figures. The following, however, give an indication of the point I am making. Between 1979 and 1986 the number of full-time mature students rose to 60,100, an increase of 23 per cent., and the number of part-time mature students rose to 126,300, an increase of 54 per cent. That is a measure of the interest and demand for the "second chance".

271
I have mentioned full-time and part-time students and herein, I need hardly mention, lies a problem. If the circumstances permit, and I have to say that they do not often permit, I believe that great benefit derives not only from full-time study but from residential education. However, many adult students are married, many of those have children, and full-time residential education is simply not possible. There is a school of thought which says that all mature students should be non-residential, part-time and based in the polytechnics. I believe that that is too rigid and the answer must surely be, to use a colloquialism, "horses for courses".
In everything I have said so far I have been referring to courses leading to first degrees or higher diplomas which are degree equivalent. I am, however, aware that there is a wide range of other qualifications for which mature students should be fully encouraged. There is another type of educational institution for adult students which provides largely non-examination courses. They are, I think mistakenly, sometimes referred to as "workers' colleges". I refer in particular to Ruskin College, Coleg Harlech, Newbattle Abbey and the Northern College. I should like to say how deeply disappointed I was by the reply from the Minister today at Question Time about the closure of Newbattle Abbey College in view of the tremendous good which that college has done for Scotland and elsewhere.
In those colleges students go literally from the factory, the mine, the office or the shipyard to a rigorous regime of study. In my view the academic discipline and the fact that the courses are residential have a major impact on the students. There is a great demand for places in those colleges and I think that that speaks for itself. I mention that fact because I urge the Government—and I hope that the Minister will take note of this—to commit themselves to the building of one more college of that type.
I have left till last the most important part of adult education. That, of course, is the financial assistance which is available to mature students. I say at once that when the university, polytechnic or college has said that an applicant is felt to be capable of undertaking the course the grant and social security provisions must be adequate. Of course the definition of "adequate" opens up considerable debate. I recognise that fact. However, it should not be beyond the wit of the educational institutions and the Government to arrive at a satisfactory level of provision and, incidentally, to make it much less complicated than it is at the moment, which is a deterrent to many people hoping to go into adult education.
However, I believe that for some people some degree of sacrifice should be acceptable. In my experience most mature students are prepared to make that sacrifice. In a case with which I had some dealings last year the person concerned was married with two children. He received £5,500 for the year. That sum certainly calls for a close examinaton of priorities in that family's way of living.
272
The level of grants should not be so low as to act as a deterrent. I say to the Minister that the present awards are preventing people who would do well on university courses from undertaking them. I believe that it is a position which needs urgent examination, particularly in view of what I said and what others have said in their speeches in the debate about national needs.
There is a great deal more that could be said about adult education, not least about the simplification of entrance procedures for mature students, joint publications by the DES and the DSS, the need for a mature students' advice centre and much greater publicity and dissemination of information than exists at the moment.
This sector of education is not a backwater. It should not be thought of as being in competition with school leavers and therefore pushed aside. The need for greater provision has never been more evident than it is now, and I hope that the Government will view it with the urgency it deserves and requires.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the views and thanks expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for initiating this debate. The noble Baroness has initiated a move carrying us forward on a wonderful tidal wave.
From these Benches I should also like to convey our heartiest congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford. I shall certainly recommend that he receives a first class honours degree as soon as possible.
I should also like to say how conscious I am that I have been promoted and find myself speaking among my recent masters and my heroes. I am concerned that I should be able to add something useful to this presentation.
I agree very much with all the remarks that have been made in favour of the universities. When I put down my name to speak in the debate I did so mostly because I was very anxious to play my part in the encouragement of higher and further education. The problems of higher education are very wide-ranging. Not to put too much of a point on it, as I shall say later, when one puts the question to students they say that the main problem concerns money. I do not know whether we need to talk about that aspect for too long.
Soon after I joined this House a very distinguished noble Lord, finding out who I was, said to me, "Oh, you are one of our new scholarship boys. Very welcome". That gave me a hint that I should perhaps cast myself as a reporter of the last several years which I have spent among students.
I should not like noble Lords to be misled by the fact that my cricketing and tennis playing friends at Cambridge made the suggestion, which was reported in one of our newspapers, that I might take the title of Lord Buttercup of Fenners—which is where they play cricket and tennis. I shall counter that by pointing out that my college—which I shall leave nameless for noble Lords to discover—came out top

273
in our equivalent of the Norrington Table of Tripos results. So I hope that when I talk about what students are saying among themselves, noble Lords will recognise that it is a rather balanced account of their feelings.
I should first like to tell your Lordships that students hear a lot about competition from people like us and the Government Benches. Yet they constantly tell me that they feel they have been tried by some of the most serious types of competition that one is ever likely to encounter. Therefore they very much hope that those with responsibility and those who are concerned with government policy will not consider them as rather lazy people, which has perhaps been said. To my certain knowledge they are not.
I feel it is important to recognise that from among them will come those who will be our future leaders. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, that springing up among them are young men with strong entrepreneurial flair. I shall not go into details or speak about anyone in particular, but in the past week I have received letters from two young men who have developed a truly wonderful idea to recruit people from the universities who will be trained up and go to learn about Japan. I think that they will do it very well.
I did not realise until I spent some time talking to these young people that one of the consequences of their success in competition is an inherent feeling of guilt. I found that astonishing. From my experience during the war I know that sometimes people who survive battles can feel rather guilty that they have come through. Among our young people there is such an element of guilt. They feel rather guilty about the fact that they have managed to get in. That makes them appear rather liberal. They are very egalitarian and that makes them appear to be of the persuasion of this side of the House rather than of the other. They are worried that there may not be enough places for all the good people to get into university. When the noble Viscount made the point about following the general theory of places for all who are qualified, my heart was gladdened. I felt that it may not be so necessary to melt the heart of the Treasury as I had thought before the beginning of this debate.
Perhaps I may also say that students are very concerned about those among them who are the sons and daughters of retired people and who do not wish to call upon their parents for full financial support. There are two matters in particular they would like to see appreciated and they are not slow to point them out. They believe—the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, raised this topic earlier and other noble Lords followed up the issue—that we ought to have places available equivalent to those made available in America, Japan and other countries. They are aware, however, how difficult it is to make international comparisons because in some parts of the world many young people enter university only to be sent out again at the end of the first-year examinations.
They hope that the question of their finances will be resolved because they do not know how to plan their budgets. They do not think that it is a very
274
good precept always to be told that they should plan a budget and work to it.
They also feel very strongly about loyalty to their student unions. That was a surprise to me when I discovered it. The point became clear when they reminded me that the unions provided a large number of extraćurricular activities which students see as a training ground. It is surprising how many of them plan their curriculum vitae in the first weeks or months of their university career. I am sure that that is true also in the polytechnics. They are already beginning to consider whether they may possibly become the president of the union and succeed in the OUDS at Oxford, or whatever it may be.
So when they hear people coming down on the unions because some of them have been passing money to strikers, or whatever, they feel that we have not grasped that they are interested in training themselves for real life and that the unions provide a vehicle for that training at very low cost. They are very largely self-financing societies.
Perhaps I may also say very quickly that they believe their teachers are underpaid. Many of them say that they themselves certainly do not intend to join my academic world or type of career. They will be earning more than the teacher who is teaching them within a year or two of going down from university. I think it would be fair to say—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, will go along with this comment—that they do not much like the idea of their examinations being the target for AUT action. They say: "We cannot understand, master, why you did not refuse to go on all those government committees, which you do freely attend. Why did you not say that you would not do that? That might more quickly have stirred up the Government to deal with our case and that of our teachers".
They are also very concerned about research in the universities. Other noble Lords can elaborate on that better than I. Before this debate began I asked myself what would be my prescription. I thought I would remind the House that by far the cheapest course is to pledge ourselves to give much more support to this rising generation on whom, if we get into the 21st century, we shall very much depend. We must not think of all students as simply being involved in demonstrations.
While it is very easy to range universities in order of rank by weight of research papers produced, students know that the teachers do a great deal of research and not enough teaching and they are very keen that the Universities Funding Council should get busy ensuring that the teaching will keep them in the forefront, as we like to think has been the case in the past.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has spoken mainly about the feelings of young people in higher education. I should like to say a few words about access to higher education for adults. During our debate in this House last week about training it was pointed out that the Government's White Paper on employment in the 1990s, while saying much about the developments

275
now needed in the world of training, makes virtually no mention at all of the implications for higher education. That seems to me to be quite extraordinary. In my view, the fact that education and training are dealt with by two separate government departments is nowadays no excuse at all. In 1989 education and training simply cannot be separated.
Without question the increased demand that lies ahead for people with managerial and professional skills—Warwick University estimates that 1 million more such people will be needed by 1995—combined with the demographic changes have enormous implications for higher education. The quality of higher education for young people leaving school will be more important than ever; but equally crucial will be access for older people later on in their working lives. The changes that must be made to accommodate that will clearly require a good deal of imagination, flexibility and commitment on the part of staff in higher education institutions. It will also require a wide variety of arrangements in individual institutions, each responding in its own way to the needs that it comes across.
There is change but as yet it seems to be coming much too slowly. For example in the universities there are now 546,000 people on short courses in any given year. That is one-third more than in 1980. One in seven university students is now over 21; one in eight studies part-time, as opposed to a quarter of that number 20 years ago.
There is movement, but it is slow. If one uses the Open University as a yardstick—and it is excluded from those figures that I have just given—the demand by adults is not just in the future; it is here and now. The Open University is now producing 9 per cent. of the nations' graduates. It is incidentally doing so while receiving only 4 per cent. government funding to universities overall. In the Open University in 1988, 72,000 adults were studying for degrees. Of the new entrants half are studying maths, science and technology. Twelve thousand students were on nine-month associate courses, including, for example, teachers studying shortage subjects. Ten thousand were on short courses—three times more than in 1984. In addition, 73,000 packs were provided on which study outside the Open University can be based. To this end the Open University produced in-house no less than 504,000 audio cassettes and 89,000 video cassettes as well as 14,000 disks for students who were already studying with their own computers. Very relevantly, the school of management had getting on for 9,000 registered students, many paid for by their employers.
It is interesting that, when they are asked about their courses at the Open University, what students value most is the ease of access, the quality of teaching materials and the teaching.
What does the evidence of the Open University suggest? Quite simply it seems that people want, need and respond to the opportunity for higher education if it is made possible for them to do so. For most higher education institutions this means a big change in the way of working, in particular in the areas where education and training meet. The
276
Open University is structured differently. The scope, even in the most traditional institutions, for far greater use of new technology for teaching, for more flexible timing of courses, for greater use of modular courses and for maintenance of quality is crucial.
I believe that different arrangements for students' unions will be needed if there are going to be many adult students. Also the increase will probably lead to the development of separate salary arrangements and conditions of service because the work of the staff will vary so much. In particular, universities will have to project themselves as more user friendly to adult students and to employers. In this one would have to say that the current threat—the so-called industrial action, should it take place—cannot be anything other than a major own-goal.
In this area of shifting to far more access for students, it seems to me—and I say this to my noble friend on the Front Bench—that the Government must give a lead. It simply is not enough to hold down finance and to tell institutions to find their own markets. We shall not get the change quickly enough that way. Surely we now need a strong steer from the centre. We need a clear, coherent strategy for the funding bodies to follow in this matter of greater accessibility. We need an end to the distinction made by government, and within institutions, between undergraduate funding and other higher education funding for adults. I suspect that we need a different system for salary negotiations.
I ask the Government to give this steer, and to give it soon, because there is no time to lose.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I start by adding my congratulations to my noble friend, if I may so describe him in the context of our mutual membership of the Council of Bradford University, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford. It was good to hear his wise counsel in our Chamber this afternoon.
This debate is very timely. It is timely in the light of the demographic factors that we are facing. It is timely in the need to expand the number of highly qualified people who are needed if industry and commerce are to be competitive as we enter the 1990s. Underlying all this is the crucial need to widen access to higher education. Of the four major sources from which an increasing number of students can be drawn—adults who have missed out in the past, ethnic minority groups, children of working class families, women—I wish to concentrate on the latter. However, first, I should like to make a general comment on the question of widening access.
At a time when institutions of higher education are being told to increase their funding from outside sources and to achieve a greater level of self financing, widening access is not an attractive option, in particular if part-time courses are involved. Widening access is not necessarily a money-spinner. On the contrary, students entering through non-traditional routes often involve a reorganisation of the curriculum—more staff time, both tutorially and pastorally, different marketing

277
techniques and so on. This is all both time consuming and initially, expensive. It presents additional problems for universities which are being forced, on the one hand, to reduce staff in order to balance the accounts and, on the other, to increase access through non-traditional routes. It is cynical of the Government to talk about being committed to widening access and yet to place the universities in this untenable position.
If we are serious about the need to expand higher education—and the Minister has underlined his commitment, although the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, seemed to have some reservations on it—then government funding must be increased. This message has always been clear, whenever the question of widening access for women has been examined. For instance, back in 1976, the Equal Opportunities Commission, in its evidence to the DES on the triennial review of awards, said:
"The discretionary nature of non-advanced and part-time awards constitutes a form of indirect discrimination against women, many of whom can only follow part-time courses because of domestic commitments".
Thirteen years later the Equal Opportunities Commission is still having to say the same thing. Access courses do not carry automatic awards. Neither do part-time degree courses. This places a financial burden on both individuals and institutions. Individuals paying their own fees—in particular married women with no resources or small resources based on a low paid part-time job—find it impossible to pay the full economic fee. Universities have therefore pitched their fees at a lower level and consequently suffer a disadvantage, as the UFC, following the course of the UGC, has based funding on 0·5 per cent. of a full-time equivalent student. That was why the crisis at Birkbeck College was so acute. Birkbeck College's provisions at undergraduate level are solely on a part-time basis. Although some assistance has been given to that institution to help it overcome the worst of is financial problems, other institutions that are seeking to expand part-time courses are running into similar difficulties. Most are now having to increase their fees, which in itself is a deterrent to expansion. Thus we are faced with a vicious circle: increase your fees in order to balance the books and you deter the students.
Some universities have a differential fee for part-time students, one level for those who are personally funded and a higher level for those who may be funded by their employer. However, even here difficulties arise in such a situation. For the individual it is not a question of fees alone but also of maintenance. No maintenance whatsoever is attached to part-time degree courses, let alone to access courses. The White Paper on student loans made no provision for part-time students. Apparently they were not even considered. One would assume that they were still peripheral to the whole problem of funding university students although they now constitute something like 12·5 per cent. of university students.
I am pleased to say that there is now little difference between male and female students entering university through the traditional channel. Girls constitute some 45 per cent. of undergraduate
278
entrants. That means of course that there is still a 10 per cent. difference, because boys constitute 55 per cent. of the intake. There is an even greater difference at post graduate level where women constitute something like 37 per cent. There continues to be a major difference in subject choice. These are important areas that need continually to be addressed.
My noble friend referred to some of the conversion courses that are being made available in science and other shortage subjects. Well qualified arts A-level students are being introduced to engineering and other science subjects. Preliminary evidence, however, suggests that even here an insufficient number of girls is being attracted. For example, at Bradford, where there is such a course, about one-third of those entering are women. Can the Minister give us an assurance that all such integrated conversion courses will in the future be designated as four-year undergraduate courses, thereby automatically qualifying for a four-year mandatory grant and a four-year student award so that the universities and other institutions undertaking such courses will be funded on a four-year basis? I understand that at present this is not so in all cases. The route to expanding higher education is not an easy one. There are all sorts of problems that need attention and have to be overcome. Fundamental to them all is not just a verbal commitment on the part of the Government but also a commitment that is backed up by the necessary resources to carry through such programmes.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford. His was a voice of sanity and humanity which reminded us of some fundamental values in education. I would expect no less from one who comes from the West Riding of Yorkshire. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for the debate. I confess that when I heard that it was to take place my heart sank, first, at the prospect of yet another debate on higher education and, secondly, at the phrase on the Order Paper,
"To call attention to the problems of higher education".
That smacked to me of whingeing.
For a person like myself who has spent almost half a century in the service of British universities as a teacher, researcher and administrator, I find that there is much to rejoice about in the way that the universities have served the country. We have produced graduates who are not only internationally well regarded but also very much sought after—some would think too much sought after. We produce them at a very low cost whether they are full-time or part-time students. This is achieved partly by selection at entry but mainly by more intensive teaching and shorter courses with lower wastage and fewer drop out rates than in countries in Europe, North America and Australasia. All the country's doctors, dentists and agricultural scientists are trained in our universities. The universities are the research base of the country in every field. Their record in this respect does not lack internationally accorded marks of distinction. Nevertheless, one

279
cannot visit universities today without being conscious of a genuine and deep-seated malaise, of which the most deplorable public manifestation is the proposed boycott of examinations by some academic staff. This malaise is very damaging, and it is important to know and to eradicate its cause.
Of course, the universities have had a great deal of change forced upon them from outside during the past decade or so, but I do not think that change in itself is something that can account for the malaise. After all, good academics thrive on change in their own subjects, and in the intellectual life of the teacher or researcher change is the very breath of life. Only stasis is death. The academics also appreciate that the nation now expects different things of today's graduates from what it expected of yesterday's graduates. Therefore, if the nation's vital needs for high-level educated men and women are to be met, their educational experience too must change, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, reminded us.
What manifestly has a deleterious effect on the attitude of academics is the lack of esteem that they perceive the Government to have for their efforts and that we have seen expressed in the most blatant financial way. In real terms a unit of resource, by which I mean the size of the exchequer grant plus the fee per student year—this goes back beyond the life of the present Government—has for over a decade undergone a steady decline in real terms. Not only is this discouraging in itself, but academics are bound to ask why the Government use the cost per student year as a marker for comparison with other countries where they allege that the cost is less. For the reasons that I have mentioned—the shortness of courses and lower wastage—the proper comparable cost of producing a British graduate is extremely low and better than in the case of our European competitors. In passing, I am bound to say that I find this obsession with the cost per student year an extraordinary kind of economics. If one is buying a car one does not inquire the cost per man hour employed in making it. The customer is interested only in the cost of the finished product. That is why I think that we should concentrate on the cost of producing graduates.
That failure of the Exchequer grant plus fee income per home student to keep pace with ascertainable costs, and the expectation that the trend will continue, has been made even more unbearable when, as over recent years, the body which distributes the Exchequer funds does so in a most intrusive and dirigiste manner based largely on formula-funding. That processcan never carry conviction with the academics themselves. Those academics know only too well that the formulae used have little empirical justification, and the coefficients employed in them when applied have even less. The learned societies often find themselves at odds with the judgments of working parties about the qualities of departments. The list of complaints is endless and I shall not bore your Lordships with more. All that experience has led to considerable loss of confidence in the validity of the methods and judgments of the grant-making body. Its attempts
280
from the top down to penetrate and control the detailed workings of each university make a mockery of the autonomy of the universities.
But in my view the greatest single cause of the malaise, affecting administrators and lay-officers as well as academics, is the sense of uncertainty of what is now expected of universities and their staff. In the old days one had broad planning targets on which one could rely over a five-year period. They related to student numbers in various subject categories. There was a block grant to meet recurrent expenses which reflected those targets. It was rarely earmarked and was at the discretion of the university to use it in the best possible way that it could devise. Now the only certainties appear to be those of a declining unit of resource from the Treasury, more bureaucracy accompanying less money and therefore the constant anxiety that plans drawn up today to achieve financial viability in the future are based simply on shifting sand.
Only this morning I received—I suspect simultaneously with all the other members of the Ancient House of Congregation of the University of Oxford—a letter from the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Patrick Neill. It made only too clearly the point that the general board and hebdomadal council, having made plans for this year, now find that yet again they must be revised downwards. As many noble Lords will know, Oxford is a democratically run university. Therefore, it was necessary to inform all members of staff of that and the fact that some of their hopes were likely to be disappointed. If that is the case for Oxford, which is one of our two most wealthy universities, what is it like for many others without its private resources?
One can add to that uncertainty the impression gained from what appears in newspapers and conferences that there is the likelihood of more change but we know not in what direction. Perhaps it will be in the fee structure; in the mode of student support; and, not least, in those 19 universities which have medical schools with the considerable uncertainty as to how they can operate their medical and dental education programmes in hospitals whose future status under government proposals for the National Health Service have yet to be determined. Taking all that together, serious planning by individual universities appears to be almost pointless. One cannot wonder that, in these circumstances, the morale of universities has considerably diminished.
When I look at the situation, I ask myself whether it would not be better if government were to do one of two quite different things. Either we could go back to the broadly planned system, properly financed and with some considerable scope for individual university initiative. Or, at the other extreme, we could abolish the planning; let the fees rise to the proper economic cost for each subject studied full time or part time; guarantee the student an income, whether wholly by grant or partly by loan but a sum of money which is adequate in total to meet his maintenance and fee costs; and let the universities simply compete for students. Then the new Universities Funding Council would be largely redundant and I should shed no tears over that.

281
There would of course be a need for a government mechanism to provide funds for desired expensive new buildings and which could not be met out of fund income. That could be the Government's main, perhaps their only, regulatory machinery for university development.
Either of those two alternatives would be preferable to the present unstable position which is poised between the system under which the universities have operated satisfactorily and with which they have been familiar for the past 30 of the 40 post-war years and the open competitive system towards which we appear to be moving. I said "appear" deliberately because it is an inference drawn by me from the direction of change which I have observed to have prevailed in recent years.
I hope that in his reply the Minister will give a clear answer to the question of whether it is the Government's aim ultimately to have an entirely free competitive system along the lines, or similar to, those that I have described. If so, I hope that he will state it plainly. If it is not, I equally hope that just as unequivocally he will state the Government's objectives for the universities. We in the universities are uncertain of our ultimate destination. The problem for the universities is not knowing where they are going and where they are expected to be at what time.
I am confident that if a policy is set which is stable in respect of objectives and funding, so that the universities can see where they are expected to go and are given freedom in charting their own course, much of the current malaise will disappear. Much creative energy and inventiveness will be liberated in the universities with beneficial effect on the educational service and research which they can provide.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I should first like to apologise. As a result of a longstanding engagement, I cannot be present during the final stages of the debate. I apologise in particular to the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness who so ably opened the debate.
In my experience, surprisingly enough the universities which I visit are in rather good heart. I say "surprisingly" because they are inundated with troubles none of which, broadly speaking, is caused by themselves. I should like to speak about two of those troubles. The first is the pay of lecturers. Apart from the malaise which has been mentioned, that puts the vice-chancellors and principals in an impossible position. They are in a trap because they have no untapped resources from which they can increase the offer of 6 per cent. On the other hand, if they throw the reins on the horse's neck, so to speak, and refer the lecturers to the Government they are inviting more government interference in universities. That is at an already dangerous level.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the UFC has appointed two members to an internal committee of the University of Aberdeen. I do not say that that is wrong or that the university objects, but I believe that it is a new and
282
rather dangerous precedent. When one looks at the history of the past few years there is no doubt that the lecturers have an extremely good case. They were offered an increase which by no means makes up for their loss in times past, and it is much less than other people have received. However, we can hope only that they will accept the offer and, in particular, that this summer's examinations go ahead and are marked.
When the trouble is over we must look again at the way in which pay is decided. I believe that there are two essential issues. First, the Government must realise that if they increase the pay of the top people—as has been done and by large amounts in some cases—it is absurd to expect the more poorly paid to hold back. Secondly, the Government must arrange for universities to have more elbow room in these matters. I suggest that they should have endowments which can be used at their discretion. Certainly, the whole matter of university finance needs consideration. To my mind that means that more must be paid for by fees or bursaries which will come largely out of public funds.
Secondly, I should like to say a few words on the present proposals for student loans. I trust that the Government will drop that proposal. I am not wholly against loans at all times for all purposes, and I can see that there may be a case for loans to postgraduate students. Oddly enough, they are omitted from the Government's proposals. I can see that there may be a case for topping-up parental contributions. However, that loans should increasingly become the main way of financing students at universities seems to me entirely wrong and wrong for four reasons.
First, it is bound to reduce the number of students particularly those from poorer homes. That is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to do. If the Government deny that, they are denying the whole political theory on which most of their policies are based; namely, that if you increase the price, you decrease the demand.
Secondly, I do not believe that it is right to encourage people to start life by thinking that it is essential to be in debt. It seems to me that this country already suffers from far too much debt, and again, that is a step in the wrong direction. Further, I must point out that most students are already in debt. I believe that the average is £300 or £400 per student. To my mind that is enough.
Thirdly, it will mean that graduates—and this particularly affects girls—will have a burden around their necks at the very start of their lives. It is no good saying that these debts are interest free. They are indexed, and as inflation will unquestionably rise steeply under this Government, they will become fairly onerous. Lastly, the loans will further increase the burden of administration which is strangling universities. Therefore I hope that we shall get rid of student loans.
To my mind, one very fundamental mistake which the Government have made is to treat the universities as polytechnics. They are not simply polytechnics but something much wider. Secondly, they are not really applicable to ordinary market forces. Thirdly, the reason that the universities are so

283
excellent and well managed, because they are well managed, lies in the quality of the staff. That quality will not be maintained unless the staff are treated fairly and unless the universities are treated with more respect as some of the most effective institutions in the country.
As we go into Europe it will not simply be a question of going into Europe economically but it will be a question of going into the whole civilisation of Europe and the Erasmus Scheme and so on. When I was at Bologna all the universities signed a manifesto of freedom. Even those from behind the Iron Curtain, as it used to be called, from Poland, Hungary and Russia signed. To my mind it would be a tragedy if at the moment of our going into Europe the British Government attempt to interfere more directly in the universities and show in their interference too often, although not always, that they really do not understand what universities are all about.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, listening to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Dainton, I am reminded of an event in the history of the other place when Robert Peel, facing an attack on the Corn Laws by Cobden, is reported to have torn up his notes, turned to his neighbour on the Ministerial Bench and said, "You must answer this for I cannot". I do not believe that a case can be made to defend much of what is going on either in respect of the Government's policy, or lack of it, or in the way in which that policy is being administered.
I believe that the outlook for and the crisis in the universities is at least as serious as successive speakers have told us. I believe that that has been made notably worse because of the alienation of public opinion by the proposed or, indeed in some cases, already materialised boycott of examinations. It seems to me that the AUT by its conduct in recent months has been revealed to be simply a congeries of politically motivated small groups and has really ruled itself out as a participant in a partnership in the academic community.
The one good piece of news which I have for your Lordships is that the AUT is now losing members at a considerable rate and that the Professional Association of Teachers, which is expanding in higher education, is gaining members at a very considerable rate. That shows at least that a great many university teachers appreciate the point that they have a real obligation to their students. To say that 70,000 or 80,000 young people are to be denied the degrees and classifications which they need to embark on their several careers is quite unforgivable. In my view, that is something which really makes a person ineligible to belong to the academic community. In old-fashioned language, it is moral turpitude. One has seen major confrontations and major disputes in the medical profession. However, I have never heard of a nurse or a doctor who went around switching off life-support systems in order to benefit their pockets.
284
However, when all that is said, the decline in morale, which is given in explanation is undoubtedly due, as has been said, both to inadequate funding and to inadequate funding in relation to salaries. That is the cause of the brain drain. It is not recognised that the market for skills in higher education, in teaching and research is an international market which cannot be judged by the yardstick of other salaries or conditions in this country alone. Even more—and here I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers—it is felt that there is no obvious aim which the Government are pursuing. A series of improvisations and schemes have been launched. I believe that I told your Lordships 18 months ago when the student loan scheme was launched that in that form it would never work. Eighteen months after that, the banks have still not been reconciled to it and probably never will be.
That places a very great burden, or should do, on what is now the institution responsible for guidance to universities; namely, the Universities Funding Council. One wants to know whether that is trying to discharge that obligation and trying to act as a genuine intermediary between the Government and the universities and as the place where these problems—and no one can deny the reality of the financial problem—are being worked out.
What I shall say now is personal, but I gave long notice—indeed, as soon as this debate was planned—to the noble Lord, Lord Chilver, that I should raise this matter. I am referring to the question of whether the very heavy responsibility placed upon him—and if one has read the letter to him from the Secretary of State last October one can see how far-ranging is that responsibility—can be properly discharged by someone holding a major position in a major industrial and commercial firm. I believe that those are not compatible. I very much regret that the noble Lord, Lord Chilver, is not here to present his case for believing that he can carry out his duties on the UFC on the odd day. I still more deplore the fact that, the Government having appointed a Member of your Lordships' House to this important position, he has not seen fit to participate in any of the discussions that we have had on higher education.
This can only suggest what some of us suspected when the Bill was going through—certainly some of us told your Lordships' House—that the UFC was a pretence. What in fact is happening, and must happen if the council does not operate, is that the bureaucrats who manage have a free hand. That is the way in which the universities are being subjected to departmental controls.
Indeed, if one looks at such correspondence and such records of conversations as are available, what so much depresses the universities is the diversion of their funds into paying extra administrators at the expense of science and learning. That comes not from the members of the UFC—after all, they have only just taken up their appointments, if one takes that seriously—but from the Department of Education and Science, in turn directed by the Treasury which has a pathetic belief that you can turn anything into numbers and get away with it.

285
I believe that the universities demand from the Government, if not all the money they would like—they will never get that—respect.
The Minister gave us his personal assurances, which echo what has been said by the Secretary of State, that the Government hold in high esteem the achievements of the universities to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred. If the Minister wants to reassure the universities perhaps he can assure them that they will not be subjected to further visitations or speeches from the junior Minister for higher education because every time he opens his mouth the Government's prestige in the universities suffers a further blow. His presence in the universities reminds me of what would happen if Mrs. Edwina Currie were to go to a gathering of egg producers. It just does not work.
This may be regarded as a frivolous way of putting the argument but if the Government are serious they must seriously respect the fact that universities are institutions and that they can only flourish if they have a corporate sense of their own purposes and how those purposes fit into the national scene. It is because we can see no such evidence that, for all my allegiance to the party to which I belong, I must confess I am in agreement with almost every word of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—a fate I never thought would befall me.
5.23 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have often listened in the past with great but mixed pleasure to the orations of the noble Lord but on this occasion I have done so with absolutely undiluted pleasure. I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues will have to pay more attention to the noble Lord's remarks than to the remarks of most of us. The noble Lord is not only a passionate Conservative but he has built up his own university and is a great lover of all that universities stand for.
I join with all those who have paid tribute to my noble friend Lady Blackstone who opened the debate so incisively. She has made many much admired contributions since she joined your Lordships' House. She has been criticised outside this Chamber and was referred to on one occasion as the dark-eyed, evil genius of the think-tank. I do not see my noble friend in that light; at any rate, not this afternoon. I see her as the good fairy on higher education and we are all grateful to her.
I was a college tutor before my noble friend Lady Blackstone was born and it is tempting for me to begin by reminiscing about the past and to recall that I opened the first debate on universities in this House 30years ago. However, there is a time limit and I shall resist that temptation. I shall therefore concentrate on one aspect only of higher education —the polytechnics. Before I speak about the polytechnics I want to make plain that I am not in some way saying that they ought to be given more and the universities less. In case I am overtaken by the gong before I can fully develop my argument, I should point out that my argument is that the universities are being treated badly and the polytechnics much worse.
286
I must disagree with a noble Lord with whom I seldom venture to disagree. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, treated the polytechnics, as so many people treat them, as second-class institutions. I hope that the Minister will make plain that the Government do not look upon them as second-class institutions.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I apologise for intervening but is the noble Earl saying that I said the polytechnics are second-class institutions? I must have been talking in my sleep.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord was talking in his sleep—at any rate it is on record. The noble Lord said that the universities stood for something much wider and, as I understood it, much better than the polytechnics. I am here today seeking to refute that accusation. I know that is not possible in the few minutes available to me and therefore in the near future I hope to promote a full debate on the polytechnics because what I can say today must of necessity be far too abbreviated.
I suppose there are quite a few noble Lords, perhaps including myself until recently, who are not aware that the polytechnics and similar institutions are responsible for the major part of higher education in this country. The number of full-time students are roughly the same as for universities and there are five times as many part-time students. Therefore, we are not talking about a negligible group of eccentric or second-class colleges. It s all the more shaming when one realises that we have never discussed them in this Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, dealt with them in 1984 when he opened the debate on higher education, but he did so only briefly. No one will challenge my statement that in this House we have never considered the polytechnics at any length although they are responsible for more than half the education in this country.
To have one final crack at my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, he may not be aware that the degree standards in polytechnics are generally considered to be as high as those in universities. The noble Lord has just made a sotto voce intervention but I regret I cannot respond in the few minutes I have left. The truth about the polytechnics is that they are doing all this work and covering an enormous area of education. At the same time, they are being badly treated.
Perhaps I may briefly put the facts in front of your Lordships. It is reported that between 1979–80 and 1986–87 the funding per full-time equivalent student—that means full-time or taking part-time on an equivalent basis—in polytechnics declined by 20 per cent. in real terms whereas university funding increased in real terms by 3 per cent. I suggest not that the universities have been funded too generously but that the polytechnics have been disgracefully funded. The funding per student in universities was far higher. The figures might be a basis of argument but one must agree that the funding per student in universities is far higher than in polytechnics; the idea being that the universities are more capable of

287
doing research. In other words, the Grimond heresy has, if I may say so, prevailed in certain circles. I hope that tonight the noble Viscount will refute that.
There are certain facts about the polytechnics which should be made plain. Polytechnics are performing an essential service. The philosophy of the polytechnics and whether there is to be any vocational orientation is a subject that can form a whole debate. However, I do not intend to develop those issues today. I shall confine myself to the facts—the amount of education that they supply, the level of degrees they provide and the fact that they are treated so abominably, even compared with the universities which are treated badly enough.
There are one or two other points that I wish to raise. I accept the argument that has been put forward on behalf of the polytechnics that they should be allowed to compete for funds with the universities. That may or may not be accepted today but some of the polytechnics care very strongly about that. Another point that may not be acceptable today is that the polytechnics care that the word "university" should be incorporated in their title. Those are two of the points, but the whole subject should be gone into much more thoroughly. I hope that will be possible on another occasion.
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is not here. His grandfather founded the polytechnic in its modern form. He devoted himself to the spiritual welfare of ragged boys to the extent that he disguised himself as a shoeblack in order to minister to them. We must salute his memory. Whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is here or not, the polytechnics will continue from strength to strength. But they will not do so unless the Government treat them more fairly than hitherto.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, in a debate of this character, even as an intermediate speaker, it is difficult to raise new relevant points. If I emphasise or enlarge only on points that have already been put forward, I will at least be brief. In the debates on the Education Reform Bill much anxiety was expressed at the degree of centralised and detailed control that could be exercised by Whitehall over the management of universities. Amendments were carried or concessions made by Ministers on that point.
In the first draft of some of the documents intended to give effect to the provisions of the Act—a number of which I have seen—it was only to be expected that an attempt would be made by the bureaucracy to claw back what had been conceded by Ministers. As a result of discussion and negotiation leading to the documents in their final form, this situation may be remedied. But the threat remains of undue bureaucratic interference in the management of universities and polytechnics. That can range from direct interference to over-detailed regulations, and burdensome requests for information and statistics and the like. At times it has seemed that under the new arrangements the whole university system was to be made to pay for
288
whoever was at fault in not noticing what was going on at Cardiff when that university went into heavy deficit. There have been indications that, subject to proper accountability, the Government want the universities to be genuinely independent and free from undue bureaucratic control, and they hope for a lighter touch from the Universities Funding Council than was exercised by the University Grants Committee.
If that is the policy, is it firmly and well understood by the department and the staffs of the two funding councils? It is desirable to have an assurance from the Minister that that is the case. It was a major defect of the nationalised industry regime that the staff of the departments concerned were continually questioning and double-guessing the executive managers who were trying to run the show. When I was with the Atomic Energy Authority I was fortunate in escaping that treatment but only because the then Minister for Science, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, had such a small staff that it did not have the time or the inclination to do it. It remains a present danger.
The second point I wish to stress relates to salaries and conditions of service. I shall look beyond the present dispute with the Association of University Teachers. Whatever the outcome, the vice chancellors' committee has probably achieved the best deal available at this particular juncture. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, confirmed that. Whatever the Government may say about the offer, it started from a very low base. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, began with a point regarding academic salaries. They are running behind and may still be falling relative to the salaries available to graduates in industry, law and accounting, the City and elsewhere at home and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, reminded us abroad as well. Until academic salaries are competitive, there is likely to be a continuing fall in the actual number of men and women—let alone people of the required standard of quality—available to teach many crucial disciplines.
We all know of the demographic situation coupled with the demand for more graduates. But unless enough well-qualified teachers are available for our industrial and business performance the result may be catastrophic. The same may be true of the quality of our research. The aim must be to encourage excellence in both fields and that cannot be bought on the cheap. One sometimes wonders how deeply the Government are really concerned about the prospective shortage of scientists, engineers and teachers.
A large query still remains as regards what idea the Government have concerning the nature and function of universities. In the past many views have been put forward on this subject. There is a good deal of talk about the play of market forces. Quite recently I heard it publicly stated on behalf of the Government that they now regard themselves as purchasers of higher education and that students and others are customers of the universities. For example, fees may be raised in the future to enable students to exercise greater freedom of choice and influence. In other words, a university is a kind of academic supermarket.

289
That is certainly a point of view, but it does not appear to coincide with what the noble Viscount had to say in his speech earlier this afternoon. What is the Government's considered view? I hope that we shall be enlightened about it in due course, if not this evening. If the view I have mentioned represents the true scenario, what is the position of research? We are told that proposals are being considered for separating the funding of research and teaching in the university system. We shall have to wait to hear what those proposals involve. No doubt they will be the subject of much future discussion. This evening I shall not embark on the subject.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, having personally participated in every aspect of education from school to university, in the few moments that I have to speak this afternoon I wish to concentrate on one aspect that I believe has not been dealt with so far during the debate. It complements what my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington had to say concerning adult education. I wish to speak about that subject not in the way that he did but in addition to what he had to say as regards the position of mature students. There is an aspect of adult education which is a very precious heritage of this country. It has made an immense contribution to the development of British culture but today it is being neglected if not destroyed.
I refer to the voluntary, non-vocational form of adult education as seen in the extra-mural departments of universities and in the Workers' Educational Association. This has made a profound contribution to our culture. It dates from at least a century ago when the steel workers of Sheffield would meet at six o'clock in the morning to discuss current affairs. The attitude of the Government, as has been shown through speech after speech this afternoon, is the antithesis of that attitude. It was encapsulated in a phrase stressed by the noble Viscount at the beginning of the debate. He said that the purpose of higher education was to meet the needs of the economy. Higher education has to do something probably more important and certainly as important and much deeper.
Universities cannot make profits. They are not subject to proving cost-effectiveness. They cannot demonstrate the ruthlessness of employment policies. They cannot argue that history or philosophy contribute to the national product. They have something much more important and indeed different. The attitude of the Government has been to assume that everything is political. Detachment is held to be a chimera and objectivity a fraud. The 1985 Green Paper The Development of Higher Education into the 1990s shows this economic ethos as dominant: higher education must serve the national economy, research is to be financially controlled either by central government or by business and commerce. I would be the last to say that we do not need more research, development and vocational training in this country. My participation on the Select Committee on Overseas Trade shows that. But we also need education for the sake of the individual and education for its own sake. It is part of the quality of British life.
290
Perhaps I may quote again from a UGC statement issued in September 1984:
"Continuing education needs to be fostered not only for its essential role in promoting economic prosperity but also for its contribution to personal development and social progress. It can renew personal confidence, regenerate the human spirit and restore a sense of purpose to people's lives through the cultivation of new interests. In short, both effective economic performance and harmonious social relationships depend on our ability to deal successfully with the changes and uncertainties which are now ever-present in our personal and working lives".
That is a better statement than I could have made of the central purpose of adult education.
It has been my privilege to serve in adult education in the National Council of Labour Colleges and in the WEA extra-mural departments in this country and other countries. I should like to look at the extra-mural side of adult education. In 1981–82 there were 5,656 courses. In 1986–87 there were 7,344 courses. The demand was increasing. In 1981–82 the number of students was 124,738. In 1986–87 it was 156,290. However, the end of the equation shows that the grant from the Government, which was £4.967 million in 1981–82, had risen in 1986–87 to only £5.043 million. The figure was falling and had been falling for three years. Consequently adult education has been starved.
We know that from 1st April the funding of the extra-mural side of adult education has come under the new funding council. We must express the hope that it is more generous than the Government have been. We hope it will recognise the crucial importance of adult education through university guidance and through university contributions on the extramural scale.
I should like to refer to the work done by the Workers' Educational Association. It is frequently done in conjunction with the extra-mural departments. In 1982 the Workers' Educational Association suffered an 8·3 per cent. reduction in grant from the Department of Education and Science. Since then it has been subject to a three-way cut: it has been cut by the DES, it has been cut by the universities and it has been cut by the local education authorities. As a consequence, fees have risen, which is tragic. It means that those who cannot afford to go to such classes are no longer able to look to the community for their support. In London over the past three years the number of students has fallen because of the increases in fees.
I know that the Workers' Educational Association is at present negotiating with the Government and that it has accepted a new financial structure. However, it has not been told the findings of the Government's working party on education policy within the Workers' Educational Association. It has its annual conference next week. It is still in the dark and has no means of planning for the future. I told the noble Viscount who is to reply that I would concentrate my remarks on adult education, and I hoped that he would prepare himself for that. When will the Government inform the Workers' Educational Association of their policy towards the future of the WEA and the future not of its financial side, which has been virtually agreed, but of its education content?

291
I believe deeply that adult education in its liberal sense is an essential part of our democratic tradition. It is an essential pillar of the maintenance of our democratic way of life. I leave the House with a quotation from Henry George:
"We cannot safely leave politics to the politicians; the people themselves must think".
Thousands, tens of thousands, and now, I suppose, millions of British people have learnt they way to think through the adult education classes of extramural departments, the Workers' Educational Association and the National Council of Labour Colleges. They must be preserved if our democratic system is to flourish.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Swann: My Lords, nothing has cheered me more in this debate than to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, commenting on the junior Minister responsible for higher education. I too keep a sharp eye on what that gentleman says. In consequence I was puzzled to read in The Times Higher Education Supplement of 24th February a quote from Mr. Jackson speaking in a debate in Oxford, broadcast on Radio 4. He said:
"Society receives a 5 per cent. rate of return on investment in higher education. At a 5 per cent. social return, the level of investment is just about right".
Knowing what the multiplicity of graduates do for society, and bearing in mind the astonishing advances stemming from academic research—namely, molecular biology, and all the consequent advances in medicine and agriculture, the computer revolution, and all that it has done for industry and society—a social return of only 5 per cent. seems to me absurd. Moreover, what did Mr. Jackson mean when he said that with a 5 per cent. return,
"the level of investment [in the university system] is just about right"?
In consequence I wrote to Mr. Jackson precisely a month ago. After a fortnight I received an acknowledgment on one of those horrible little second-class postcards which enable the village postman to see to whom you had been writing and about what. However, a month later, I am still awaiting a reply to my letter. Of course, speedy replies are not the DES's speciality, as most of us will know. I decided that I must obtain advice from some distinguished academics who know about social returns; they have kindly put me on the track.
Mr. Jackson's figure is based on calculations embedded in an appendix to the 1985 Green Paper on higher education. Briefly, what the DES officials did was to take the average increased earnings of graduates over and above those with higher school qualifications but without a degree and express those extra annual earnings as a percentage of the average cost of producing a graduate. Hence the 5 per cent., or to be more accurate, depending on various details of the calculations—and all these matters are somewhat involved—the paper in question gives figures ranging from 4 per cent. to 10 per cent. Therefore Mr. Jackson, or someone, seems to have chosen one of the least flattering figures.
292
The 1985 Green Paper goes on:
"These figures may be compared generally with the returns obtainable elsewhere in the economy, and more specifically with the Test Discount rate established for use in public service investment appraisal. Such comparisons suggest that the gains from Higher Education overall are satisfactory".
That worries me. It leaves me with dark suspicions that the social return figure of 5 per cent. lurks silently somewhere, probably not understood, in the Treasury and indicates to its officials that no more needs to be spent on universities. Hence, perhaps, Mr. Jackson's comment that investment in universities is just about right.
One does not need to be an economist to realise that the pay-off to society based on the increased earnings of graduates, while it is perhaps an interesting calculation, does not mean very much. In no walk of life could even the most ardent free marketeer insist that people's contribution to society is a function of their salary. To be fair to the Green Paper, it stresses that the pay-offs from research are difficult to quantify—and I shall have more to say about that in a moment. Moreover, to be fair again, the Green Paper goes on to say that the DES calculation must result in an under-estimate of the true return. It ends up by saying;
"There are other social benefits derived from higher education which are not directly associated with the education of highly qualified manpower or research. These include the cultural benefits of higher education and the preservation of the stock of knowledge. Such items are not amenable to measurement with any pretensions to objectivity but it is important that their existence should always be kept in mind".
Well, Mr. Jackson would appear to have forgotten that fact. Such intangible matters are what economists call "externalities". They cannot in principle have an accurate cost benefit put upon them. If one were to guess, it would only depend on how much one cared about the different facets of a civilized society. Perhaps I may cite just one case which intrigues me; namely, the legal profession.
We have heard a lot of criticism about the legal profession recently, but if it were not for the output from universities of people with law degrees going into the profession we would not have a proper system of justice in this country. One wonders what that would do to society. I have a feeling that it would collapse in a heap and the cost would be astronomic.
Finallly, I should like to say a certain amount about the pay-off for research. It is indeed difficult to work out, but it is not altogether impossible. Working out all the costs of research—that is, basic, strategic and applied—together with the costs of the development and application, partly in universities, partly by research councils and partly by industry itself, is a daunting task. However, it has been done in a number of cases, with varying degrees of objectivity, and mainly, though not entirely, in the United States.
The increased industrial productivity as an annual return on the total investment in R&D varies. I have found out some of the figures from an interesting paper by a Dr. Grillickes of Harvard University, who is an expert in such matters. The return—one can call it a social return if one wishes to do so—from government and industrial money put into research

293
is found to range from 10 per cent. to 50 per cent. per annum; that is, from twice to 10 times Mr. Jackson's 5 per cent.
Those figures are described by Dr. Grillickes, in what I consider a fascinating paper, as worthwhile at the bottom end, that is, 10 per cent.; and very high at the top end, that is, 50 per cent. I was also intrigued—and I think that the Treasury should note this—by his remark:
"Public sector investments in research which are not constrained or guided by the profit motive, and where there is wide scope for bureaucratic bungling, do seem to yield not only positive but actually rather high rates of return. This, while not unexpected, is heartening".
In short, it looks as though the total return on investment in research from both public sources and private industrial sources is not the Treasury's and Mr. Jackson's 5 per cent. figure, but a lot more. However, just how much more is hard to say. I have quoted social returns for research ranging from 5 per cent. to 50 per cent. In fact, there are further complexities in that area, but I do not want to go into them at any great length.
In the United States—and Dr. Grillickes gives the figures in his paper—the amount spent on R&D by industry is about four times what is spent by the federal government. There is then a factor of four which alters the figure of British universities. In fact, it could be more than a factor of four, but I shall not bother your Lordships with the details of why that could be so. Therefore, you end up with social returns on research done in British universities that look more like 10 per cent. times 4 which is 40 per cent., or 50 per cent. times 4 which is 200 per cent. I am not an economist. I received Dr. Grillickes' paper only yesterday, so I may be wrong; but I doubt that I am totally wrong.
In the 1985 Green Paper the DES said it proposed to investigate those matters further. Has it done so? Not to my knowledge. In the DES's latest list of its research contracts—with some 90 odd projects costing about £40 million—I find no mention of any such thing. If the Government really think that the social return on universities is only 5 per cent., I suggest that it is high time they found out the truth. I have no doubt at all that the real figure is much higher, and it is folly not to invest in such handsome financial returns.
I could say a great deal more, but I shall rest content if what I have said provokes the Government into finding out the whole truth. I am no economist. I do not in the least mind being proved wrong. Indeed, I should welcome it. If the Government shy off potentially embarrassing investigations, I can only hope that the universities and the research councils will do them instead. So far only the Agriculture and Food Research Council has endeavoured seriously to estimate the pay-offs from its research.I commend the appendix in its latest corporate plan to the notice of the DES, the Treasury and your Lordships. It outlines the enormous potential benefits of its research, although it is not detailed enough in some respects for me to fit it into the figures that I have just given.
A noble Lord: Nine minutes.
Lord Swann: My Lords, I am sorry. Will the House allow me one more minute? In short, I hope profoundly that the Government will cease to rely on the wholly inadequate figure of 5 per cent. return when the real return on the research of universities, supported in part by the UGC and the research councils, looks more like 40 per cent. to 200 per cent. If we express that as a percentage of the total expenditure on universities, it comes out at as much as 60 per cent., research being about one-third of the whole. It looks rather as though universities could be returning to society at large, per annum, up to half their total cost. Can the Government find any better bargain than that? Are they not foolish in the extreme to try to get it on the cheap and to smother it with dirigiste bureaucracy? I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will give some straight answers.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when considering the problem of higher education one should perhaps first try to consider its objectives. They should include some combination for the imparting of practical skills in such areas as science and medicine, encouraging research, and, while trying not to sound too pretentious, expanding the mind to give a degree of control and discipline that will be useful in later life. I remember the old saying that what is important in education is that which remains when what has been taught is forgotten.
Industry seems to want graduates in all disciplines. It seems that our institutes of higher education (universities, polytechnics and colleges) are enjoying a degree of success. Estimates of the annual increase in demand for graduates vary. They range between a conservative 4 per cent. and the Association of Graduate Careers Advisers' estimate of 10 per cent. There is likely to be a considerable shortfall as government planning is based on a growth rate of 4·5 per cent. for the year 2000. Graduates are more likely to be in full employment than other adults.
Industry appears to regard higher education as economically advantageous. That, added to any benefits to society gained by people having degrees, suggests that we should regard higher education as a positive investment in the nation's future. If graduates are to be regarded generally as a valuable commodity, we should do everything possible to encourage a higher proportion of the population to enter college or university, and to ensure that there are places available for them, so that we can produce more of those benefical holders of degrees and diplomas.
Although I acknowledge the vast experience of many in your Lordships' House of university administration and, even more so, of academia, I believe I can safely say that as I graduated from Aberdeen University last July I have the most recent experience of being an undergraduate. It was my experience that many new students of 18 or so (many in Scotland are only 17) had only a vague idea of why they were at university other than the fact that a degree meant a better job and career prospects. There was also the idea that being at university would offer other opportunities—a package which

295
contains opportunities to expand oneself socially and in sport, drama or other creative activities. A rough consensus was arrived at by most undergraduates that that package, as a whole, was what made forgoing three or four years of paid employment worth while. If it is to be effective, that package will require considerable funding for university departments and the facilities that make the rest of the package worth while.
I shall indulge in a little sentimentality and point out that Aberdeen University is about to lose about 27 per cent. of its staff. The package at Aberdeen, at least in the academic sphere, may be severely damaged. The student must also be considered. The level of individual student funding is vitally important. If students become short of money they have two options. They can run up large debts with banks or other institutions or take a job during the university year and outside it. Although that is not a bad thing on a moral ground, it invariably cuts into the time available for study, which is what the student is at university to do, and may effectively damage the chance of gaining a good degree.
The full grant for those outside London in this academic year is £2,050. A further £375 is made available for those in London. That breaks down over the 38-week academic year that it is supposed to cover—I stress that that level of full grant is for the poorest students from the poorest background who have less access to other funds from parents and relatives—and means that they will have only £54 a week to live on outside London.
Students have to meet an increasing variety of financial demands as they move through their academic careers. Students usually start in university, college or polytechnic halls of residence, if they are lucky. Lower down the academic prestige ladder—if I may be allowed to use such a status-oriented expression—halls of residence become increasingly less common. After students leave university or college accommodation, they have to go into the private sector, which is invariably more expensive. More costs are incurred and they will have to start to budget for meals. Many students do not know how to budget at the age of 18 or 19. Students will have other costs in addition; for instance, books. I remember medical and engineering students talking about having to buy several tomes costing about £30 or £40 apiece. That is a large chunk of any weekly budget. Students have a mounting level of expense. It is almost always true that a student who can only just manage in his first year will be in debt in the third year.
The type of support that students should be given must be given careful consideration in view of the proposals made in the Government's White Paper on top-up loans for students. It is true that the loans would initially add an extra £420 to the student's budget. However, as the level of loan rises as a proportion of the student's income, so would the level of debt rise. Although that increase in loan will undoubtedly make up some shortfall in the full grant (approximately 21 per cent. between 1981–87; I apologise for repeating the statistics but I believe they bear it) one can see that a rising tide of debt will
296
be imposed by the loan system. That will provide, at the least, a psychological barrier against those from the poorest backgrounds entering higher education as the debt to them will appear greater. Mature students will also be affected as they will have less time to repay the loan.
If the Government are prepared to forgo large amounts of interest on debt, and in some cases wipe it out altogether, it would be simpler and probably less expensive merely to maintain a realistic level of grant support.
I shall try to summarise. I am reminded of the Scottish romantic myth of the lad of parts. For those in your Lordships' House who are not familiar with the myth, I shall try to give a brief rundown. It is based on the old bursary system in Scotland, where people from the kirk schools could compete for places at universities through bursaries. The scholar who won the bursary was supposed to walk to one of the universities, usually Aberdeen or Glasgow, carrying his supplies for the year on his back. Those invariably consisted of a sack of oatmeal and a sack of potatoes, with a few herrings and other assorted items thrown in. He would sit in a freezing garret and work all the hours God sent, and invariably acquire a first-class honours degree. All very noble: but unfortunately he inevitably died of consumption after receiving his prize.
I suggest that is not an outcome which would be beneficial to the student or to society and that a realistic level of funding is an investment in the future. We shall not have people entering higher education if the experience is not at least vaguely pleasurable some of the time.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, it seems to be singularly appropriate that in the year when the French Revolution is being celebrated we in this country should be enjoying an educational revolution. Of course I do not mean by that that we shall see the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the other vice-chancellors pinioned and drawn in tumbrils to the guillotine while two hideous tricoteuses—the Secretary of State and Mr. Robert Jackson—sit counting the heads as they fall into the basket. Nevertheless, we are engaged in a revolution, first, in priorities and, secondly, in the way in which education is funded.
Debate on higher education in this House is always the same; it is invariably about the universities and nothing but the universities. Very few of us understand much about the other sector because very few of us have had experience of it. But I rejoice that both the Government and the Opposition believe that today the most important sector is the sector of further or higher education after the age of 16, conducted not in universities not even in polytechnics but in the colleges and industry. Both the Government and Opposition are agreed that 40 per cent. of 16 and 17 year-olds who are receiving full-time education or training is far too low. We must train our workforce fast. We must also persuade the young that they need to be trained and that it pays to be trained.

297
I must say that I was disappointed by Lord Beloff's philippic against the Government's policy on universities. In it he never mentioned the boys and girls of 16 and 17, the 40 per cent. who do not receive further education but who in Germany and Japan do receive it. I was surprised that he had not read the speech of the Secretary of State of his own party in February this year which was precisely on further education.
At this point agreement between Opposition and Government parts. As I understand it, the Labour Party wish to abolish the YTS and to insist on a four-year apprenticeship scheme from the age of 16 to 20, similar to that in Western Germany. They also wish to give subsidies to 16 year-olds from poor families, as well as abolishing 'A' levels. Here I must dissent slightly from the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. I think that they are right to do that and seek a way forward developing from the 'AS' level. They wish to try to get a broader based education like the baccalaureat in the sixth form. It is essential that we have both mathematics and English as a working language being taught up to the age of 18.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? I should be grateful if the noble Lord's propositions or suggestions could be validated or otherwise by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when she comes to reply. My suspicion is that the Labour Party will not abolish the 'A' level in favour of the 'AS' level. They propose to phase it out altogether. I hope that we shall be reassured on the point.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I do not speak for the Labour Party. But I am bound to say I was surprised when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said—and I heard her, if I am not mistaken—that it was wrong of the Government to rely on any individual contribution or any contribution from the private sector to pay the costs of expanding higher education. That seems to me grotesque. In the 1950s and 1960s we set up a scheme, a system of Rolls-Royce education which we cannot afford. If we are to expand higher education and help the people who need it most—the children from poor families—we must reduce costs and bring more money other than public money into the system.
The Government think that the problem is to boost demand. That will not be done by handing out grants. The Secretary of State believes that the best way in which to learn is to want to learn. The young must be induced to believe that they will learn in further education. What they learn then will be even more useful than what they learnt at GCE level.
The revolution that is taking place is a revolution in priorities. It is the shift in priorities that accounts for Lord Dainton's malaise in the universities. The priority is now vocational training rather than academic achievement. In the past most people believed that the ability to master an academic subject at the very highest level of scholarship was the best test of ability and the best kind of mental training. Do that, and the skills required in one's vocation could be mastered with ease on the job.
298
That was at the heart of the Northcliffe-Trevelyan reforms for competitive entry to the Civil Service. That philosophy went all the way down.
That is the assumption which is being displaced today. I have read the speech of the Secretary of State which he delivered in February. It gave an indication of what he wants the young to learn: how to explain a complicated working procedure; how to understand different orders of magnitude; how to work in a team and give it leadership; how to use information technology; how to understand employment hierarchies and office procedures; how to speak foreign languages, not in restaurants, but in business negotiations. That is what the polytechnics ought to be doing, as well as the colleges.
The second revolution is the method of funding. In this there is a great difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition. As I understand it, the Government wish no longer to be regarded purely as a provider of education. They wish to be regarded as an enabler. An enabler is someone who enables individuals to obtain services from universities, polys and colleges.
From that comes the idea that students should be given vouchers to choose what course suits them. Hence the idea that far more of the grant to universities should be in the shape of a higher Fee. From that comes the next idea that, in addition, universities should charge a further fee as a way of increasing their income. From part of that fee, of course, the institution would create bursaries for students who could not afford to pay such extra fees. Again, the whole matter of loans comes into the philosophy. How to get 40 per cent. more students into education from the age of 16 onwards without some means whereby they pay for part of that education, is beyond my comprehension.
This is no time to discuss such complicated issues. But there is one point I wish to make. I beseech the Secretary of State, as soon as he possibly can, to make a comprehensive speech setting out his priorities and objectives in higher education. I hope that he will not mince his words. I remember Tony Crosland once saying to me, after he had spent an evening with the vice-chancellors, "To tell the truth, I am not all that interested in universities'. That was at a time when he was setting up the polytechnics.
The present Secretary of State may feel that way since all last year he was wrestling with the Education Reform Bill. But this year he should surely try at some time to tell institutions what he is trying to do in higher education. Universities need to be told just what their future is. The polys know their future; the colleges know their future.
However, even if the message is grim for universities, they really ought to be told. It may well be grim. If the Government give priority to further education and the training of the workforce, there will be even less money for universities and polytechnics. I ask myself whether universities in their present troubles—and I do not underestimate those troubles—have put their prime difficulty to the Government. It is not merely a question of insufficient money for research; there never has been enough. It is not even a question of the separation

299
of funds for teaching and funds for research, which cannot be delayed much longer. The problem, surely, is the blockage for the next 10 to 15 years in promotion, created by the intake of academic staff to cope with the expansion of the 1960s. Money is needed to get early retirement for some teachers in that great bulge, so that we can get new blood into the profession to take their place in the years after the turn of the century.
I have always held heretical views about the Government's control of higher education. All I wish to say is that central governments are right at times to intervene. Anyone who talks about the Government meddling has forgotten what marvellous work the Royal Commissions of Victorian and Georgian times did, and the committees set up to reform the University of London. But, if the Secretary of State is to create a new pattern of higher education and new priorities, he must explain them. I can guess what the noble Viscount will say to that. He will say that this is perfectly ridiculous and I am giving hostages to fortune. Nevertheless, leadership is what is needed to do something to restore the morale in those sectors of higher education which have been hard hit.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for opening this debate. I must apologise as I shall have to leave before the end of the debate, and not least because I shall also miss the debate on dog registration later tonight. I am sure that proposal will receive the overwhelming support of your Lordships. I shall read the balance of the debate that I missed later.
The problems of higher education are twofold. First, there are the problems of staff and students in higher education, and, secondly, there are the difficulties and problems for the whole of our society because of the lack of numbers of students in higher education. That is not only the case currently but it has been the case historically, and that situation is forecast to continue into the future.
I wish to take a rather longer-term view of these problems than most of the other contributors in the debate have done. I do not criticise the contributions that we have heard so far that have concentrated on the nitty-gritty of the details of the current situation. I can understand the reasons for those contributions. This Government have been in power for almost 10 years and that period has been almost universally damaging to higher education. However, education is a long-term business. Young people in their late teens and early twenties who receive higher education will contribute to society, whether as doers, managers or policy-makers, for the next 50 years. The result or the product of higher education —the graduate, if one likes—will have an effect on our society, both in its quality and in its quantity, but more particularly as regards quantity, if one takes the view that a graduate participates in higher education up to a certain level.
We are talking about the sheer numbers of graduates who will have a significant effect and a
300
measurable effect, in whatever manner we care to measure that, whether it is an effect on the economic performance of society, or the moral or philosophical position of society. The proportion of graduates to the rest of society will have an effect. Higher education has always been funded by the fees paid by the individual student, and by money or sponsorship of some kind from other people. To enable more than the very rich, or the children of the very rich, to take part as students in higher education, money must be forthcoming. That money comes from the people; it is other people's money.
In the Middle Ages that money was channelled into higher education from the people by the Church. A little later, kings such as Henry VI and Henry VIII channelled the people's money into higher education through taxes they levied. Rich landowners also endowed seats of higher education. That process has continued under successive governments. Until the 1960s there was just a gradual increase in the proportion of the population who went into higher education. But in the 1960s it was recognised that it was a tremendous benefit to society generally to expand the numbers of people going into higher education. That process was started, fostered and developed by the Labour Government.
Successive governments have seen fit to pursue that objective. That continued until the arrival of the present Government. Unfortunately, the present Government have cut, are cutting and show no sign of increasing the flows of money that are needed to increase the proportion of the population entering higher education. The very simple answer to that problem, and to the problem of the staff and the students that exists currently, is to provide more money.
I do not wish to speak for too long, but in closing I wish to make a number of other little points. I say they are little, but I think they are quite important. However, I leave that for your Lordships to ponder. My first point is that we may have come to a situation, after 10 years of a government who appear not to understand, have no respect for and do not wish to fund higher education, where a decision to channel the people's money into higher education may have to be taken at a different level.
As the money comes from them, it may be useful to think in terms of the collectors and the dispersers of that money being determined by the great urban conurbations of our society. One thinks of Greater London and the people within that area, or the people within Greater Manchester or those within Greater Glasgow contributing taxes for higher education and asking their elected representatives, at that level, to disperse that money into higher education provision in their area. That process may engender a sense of responsibility, pride, understanding and respect, both on the part of the higher education institutions and on the part of the people providing the money.
My second point is that when we talk about higher education, it is becoming more and more evident that there is a very false distinction between the higher education provided by colleges and polytechnics and that provided by universities. I believe the

301
time has now come, if it did not arrive a long time ago, for that distinction to be ended. I make the point that I am talking here in terms of higher education. I believe there is a separate argument, although it follows on to some extent, concerning research, particularly pure research, although I recognise the relationship between the processes of higher education and research. One merges into the other.
I also wish to make a plea for student maintenance grants to be received by all students at the same level in higher education, and for students to be able to benefit from education without having to worry about where the next meal is coming from or whether they are going to have a roof over their head that night. It is interesting to think that in practice one of the most formative lessons that students learn at an institute of higher education is how to balance the books and how to live on very little money. Whatever other benefits they receive from higher education, that is surely one lesson they learn. I learnt that lesson before I went to my college of higher education, so I managed better than most.
We have lost some very promising students because, when doing cashflow projections, they could not accept that, having gone through a degree course on a grant and started work in industry at a low salary, at the end of their working lives they would be worse off than if they had gone straight to the production line at Ford at Dagenham.
There is one final plea that I should make. It is that the decision-makers and the policy-makers—we in this House, the Government, those in the other place—should trust and respect the people who provide higher education in this country. I make that plea earnestly and I hope that it will be accepted.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, however grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for initiating the debate this evening, I speak with some reluctance because it appears to me in some ways an inopportune moment for me to join in a debate on higher education.
I shall speak of universities, and I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said. The universities are in the critical stages of a pay dispute. Moreover, we have only just seen the birth of the Universities Funding Council and it seems to me to be early days to offer criticism of that body. The debates of last year on the Education Reform Bill exhausted both your Lordships and the subject for the time being, and as yet the effects of that Act are not clearly to be seen in the universities.
Perhaps it would be better to ignore present discontents and to focus on the future, to point out the Alice in Wonderland aspect of passing a great Act to reform higher education and then beginning a great debate on whether to nationalise universities or to privatise them. The talk is all of loans and vouchers, of autonomy, and of accountability. As a result, we do not know what the Government think let alone what the UFC will think. All we know is that we have been reformed, but it is hard to speak when one does not know what the real reforms have been or are to be.
302
Let me say only this: a brief experience as a vice-chancellor of Cambridge convinced me that centralised bureaucracy is a more inefficient way of running universities than is peripheral autonomy, and less likely to produce institutions which contribute to our national purposes and which the world will respect and even envy. Whether a central bureaucratic mechanism will bend universities better to the Government's will is quite another question. In its history Cambridge has not always instantly obeyed either King or Parliament, but then it might not have become Cambridge if it had.
Most of my reluctance today stems from what I feel I must say about the immediate dispute, in which I have to declare not only an interest but also an involvement. I propose to set and mark examinations and I agree to be appraised and to take part as best I can in the appraisal of others. To do otherwise would be contrary to my professional standards, and indeed, to undertakings that I have given and have persuaded others to give. It would do untold damage to students who have committed themselves to our care. For reasons which have already been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I shall not be in a position to vote on that issue. I shall not mince my words. My profession—and your Lordships will know already that I am proud to be an academic—is in danger of behaving with great irrationality, even with stupidity and turpitude, in the words of our statutes at the university and in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
We have won a skirmish but seem about to force a battle that we cannot win. I believe that we should, and I profoundly hope that we shall, accept appraisal and the current offer on pay; plan for the next round and prepare for the battles on the much wider issues than pay which still face us. But if the offer is in the event rejected one must ask why should people who by and large are intelligent behave so irrationally. I believe that it would be because we have lost our bearings and are dangerously close to believing—as do far too many in this country who ought to know better, although I am much relieved to hear that the Minister does not believe it—that what academics do has little value.
When the academics are persuaded of that, where will the graduates that the country cries out for come from? Is it any wonder that we have lost our bearings? The average university teacher has no idea where he is going, unless it be to the United States of America. He has no idea where the universities are going and hears little but confusing rumours and leaks about where the Government want the universities to go. At best he gets only glimpses of what goes on in that byzantine bureaucracy, that unholy alliance of the Department of Education and Science, the CVCP, the AUT, the UGC and, now, the UFC. I spent two years in that arcane world and learnt only how easily unintended harm can be done by well-meaning committees.
The existence of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and especially its growing role of negotiating directly with the AUT and with the Secretary of State, has meant that vice-chancellors have become committed to acting

303
collectively and to imposing changes on their universities by agreements with Ministers in which they may have had individually only a minimal part. They become middle managers and ultimately just employers—employers of an increasingly casualised academic labour-force.
More and more, as vice-chancellors accept that role and as the UGC has increased its grip on individual universities, as the paradigm of university organisation becomes industrial rather than collegiate, so the behaviour patterns of the industrial world spread in the universities. Today's dispute, I believe is simply an inevitable part of that process.
Has industry managed its affairs in the last quarter century so well that it is self-evident that its management methods and structures must be appropriate to all other national activities? I do not intend to denigrate industry by saying that, only to ask whether its methods are universally applicable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said, we are in a moment of great reform. But great reforms can as easily be great disasters as great leaps forward. The Education Reform Act is enabling legislation. We still need to know and to judge what it will enable and to ensure, if we can, that it makes rather than breaks our universities.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I shall not weary noble Lords by repeating arguments and facts already deployed by ranks of educational experts who in this House exceed all but lawyers in their number. Of course, in modesty and concern for the national interest, rather than self-interest, they exceed even our legal representatives.
For a detailed critique not only of the failures of the present Government to remedy the deficiencies in higher education but also of the positive damage being done by aspects of government policy, I could not match the splendid speech of my noble friend Lady Blackstone whom I wish to thank for opening the debate. The manner in which my noble friend mobilised her great knowledge and experience to present a devastating array of arguments was most impressive and leaves us looking forward to the Minister's reply with more than a little wicked pleasure.
I certainly do not reject all recent developments in higher education. The apparent liberation of the polytechnics and colleges seems broadly right and reflects credit on the local authorities and college staff who have nurtured them so successfully. In the two institutions with which I am connected, Nene College, Northampton, and the North East London Polytechnic, the benefits of positive and entrepreneurial management have been clearly evident in recent years. Relations with the local community are excellent. It is hoped that they will not weaken as the association with local government alters.
As for the universities, recent efforts to make the institutions more cost conscious and their staff more accountable are certainly in the national interest. I was a university teacher for many happy years and still serve on the governing bodies of two university
304
colleges. The need to sharpen up all of them was clear. I support the abolition of tenure. Most of the job of sharpening up is now done. I hope that the Government will not go on beating the institutions over the head for ever. That will only mobilise teachers further and rebound to the detriment of a whole generation of the nation's youth. As noble Lords opposite, who are close to the Jockey Club, know—it has also recently been publicly admitted —there is a limit to how long one can beneficially go on whipping a horse, even one facing the hurdle of the present pay negotiations so wildly.
The heart of my concern today is of a longer timescale; it is the implicit general drift and underlying philosophy of government policy towards higher education. As with the National Health Service, we are not completely confident that the Government have been fully open about their deeper intentions. We sense that their deepest instincts towards centralisation as a brief step towards privatisation are to squeeze out the public involvement and to turn education into just another self-financing industry. I urge noble Lords on all sides to resist that development very robustly. It is based upon a crude desire to reduce public expenditure at all costs and an even cruder dogma which assumes that private is always better than public and that the market economy is the ideal context for all of life's activities. The recent experience of Miss Pamella Bordes, I think, may have cast some doubt upon that general assumption. Sadly, that dogma does not seem to ask the fundamental question: what is best for the higher education of our children?
The danger in moving towards privatisation—to take up a point made most convincingly by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian—is that it narrows the range of dominant values within higher education. Of course we welcome greater private sponsorship; of course we accept that prosperous parents should contribute to the costs of their children's education; and of course, in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, we cannot solve education's needs without private financing. However, education remains fundamentally a public asset and a public good.
We noted with approval the Minister's quotation of the Robbins statement on the plurality of purposes in education, including as central aims the promotion of general values, the advancement of learning and especially the transmission of a common national culture and common standards of citizenship. However, I wonder whether he was not merely curtseying to virtue before getting down to sin in the way that people say, "Some of my best friends are Jews" as a prelude to a deeply offensive racist remark. Those wider aims of higher education outlined by Robbins are essentially national and public. They do not necessarily, although they may sometimes, involve business or financial standards or criteria of profitability and return, important though those standards and criteria may be.
We cannot rely on particular private financing sources with their particular private priorities, sometimes reflecting current fashions in subjects for study, to protect and pursue the whole plurality of educational aims. Nor can we rely on self-financing institutions, which price education according to

305
market economy, to provide—most important of all—access to all classes in society. Only major public finance can guarantee to do that.
What we need is a mixed economy in higher education with access for all who are qualified by ability and facilities in which to pursue the advancement of learning beyond the narrow boundaries set by the passing fashions of a private market economy and above all where the dominant values are public values.
In Japan last month I lunched with the distinguished president of a major finance house, one of the world's great capitalists. He asked me, from his great knowledge of, and admiration for, this country and for its Prime Minister, whether it was necessary in order to regenerate the British economy to damage one of our nation's greatest assets—what he called the "delicate fabric" of our educational system. The answer must be, no. I look to the Minister to give that assurance tonight.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thought that it might not be inappropriate in the debate to say something about the University Grants Committee as I knew it. It finished its duties in higher education at the end of March to be succeeded by the Universities Funding Council on the most appropriate date of 1st April.
The UGC changed substantially in its role and methods of working during its 70 years. It adjusted itself to the needs of the situation, including recent changes due to government demands. The first chairman of the UGC, Sir William McCormack, held office for 11 years. The committee did not meet between 1931 and 1933. There was almost complete reorganisation under Keith Murray, (now Lord Murray of Newhaven), whom I tried to persuade unsuccessfully to attend today, after the move from the Treasury to the Department of Education and Science. There was substantial development of specialist sub-committees under Lord Wolfenden in the mid-1960s. Dainton, Berrill and Parkes continued the process; and more recently Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer has occupied the hot seat.
On Thursday 30th March the committee met for the last time. That evening there was a valedictory dinner attended by 51 present and past members of the committee. One wondered what the atmosphere would be like. Your Lordships may be interested to know what it was like. The noble Baroness, Lady White, was present, whose father had had so much to do with the setting up the UGC in 1919.
I should like also to make brief reference to the last great discovery within the university system which the UGC substantially supported: the discovery of genetic fingerprinting by Professor Alec John Jeffreys of the University of Leicester.
At the time the atmosphere of the dinner was one of good fellowship and an appreciation of the work done by sub-committees in raising understanding within and between universities. There was no gloom; rather a firm conviction that the job had been done well. There was the realisation that much depends on individual initiatives, and though
306
universities should collaborate and make strategic research more effective, the pursuit of basic ideas was their prime role together with the teaching of the young, which was of paramount importance. The trouble is that, as will be seen, the timescale for these developments is perhaps 10 or 20 years. Those present perhaps noted also the millions of pounds spent by the Department of Trade arid Industry on educational matters—reference to that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan—at a time when university financial support has been falling steadily. Perhaps the Government should defend themselves tonight when educational programmes are being handed to committees which are substantially controlled by industrialists.
Leicester University was founded in 1957. In the 1960s the UGC strengthened the biology department and established a clinical medical school. At the beginning of the 1980s the top priority of the university was the creation of a biology centre at the behest of Professor Jeffreys who was the professor of genetics. In that centre fundamental work was complemented by more applied research sponsored on a contract basis. It was done with encouragement and finance from the UGC and equipment from the Science Research Council. More than £1 million was subscribed over a five-year period by four firms: Dalgety Spillers, Whitbread, Gallagher, and John Brown Engineering. There was also strong support from the ICI.
The result of all that collaboration was the discovery, the application and development of genetic fingerprinting, a process which is now accepted worldwide as having been a major discovery. That was all done in a new university, encouraged and guided by the UGC and funded by a number of sources. Professor Jeffreys and his colleagues—with, on the one hand, their academic excellence, and on the other their practical skills—made everything possible. That is a typical picture of the UGC environment until work came under the recent restrictions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. Let us hope that the Universities Funding Council will match its predecessor's achievements. Substantial responsibility must rest on the lay members of that council. The lay members of the UGC were superb.
One of the principal problems facing the new funding council concerns the future or the clinical medical schools, which depends on the collaboration between two departments of Government: the education department and the health department. What influence will the Universities Funding Council have in this difficult situation? Considerable anxiety has been expressed in your Lordships' House by the Select Committee on Science and Technology about the funding of research, and research and development in the National Health Service, to which the Government have given no reply. Moreover, there are difficulties faced by the Education Department in funding clinical schools adequately. It means that the whole area of collaboration between the two departments is under the closest possible scrutiny. This matter has been examined in the past 18 months by senior civil servants.

307
Sadly, the Government's White Paper on the National Health Service made no reference to those key problems, and scant reference to educational problems. It is no exaggeration to say that on the solution of these departmental difficulties depends the future quality of medicine in Great Britain. The National Health Service must do its audit and its research and development. Audit is the medical component of research and development.
The Universities Funding Council will also have one other problem to consider; namely, the University of Glasgow's response to the recommendation to the UGC by the Riley Committee that the most distinguished veterinary school in the United Kingdom should be closed. We wish the Universities Funding Council well, though many people remain to be convinced of the significance and importance of the changes that the Government have made. Only time will tell.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, in the interests of saving time I shall not repeat some of the points that have already been made about the uncertainty of funding and the models of funding in the higher education system. They are very real concerns both of the vice chancellors and of the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics. I wish to speak from the viewpoint of my own profession of nursing. Until recently I held the Chair of Nursing in the University of Manchester so I think I can speak as a practitioner of a comparatively new discipline which is trying to enter the realm of higher education and trying to break through the powerful bastions that exist there.
In the present climate of funding it is exceedingly difficult for new and small disciplines to break into higher education although it has been done and with some success. In addition, the method of funding research has militated against small and new departments. I served on the University Grants Committee panel on subjects allied to medicine, and was associated with the first research selectivity exercise. I am sure that your Lordships will know that there was intense dissatisfaction among academics after that first exercise and we are now seeking to remodel it.
However, that method of funding research and rewarding centres of excellence which on one view is highly desirable was another thing that militated against the newly established department and the small department. So I think that it was a formula that tended to impose greater inflexibility on the system and a lack of responsiveness to new developments.
I have recently become a member of the Council for National Academic Awards. In that capacity I recognise far greater inequities between the funding of research in the university system and that in the polytechnic system. By virtue of its charter the council is required to ensure that its awards are comparable in standard with those of other higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. To that end the council seeks to promote research and ensure that the teaching in its accredited establish
308
ments is invigorated and informed by research. It is no wonder that the directors of polytechnics question the present dual system of funding in the university. Only on Friday I was told that the polytechnics are teaching the whole range of subjects offered within the university with the exception of medicine and veterinary science.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mention the problems of students and student loans. Only yesterday I received from the department in which I worked until recently a small survey carried out by one of the students on the cost of taking a nursing degree in the polytechnic sector at the Polytechnic of the South Bank compared with the cost in the university sector. Your Lordships may be interested to hear some of the results from that small survey. Seventy-three per cent. of the respondents had claimed housing benefit at some point during their course; that is an average of £5·26 per week in Manchester, and £11·96 in London. Fifty-four per cent. had claimed support in the summer vacation. It is far more difficult for disciplines such as nursing and medicine to obtain jobs in the summer vacation because their summer vacations are shorter.
Little or no account was taken of the extra equipment and travel costs entailed in such courses. The Manchester students found themselves on average at the end of the year £300 overspent above the grant supplied, and the South Bank students £800. Seventy per cent. of these students had had an overdraft at some point during their course. I am sure that we should like an assurance that whatever from of funding of students is promulgated in the future, it will not leave students with the sense of guilt with which this system of funding leaves them.
I should like to go on to the business of how, in my profession, the higher education system needs to be opened up far more to the common run of nursing education that takes place at the moment in schools of nursing. Your Lordships' House will know that the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting education has recommended proposals, Project 2000, for the reform of nursing education, and Her Majesty's Government have accepted these proposals. Only last week, the chief nursing officer published her strategy for nursing. Within that, and in Project 2000, there is an objective of establishing closer links with higher education and a great deal work is being done to link schools of nursing with the higher education sector.
There is already an integration of some schools of nursing into the higher education system—for instance, at St. Martin's College at Lancaster University, and in the polytechnics of Oxford and Portsmouth. There are accreditation schemes for schools of nursing. We are delighted that the Council for National Academic Awards has issued credit ratings for basic and post-basic nursing courses so that a system of credit accumulation and transfer can be achieved. As one who has been concerned with post-registration nursing education, and admitting nurses into part-time degree programmes, I have no doubt that it opens up the whole of their

309
professional lives, and that they approach their work with a completely different perspective. Their personal development is also greatly enhanced.
However, we still have problems in maintaining links with higher education. One of the major problems, and perhaps one of the silliest, is that the necessary nurse manpower for district nursing, health visiting and community psychiatric nursing is being denied access to established courses in higher education because health authorities are achieving economies by cutting nursing education. We are therefore losing the very workers that we need most. There is a feeling that this could be better achieved by central funding. As links with higher education proceed, there is a real need to rationalise the present schools of nursing and to bring this under the managerial control perhaps of the nursing boards in the four countries.
Perhaps I may close on a more dismal note. The brain drain does not apply only to the powerful scientific echelons. The first professor of nursing in Australia is a Manchester graduate who has recently gone there from a very innovative post in the Oxford region. Five other heads of schools of nursing in Australia have come from the University of Manchester. They have far better resources both for education and research than I could achieve in this country.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: My Lords, we all deplore the financial constraints that are depressing the income, status and morale of university teachers in this country and are thereby alienating so many of them from the Government. This massive alienation has been illustrated in this debate and must surely be heeded by the Government.
However, we have to admit that the academic world has seldom reformed itself except under pressure either from government or from outside sources. This is a sad fact to which history bears witness. Universities are corporations and they have something of the corporative spirit, like trade unions. As corporations they have resisted initially most important movements in our history. They resisted the new learning, the scientific revolution, and the reforms of the 19th century, all of which were imposed initially from outside. When universities were most free, when they were liberated by the Glorious Revolution from external control, in England they became, alas, most disreputable.
However, having said that, we have to add that the reformers who have reformed universities from outside, from government, or from what is now known as the private sector, have always acted in co-operation with parties within the universities. Whenever governments have attempted to interfere in detail from outside to determine more than the external circumstances of universities, posterity has always judged those governments to be wrong.
What is alarming to me at present is the pressure on the universities to reform, although I sympathise with some of it because of the sheer necessity for it. I am glad to see guaranteed tenure disappear. Nevertheless, much of the pressure is interfering with the intellectual mechanics of universities. This
310
is something new, and it is disastrous. Governments are not equipped, through docile bodies of nominees, to regulate the intellectual character of a university. Crude criteria imposed from outside are not the way to improve teaching or research.
Time is short. I am asked to be very brief. I shall concentrate on one small particular which may seem rather insignificant and almost below the level of this debate. In its small way it indicates the gulf between the policy of the Government and the understanding of the basic philosophy of a university. I refer to a proposal by a sub-committee of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the UFC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, referrred, on the attempt to separate the funding of teaching from the funding of research. In order that that should be done the sub-committee issued a document mobilising a pilot project in order to assess the quality of research in different universities.
The circular informed us that the UFC was developing a methodology. I believe that it meant a method. The document is written in the dreadful jargon which, in my opinion, it is the function of a university education to eliminate from our language.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Dacre of Glanton: My Lords, the UFC was developing a methodology to measure research output. For that purpose it solicited appropriate data in four specific subjects to be a model for annual returns. The appropriate data are to be assembled by an appropriate bibliometrical methodology.
Uniform questionnaires have been sent out and my former colleagues in the departments of economics, history, chemistry and physics—those are the four subjects—have been spending time on enumerating their research publications under various heads. They have done so in order that, on the basis of quantity, the UFC can decide whether their university or department deserves economic support for research.
In considering the pilot scheme my great difficulty is that, in my opinion, teaching and research at university level are not entirely distinct. One cannot be a good teacher without having an interest in research, and that research cannot be evaluated by quantity. A great deal of research in humanities is of value although not printed, and a great deal of what is printed is trivial. I see it as he drops of perspiration exuded by hard-pressed runners in the academic rat race.
Although I can speak only for the humanities I believe that that is also true of the sciences. I have memories of sitting on electoral boards and being amazed, first, by the vast list of publications presented by some scientific candidates for university posts and then by seeing the list reduced to almost nothing on closer examination by experts.
When I think of that suggestion I believe that the body which proposed it has lost sight of the basic philosophy which should underlie any university. I believe that the social function of a university is to educate the laity. For that purpose it must have a professionalism of its own and breed up a class of

311
professionals with high professional standards. Both those activities are expressed to some extent, although not exclusively, in publication.
But to measure and judge universities by the quantity of publication assessed purely numerically by computer is to put a premium on publication for publication's sake. It has no necessary connection with the quality of either teaching or research. In my opinion, its implications are positively harmful, but I must not take up time in developing that theme as I should like.
We are told that it is only a pilot scheme and that it is designed as only one part of the method—or methodology—of the sub-committee. However, I have grave apprehensions when I see the crude form in which returns are to be made; when I consider what deductions will be made from them; who will make them; and what effect those deductions will have not only on the policy-makers of the UFC but also on the universities and their teachers. I believe that the UFC should go back and reconsider not merely this or that detail but the whole philosophy of which this extraordinary document is an expression.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Maclehose of Beoch: My Lords, I shall speak briefly and on only one point. I believe it to be of general application based on my experience as chairman of the board of governors of the School of Oriental and African Studies. The school expects to account in detail for the resources it receives from the public purse. It welcomes external retrospective audit, both financial and academic, of the funds it receives. But the operative word is "retrospective". It makes no sense, especially in the case of a highly specialised institution such as SOAS, for a central and remote authority to attempt to control in detail and in advance exactly how the resources should be applied, as the UGC tended to do.
That kind of bureaucratic centralism simply inhibits progress in the ability of universities to do their job properly and develop their individual interests and potential to the national benefit. For instance, SOAS possesses not only special expertise but long experience in identifying and meeting the needs of its customers. By that I mean not only the needs of students, important though they are, but also the needs of the many commercial enterprises, government departments and other public authorities which increasingly make use of the school's services.
In order to develop the excellence necessary to provide those services a school such as SOAS needs to be allowed freedom to use its own experience and judgment in deploying the resources made available to it, subject to retrospective audit. I was encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, make the same point but with infinitely more authority than myself. Other noble Lords have also done so.
I believe that point to be of general interest and I hope that the message reaches the Universities Funding Council.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, in the few minutes that remain to me in my not unaccustomed position as the last Back-Bench speaker in a timed debate to which many eloquent noble Lords have contributed, I should like to say a few words limited to the universities.
I cannot claim to be an expert, as have so many noble Lords today but, as chairman of the Council of Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, I see a little of what goes on. Frankly, I am most puzzled. The great comfort that I have derived from today's debate is to discover that I am not alone in wondering what is the Government's policy towards the universities and what it is that they are hoping to achieve. For example, although there is to be a drastic decline in the number of 18 year-olds, we are told that there is still to be a substantial increase in the number going to university. However, at the same time it is made clear that the extra costs will not be met primarily from public funds and that existing subventions will not keep up with inflation, as they have been failing to do for some time.
We are assured that there is to be no attack on the arts and humanities but, equally, we are told that there should be more vocational emphasis and that employers, as well as students, should have a say in what is taught. I even saw a report that Treasury officials epitomised the present philosophy by explaining that one of the merits of student loans will be to encourage students to opt for careers which will prove to be financially rewarding.
I confess that all that leaves me in the dark as to how those somewhat conflicting aspirations can be fitted together into one consistent policy. However, no doubt we shall be told in a few moments time.
As has been pointed out on a number of occasions today, in this country we have experienced great changes and there is likelihood of more to come which will drastically alter the culture in which we have been brought up. One thinks of such matters as student loans, tuition charges and universities at the bottom tier teaching and carrying out no research. I may be unfair but I cannot escape the feeling that much of that has been worked out on the basis of hunch and not on the basis of solid research.
As has been pointed out, to announce projects for student loans without first clearing the matter with the banks does not encourage much confidence in the planners. My own impression as an interested spectator is that what has been done already has been done too quickly and in too blunt a way.
Perhaps I could just take a few moments to illustrate what I have said by reference to experience at Royal Holloway and Bedford New College. When the college was formed by merging two comparatively small colleges, considerable funds were made available for new building but the decisions by the UGC and the Court of London University as to the size and shape of the new college meant that it started life on the edge of viability. In the first year, 1985–86, although it carried forward an accumulative deficit of over £400,000, the economies which had been foreseen were duly made and income and

313
expenditure were balanced. Just as we were recovering from the traumas of the merger and building up research, changes in funding knocked our plans for six. We cut the staff by 15 per cent. in two years on top of the cuts which had been made at the time of the merger. Although we have had some special funding since, for which we are grateful, we do not see how we shall avoid an accumulated deficit of something like £2 million by 1992—that fateful year.
Like everyone else, we have been exhorted to raise more money from industry and elsewhere but however good the classics and history departments may be, there are limits to the extent to which they can raise money from outside and involve potential employers. Even our science faculty which concentrates on basic research is not in a position to attract much of the funding which may be forthcoming from industry.
Here we have a college, including a repetition in red brick of the Chateau de Chambord, which does not teach law, medicine or engineering but which has a combination of arts and sciences much in the nature of a liberal arts college in the American tradition so lauded by Ministers. If the Government really value diversity between institutions of higher education, it seems unfortunate that its future should be put in jeopardy because of the nature of the funding mechanisms currently in use or, as far as I can see, in prospect.
However, I end my short contribution as I began by making a plea for further enlightenment on just what the Government are looking to the universities to achieve in this increasingly market-oriented economy. I believe that the president of IBM once said that he could teach management accountancy to his staff but could not teach them to think. Is that not what universities are for? In the desire to educate our young people in a way which will maximise their return on the capital investment, are we not at risk of abandoning the aim of encouraging them to pursue knowledge and ideas for their own sake, to look critically and independently at the world around and to develop open, curious and disciplined minds?
7.25 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first, it is my pleasure to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford on his maiden speech. It is not very long ago since I made my maiden speech and I can only say that I wish that I had done it as well as the right reverend Prelate. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on his recruitment to the ranks of the academic peerage where he will be very welcome. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for so ably introducing this debate in which, as a serving university teacher, I must declare an interest.
I should also like to respond cursorily to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, about the tendency to a disparagement of business. He is quite right about that. That is a lesson which I learned long ago from my father-in-law who made electric furnaces. I believe that most of us have learned that lesson by this time and on any future
314
day when peace may be made between the universities and the Conservative Party, I hope that that will be one of its terms.
This debate has carried three themes running right through it. First, the theme of access developed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Secondly, the theme of the acute difficulty of funding dwelt on by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Perhaps I may say as a former member of Bedford College and as one with many friends in the new college that I agree with everything that the noble Lord said about it including the excellence of the history department. The third theme, developed very powerfully by the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Dacre, was the theme of autonomy and Government pressure.
What do those themes have to do with each other? I suspect that what really holds these themes together is the conviction in Government circles that it is possible to lower universities' unit costs and that were they to do that, they could make the problems of access a great deal easier than they are.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dacre of Glanton, that previous forces which have reformed universities from the outside have co-operated with the people within. He might perhaps have added that other outside reformers of universities, notably in the 19th century, made considerable extra funding available in the process. It is that which is not happening now. It is that conviction that unit costs may be lower which holds things together.
In that context, I was rather sorry that the noble Viscount repeated the argument that universities' costs are higher in this country than any other country in Western Europe except the Netherlands. Perhaps I may be forgiven for taking that back to source; namely, DES Statitistical Bulletin No. 487, table 8. First, those figures relate to 1983. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, may confirm that universities' unit costs have fallen since then. That table related to seven countries. It was a table of costs per capita. On that table we came third out of seven which is not a disgracefully expensive position.
However, that is not the only part of table 8. A figure was also included for costs per qualifier—numbers of people gaining a degree. It seems to me that if you are trying to assess your costs, you assess them in proportion to your objective and the objective, I hope, is to produce graduates and not merely for people to say that they have been to university. Therefore, the cost per graduate is perhaps a relevant figure. On that, we came fifth out of seven—not even in the most expensive half of the table.
There is a further effect as regards these figures. They relate only to the cost of university education to public funds. As the Government have repeatedly reminded us, that is not the same as total costs. In fact, the White Paper shows that on student loans France and Germany—two countries which appear cheaper than us in the table of public funding—provide a far smaller proportion of student support from public funds and a far higher proportion from private funds than we do. Perhaps British universities are not so expensive after all.

315
However, there are fixed costs which cannot be avoided. One must refer to the universities' pay and prices index published by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Since 1980 the retail prices index has risen to 147·2 and the universities' pay and prices index to 157. Funding, of course, is based on the retail prices index. It is that difference which accounts for many of the universities' financial difficulties.
Where in the costs of universities does this arise? Is it extravagance? Is it waste? I looked through the table with some care to see what the answers might be. The item which has risen fastest is, of course, books. Whether that arises from net book agreement or the price of paper, it is not our extravagance. The second item is computers. I think that is a change which is probably paralleled in every office in Whitehall. Consider also the other items which have gone up faster than the retail prices index and faster than the universities' index overall. National insurance—by government action through a change in the upper limit. Rates—by diminution of the rate support grant. Minor works—we all know that 15 per cent. of that is directly attributable to the actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, if we ask whose actions have made university costs rise faster than the retail prices index it is apparent that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a much bigger contribution than have the universities. I do not think he should blame us for that.
The other problem that enters into the picture is that of funding pay increases, on which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, dwelt very ably in the debate on the Victoria and Albert Museum. Only 42 per cent. of the 23rd report was funded by the Government. The rest was funded by the vice-chancellors at a cost of £32 million they did not have. It is exactly the situation that exists at the Victoria and Albert Museum, described by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
I once said in this House that the system of failing to fund public sector pay increases makes the Government the proud possessors of more hot potatoes than McDonalds. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that he was unaware of this vast store of hot potatoes. I hope the noble Viscount who is to reply will take this remark in the spirit in which it is made. I am rather glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is not replying tonight, because I have wondered whether the Government have been taking him on a conducted tour of hot potatoes.
At the end of the day we have a system of funding which each year falls inexorably further behind our costs. At the same time we have a vast demand for expansion. We cannot have something for nothing. The hub of this debate is that we have a demand for expansion and a regime of funding which is compatible only with contraction. I wish the Government would make up their mind which of them they mean, because they cannot possibly mean both.
7.34 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, in his speech at Lancaster in January on higher education 25 years
316
on, Mr. Baker spoke of the present great debate on the organisation and funding of higher education. I hope that what has been said today by a large number of very distinguished academics on both organisation and funding—in a very disciplined way for the most part—will be taken note of by the Secretary of State. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate on a very enjoyable and human speech.
There has been almost unanimous agreement that more funding is essential and that most of it should come from the public purse if the necessary expansion is to happen. All agree—with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph—that expansion is essential. Access has been discussed by a number of Peers. My noble friend Lady Blackstone paid particular attention to it, but it is so vital that I make no apology for returning to the subject.
In spite of the falling number of 18 year-olds, Mr. Baker wants the participation rate to go up from the present 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. Mrs. Thatcher, in Framework for Expansion, had aimed for 22 per cent. by 1981. Mr. Baker also wants to recruit students, currently under-represented. We all say "Hear, hear" to that, but again possibly wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, would agree.
My noble friend Lady Lockwood emphasised the need for more women. I would add how shocking it is that so few women get to the top. There is no woman vice-chancellor now, and very few professors and readers. We need far more from the ethnic minorities; for one thing, to provide the leaders in the community. Inner-city problems might not have been so great had we had them—and I think the right reverend Prelate referred to that.
There are now more applicants of quality than there are places. The polytechnics and colleges are to be congratulated on taking in 9,000 more students this academic year. Admittedly, there are not enough applicants in science and engineering, and if we want to improve those numbers we have to look back at what goes on in the schools. There is a narrowing of the curriculum at 16 and there is a shortage of teachers for both those subjects. Why was the Higginson Report turned down? The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, criticised the Labour Party about A-levels. The aim is to stop this narrow curriculum and to give a much more broadly based education up to the age of 18.
We must encourage more 16 year-olds to stay on in education; 60 per cent. leave at the first opportunity. As for mature students, we must make things easier for them. We had an interesting contribution on that from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who also spoke about the Open University, which of course is also good for them. We need more part-time, sandwich or modular courses so that credits can be accumulated over time and be transferred between institutions. Greater variety of provision would give greater opportunities.
There must be a greater investment of public funds. It would be a good investment. Unfortunately, all the evidence is of the meanness of the Government and their lack of imagination. Their industrial relations are abysmal. It is almost

317
incredible that in the space of a few months the Government could arouse such hostility among the professions—the doctors, nurses, lawyers and teachers. Only accountants seem to be okay.
I do not want to spend time on the pay dispute but we should remember that the starting salary of a lecturer is £9,260. It takes 16 steps up the incremental ladder to reach the top at £19,310, by which time the lecturer will be over 40 with full family and mortgage commitments. In the public sector the starting point is even lower— £8,481.
The Exchequer grants to universities have gone down. Research grants, contracts and income from other sources have gone up. Therefore, the universities have made efforts to help themselves. Capital spending—the key to expanding and modernising facilities, equipment and buildings—has gone down by 16 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1987–88. We read in the Observer that Mr. Jackson plans to double tuition fees to give institutions more income. Is that to come from LEAs and, if so, will their grant be increased; or is it to come from the students themselves by way of loans, vouchers, or from the pockets of parents? That could be unpopular—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, will remember that—and is unlikely near an election.
What would such a scheme do to student demand? One suspects that if fees increase the block grant to universities will go down. We also read that Sir David Hancock says it is unlikely that Ministers will agree to a full-blooded voucher scheme. I hope that the Minister will give us firm information when he replies to the debate. Are the funds for teaching and research to be separated? We gather, again from Sir David Hancock, that a paper is to be published soon, the aim being to make universities more accountable for the public funding they receive for research. The noble Lord, Lord Chilver, says that that is likely to happen. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I greatly regret his absence and his ignoring of this debate today.
The questions are endless and the uncertainty great. That has certainly emerged in the debate today. When are the Government going to divulge their plans. Have they made up their mind on policy? Do they have a policy? Several noble Lords have asked for a clear strategy. Two years ago we had the glossy White Paper on higher education; we have had the paper on student loans. Are we to expect another White Paper this summer as has been rumoured? I ask the Minister for answers.
I should make it clear that we in the Labour Party are committed to reverse the decline in government support for research. While concentration of some research specialties—in particular institutions—is inevitable and economically desirable and while centres of excellence should certainly be encouraged, Labour believes that research is an appropriate activity for all institutions of continuing education, enriching the experience of students as well as of academic staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said, it is probably a profitable enterprise too.
Not a word was mentioned concerning overseas students in relation to funding. Higher education has been tempted to go out seeking them for financial
318
gain. They are looked on as a resource. That is not right for them nor for the reputation of British higher education. These students now tend to come from the richer countries like the USA rather than from the third and developing world as used to happen. There is a loss of commitment to development and that is a great pity. Overseas students should not be used to prop up numbers in ailing departments where closure might otherwise occur.
I wish to concentrate now on the public sector where very radical changes have come about as a result of the Education Reform Act which was the cutting of the cord between the 30 polytechnics and 59 colleges and their LEAs. Instead of the binary line which we wish to get rid of, we now have ternary lines which separate the universities from the PCFC and both from the LEA sector. There will certainly be a diverse picture from now on with policy on the universities related to all of the United Kingdom, Scotland and Northern Ireland included, PCFC higher education in England, the Wales Advisory Body in Wales, two kinds of LEA higher education —PCFC-funded and LEA-funded—and LEA further education in England and Wales. The only body looking like an overall planning body is Her Majesty's Government. Certainly the Department of Education and Science is not a focal point for it shares higher education responsibility with the territorial departments and with the Department of Employment.
There is much concern about the absence of planning. Talk about a market place in higher education could imply that little is intended. PCFC is currently consulting about the basis of funding and the investigation of bids and contracts suggests a fragmented picture of higher education across England. Of course higher education has to be responsive to industrial and commercial needs, and that has been its great strength. But there must be planning as well.
As regards regional planning, Sir Ron Dearing, chairman of the PCFC has expressed scepticism. I should have thought it important. We still have the regional advisory councils in further education. They are well equipped to advise on higher education matters in their area. The universities have been reluctant to engage in regional discussions. I believe that that is an unnecessary sensitivity about the sanctity of their own chartered existence.
The NAB came to an end on 1st April. It had a good record on consultation and achieved a coherent and highly economic set of planning arrangements in its seven years of existence. Thanks and appreciation should go to Sir Christopher Ball. It is a great shame that the Government did not choose to go on making use of his experience and talents.
The conclusion I come to at the end of this debate is that there are many dissatisfied and uncertain people in higher education. The students are dissatisfied because their grants are inadequate and they get into debt. Many people want to get into higher education and cannot. Those teaching are dissatisfied because they are underpaid and undervalued. Their morale is low and they are taking off abroad or to more profitable jobs in industry.

319
The vice-chancellors and directors of polytechnics are struggling with inadequate finance. They are uncertain about the future and about how their institutions are to be organised and funded. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, reminded us of the greatness and acclaim that our higher education had in the past. This Government have undermined the public services. They have created a lack of confidence in them.
I hope that this debate may have helped to persuade the Government that the path that they appear to be following is not the path that they should follow. They will provide higher education with a very good service if they heed that advice.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I had hoped, we have had a very interesting debate today. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, that the timing of it could have been more fortuitous. First, I wish warmly to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford on his maiden speech. The House clearly enjoyed it and I particularly enjoyed his punchline. Knowing how many of your Lordships who have spoken have a personal and detailed knowledge of university life and its problems, I am not surprised at the degree of concentration on that particular branch of academe in our debate. Having spent three of my formative years at the university represented here so ably by the noble Lords Lord Annan, Lord Butterfield and Lord Adrian, I might have been tempted to have done the same.
I must emphasise that more than half of the nation's higher education is provided in the institutions that form the new polytechnics and colleges sector—to which I referred in my earlier remarks—and in the central and other institutions in Scotland. They are rather less well represented here, but I hope that no-one reading the record of this debate will draw the erroneous conclusion that this House underestimates their distinctive and very valuable contribution to higher education.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his contribution on their behalf. I am sure that he will be interested to know that one of my daughters went to the Cambridge polytechnic and benefited from it very much indeed. In my opening remarks I concentrated on the achievements of our higher education and a little on its aims and purposes. Before responding to points made during the subsequent debate, I should like to turn briefly to the Government's thinking on some important issues relating to the future of higher education, although I should make clear that we are not about to publish a new White Paper, as one newspaper speculated recently. There is still plenty of meat in the challenges set out in Cmnd. 114 which the Government invited higher education to meet. Those noble Lords who wish for a statement of the Government's objectives should look again at that document.
Earlier this year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, made an important speech at Lancaster University setting out his personal hopes for higher education over the
320
next 25 years. He focused in particular on his vision of much wider access than we now have; a vision for which he has. been rightly applauded. He also highlighted some important issues raised by the pressure for such wider access. In this context noble Lords need to distinguish between these aspirations on the one hand and projections on the other that are more of an extrapolation of existing patterns. My right honourable friend went on to highlight some important issues raised by the pressure for wider access.
One issue was that the still dominant position of the three to four year full-time first degree course aimed largely at the bright 18–19 year-old may become less appropriate for a student body with much more varied characteristics. Very real questions will need to be asked about what standards are to be expected of (and demanded by) a much wider set of customers for higher education. That is not to say that students should not continue to be stretched intellectually to the limit of their capacities. But we must recognise that a broader higher education will need to be more varied both in the nature of the courses it offers and in the levels at which it offers them. That has particular implications for our universities.
Another issue is that it is unrealistic to look for an increase in the publicly funded share of gross domestic product applied to higher education, which is already among the highest internationally. Higher education institutions will need to seek both greater efficiency and to exploit alternative sources of income. Some are already very successful at the latter. But others are probably still not doing enough to exploit the services they have to offer to a range of potential customers in industry and elsewhere, or to fund-raise from alumni.
In other words, aiming for wider access—which we all agree is the only sensible way forward—requires us to think more about new forms of provision and new sources and methods of funding. Against that background, my right honourable friend suggested that there are aspects of higher education in the United States, in particular the diversity and flexibility of provision, and the multiple sources of funding, that need to be looked at. He was far from arguing for the uncritical adoption of the United States' approach in the way that some have since claimed, or indicating particular answers for the United Kingdom. He was seeking to further the current general debate on the future funding of higher education in the context of much wider access, of which this debate is part. We would be misleading ourselves if we thought that today's higher education is equipped to meet all the new needs which are going to arise.
My right honourable friend has made clear that the debate needs to develop and mature much further before some new general strategy could properly be devised. That is what is now happening. Indeed, our debate here is a valuable contribution to this process, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out.
The Government do, however, have some specific proposals. Noble Lords who have taken part in the debate have asked for them all the way through. One important means of increasing the participation of

321
mature entrants who hold neither traditional sixth form nor vocational qualifications is access courses. I know that a great deal of thought is being given to developing these in such a way that they are appropriate to the experience of non-traditional entrants. At the request of the Government, the Council for National Academic Awards in partnership with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has devised a framework for the recognition of such courses.
My right honourable friend has now asked the CNAA and the CVCP jointly to take on the job of administering the scheme on behalf of both the universities and the polytechnics and colleges. The scheme will extend students' opportunities while safeguarding against the risk of erosion of standards, and it will enable individual courses to achieve wide acceptability for entry to all higher education institutions. This marks an important step towards improving access opportunities for mature students and will I am sure be welcomed by those noble Lords who raised the issue of wider access.
The Government also intend to secure the separation of funding for research from funding for teaching in grant to the Universities Funding Council and within each university's grant from the council. That point will reassure those noble Lords who raised the issue. The Government see substantial advantages flowing from the consequent encouragement of universities to think more systematically about the quality of their performance in both teaching and research.
Finally, my right honourable friend is giving serious consideration to the possibility of shifting the balance between grant and fees in the public funding of higher education, giving greater weight to the purchasing power of the student. A higher fee, still paid out of public funds, would give institutions stronger incentives to compete for and recruit more students. It would also put them on their mettle, with a greater proportion of their income depending on the attractiveness of what they have to offer and their ability to market it. Institutions should welcome this challenge and the reduced dependency on central funding and greater self-reliance which it would bring.
Against that general background, I should like now to respond to some of the specific points made in the debate today. I was glad to hear the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Grimond, and others note that all in higher education is not unmitigated gloom. There is much to celebrate, and the Government do so gladly, as I stressed in my opening remarks earlier this afternoon. Of course there are problems. No one living in the real world can realistically expect to be free of them. However, I thoroughly reject the assertion that the only thing standing between the present position and nirvana is more central funding. As I indicated in my opening speech, we already devote a higher proportion of our gross domestic product to higher education than all other European countries except for the Netherlands. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, misunderstood me. I was not making comparisons of cost per head. I was comparing the proportion of our GDP devoted to higher education. We must clearly find ways of deploying those
322
substantial sums to more telling effect. In the meantime—and in this respect I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian—higher education does itself a disservice by overselling the problems.
Let us consider the so-called brain drain, which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned. Until recently there was great alarm at the alleged haemorrhage of talent. One academic compared the outflow to that of the Jews from pre-war Germany. I shudder at the thought of how that has been perceived abroad. Figures were then published to show that the net flows were in fact quite small. Indeed there has been a net inflow over a period of years. The attack then changed. What we are now asked to be concerned about is that those with talents go abroad and their replacements are less distinguished. Of course there are comings and goings between academic institutions both within and between countries. We should need to be worried if there were not. The Government are not complacent but remain of the view that we have world-class talents in our institutions of higher education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me to restate the Government's commitment to Robbins. I quote from Cmnd. 114:
"The Government remains committed to the modified form of the Robbins principle set out in Cmnd. 9524. Places should he available for all who have the intellectual competence, motivation and maturity to benefit from higher education and who wish to do so".
How those needs are best measured and met are at the heart of the continuing debate on higher education.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Viscount saying that the alleged argument between the Treasury and the DES is being won by the DES and that there is no intention of attempting to control intake in relation to manpower planning?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to an alleged argument.
Baroness Seear: It was reported in the press, my Lords.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not aware of it. I do not always believe everything I read in the press.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, accused the Government of manipulating the figures on the growth in student numbers by relying on a simple head count rather than a full-time equivalent number. In fact, full-time and part-time numbers have been rising at broadly the same rate and are projected to continue to do so. She also expressed concern about the impact on part-time students of the proposal I have mentioned to increase fee levels. That is a proposal to switch some funding from recurrent grant paid by the funding councils to the student fee met under the mandatory awards arrangements. It is intended to be neutral for part-time students.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and other noble Lords have welcomed the fresh start provided by the new Universities Funding Council under the

323
Education Reform Act. Enthusiasm was not always evident in your Lordships' debates last summer. The Government have been asked this afternoon to give a clear direction to the UFC to do all manner of good things. We have done so. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science wrote appropriately to both the UFC and the PCFC chairmen. It is too soon to say how things will work out in detail. The UFC met for only the third time today. The Government very much hope that the council, and its sister the PCFC, will develop funding approaches that allow institutions the maximum freedom to do what they do best within the necessary constraints of a national system substantially supported by, and hence accountable to, Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Beloff said some strong words about the leadership of the UFC. The current provision of a part-time chairman and full-time chief executive was the clear recommendation of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham. It is only right that I should remind my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady David, of the Addison Rules regarding members of public boards who are members of your Lordships' House. I quote:
"There is no duty upon the board member to answer questions put to him in debate and no criticism should attach to any member of a board who refrains from speaking in a debate".
Having said that, it is good to have the fresh start represented by the UFC. I cannot accept the criticism which some noble Lords have aimed at the UGC. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, the Government commend that committee for having done a difficult job to a high standard. If, as some noble Lords implied, it has been a poodle, all I can say is that it did not pay particular attention at its obedience classes.
A number of contributors to the debate have touched on the Government's intention to introduce top-up loans for students. We believe that these will provide a valuable extension of the sources of support available to students. At the same time loans will share the cost of supporting students' living expenses more equitably between taxpayers, students' parents and the students themselves. The top-up loan will give students a personal stake in the investment made in their future and encourage greater economic awareness and self-reliance.
Obviously, the question of access has a crucial role in the debate about student support. This fact has been amply reflected in the House today. There is no evidence from experience of loans in other countries that a favourably structured scheme has in practice reduced participation by lower socioeconomic groups, women or mature students. Simply stated, the fact is that top-up loans mean more money for students, thus helping them to overcome their financial difficulties about which we have heard a good deal in this debate. The increase in resources will make higher education more attractive to students from all backgrounds.
The question of discussing the method of securing the loans from the banks has been raised. Our aim is to establish the most cost-effective method of administration in respect of top-up loans. The
324
financial institutions have great expertise in that area. Moreover, whatever noble Lords may read in the press, or have heard said in this debate, we are having constructive discussions with those institutions both individually and collectively. We are also studying possible public sector administrative arrangements of which the national insurance based scheme mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is an example. The discussions have not yet reached any conclusions and there is no reason why they should at this stage. However, they are producing various workable models for the administration of the new system. I can assure your Lordships, and prospective students, that it remains the Government's intention to have a loans scheme in place by September 1990.
As regards the question of student grants, which are linked very closely with that of top-up loans, much has been made of the decline in value of the grant in recent years. I have already mentioned that top-up loans will increase the resources available to students. However, the Government believe that students, like the rest of us, must bear some of the consequences of the need to contain public expenditure and reduce inflation.
We have no plans to extend the scope of the present grant system to cover free-standing access courses. But, increasingly, higher education institutions are offering conversion courses in science and engineering subjects as integral parts of first degree, higher diploma and equivalent courses. Those courses attract mandatory awards and we are encouraged by the extent to which institutions are broadening access to those subjects within the grant system.
I turn now to the particular issue of university lecturers' pay. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Flowers, Lord Beloff and Lord Adrian, for their strong condemnation of the university lecturers' boycott of examinations. It is indeed unprofessional and unworthy, and the more so in the light of the improved pay offer. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that lecturers should accept the offer and resume normal working in time for the summer term.
As regards aspects of the current offer, it is worth noting that lecturers' pay has kept ahead of inflation since 1979. Comparability should not be the main criterion. The key factors are recruitment, retention and affordability. No evidence has yet been produced of general manning problems. There are specific problems which can be dealt with through the flexibility of the pay system. If the present pay offer is accepted, the flexibility would be even greater. That is sensible targeting. I remind the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the Government have made considerable additional funding available for pay increases for university staff in response to representations from the employers and the AUT.
The noble Lords, Lord Dormand of Easington and Lord Hatch of Lusby, asked about adult education. The transfer of funding for university extra-mural departments to the Universities Funding Council in no way implies that the Government regard adult liberal education as less important or less valuable;

325
rather it will enable the whole range of adult continuing education to take its rightful place alongside other university activities. The new funding arrangements provide a much needed opportunity for universities to review the range of provision they make in their extra-mural departments, including not only liberal adult education, but also post-experience vocational education, part-time degree courses and access courses designed to prepare mature students for entry into higher education.
In the time available I am conscious of the fact that I have probably done less than justice to all the points which have been raised by noble Lords. I shall of course study the record of the debate closely and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend who has departmental responsibilities for higher education. Moreover, I shall write to noble Lords on the points to which I have not been able to reply.
I hope that I have shown that the Government very much value the contribution that higher education makes towards the intellectual and economic life of individuals in the nation. The general aim of our policies is to ensure that that contribution is both fostered and enhanced as we move towards the end of the century and beyond. Further, I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will read the report of this debate with very great interest.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for his reply to the debate. There are many points which he made in his reply that I should like to take up, but unfortunately time does not allow me to do so. However, there are just two or three points that I should like to comment upon and raise further questions about.
I am delighted to hear that the Government intend to set up a scheme for validating access courses. I am sure that that is something which will be welcomed by everyone in the House. Nevertheless, I should like to say that it is not just validation which is required; it is the extra funds—whether they be provided for universities, polytechnics, the local authorities, or the agencies which will provide such courses—that are really needed. There is no point in having validation without the money to get such courses off the ground.
The second point I should like to raise concerns something which is a particular interest of mine; namely, the issue concerning an increase in fees. I was extremely surprised to hear the noble Viscount say the effect of an increase in fees would be neutral on part-time students. I cannot see how that can be the case since part-time students are the only people who pay fees out of their own pockets. If the institutions which have large numbers of part-time students were to keep fees at their present level rather than raise them, they would suffer in turn because their grant allocation would presumably go down but their fees would not go up. Therefore I find it very hard to understand exactly what was being said. However, that is perhaps a matter which I can pursue on another occasion.
I was also somewhat surprised to hear that comparability is completely unimportant so far as
326
concerns the salaries of university teachers. When looking at pay claims, I think that it is a normal procedure to consider comparability. I certainly think that many university teachers compare their position in relation to others. There is no doubt that their position has become less good than it was 10 years ago, when compared with other similar groups.
As I said, there are other points which I should like to take up with the noble Viscount but there is no time now. However, I should like to say that in the debate this afternoon concerns about the state of higher education have been expressed from all sides of the House. I very much hope that the Government will go away and study what has been said and perhaps surprise us all by taking some positive action in responding to some of those concerns.
It remains only for me to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. I am most grateful to them. In particular, I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford on his excellent maiden speech. I believe someone said that he should be offered a first-class honours degree. We shall not do that at Birkbeck because it would depend on his performance; but we shall certainly offer him a place if he comes to London. Perhaps I may end by simply begging leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Schizophrenia After-Care Bill [H.L.]
8.8 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I should like to start by congratulating the speakers in the previous debate for managing to finish within three minutes of the stated time. I am most grateful to them for doing so.
The purpose of the Bill is, so far as practicable, to ensure appropriate after-care for persons who are discharged from hospital after receiving medical treatment for schizophrenia. In the report of the Chief Medical Officer for Health for 1987, published in October 1988, he stated, in the penultimate paragraph on page 69, that over half of those admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are,
"left with significant residual symptoms and seriously impaired social functioning, which needs long-term treatment and care".
The. Bill seeks to provide a mechanism for meeting that requirement. It concentrates primarily on schizophrenia patients because they comprise the single largest group of mentally ill. About one person in 100 will suffer from schizophrenia at some time in their lives.
The Bill will also enable the Government to encourage health authorities and local authorities to provide the facilities necessary to meet the requirements for assessment and aftercare for a specific group of mentally ill people and to learn from that what might be needed for a more comprehensive coverage of the mentally ill with a view to extending legislation later.

327
With regard to what view the Government may take, I have been much encouraged by an article by Mr. John Lewis published in The Times of 30th March which indicated that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health considered that the matter of care for the mentally ill was comparatively simple and should be dealt with in advance of a detailed response to the Griffiths proposals. It also said that health authorities were expected to be given direct responsibility for the care of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, thus implying that local authorities' present responsibilities for those groups of people will be relinquished. If that report is authentic—which I would welcome—I hope that the Government will feel that, with amendments to leave out some local authority references, the Bill is a move towards their intended course of action.
Regarding how the Bill might fit in with other legislation, Section 7 of the Disabled Persons Act 1986, when implemented, will give little help to schizophrenics, mainly because it covers only those discharged after six months in hospital, and most schizophrenics are in hospital for a shorter period. For example, in 1986 fewer than 2,000 of the 26,077 schizophrenics discharged from English hospitals would be covered by Section 7. The remainder would not. Mentioning English hospitals reminds me to tell your Lordships that the Bill applies to the whole of the United Kindom except Northern Ireland, for technical legislative reasons.
I shall now briefly describe the Bill. Clause 1 requires the manager of the discharging hospital to give 14 days' notice in writing, with a summary of the case, to the health authority of the district or area where the patient is likely to live, with concurrent notification of discharge to the local authority concerned, probably the general practitioner if practicable, and the nearest relative. The health authoriy concerned is required to make arrangements for the assessment of the after-care needs of the person, in consultation with the local authority.
Clause 2 requires the health authority and the local authority, in co-operation and continuously, to provide all the specific after-care services that the assessment shows to be necessary until such time as the health authority is satisfied that the person no longer requires such services or moves to another district or area.
If the person for whom the assessment has been made does not turn up in the expected health district or area, or moves unexpectedly, the health authority is required to make efforts to trace him. If the person moves openly, or is found in another district or area, the health authority is required to pass the information about the case on to the new district or area which then has to assume continuous responsibility for after-care. Finally, Clause 2 requires the health authority concerned to review each case annually and to decide whether care should be altered or ceased.
Clause 3 is technical. Clause 4 calls upon the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the implementation of the Bill and to publish information about
328
the provision of after-care under the Bill. Clause 5 makes financial provision; and Clause 6 gives definitions and other interpretations. Clause 7 establishes that the Act shall come into operation six months after it is passed.
As your Lordships can see, this is a simple Bill which meets a real need that grows in importance as efforts are made to place schizophrenics in the community. If such people are not cared for by public resource, they place an ever-increasing burden on their nearest relatives, who are often old and require care themselves.
All too frequently, schizophrenic people resist family care even when offered. Without some communiy care they resort to sleeping rough; to crime; to suicide; or to all three. Crime at least gives them a police roof over their heads. I can elaborate on those options and the effect of a lack of care but I hope that those speaking in the debate will do that.
I should like to thank the National Schizophrenia Fellowship for providing the basis of the Bill, and in particular Mr. Graham Pitt for drafting it with such skill. I should also like to thank the many who will contribute to the debate, and to those who have stayed behind at a late hour for a Wednesday to listen to it. There are not as many noble Lords present as I thought there might be when I prepared my speech; but perhaps they will take their places later. I also express my genuine thanks to those noble Lords (there are at least 10) who have written to me expressing their regret at being unable, owing to other unavoidable commitments, to be here in order to support the Bill. If they had been added to the 18 or so speakers, some of your Lordships may have been a little worried about the length of our debate. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Cromartie who has sadly been unwell since the new year and has been unable to attend the House since then. I should like to send him wishes for a speedy recovery from all of us taking part in the debate.
In addition, I should like to thank the Mental Health Foundation, whose president (the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones) I am happy to see on the Front Bench opposite, for its support; the Manic Depression Fellowship and the Salvation Army which have also indicated their support. The Salvation Army probably has more knowledge than any other organisation of the sad schizophrenics who are lost and deprived of formal after-care. Its support is especially meaningful. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take note of it.
I should also like to thank SANE (Schizophrenia a National Emergency) of which I have the privilege of being the chairman. It is a new charity which I hope will raise vast sums of money for the care of schizophrenics and for research into the malady.
Finally, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Henley, whom I welcome to the Front Bench in this role, for undertaking the task of replying to the debate on behalf of the Government. I hope that he can be encouraging. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mottistone.)
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to support very strongly the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who has brought forward this essential Bill. Some years ago I was chairman of a committee funded by the Richmond Fellowship which was concerned with the after-care of mental patients generally. There was a debate here on a Motion of the late Lord Beswick, who did so much for so many social causes and who will always be remembered by many of us.
Like every other Member of the House, I have naturally been interested in various aspects of the subject. I opened a debate last autumn on mental offenders. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I owe my main material to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. I have also benefited a great deal over the years from the advice and friendship of Mr. Peter Thompson of the Matthew Trust. As I have said before and shall say again, he has done more for mental patients than any other layman.
In addition, I had the privilege of discussions during the last few days with Lady Wakehurst, the sister of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who will address us later. At the age of 89, Lady Wakehurst is an example to some of us who are faltering in our early eighties. As some noble Lords and certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, will know, she is one of the founders of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and has done an enormous amount for it. I asked her tonight whether there was any message and she said, "Caring is everything". No one has given a better example of caring, as the noble Baroness knows, than her sister, Lady Wakehurst.
I shall concentrate briefly on one aspect of the subject; namely, the schizophrenic mental offenders. With the help of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship I shall bring before the House the results of a five-year study of 334 male offenders remanded by the courts to Winchester prison for psychiatric reports. They were therefore what one might call psychiatric cases. The reason for mentioning this study—and I cannot go into details—is that of the 334 men, 242 or 72 per cent. were diagnosed by the hospital doctors as having schizophrenia. For those who had already been in hospital, after-care was not providing them with anywhere to live in many cases. Nor did they have the support they needed to be able to look after themselves.
Without accommodation, continuing care and appropriate treatment, these schizophrenics and people like them will not manage outside hospital. They will offend again, as such people are liable to do. They will often offend in quite petty ways in order to get food or shelter. They will keep reappearing in the courts and prisons. That is one sector of the schizophrenics but they are obviously a very poignant group. I am told that the situation is likely to become worse rather than better, but that remains to be seen.
This Bill is vital. If schizophrenics are going to spend shorter periods in hospital than in the past, we must make sure afterwards that they no longer enter this frightful cycle which I have just dwelt on. We must meet their need for long-term accommo
330
dation and long-term care and suppport. For those reasons I support the Bill.
Noble Lords will remember the passage in the Gospels when Jesus Christ addressed those who befriended the sick and the prisoners:
"In so much as you did it to the least of these, my brethren, you did it to me".
I can imagine no members of our society whose plight demands that approach more than the schizophrenics, particularly those who have already been in trouble and found themselves unable to cope with society. I have the great privilege to support the noble Lord this evening.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford. It is a particular pleasure to do so on a subject on which he feels extremely strongly. Perhaps I may say to him that he is absolutely right to feel strongly since it is a subject which warrants strong feelings.
In addition, the noble Earl is very knowledgeable on the subject. That is every bit as important as feeling strongly about it. He referred to the committee of inquiry which he set up and which was sponsored by the Richmond Fellowship into the care of the mentally ill in the community. I had the honour to be a member of that committee of inquiry and it did some very valuable work. It came forward with some important recommendations, none of which, to my knowledge, has been implemented by this Government or indeed any other government. Nevertheless, the noble Earl has done a great deal of work in the field and I think we should recognise that.
I also recognise that we are privileged in this debate to have a list of speakers all of whom have a high degree of commitment to the subject and all of whom collectively bring a great deal of knowledge, expertise and wisdom to your Lordships' House and to the discussion.
We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for bringing forward the Bill, which deals with the plight of quite a small number of people in a special situation. Their needs are unusual and rather different from those of other mentally ill patients. Some people may suggest that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would have been wiser to await the Government's response to the Griffiths Report on community care. But how long would they have had to wait? In any case, I feel that the needs of this group of people are so special that frankly I doubt whether, when we see the Government's response to the Griffiths Report, that response will provide for the special needs of that group of patients.
Others may say that the noble Lord might have been wiser to wait for the full implementation of Section 7 of the Disabled Persons Act. We are promised that that will be implemented next year. Again, I think they are wrong because Section 7 of that Act provides that before a long-stay patient, is discharged from hospital his needs must be assessed. It does not say what has to be done about them or how those needs have to be met or who has to

331
meet them. It refers to long-stay patients. However, Section 7 does not apply to discharged patients when they have not been in hospital for six months or longer.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned in his introductory speech the fact that in 1986, the year he quoted—and I shall put the figures another way round—25,000 patients were discharged from hospital who had been there for periods shorter than six months. They therefore could not conceivably have benefited from the provisions of Section 7 of the Disabled Persons Act, had that been in force at the time. So I think that the noble Lord was right not to wait and to introduce the Bill.
If I may say so, community care is an extremely emotive subject—understandably, because it affects all of us in the community. There are few families who do not have some kind of contact with a person who needs care in the community. As the hospital closure plan gradually proceeds, more and more people will be concerned with it. We know that there are a great many so-called carers in the community who are landed with the job of looking after people who are handicapped, disabled or mentally ill. They carry a very heavy burden indeed. A sad fact is that there are smaller and smaller numbers of them.
Historically it has always been middle-aged women who have done the caring. If we examine what is happening demographically to the population, there are fewer and fewer middle-aged women, more and more old women and more and more young women. But they are not the people who do the caring, so it is an acute and real problem.
Community care is an emotive subject. Last night I had the privilege of attending a debate at the Royal College of Physicians. A number of noble Lords present were there, and some of them will speak later. It was a debate on primary care and inevitably it was about the new general practitioners' contract. There were a number of speakers. The principal speaker was Mr. Mellor, the Minister of State in the Department of Health. It was particularly informative for me to note that during that debate Mr. Mellor, speaking on behalf of the Government, said three times that it should not be forgotten that the White Paper and the eight working papers attached to it were consultation and discussion documents. He said they were not graven in stone, and that if objections were raised persuasively, and if the Government were persuaded of the need for changes, the Government would make those changes. It was very encouraging that the Minister made that point three times. Perhaps there will be changes.
I found it particularly interesting that the most enthusiastic applause during the course of that debate on the very important subject of primary health care was reserved for a lady who was representing the community health councils and who asked when the Government were going to publish their response to the Griffiths Report. This is a very important subject. I do not wish the Government to be hurried into producing a response which is wrong. I do not suggest for a moment that the Government
332
will swallow Griffiths hook, line and sinker and do everything which Sir Roy Griffiths recommended; but they must do something. They must come forward and say precisely what they are going to do.
I am trying to make the point that the needs of patients suffering from schizophrenia are unlikely to be met by whatever the Government provide in their final response to the Griffiths Report, unless perhaps they are persuaded by the presence of this particular Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has brought forward. We are talking about a very special, or rather an unusual disease, which fundamentally is a disorder of perception. It often affects young people, but it can also affect people of all ages, as we now know. There is no cure; but in many cases the condition can be controlled, and the patient can be kept in a state whereby he can be looked after at home. But one thing which is characteristic of the schizophrenic patient is that it is almost diagnostic of him that once out of medical control, he stops taking his medication. The inevitable result of that is that the condition then worsens and breaks down, and the patient has to go back into hospital. Such patients do not come under Section 7 of the Disabled Persons Act because they are in and out of hospital.
I noticed that the House of Commons Social Services Committee stated:
"there is a body of people, some of whom are known to the psychiatric services, and may at some time be in-patients, who drift between resettlement units. homelessness, hospital and prison".
Many of those people are patients suffering from schizophrenia. It is interesting to note that the London Salvation Army hostel study which covered many men in Salvation Army hostels, found that over 30 per cent. of the occupants of the hostels suffered from schizophrenia. Those are the kind of people we are talking about. There is something like a quarter of a million sufferers from schizophrenia in British society. They have special needs in hospital, but they have even more special needs when they are discharged from hospital.
What does this Bill seek to do? As it states in its Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill aims:
"to improve the provision of after-care services for persons discharged from hospital after having received treatment for schizophrenia".
We know perfectly well that many patients who are discharged from hospital, after having received treatment for schizophrenia, receive virtually no after-care services at all. I brought up such a case in a debate on an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House not very long ago. It was the rather sad case of Sharon Campbell, a girl suffering from schizophrenia who was discharged from hospital without the necessary after-care services. The consequences of that was that Sharon Campbell murdered a wholly innocent social worker called Isabel Schwarz. An inquiry was conducted into that, largely as a result of the very close interest taken in that case by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who was then the Minister responsible for such matters.
An inquiry was set up under Mr. John Spokes, QC. I remember the debate we had on the report of that committee of inquiry. I and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said there were two recommen

333
dations in the Spokes Report that we felt should be implemented at once. I quote those recommendations from the report, which stated:
"17.22 We recommend that health and local authorities, in co-operation with relevant voluntary agencies, should have a duty jointly to provide suitable after-care for former informal hospital patients who are, or have been, suffering from a mental disorder until those authorities decide jointly that the need no longer exists".
That is what the Bill of the noble Lord asks for. The report continues:
"17.23 We recommend that the Secretary of State issue to health and local authorities a written summary clarifying their statutory duties to provide after-care for former mentally disordered hospital patients".
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I and others asked for the implementation of those recommendations after the report was published and after it had been debated in your Lordships' House. That, in essence, is what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, seeks to do with this Bill. I have said nothing, and will say nothing, about the resource implications of the Bill. However, I have no doubt that those resource implications will be very close to the heart of the Minister who is to reply. However, things have to be done, whatever the resource implications.
It is a fact that carers looking after ill people in the community—including many patients suffering from schizophrenia—save the country £25 billion a year. That figure has been calculated very carefully. In reality they do not save the Government that figure, because no government would spend £25 billion a year. But what the carers provide would cost £25 billion a year if it were to be provided from official sources. I am under no illusions regarding providing adequate after-care for this very special and vulnerable group of people. I know it would be expensive. But failing to provide that after-care for that vulnerable group of people would be very expensive, and in the end it would be deeply damaging to the community in which we live.
8.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, to future generations our general failure to cope, with sympathy and kindness, with the problems of the mentally ill, will seem one of the more astonishing features of our age. However, that is not the subject of this Bill. As we have been told and know, the Bill deals with one specific set of problems. I lead a more sheltered life than some other Members of this House, and my experience has not been so much directly with schizophrenics as with their families who deal with those who have this appalling problem of not knowing where they are, who are in and out of hospital and who bear the uncertainty of what horrors tomorrow will bring. Those problems have already been mentioned.
I earnestly hope that we do not allow ourselves to be deflected from the course which this Bill represents. It is so tempting to believe that because we cannot help everyone, we must help no one. Yet the Bill gives practical relief to families and to victims of this illness. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if this illustration is fanciful. I see us as being in a situation not entirely unlike the situation where some distressed person goes to a medieval king while
334
he is on his journeys round the kingdom and stops the king's horse, seizes the hem of the king's garment and begs for justice and for help. If the person is fortunate and it is a good day, the king, who cannot solve all the problems in the kingdom, will do something to solve that supplicant's problem.
I see ourselves in that situation. We cannot help everyone, but this Bill could help some. I hope it may be able to do so. Like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I dare to refer to scripture. The piece of scripture I wish to refer to is curiously politically controversial. It concerns the parable of the Good Samaritan. I see the schizophrenic as the person who has indeed fallen among thieves and who is in the most desperate need of help. I hope we are not among those who pass by on the other side.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I, like all other speakers, wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on putting forward this admirable Bill. It is a Private Member's Bill: it is very difficult to get time in your Lordships' House to bring forward such a Bill. Yet the noble Lord has succeeded. I am sure we shall all support the measure; it concerns a vital subject.
My association with the treatment of schizophrenia goes back quite a long time. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, it was my sister, Lady Wakehurst, who started the Schizophrenia Fellowship. She was helped by Mr. John Pringle and Mrs. Pike Lees. They started the fellowship from the humblest beginnings. Nobody understood or knew anything about the subject. However, they had been in contact with schizophrenics and knew what was happening. From those humble beginnings it has today become a recognised association which operates in many parts of the country and, I think, abroad.
I do not know how many of your Lordships watched Esther Rantzen's television programme last Sunday. The programme was all about mental illness and schizophrenia. I thought it quite excellent. It was marvellous propaganda, if one considers the thousands of people who watch television on Sundays. The programme will have done as much good for public understanding of the disease as almost anything that we could have done.
While, as the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches has said, schizophrenia is now a recognised mental illness, it is still being analysed and studied by doctors who are experts on mental health in an attempt to find the right treatment. At present a total cure seems impossible. With the provision of care in the community many schizophrenics could live at home or in the community.
In 1986, 25,046 patients were admitted to mental hospitals. On analysis, 90 per cent. of those were found to be re-admissions. That shows how vital it is to provide care outside the hospitals—in homes and in the community where schizophrenics live—in order that they should not return to hospital.
In 1986, 26,077 schizophrenics were discharged from hospital. Of those, 13,307 were discharged in under one month following admission, and 10,814

335
between one and three months afterwards. Those 24,121 discharged schizophrenics would not be covered by any after-care. That is a devastating state of affairs.
The reason why 92 per cent. have to be readmitted to hospital is that once they return to the world and the community there is no one to care for them. They cannot care for themselves. That is not their fault. They are still ill. If there were day centres or accommodation with a social worker in charge, a large proportion of those sad people would be able to carry on their lives more or less normally.
That would not only help the patients. It would save the National Health Service thousands of pounds. Any money spent on preventing people having to go back into hospital is a help to those who are well and who have to pay taxes, as well as to those who are ill.
As I think your Lordships know, I am very interested in the prison service and the treatment of offenders. I was appalled to read in the brief accompanying the Bill that nearly 80 per cent. of the people picked up by the Metropolitan Police under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act have some mental disability and need care. Thirty-three per cent. had been admitted to hospital three or more times. There is more that I could say, but that is convincing evidence of the vital need for after-care.
This Bill ensures by law that schizophrenics receive after-care on discharge from hospital for as long as they need it. That will help families to cope with a member who is schizophrenic and save much unhappiness and difficulty. It could help to prevent crime. Many mentally ill people are involved in crime and then sent to prison. Prison will not cure any mental state.
The Bill is another attempt to prevent family breakdown, to prevent crime—however small its impact—and to help people to help themselves. For some reason, I never know why, so much legislation is reserved for people after they become ill and their illness has brought endless trouble and difficulty to families and those suffering mental illness. If the care was available before people became so ill and before those disasters happened, they would not have to go into hospital. They would be so much better off.
This Bill presents a real opportunity to help. I press the Minister to follow up this debate by helping the Bill to become law as soon as possible.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am particularly glad to follow the noble Baroness in this debate in that she drew attention to the admirable television programme last Sunday by Esther Rantzen. That gives me the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his timing. Perhaps he will benefit from the glamour of Esther Rantzen's programme (and perhaps some publicity will be given to this debate), which focused her general concern with mental illness on this particular problem which, as we have heard, affects over a quarter of a million people in this country. That is a huge constituency.
336
Like the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, when I first saw this Bill I too thought that perhaps it was superfluous and that Section 7 of the Disabled Persons Act 1986 would, if implemented, cover this issue. I believe that it is a first priority of the Government to implement the unimplemented sections of that Act. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was quite right; that would not do because the section refers only to those who have been in hospital for six months. That is by no means always the case with those who suffer from schizophrenia.
Equally I thought that perhaps we ought to wait for Griffiths. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I accept that one cannot wait for ever. I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing the specific provisions of this Bill to deal with the vast number of people who suffer from the condition.
I wish to make only one suggestion. I feel very strongly about the matter and I hope that the Minister will take it on board and that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will see that it helps in the implementation of his Bill. I believe that a very great deal could be done by hostels as a half-way house between hospitals and care in the community. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has already mentioned two voluntary organisations which provide hostels —the Richmond Fellowship and the Salvation Army. As the noble Lord has said, the Salvation Army finds that a high proportion of its customers —at least 30 per cent.—suffer from this condition. Those people have not been picked out, they merely represent a sample of those who lodge with the Salvation Army.
We have heard from the noble Baroness that the same is true of those who sleep rough. The condition of schizophrenia has largely been the cause of their plight. If it is the Government's policy to close the majority of hospitals with places for such people, it is not enough simply to rely on care in the community. There must be some provision between the devoted work of carers on the one hand, who need relief from the strains of looking after these people and, on the other hand, return to hospital. I strongly urge the Government to think seriously of the need to find places in hostels where such people could be looked after responsibly. I place special emphasis on the word "responsibly". The wardens could notify local GPs so that they would share the duty of supervision. Between them they could ensure that the patient was prescribed the right medication and, as mentioned, have the important duty of making sure that the patient took the medication.
Good hostels can and do provide not only food and accommodation but show genuine concern for those who lodge with them, including concern for their general welfare and help with finding jobs. Places in hostels are almost always cheaper than beds in hospitals. They offer sheltered places in the community, and are frequently better than the provision offered by hospitals or distracted parents. Good hostels can and do attract volunteers, who could befriend sufferers.
As we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the worst cases of schizophrenia may lead to destitution which in turn leads to stealing for food and shelter and to prison. As the noble Baroness

337
said, prison is by far the worst disposal for them. It is not fair on the prison system, the prison officers or the prison medical service, let alone the other prison inmates. It is of course the last place which it is fair to send the unfortunate sufferer. It is unfair also on the sufferer's friends, parents and relations if the individual is lucky enough to have them. Here again hostels could provide an infinitely better home than prison for such people. It may always be right that they should go first into hospital for proper medical assessment before being sent to such hostels. I strongly recommend that such hostels should be available.
I have a number of brief case histories supplied by very old friends of mine who are the parents of a schizophrenic son. However, I will not relay them in the interests of time. Although they support excellently the principle of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, I do not wish to bring them before the House because they criticise a local hospital fairly severely. I think that it would be preferable merely to draw the Minister's attention to the criticism so that, if he thinks it right, he can pass it onto the health authority. I think that that is a better course than giving the name of the hospital.
I also have a number of detailed but relatively small criticisms of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will consider them after the Bill has had its Second Reading.
It remains for me to thank the noble Lord again for bringing the Bill forward and to wish it speedy progress through Parliament.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wish first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for his excellent timing and for the deep care that he took in opening the debate on Second Reading. He set the scene for those noble Lords, of whom I am one, who are not as closely in touch with the issue as he is. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues fully recognise the timing of the Bill and the necessity and value of it in the totality of the problem. I was grateful to the noble Lord for indicating that there could be a wider application in regard to after-care attached to the Bill in respect of other sufferers in this field. It is clearly a difficult situation. We are here to fight and plead a corner, which it is right and proper to do. I cannot believe that there are many other issues or priorities of greater importance than what we are debating tonight.
I want to ask: what are we about, not only in the Bill but in this debate? I believe we are entitled to say that we are airing a condition and a situation of which I believe the vast majority of the public are unaware. They may well be aware of schizophrenia and of the move to bring people out of institutions back to the community, but I do not believe that they are aware of the sadness, despair and depression in this respect.
If I may speak directly to the Minister, I hope that what we are about is to reinforce not only his views but the views of the Government in this matter. We want the Government to understand what we in this House and Members in another place wish to do.
338
We want to let the Minister see that. if he legislates along these lines, he will have our support. I believe that that reinforcing role is important.
Another reason for supporting the Bill is to give hope and comfort to patients and carers. There are noble Lords who are willing to spend their time doing research and standing up and 13aying what we are saying today. I believe that hundreds of thousands of people outside the House will be grateful for the debate.
Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to have received the document entitled Slipping through the Net, which says:
"Mental hospitals are being run down and closed, and seriously mentally ill people, such as those with schizophrenia, are being put out into 'community care' with a 'safety net' of services to support them. But how good is that net?".
I think that this will prove to be a valuable record of what happened last year and will be much used in the future.
Doctor John Kilgour, Director of Medical Services, HM Prisons, at page 23 says:
"My colleagues and I find ourselves having to handle people who are inappropriately committed to a custodial sentence, due, to put it bluntly, to the failure of the community to provide suitable facilities for them".
The community is not the Government, social service departments, hospitals or political parties; the community is all of us. We are all guilty to some extent for allowing this to happen.
I wish to give a particular illustration. I am pleased to be able to refer to a statement by a Member of another place. Mrs. Gillian Shepherd, Member for Norfolk, South West, who in February 1989 said:
"There is no excuse for any group of patients ever to be disadvantaged because of faulty co-operation between agencies or professionals, yet this is precisely what can happen to people with schizophrenia".
I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention a very sad case about which I have been told. I received a letter that begins as follows:
"Dear Lord Ted, I come to you in the greatest despair and with the fervent hope that you will be able to help where all else has failed".
How often have Members of this House and indeed others heard that phrase or a similar one when people have come to them? They believe that all help has failed.
The letter continues:
"In 1977 we had to have my son, Jason, admitted to … hospital".
I shall not give the name of the hospital. The letter goes on:
"not because we thought it was a suitable place for him but because it was all that was offered and as we had no financial resources there were no options … Jason was then 12 years old and was cerebral palsied but he had no behavioural problems and was a fun-loving, affectionate boy. He is also severely physically handicapped (caused by neo-natal asphyxia) and was becoming too much to cope with at home. Also, I divorced his father, and these factors combined to put him in a place which I considered then was completely unsuitable. I have never had any reason to change this opinion, which has been confirmed by everyone who has visited him there".
There follows a further history. It is almost asking the House to believe the impossible—that not for five years, not for 10 years but for 12 years this

339
woman has sought to have her son placed nearer to her home and in a better situation.
I have here a letter written by that woman's Member of Parliament, who is a caring and compassionate man, as I should like to put on record. I shall not mention his name. For more than 10 years he has raised this issue on behalf of her son. For over 10 years he has repeatedly and persistently pursued the matter. This letter is dated October 1979.
The nub of my remarks is that there is apparently some difficulty between two authorities—the health authority and the local authority—in coming to terms on the precise financial arrangements that need to be entered into in order to arrange a satisfactory transfer. I should like to read very quickly part of a letter received from a social worker in Enfield and written to that woman in December 1985. It says:
"I have now received a letter from … Social Services Department, who has confirmed that his Authority is happy to hand over responsibility for the case management of your son, Jason, to my authority. This will include the handing over of monies from the Health Authority should my Authority be able to find a suitable alternative placement".
I also have copies of other letters from which it seems that everything is going well. However, then comes a letter of May 1986 in which it is stated:
"it was with regret that I learned that your Authority will not be in a position to transfer funds to a community placement for Jason at present, but there is some consolation in that funds are likely to be available in 1987/1988 … I realise that this will be a bitter disapointment for [this lady] who for a long time has been campaigning for her son".
A letter from the authority concerned written in 1986 states:
"The Regional Health Authority has issued a draft policy for consultation on the transfer of resources from the long stay hospitals on the discharge of patients. Initially the consultation period was to be from January to March but this has now been extended until the end of June. Consequently the policy will not be operational until the next financial year".
There are other letters. Finally comes a very sad one from the local authority dated February 1989, which is more than three years after the prospect was given of a transfer to a better place for someone who ought not to have been where he was at that time. It states:
"I deeply regret that we are not yet, as an Authority, able to provide the placement for Jason as agreed. I can only repeat my earlier correspondence that Jason's place is subject to negotiations between the Local Authority and the District Health Authority in terms of re-provision for people living in long-stay hospitals. I am, however, optimistic that the Agreements that are required to be signed will be signed in the not too distant future, therefore allowing us to commence the alterations to the flat".
The prospect for that young man was of being moved into a flat with two others. That letter was written three months ago. I saw the woman last weekend to check the facts and learnt that there had been no further information. So there is a lady who for 12 years has been fighting for her son, and an agreement between her and the authority which is more than three years old. It concerns a young man of 26. Most of these people are young. He is able and willing, as are the two authorities, but they are unable to find a financial formula to solve the problem. That is a disgrace, is it not? I ask the
340
Minister to say whether he believes that this is a disgrace and deeply disturbing. I have told the Minister's advisers that tomorrow I shall send him the appropriate correspondence. At the very least I hope that he will take those responsible and knock their heads together. I do not know whether they are politicians or bureaucrats. We know, however, that the sufferers are this lady and her son. There are thousands of others in the same position.
I hope that when he responds the Minister will confirm that he cares and is concerned about this situation. It is disgraceful that in Britain in 1989 there is such anguish being suffered not only in one household but in thousands. The very least that he can say is that if it concerns a question of formula or agreement he will make it understood that such a situation must not arise again. If it is a matter of resources, we still ask him to say how such resources can be made available. The Jasons of this world are not so few that we can ignore them, but even if there were only one Jason in this country he is a human being who is entitled to the compassion, care and concern that everyone on this earth is entitled to receive, especially in our Britain of 1989.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I join with earlier speakers in expressing gratitude to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for having introduced the Bill and provided an opportunity for us to discuss what I believe is an important and urgent subject. I am the patron of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship of Scotland and during the International Year of the Disabled in 1981, when I was the chairman for Scotland of the International Year, we especially tried to extend public awareness of mental disability.
Schizophrenia is the most prevalent mental illness in this country. However, unless one has had the misfortune of having a member of one's family or a close friend as a victim, it is still little known and much misunderstood. Schizophrenia is widely thought to be simply a defect of split personality—a Jekyll and Hyde phenomenon. That is a misapprehension of what in reality is a serious and disabling mental illness. It is an illness for which no cure has yet been discovered. Its cause is still not known for certain, though it is thought to be connected with the chemical content of the brain. It seems that the condition is present from birth, though a strange feature of schizophrenia is that it does not strike individuals until they have reached their teens, usually between the ages of 14 and 18. Before that, there are no visible signs.
Families are therefore hit unexpectedly by this unkindest of blows. We who are taking part in this debate are familiar with this illness. It is important that we get messages to the world outside, to the public and the media. For example, the symptoms and characteristics of schizophrenia do not constitute split personality. The main ones are other signs of mental disorder: for example, hearing voices, complete unpredictability, incapacity to cope with daily life, intense anxiety about meeting people or taking part in even the smallest social gathering, and, more serious, the temptation at times to suicide.

341
I believe that Marjorie Wallace and The Times newspaper performed a great service some months ago in the enlightening articles explaining the subject. Thirty years and more ago the more acute sufferers were placed in asylums, whether they were correctly diagnosed with schizophrenia or some other serious mental illness. Since then, due to advances in medical science, treatment and medicine can control the illness, not cure it. Many sufferers can live nearly normal lives in the community, outside hospitals and institutions. Usually they are on regimes of tablets and injections adjusted as necessary. They still need supervision, the degree depending on the circumstances of the case. This, I believe, is the best arrangement for all concerned. It is to be commended and encouraged. However, it can work only if the necessary supervision and care are available in the community. It is essential that the sufferers continue with their prescribed medication.
Some sufferers will need to return to hospital at times and the means of fielding them and recognising their condition must be there in the community. What we must avoid is schizophrenics being discharged from hospital with no arrangements for care in their area of residence. Many are completely unable to fend for themselves without help and attention. Very often parents cannot help. This is another unfortunate and poignant feature of the illness. Medical advisers—psychiatrists—at times have the unenviable task of telling parents that a son or daughter cannot and should not come home and that the parents must not try to make contact. This can be for a period of months or even years. This goes against all the instincts of parents although it has proved to be clinically correct. It makes the availability of adequate care in the community all the more necessary in such cases with this illness.
I turn briefly to what is known as the Italian experience. That was an extreme case of emptying mental hospitals. As a result of the Italian Law No. 180 of 1978, large numbers of mental hospitals were closed. The reasons were that there had been much criticism in Italy of grim conditions in those hospitals and alleged incidents of indignities and abuse concerning the patients. The exodus was ordered, however, before any proper alternative services had been created in large areas of the country. Dreadful situations and horrifying episodes occurred which must never be allowed to happen here.
In this country it is now possible for more sufferers from schizophrenia to live in the community rather than in institutions, as in the past. That surely is to be welcomed. However, unless proper care in the community is available related to the individual cases, there will be tragedies and there will be distressing sagas concerning aimless, homeless and ill people.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, we are greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Motttistone for introducing this well drafted and well thought-out Bill. The problem of schizophrenia is horrifying. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy made an excellent
342
contribution. Much too little is known about the cause of the disease or its cure, in spite of a great deal of devoted research. Almost all noble Lords will know someone, or a relative of someone, who suffers from the disease.
Now that so many mental hospitals are to be run down or reduced in size and scope, there is a real danger that the number of helpless people sleeping rough outside or under bridges will increase. The danger is not only to those people but to the rest of the community, as we have heard explained in the debate. That is an additional reason why the Government should take this subject seriously.
My first major point is that we must not—I repeat, "must not"—discharge mentally ill people into the community unless there is someone (a relation, parent or organisation) to help and care for them kindly, intelligently and with experience.
I hope that this excellent Bill will reach the statute book. It should ensure that the right people are informed before patients are discharged. Without being an expert in the field, I wonder whether we yet have in place the necessary network of community care orgainisations which will ensure that all schizoprenia patients discharged from hospitals can be adequately cared for everywhere. I believe that that requires a great deal of initiative and kindly work at local level, together with much helpful backing and finance from local authorities. My noble friend Lord Henderson made an excellent contribution to our thoughts in his reference to hostels. The work of the Salvation Army bears that out.
It is not enough to leave the provision of adequate community care to chance or to the occasional local genius. There needs to be an energetic push from central government. I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance on that subject.
I hope that the reduction in the number of mental hospitals is not regarded as another way of cutting government expenditure. I feel certain that it is not. As sure as I stand here, proper community care will not in the end be cheaper than good mental hospitals. However, I accept the fact that if—I repeat the word "if"—it is well done, community care may, in modern conditions and with the new drugs properly administered, prove to be better for the patients. That is another reason why I believe that we should "go for it" seriously and actively.
I turn to the local problem for individual patients. The key here is that good, experienced and continuing advice should be available to the patients and to their friends and families. I do not believe that we should overload our hard-worked doctors, although that will be necessary on occasions. There is need for many more community psychiatric nurses (CPNs) who can get to know discharged patients and become familiar with their individual history and state of mind. They can also advise families and friends looking after the patients. That is an expert job. It requires development of central government policy and certainly some expenditure. At present there are only 2,000 community psychiatric nurses. I am told that we shall need approximately 10 times that number as the Government's policy develops

343
and as the increased number of psychiatric patients have to be constantly and expertly looked after in the community. I should like an assurance from the Minister that that key problem will be earnestly considered and properly dealt with.
Returning to the local organisations for community care, I have heard of a remarkable development at Southsea near Portsmouth. An inter-agency forum, established by the local health authority, has drawn in the social services and various voluntary bodies such as MIND and SANE. The whole closely-knit organisation works with enthusiasm and efficiency in order to provide a better integrated service for the mentally ill. I hope that central government can spread that excellent idea if they approve of it. I should be glad to know of the Government's views. Sadly, we have to recognise that schizophrenia patients are prone to relapse and have to go back for a time to hospital. I seek an assurance from the Government that enough beds will be retained in our mental hospitals so that we can be sure to meet that sad need because it is very real.
Speaking strictly as a Cross-Bencher, perhaps I may make the following slightly political point. I enormously admire what the Government have done to release the spirit of enterprise in our economy. They have done a marvellous job despite the present economic difficulties. Unfortunately, not everyone can take advantage of the new prosperity. I suggest to the Government that it is precisely on health questions and problems such as discharged schizophrenia patients going into a system of well organised community care that they can again show that they truly care about the well being of people, especially those who cannot easily make the grade in our enterprise economy.
What is more, I believe that some seed money will lead to disproportionately good results among our many kindly and caring countrymen. Perhaps I may recommend that approach to the Government and again say how much I hope that they will find time for this excellent Bill to go through Parliament.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow such an excellent and constructive speech as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. I particularly welcome his emphasis on the need to create an after-care network and to strengthen it and also to quintuple the number of community psychiatric nurses because they are absolutely fundamental. I very much congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on introducing this worthy and very well intentioned Bill.
I consider that there is a certain parallel between his Bill and my own Private Member's Bill to regulate and restrict the hours of junior hospital doctors which went through all stages in your Lordships' House. I believe that there should have been no need for either piece of legislation. Both are being brought in—or were brought in my case—because of the frustration amounting at times to despair caused by
344
the failure of the Government to achieve the widely desired aims of both Bills over the years, despite acknowledging the need.
There is no doubt—and almost every speaker so far has emphasised this point—that the policy of discharging mentally vulnerable people into the community has not been matched by the provision of the services which they need. Their needs are quite well understood, certainly by their families and by the social and health professionals responsible for their care. Also, the needs are often understood by the patients themselves when they are in a good state of health which is being maintained by their treatment. They know that they need the help of a constant and caring person. They know that they need a secure home, a roof over their heads, and that they need a satisfying and constructive way to spend their days.
In certain districts facilities and staff for after-care are far better than in others. I am a general practitioner who works very constructively and in a very professionally satisfying way with community psychiatric nurses and with residential care social workers with a number of very disabled patients. However, I was very sad to read in some of the briefing material which we have received that in eight health districts no community psychiatric nurses were appointed and another 17 had five or less. Even in my district of Bloomsbury, where there are 20 psychiatric nurses, six psychiatric day centres, two day hospitals and four sheltered hostels for discharged long-stay patients, the provision is inadequate. Many vulnerable patients are left to fend for themselves. Admittedly Bloomsbury is a special case. It is the end of the line for ill patients who have drifted away from their families, who come from all over the country and from other countries. Therefore, our need per head of population is greater than most.
Many of these severely sick patients might not be covered by the Bill. We have already discussed how it would be desirable for the Bill to be widened. Such patients would not be covered, first, because there are many mentally ill patients who are not diagnosed as schizophrenic but who are severely ill. For example, there are manic depressives, those with severe personality disturbances and many others with less easily classified conditions. In fact, these outnumber the classical schizophrenics. I hope that in Committee we will able able to consider this aspect in more detail. Perhaps the Minister himself will be able to bring forward an amendment. We shall be interested to have further discussion on that point.
There are also patients in the community who need the help which would be provided by the Bill—perhaps severely mentally ill people—who have for various reasons recently been discharged from hospital. There are many sick people living in the community who need follow up assistance, some of whom have never been admitted to hospital. Others have been discharged—possibly too early—because of present policies and decreasing bed numbers; perhaps some time in the past, but they are still dependent. I recognise that it might be difficult to decide which of these patients should be included.

345
Some would much resent receiving care under a legislative framework. I can see a problem. If the Bill were to become law there is the possibility that the existing staff and the buildings might be fully occupied coping with discharged patients covered by the Bill to the detriment of those already receiving care in the community. This simply emphasises the need to increase provision in the community.
I am a little worried about the lack of provision in the Bill for the involvement of patients themselves in decisions affecting their future lives. If they are to be given the maximum opportunity of reintegrating themselves, even in a limited way, into the life of the community the provisions of the Bill would have to be applied in an extremely sensitive way. Patients need to be given choices about housing and their day care. That is less likely under a statutory provision than if the facilities and carers were provided as part of adequate health and social service arrangements and used the existing and soon to be implemented legislation.
I understand the reasons for insisting on adequate follow-up and surveillance in a Bill such as this. At the moment they are not being provided when there
346
is no requirement. The health authorities may need to have legislation before they increase their staffs to such an extent that they can implement a proper follow-up policy. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that if the recommendations of the Griffiths Report were to be accepted and implemented by the Government:—or most of them—we might be moving in the right direction; at least so far as the accommodation and day care part of the problem is concerned.
The need has been mentioned to increase greatly the number of community psychiatric nurses, and I believe that is extremely necessary, if proper after-care is to be given. That point is not addressed directly by Griffiths.
Those are a few thoughts from a practising GP in an inner city with a large number of vulnerable and mentally-ill patients. I fully endorse the urgency of the problem that this Bill is attempting to address. I wish the Government would move so rapidly in dealing with it that the Bill becomes unnecessary. I have very little hope of that. I fully support the Bill, which needs to be amended as I have suggested. I hope very much that noble Lords will give it a second reading.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Mottistone on introducing this excellent and necessary Bill. I am grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rea, because he has expert knowledge in very difficult areas. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, also has that expert knowledge. I know a little of the excellent and exceptional work that the noble Lords perform. It has been said that the large mental hospitals are pretty awful places. In many cases they are vast Victorian mausoleums, and they are gradually being run down. In that process it is incorrectly presumed that there will be care in the community of all the people who are leaving such hospitals. Up to the present moment that is not so. A number of people are leaving these hospitals and becoming homeless. If they are lucky they go to hostels; if they are luckier still they return to live with their families. That is often very difficult for all of them.
I do not believe that anyone has mentioned violence. I believe that noble Lords will agree that often these patients are very violent and can be very disruptive both to their neighbours but usually to the people whom they love most; namely, their parents.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. It is only a proportion of schizophrenics who are violent. The large majority of them are very calm and quiet people who would not be violent to anyone.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord has a much greater knowledge of this subject than I. I have a large number of letters in my hand. In all of them the families say that they are frightened of their sons who are often 19 or 20 years of age and they are frightened of living with them. That is one of the problems. I hope that the noble Lord and I will agree to differ on this point.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way in order that I may intervene on her side of this argument. I referred to the sad case in which a patient suffering from schizophrenia murdered a social worker. Therefore, let us not go away with the impression that we. are unaware that such people can be violent. They can be violent if proper after-care is not provided.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I do not differ from the noble Baroness, but I do not wish the impression to be given that all schizophrenics are violent. That would be a pity. I accept that unfortunately a proportion of them are violent and that is a problem. It would be wrong to give the impression that all of them are violent.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is there any other noble Lord who wishes to interrupt me? I shall be very willing to sit down because the hour is late. As other noble Lords have said, when these people have left hospital it is absolutely vital that
348
there should be a follow-up to the health authorities. The schizophrenics should be monitored by the community psychiatric nurses who are able to give them the medication that they need and also oversee that they are taking it.
Local authority social workers are not suitably qualified people to look after those suffering from schizophrenia. The Griffiths Report seemed to think that social workers and the service managers whom they advise us to have could give the help and service required. I do not think they could. I have received many letters from the parents of young people living at home. I shall quote briefly from one. They are all tragic, but in this letter a lady refers to her two sons, both of whom suffer from schizophrenia. She says:
"I am seventy and half years old. It hurts badly that I could no longer care for them. Six young men whom they knew—two were friends—suicided in the last four years. They did not have hostel accommodation. They were on their own. Please, please help".
I have also received many letters from psychiatrists who are worried about these people who are now outside the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, will be familiar with the Enfield Health Authority. I was talking only yesterday at Chase Farm to one of its excellent service managers. She has a long history of looking after psychiatric patients. She is now, luckily for them, the service manager. She told me that by 1993 both Claybury and Friern will be closed. Her unit will have to take in 150 extra patients. Wards will be provided because the authority is already starting to build wards to take in those patients. Unfortunately, some of the beds needed for local mental patients are taken up by elderly patients. She says that she needs more community psychiatric nurses. She has 16 and needs 30. She also needs day centres for these people to go to so that their parents can have some relief and also for those who do not have hostel accommodation. She needs a 24-hour psychiatric team to be ready in case things blow up in the home. She also says that a register of patients must be kept by the health authority.
I should like for a moment to move away from schizophrenia and deal with psychiatry. I am president of the housing association for Napsbury, which has a large psychiatric hospital. I should like briefly to tell the House what is happening there. It has a good way of dealing with those who are able to go into the community. They are chosen, six at a time, to go into flats within the confines of this vast hospital. They live together, six men and women, for about three months to see whether they get on. One does all the cooking and the housework and the others go out to work. They are not schizophrenic because, as we know, schizophrenics can hardly ever go out to work. These are psychiatric cases. They are then housed by local authorities. There are 12 local authorities. We now have 12 houses in which six people live on a halfway basis. They then go on to live outside the confines and some marry. They are then considered to be all right and are not a burden to anybody. That is a wonderful way of dealing with people who doctors and nurses think are able to live in the community. That is the way of the halfway houses.

349
However, in this debate we are discussing the illness of schizophrenia. I hope that the Government will listen to what we all have to say because I feel that schizophrenia is different from the other kinds of mental illness. In my view, schizophrenics need more constant help and more constant medication. I also hope that the Government will give this Bill a fair wind.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I strongly endorse the description of the Bill as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, as both excellent and necessary. I very much hope, as previous speakers have said, that the Government will take this matter on board and, if possible, find time for it. However, if that proves not to be possible perhaps they will at least take it as a model for their own legislation for which we have been waiting for a long time and which we keenly expect.
Clause 2 of the Bill would provide all the necessary services that after-care requires. However, you can lead a horse to the stream but you cannot make it drink. I should like to confine my remarks to an aspect which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley; that is, cases where discharged patients with serious schizophrenia refuse, or are unable or unwilling—deliberately or otherwise—to take the medication which their doctors have prescribed for them.
In such cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, the symptoms inevitably recur, usually very rapidly. I myself, with a member of the family to whom we used to have to give care, have experienced the speed with which failure to accept medication results in recurrence; that is, recurrence of hallucinations, of voices and—in this case—of violence and depression. This generally creates circumstances in which the caring family just cannot cope. Those symptoms derive straight away from the nature of the disease.
The reason the discharged patient does not avail himself of the medication services is built into his condition. One of the central features of schizophrenia is the erosion of the powers of normal responsibility for your own welfare; you just do not bother about what you need. Moreover, you are unable to adhere to a routine and you are liable to forget and ignore the prescriptions.
On discharge the lucky patients are able to go to hostels. I warmly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said about the value and importance of hostels. Please may we have more of them? I understand that there are places for only one in 10 of those who require hostel treatment, and so most of those discharged return to their unfortunate relations for them to do the best that they can, to bed and breakfast accommodation or perhaps to solitary flats, and often, as we have been told, to live rough on their own resources. They often resent attempts to help them.
The refusal of patients to do what they should in the way of medication is likely to be one of the most difficult themes for the code of practice which Clause
350
4 so usefully provides. There can be no cut-and-dried solution because all the cases are to some extent different from one another. There must be individual treatment. It is necessary to contemplate a spiral of the different forms of special action that may be necessary to induce those patients to get the treatment, or to help them to get the treatment, that they should have. The first recourse is for the CPN or the social worker to persuade the patient to do what he should do. If one visit is not sufficient, there should be recurrent visits with such help as he or she can get from members of the family or friends. It may still be impossible to persuade the patient to do what he should do. Apart from the problem of his unwillingness, there is the problem of access to patients who are living rough. With the best framework in the world, how on earth shall we succeed in keeping in touch with patients living rough? I find that difficult to imagine, but we must do our best.
There is then the extreme case of the persistent and deliberate refusal of medication, despite clear and responsible prescription. In theory it is then possible again to go through the elaborate procedures for certification and enforced residential treatment, but that, after all, runs counter to the whole philosophy of community care and, in ally case, there are always likely to be practical difficulties, if only through the shortage of beds.
Do we not need to work out a new half-way house to confinement? It could be a new mode of carefully considered certification by responsible doctors to authorise the health authority to administer compulsory treatment, whether in day centres, clinics or elsewhere without the need for residential confinement. There would of course have to be safeguards. The rights of patients must be most carefully respected, but without some such fallback position I do not see how even the ideal framework of after-care which the Bill sets out to provide can fail once again to allow a considerable number of serious schizophrenics to slip through the net, with grave damage to themselves, to their relatives and to the carers in the community
9.50 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, like other speakers I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on introducing the Bill, the provisions of which are admirable and a marked improvement on Section 7 of the Disabled Persons Act 1986. If applied, those provisions will go a long way towards meeting needs.
However, I am very doubtful about the wisdom of legislating on the basis of a diagnosis. I hope that the mover of the Bill will agree to amend it to cover mental illness. There is a danger that one psychiatrist, in order to make sure that his patient is looked after, might automatically diagnose schizophrenia. There could also be the risk of the direct opposite—some very sticky psychiatrist who feels that there is a legal consequence from labelling somebody schizophrenic. He may be very slow to make that diagnosis. Both dangers exist in the Bill. If the truth be told, schizophrenics are the people who benefit most from

351
its provisions even if the Bill were to apply to all mental illness.
We have here an illness which at its mildest can mean that a fellow is merely awkward and unsociable; at the other extreme there is the bizarre behaviour to which attention has been drawn. That behaviour includes violence on which there has already been a debate. There is also the disease in which relapses are frequent and remissions abound. There is another disease where the patient has no insight and so is very difficult about taking medication because he thinks he is all right.
Those are the people who will benefit most from the provisions of the Bill. I can therefore see no difficulty from the point of view of those who are anxious to look after schizophrenics. I recognise what the fellowship wishes and I can see no difficulty so long as the Bill covers all mental illness. I believe that that is the proper course and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I also hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has conferred with his friends he will agree to amend the Bill so that it covers all mental illness.
Many of the suggestions made earlier are admirable. There is no question about it: we need more hostels. The noble Lord was right about the need for halfway houses. If we are short of community psychiatric nurses we shall fail. That is a very important factor in the provisions. I put it this way: we are coming to an important era. What we ought to do is to agree tonight that we shall legislate along the lines suggested in the Bill. However, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise the need to extend the Bill to other mental illness.
9.55 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, I wish to add my support to my noble friend Lord Mottistone and to the Bill which sets out to deal with very serious problems. The problems which we are discussing are aggravated by the closures of so many psychiatric hospitals, thereby scattering many pitifully mentally ill patients into all kinds of homes and hostels—and even on to the streets—without proper care. Resources are urgently needed to provide the after-care treatment which schizophrenics require. Many of them need care from psychiatric nurses, many of them need basic warmth, food and clothing, quite apart from accommodation in hostels and sheltered workshops.
People in this country are really beginning to care about the mentally ill. They will not countenance a policy which deprives people of their needed care which could be made available, given the money. Attitudes to mental health are changing, although, sadly, the advances that have been made in various fields of medicine have not included a cure for schizophrenia.
I must say that my family has had recent experience of schizophrenia, and although new treatments and drugs have been found there are so far no available cures. I shall put a few key points to your Lordships as I see them. Family doctors are not
352
always as responsive to the signs of illness in patients, or to the pleas of relations, as they should be. If there are obvious symptoms, a case should be referred by the doctor immediately to a psychiatrist. If there is a delay, symptoms could get worse; and the longer the delay, the more difficult the treatment.
If the case is referred to a hospital for treatment, in due course the patient will either return to his or her family or it is to be hoped go into some form of community care. Then every precaution will be needed to prevent a relapse perhaps into depression or even into hallucination. All the prescribed drugs and treatments and the necessary psychiatric attention will have to be given to the patient when he or she begins a new life outside the walls of the hospital. It is vitally important that everyone involved, doctors, nurses and members of the family, make sure that the prescribed pills are taken and that alcohol is avoided.
The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that hostels can play a big part here is a valid one. The point made by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve about violence is valid in that so many of the gentlest people can become aggressive if pills are not taken or if alcohol is taken. After leaving hospital, patients are enormously vulnerable and many of them find it hard to cope with the simplest problems. Even having to decide to move from one part of a room to the other is hard. In that early stage of recovery some have inner needs for self-expression which should be channelled into something positive and creative by therapists who are equipped to help. Those are the lucky ones who will find freedom; others may need leadership for the rest of their lives.
Quite often family members are not wanted and people who are less close to the patients are better able to shoulder the responsibility. At this crucial stage when the first assessment has been made, the supervision of the health authority is particularly needed to make sure that the local authority co-operates and implements all the arrangements. Equally important is the need for the health authority which makes the assessment to get in touch with a patient's doctor and, whenever possible, a patient's family.
After a decision has been made as to whether the patient is to be helped within the family or in some other environment, or by a mixture of both, the health authority must make sure that the family is given some advice through a doctor or psychiatrist. Whether or not the patient is sent home, the family is still involved. Many families do not understand and are frightened by the situation. They must be given guidance and encouragement to help to remove any ideas of guilt about being in any way the cause of the illness. The cause of the illness is genetic and not environmental.
Section 7 of the Disabled Persons Act and its requirement that six months have been spent in hospital has been referred to. In most cases there is no need to stay in hospital for as long as six months, with unnecessary demands on beds or medical staffs concerned. The system of helping people so far as possible and as quickly as possible to use their minds and bodies within the community is a sound one. If

353
that is so, and if the majority of patients are to be released in less than six months, then many more psychiatric nurses will be needed to look after them.
Those parts of the Bill which ensure continuing treatment and supervision and an annual review are most important. Equally important is the need to supervise moves from one locality to another and the need to trace patients who become lost.
All those measures will cost money. In view of the delay in the implementation of the 1986 Act, I hope that this Bill, if it is passed, will not take as long. Money is urgently needed now. In the case of my family the difficulties have been enormous; but how much greater they would be for families without private means.
I have tried to spell out, as other noble Lords have spelt out, the needs of thousands of men and women who suffer from schizophrenia. In the first place it is the Government to which we must look, and through them to local government, for the resources needed to provide help. Ultimately it will be the health authorities which will have to take the lead in making sure that all the necessary services are provided and co-ordinated. When help is available there will be some chance of these thousands of people finding relief and the opportunity to live their lives to their maximum potential. Theirs is a physical illness which has to be treated by chemical means, but it is triggered off by the exaggerated effects of strain and a wrong environment. So human love as well as psychological and spiritual guidance are needed to help people recover. Without proper treatment their future is grim.
As has been said, last year 50,000 families were in turmoil and despair. It has also been said that the Government invariably move to block Private Members' Bills that have public spending consequences. I pray that on this occasion the Government will prove that that is not so, for a civilized society is judged by the way in which it cares for its mentally ill and mentally handicapped. The Government and we as a civilized society have an inescapable responsibility to make sure that they are cared for.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, it is very late and I shall speak very briefly. However, before doing so I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for his initiative.
I am ashamed to say that until this morning I had no idea that the Bill existed. Indeed, I should not have intervened in the debate had I not recently learned from family friends how inadequate, indeed disgracefully inadequate, are the pesent arrangements in certain areas for the after-care of these unfortunate patients. I therefore strongly support the Bill. But even if it passes into law I wonder whether the Government would allocate the necessary resources.
The case with which I have recently become familiar falls within the responsibility of the Hastings health district and the Rother authority. It may not be appropriate to consider the details of an individual case, but suffice it to say that in this case
354
the ineffectiveness and indeed the indifference of the local authorities are matched only by that of the Department of Health. The net result is that a sick and often violent young woman is forced to drift uncared for in a town, robbed and abused, among drug addicts and depraved and homeless people. I would not have drawn attention to the case if I were not satisfied that every effort had been made by the mother to resolve the problem with the local authorities, but she has been rebuffed. I have not had a chance to speak to her today, but I wish to do so. With the Minister's permission, I would encourage her to get in touch with him.
No doubt noble Lords will have noticed a very balanced article by Amanda Mitchison in the Independent magazine of 11th March. There is a copy in the Library, to which I draw noble Lords' attention. It gives a more vivid account of the conditions in Hastings than I can. I understand that the conditions in other south coast resorts are not dissimilar.
I cannot believe that senior members of the Government while speaking legitimately of our national well-being can withhold resources from authorities with after-care responsibilities. No doubt some authorities give good service and facilitate co-operation between the groups involved in the public and private sectors, but I suggest that they are in a minority. I sincerely hope that the Government will consider the Bill in the light of the present deplorable situation.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to say a word as an unexpected supporter of the excellent Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
There has been remarkable unanimity tonight among those who have spoken. The differences have been only on matters of detail that do not bear on the general support that everyone has given the Bill. I think that this is because all of us are aware that, as more mental hospitals have closed and are closing and money is saved on that account, there has been no corresponding build up of the community after-care services that are so needed. We all know that there are exceptions. I know the district of Exeter in particular. The district health authority under a very far-sighted general manager, David King, has built up a fine set of local services. As we know, in many parts of the country this is not the situation.
We know also that the Government have been dithering over the Griffiths Report for far too long. They seem prevented by their apathy as regards local government from proposing any close involvement of local authorities with the after-care of schizophrenic patients and those suffering from other kinds of mental illness. As a result, discharge too, often has meant a kind of disappearance.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned the Sharon Campbell report published last year. Sharon Campbell had been treated in hospital for schizophrenia, and subsequently stabbed her social worker to death. The committee of inquiry asked the following question: how did the system allow Sharon

355
Campbell to drop out of sight so far as concerns psychological care on each occasion on which she was discharged from Bexley Hospital?
One answer must be under-funding of the support services. The report referred to Dr. Brough, the consultant psychiatrist in the case. He is a man and doctor of excellent repute. But in his catchment area in Bexley there were 83,000 people. It was an area of severe housing problems and high unemployment. As one consultant psychiatrist for 83,000, when the recommendation is that there should be one for 40,000, he had a very heavy burden of work. So in that area did others concerned with such people: nurses, community nurses and social workers.
So it is in many parts of the country. However, not only is it a lack of money, resources and the facilities required, as we all know there is a lack of communication between all the different specialists, between hospitals and outsiders and all members of the teams which do not necessarily behave as teams because they are called that. This Bill is designed to improve that communication in a very practical way and ensure that schizophrenic patients receive proper community after-care. I am delighted to join with the other speakers tonight in supporting this Bill and wishing it a speedy passage through Parliament.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for introducing this Bill and on the way in which he did so. He must have felt very gratified with the degree of support that he received from all sides of the House with speeches that showed deep understanding, often personal commitment and experience, and a sensitivity that will have touched us all.
Apart from my own family, I have been involved with this problem for 25 years, usually with voluntary organisations: the Cyrenians, St. Mungo's, the Peter Bedford Project, MIND, the Campaign for the Homeless and the Rootless, the Beacon Housing Association, Homes for the Homeless, and Care Trust. I pay tribute to the charities which bear such a heavy burden of care for some of the people of whom we are speaking today. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, spoke about the size of the problem and said that there were a quarter of a million sufferers from schizophrenia. It would be difficult to discover the exact figure because, as has been said—and I shall repeat it later—schizophrenia is often difficult to diagnose. The noble Lord pointed to a problem of massive proportions. There can be no one in the country who is not aware of the problem of the mentally ill in the community. But often when people see the image of the illness, they do not understand that the person who is behaving in a bizarre way is ill and not simply perhaps drunk or disorderly.
We see the problem of the mentally ill and the consequence of mental illness, which is homelessness, in our stations, in the Underground, under the bridges of London, at night above the air vents of hotels, in empty houses, in night shelters, on park benches, and in Salvation Army hostels. Sufferers go in and out of hospital, and back again into hospital.
356
The readmissions are a revolving door which is sometimes a revolving door in and out of prison just as much as hospital. The growing army of the mentally ill who are inadequately cared for in our community is in my view an absolute disgrace to our society today.
The problem is increasing. There is no doubt about it. All the statistics show that. Over the past few years the numbers of these people, who clearly are not cared for, are higher than they have ever been. An analysis shows that a high proportion of them have been in hospital. I am speaking not only of men but of women too—people of all ages. So many young people are affected, all of them usually poor. They are sometimes dirty and neglected. Often they are hungry. Some of them are suicidal, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. They all need treatment or care. There are many others who are not on our streets but within their own homes causing tremendous problems, great havoc and often fear and frustration to their families who try to come to terms with this illness.
I do not understand how it is that in a supposedly caring, Christian society the Government do not appear to care more about the problem. The facts have been brought before the public time and again, month after month, year after year. We have had successive reports from the Audit Commission. I shall not quote from them, although I have them here. We know what the All-Party Parliamentary Select Committee in another place had to say in searing words, in critical terms, but in a very constructive way.
We know what the Griffiths Report said. We know that the committee was established by Mr. Norman Fowler, the Secretary of State for Social Services, because he saw the size of the problem. It took long enough for the report to be produced. After more than a year not a word has been said. I have to tell the Minister that this House has been misled on a number of occasions. We have been told sometimes that a response will be made this month, this year or next year. The last we heard, many weeks ago, was that it would be very soon. I believe that it was the Minister who used the term "very soon". It is now rumoured that the Prime Minister has decided to set up a special committee to look at the problem. If it comes up with proposals as unacceptable to those who have to operate them as the proposals by the committee set up by the Prime Minister on the National Health Service, I believe that we shall have reason to fear.
I support the initiative taken by the noble Lord. I hope that this Bill will not only have a Second Reading but that it will be effectively implemented and the resources provided to enable the job to be done, because I believe that the matter is urgent.
I share the views of my noble friends Lord Rea and Lord Pitt, who are GPs, concerning the broadening of this issue. My information is that it is often very difficult to diagnose a schizophrenic. Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, to the Sharon Campbell case. In that case doctors were often very reluctant to diagnose schizophrenia when it seemed to others that that is what this person had. It did not seem to be easy to diagnose. Even if it

357
were easy to diagnose, would we say, "Is this one a schizophrenic? Is this one a manic depressive? Is this one suffering a form of behavioural problems or some other type of psychosis?" How can we say that there is one level of service for one group of people who are mentally ill and another level of service for another group of undefined people? I believe that if the law is to be amended, as I hope it will be, we must decide to help all the victims of mental illness, with no form of discrimination.
I believe that the noble Lord was quoted on one occasion in a press release by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. The words that he used in presenting his case were that he hoped the matter would be widened. The matter needs to be widened when this House deals with the issue in Committee. Otherwise there will be dangers, difficulties, unhappiness, and so on, that we ought to avoid if we possibly can. When the Minister replies I hope that he will have some positive words to say. He has to tell us where we stand now in relation to the Griffiths Report. What is happening within government? Where is the Griffiths Report? When will the Government reply? Has a special committee been set up, with the result that there will not be an early response? Is it some months off? It is not only we in this House who are entitled to know. Those who are responsible for planning the services—the local authorities, the health authorities and the voluntary organisations—are crying out for a decision by the Government. It is unfair to both those who need care and those who provide it not to have some kind of leadership from Her Majesty's Government. It sometimes appears to me that they do not care.
I hope that in his reply the Minister will not only show the same degree of sympathy which has been expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House, but that he will turn that sympathy into reality. Soft words of sympathy, if they do not lead to action, are not much good. They will not butter many parsnips.
I hope that the Minister will see the nature, urgency and poignancy of the problem; that he will respond to the appeals which have been addressed to him; and that he will put forward a response worthy of Her Majesty's Government.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate which has taken place this evening, as have all noble Lords. Until recently I knew little about schizophrenia. The debate will prove useful in heightening public awareness of schizophrenia which is most important.
With that in mind, I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Elliot and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned the Esther Rantzen programme televised last Sunday. Another noble Lord mentioned a programme by Marjorie Wallace which was televised last August. Both programmes were useful in helping to dispel the popular Jekyll and Hyde misconception mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Mottistone pay tribute to the Salvation Army. I
358
noted what he said and I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it carries out valuable work. We are grateful to the Salvation Army for that. We are also grateful to the work of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship which, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone knows, the Government support with a grant towards its annual expenses.
I should say straight away that while the Government have the greatest sympathy for the problems faced by sufferers from schizophrenia, and particularly with their relatives—who represent a very large proportion of those with major mental illnesses—we could not support a Bill which is discriminatory and, as such, unwelcome in the context of the aims to provide a comprehensive package of care for all people who suffer from mental illness. There is no valid reason for singling out one category of mental illness and legislating for its treatment on a preferential basis.
The suggestion was made by the respected doctors—the noble Lords, Lord Rea, Lord Pitt and Lord Ennals—that such measures proposed in the Bill might be extended to other forms of mental illness. At present Her Majesty's Government are not in favour of any measure which introduces special legislative consideration to the needs of the mentally ill compared with, say, those suffering from a mental handicap or a physical illness. The thrust of a recent White Paper on the National Health Service, Working for Patients, confirms the stance taken by Ministers for several years. It is that within broad policy guidance from the centre, health authorities should be identifying their own priorities and developing local services accordingly. The same is true of local authorities. The requirements of the Bill would tend to skew this process which is intended to give health and local authorities the freedom within very broad policy limits to assess and meet local needs.
I am very well aware of criticism—and I could not but be aware of it having listened to this debate —which has been levelled at services for the mentally ill in the community. Modern forms of treatment have meant that patients are likely to need much shorter stays in hospital. The Government have always recognised that first and foremost, there must be a full range of local services, providing both in-patient and out-patient facilities, so that people with mental illness should have access to those services as locally as possible.
The provision of continuing effective care for those discharged from hospital treatment is also of central importance. Ministers are continually emphasising the importance of professional teams planning and agreeing individual care programmes with each patient, and where appropriate, with their families, before discharge. Once a patient is discharged, there must be proper monitoring and co-ordination of these programmes, especially for those who are chronically ill or are regarded as more vulnerable than others. This is good, professional, practice, and we do not see legislation as the means to ensure that this happens.
Further legislation would, in fact, be premature in the light of the programme of work which

359
my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health described recently in another place. During the current year the department will be looking at the provision of mental illness services in each region. There will be discussions with regional health authorities, and the Social Services Inspectorate, and steps are being taken to link directly with voluntary organisations in order to get the reaction of both sufferers and their relatives. This will be a lengthy process and the Government will then consider what steps, if any, need to be taken to improve matters.
A significant feature in the department's deliberations will be in relation to the proposed closure of mental illness hospitals. Policy statements have long emphasised that mental hospitals should not be closed before adequate, alternative facilities have been developed. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that no-one would wish to return to the days of the very large psychiatric wards in the huge institutions of 2,000 or more beds. With new and improved methods of treatment, the decline in the number of elderly long-stay patients and the progress of community care has resulted in a steady reduction in bed requirements. Some rationalisation in hospital provision is a reasonable development but the Government's policy recognises the continuing demand for in-patient provision which must also take account of those sufferers who may need long-term care, including "sanctuary" or asylum. Ministers are currently looking at ways to ensure that there is a closer collaboration between the department and health authorities to ensure that any closures do in practice follow the principle that adequate facilities in the community are indeed there for patients once they leave the older institution.
I mentioned earlier the concern about continuing care for patients discharged from hospital. Departmental guidance, which is almost ready for issue, will emphasise the need for locally developed approaches. This is in support of the planning guidance, issued to health and local authorities in July last year, which requires that by 1991 each district should have developed a "care programme" to provide a system of co-ordinated continuing care, especially for people chronically disabled by mental illness. Emphasis was placed on the need for a consultant psychiatrist in each district to have special responsibility for rehabilitation and continuing care. Another major step is being undertaken by the Royal College of Psychiatrists which has agreed to draw guidelines to ensure minimum acceptable professional standards for assessing patients prior to discharge and for follow up action after discharge.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. The noble Lord will understand that I listen to him with deep respect. However, does he understand that the reality on the ground is wholly contrary to what he has sought to tell the House? Will the Minister not understand that most people here tonight have refrained from going over the top from their personal knowledge of what is the reality? I can give a number of hair-raising illustrations of the bleakness in the prospects of the
360
people that I seek to represent. Will the Minister carefully consider that he is giving a slap in the face to many people who desperately need his help?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we understand the problems, and I hope that I am not giving a slap in the face—as the noble Lord puts it—to all the people who are suffering. I hope that I have explained what the Government propose and are seeking to do.
I should also like to take this opportunity to mention the setting up of a small multi-disciplinary and independent working group to complete the task of drawing up a code of practice on the treatment and care of detained patients. The code, which is required under the Mental Health Act 1983, will aim to provide a common basis for treatment and care—an area where there seems to be wide agreement that the law is adequate but its interpretation by practitioners is at times not so. The group will be chaired by Mr. James Collier, a former deputy secretary in the department. The members all have wide-ranging experience of the operation of the Mental Health Act 1983.
I turn now to some of the points made by noble Lords during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, seemed to be under the misapprehension that Section 7 of the 1986 Act would be implemented next year. That is not the case. Discussions are continuing with local authority associations; and when they are complete (this summer) Ministers will have to consider whether to implement Section 7. If it is decided to proceed there will need to be a decision on when, but no time-scale has yet been given. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord if he wishes to have further details.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield referred to the parable of the Good Samaritan, which he described as controversial. I never knew it was controversial. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship will, I am sure, acknowledge that the department is trying hard to get a full understanding of the problems. In the light of that, Ministers have made clear that they will act. But we do not think that this Bill is the right way forward.
We could not agree more with my noble friend Lady Elliot, in that it is vital for discharged patients to obtain continuing treatment; hence the action we have already taken on care programmes. We shall be considering what further initiatives we need to take during the course of the year and as our review of the position throughout the country proceeds.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to case histories. If the noble Lord will give me the details, I shall look into them and bring them to the attention of my right honourable friends to see what can be done. That also applies to other noble Lords who raised individual cases. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to a handicapped patient and I shall look into that case if the noble Lord will give me details. I thank him for advising my officials before the debate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am most grateful.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to hostels. We very much agree that hostels are important. The department has funded research which shows how cost-effective they are. We look to see a continuing increase in the number of hostels provided by health authorities, and of course by local authorities and the voluntary sector.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy stated that schizophrenia was the most prevalent mental illness. I am not sure that my noble friend is entirely right, though it is certainly one of the more common. Apart from that, I agree with everything that my noble friend said.
The noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lady Macleod, mentioned the number of community psychiatric nurses. The number of such workers working in the community continues to rise. During the period 1981 to 1987, the total number of staff employed in community psychiatric nursing services more than doubled from just over 1,000 to 2,700. We are continuing to look for further increases. We are also continuing to have discussions with the health authorities on this question.
The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, raised the question of the Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire health authority relating to Portsmouth and Southsea. I agree with the noble Lord that Portsmouth and Southsea is a good example of collaboration between health and local authorities and voluntary agencies providing services for mentally-ill people. I am pleased to say that there is evidence from many other parts of the country that have similarly developed extensive local services that care in the community policies can be implemented successfully.
My noble friend Lady Macleod does far less than justice to the skills and caring work of many social workers who work with the mentally ill. Since 1983 several thousand have received special training to practise as approved social workers for the mentally ill. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, raised the question of compulsory treatment in the community. Despite all efforts it may be that some mentally-ill people will refuse further treatment after they leave hospital even if it is considered essential by the treatment team responsible for their case. Legal measures to enable compulsory treatment to be given in the community have been suggested as one way forward with this small group of patients. There have been discussions with such organisations as the Mental Health Act Commission, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and MIND.
It is a complex area and important civil liberty issues arise. There are strongly-held views on all sides. Department officials are listening to the debate with close attention, but to date no firm proposals have been put to us and as yet little research is available from this country. No changes in this difficult area would be considered without full consultation with all those concerned with mental health.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, also raised a particular case. I shall be happy to examine the details of that if he cares to give them to me. I
362
associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, concerning the contribution of voluntary organisations. They are a most important element of the spectrum of provision. I wish particularly to acknowledge the long history of service provision by the voluntary organisations. Perhaps the organisation most closely associated with the noble Lord is MIND. I understand that the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Colville are soon to become joint presidents of MIND. I offer my congratulations.
I now turn to an issue about which I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will not feel quite so happy. I refer to the Griffiths Report which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and others mentioned. Turning to the wider issue of community care, I should respond to the requests today for a government response to the Griffiths Report. I can assure you that the Government have not been idle on this issue. We are currently giving careful consideration to Sir Roy's report together with the numerous responses received to it. All recent reports in this field identify common problems, but recognise that there is no obviously perfect solution. We therefore need to look thoroughly at all the various options before us. We share concern that action should not be unduly delayed but it is vital that we reach the right solution in this important area. Again, I mention the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who said that it was important that we did not rush too quickly into the wrong solutions. We hope to be in a position to bring forward our own proposals in the near future, as my honourable friends have repeatedly made clear in another place.
In returning to the issues raised by the Bill, I conclude by saying that, with the positive proposals concerning moves towards ensuring adequate provision of services for the mentally ill which I have outlined today, we are not convinced that the legislative procedures envisaged in the Bill are appropriate at this time.
10.40 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am baffled. My noble friend has responded to everybody's speech except mine. He has made absolutely no comment on why he does not like the Bill. He has not said which points he does not like. Where noble Lords did not like it, they said so, but my noble friend said nothing. I do not blame him; I blame his department.
Lord Henley: My Lords, at the beginning of my speech I made it quite clear that we felt that the Bill was discriminatory in relation to mental illnesses. The noble Lords, Lord Pitt and Lord Rea, suggested extending it to all other mental illnesses. We felt that it would be discriminatory just to deal with mental illness and mental handicap and not deal with other disabilities. I think I made that perfectly clear.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, my Lords, I was about to come on to that point. However, that is only one point, which could be dealt with by amendment in Committee. I explained why we started off with one specific kind of mental illness. I am sorry that my noble friend did not take up my explanations regard

363
ing that point, which he might easily have done because he obviously listened carefully to all the other speeches.
As to whether the Bill should apply only to schizophrenia or to all kinds of mental illness, I foresaw when we constructed the Bill that this point might arise. One of the purposes of a Second Reading is to find out how strongly people feel. My noble friend and the Government feel very strongly. It is the only thing about which they feel strongly. Those general practitioners who took part in the debate also felt strongly about it and others have felt much the same way.
I am willing for the Bill to be amended in Committee to take care of the wider coverage of mental illness. As I agree to that, I imagine that the Government will have no objection. They have expressed no objection to other parts of it. The Bill has had a jolly good reception by noble Lords on all sides of the House. Its principles were clearly understood by your Lordships. Anyone who wished to criticise the detail did so, and on the whole there was very little of it.
One of the most important contributions to the debate came from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. He said that people might say that if one could not provide for everybody, one would help nobody. That was rather the view coming from the Government, but not altogether so. That is why I wanted to start with schizophrenia and then build on to later legislation to give the same arrangements, or modified ones, as experience showed. I am quite ready to start with mental illness as a whole. If we say that because we do not feel that we have all the resources to deal with mental illness, which is a much easier starting point, we should not start but should wait until finally we have everything ready for all the others, we shall never get there.
I shall not go through what other noble Lords had to say because the Minister has done that, although in my book he did not do it as well as he might have done. He did not pick up the more important point which is that everybody agreed with me. Therefore I think it would be most helpful to take the Bill a step further to see what we can achieve by way of amendment in Committee. No doubt those who are interested in the matter will be happy to discuss what kind of amendments may arise. We can then see how the matter progresses from there.
In the meantime, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will ask his ministerial colleague to read this debate—in particular, my speech— and also to read the Bill, so that he will see what we are really concerned with here. If the Government were to pick up the matter now when people want action—indeed, they have been crying out for action—they will not only help those people who are mentally ill, but they will also help themselves in regard to the many criticisms which have been made against them for not taking up the recommendations contained in the Griffiths Report. Such criticisms will remain, but they will not be quite so persistent while people see this matter being taken up.
I ask the House to give the Bill a second reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Dogs: Registration Scheme
10.46 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the increasing number of stray dogs, and the abolition of the dog licence, they will introduce a national scheme of dog registration.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I fear that the hour is very late and I shall therefore do my best to be short in what I have to say. I venture to ask this Question because I think that it touches upon a social problem of great importance. I wish to draw the Government's attention to the serious social and humanitarian problem caused by the uncontrolled and increasing growth in the population of dogs. For example, this has resulted in the destruction of an estimated 1,000 unwanted, homeless dogs every day last year in the United Kingdom by the RSPCA, and other welfare agencies. It has also resulted in an increase in dog abuse to record levels whereby as many as 1,100 people have been convicted under the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1988. I believe that much of this unnecessary suffering could be prevented by the introduction of a system of dog registration which the Government have the power to introduce under the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. They can do so by means of a simple administrative order, without the need for fresh legislation.
Public awareness, and concern, about this problem is growing rapidly. A recent opinion poll indicated that some 82 per cent. of the public would support the Government in any action they are prepared to take to remedy the situation. Registration is strongly advocated by the RSPCA. The society, I suppose, represents the conscience of the country so far as concerns animal welfare. However, it does not recommend—and neither do I—a return to the old dog licence. The dog licence was completely out of date and cost more to administer than the revenue which it brought in. Indeed, its abolition has made very little difference to the problem of the surplus dogs.
The Government's mistake at that time was to put nothing better in place of the dog licence when it was abolished. What is shown to be needed now is the earliest possible scheme for the compulsory registration of dogs, with a sufficient registration fee to fund the dog warden service of the local authorities, and to deter the irresponsible dog owner who will think twice before parting with the larger payment required.
The amount of the fee would obviously be related to the costs that it covered. There should be appropriate exemptions for the old and handicapped. There should also be a reduced rate for owners who neuter their dogs. If dogs were neutered, that would go a long way towards meeting the difficulty.
Registration would serve also to identify the dog and its owner. Identification is essential for law

365
enforcement and for the return of stray dogs to their owners. It is sometimes said that this is impractical and could not be done. If it can be done in other countries, surely it can be done here. In France, for example, at the time of registration a unique identity number is tattooed on to the dog. The owner's name and address are recorded with the number. In the Republic of Ireland they use a silicon chip implant. Technology is used widely in the United States. That technology, I believe, will soon be available here.
There is of course the question of cost. The cost of registration should be set off against the cost to society of leaving things as they are. I take one item of social cost. It has been calculated that the cost of road accidents caused by stray or unescorted dogs is about £55 million a year. That is part of the total annual cost to society of about £70 million in terms of road accidents, hospital treatment for dog bites and injury to livestock resulting from savagery by stray dogs. That of course ignores the cost of police time and the work of voluntary agencies.
On the other hand, the cost of initial registration, the maintenance of a registration system and the administration by the local authority of a nationwide dog warden service is estimated to be about £44 million.
It is impossible precisely to set off the cost to society of irresponsible dog ownership against the cost of dog control and protection to the state and local authorities. However, it can be shown that a practical system of dog registration will be less expensive than the damage done now to society by leaving things as they are, let alone the costs as they will be if the situation continues to deteriorate.
The success of the new registration scheme would depend upon its effective enforcement by the district and borough authorities and on the degree to which it deterred irresponsible people from acquiring and later discarding dogs.
There is no doubt that many local authorities have an excellent dog warden service for the discharge of those responsibilities. But they represent less than half (probably about 200) the total number at borough or district level. Many more would employ dog wardens, and have said that they would, if they could afford it. That is why it is essential that the registration fee should cover most of the cost of a national dog warden service, even if the local authorities made a small additional contribution, as it would undoubtedly be, from the community charge.
One of the requirements of the new scheme would be to enable a local authority official to check to see that dog owners have registered. That requirement is obviously essential. There was little incentive for local authorities or the police to enforce payment of the old dog licence fee when it was so small. Nor was there an adequate designated body charged with so doing. There will be a much stronger incentive for the local authorities when their dog warden service depends upon the larger registration fee.
We can be justifiably proud of our reputation as a country that cares about animals. However, we cannot allow the present situation to continue and
366
to get worse. The only way to check the disastrous consequences of an increasing dog population, without an increased sense of responsibility and care on the part of dog owners, is for the Government to intervene by the use of their power to introduce a compulsory registration scheme, and the sooner the better. I need hardly say that animal welfare is not, and has never been, a party issue. Perhaps I might draw the Government's attention to an Early Day Motion, tabled in another place, in the name of Dame Janet Fookes and over 250 MPs of all parties, pressing for a national dog registration scheme. There is widespread support for such a scheme in both Houses by animal welfare organisations throughout the country and by public opinion when it has been tested.
I shall not have another opportunity of speaking in this debate so I should like in advance to thank my noble friend Lord Irving who has had long experience of matters connected with dogs, and any other noble Lords who may wish to speak in the debate, for their contributions.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I feel sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord. Listowel, for bringing this subject to our attention, this evening. Despite the very late hour, I feel he has raised a subject that needs discussion: a subject on which many of us have strong views.
I personally am not an expert on dogs, I have never owned one, and as long as I remain a resident in London, it seems unlikely that I would ever inflict the life that many city dogs have to lead on a pet of my own. Your Lordships and most members of the public cannot have remained unmoved by the recent advertising by the RSPCA explaining that there are currently 500,000 stray and unwanted dogs roaming our streets with many thousands more in animal homes across the country, and that the RSPCA—an organisation dedicated to the well being of animals—has to destroy about 1,000 dogs every day.
It is not necessary for me to repeat the statistics for road accidents, damage to farm animals, the cost of cleaning up the mess made by dogs, as mentioned by the noble Earl. But I want to add my voice to those of other noble Lords who support the introduction of a dog registration scheme. The arguments in favour are overwhelming, and I should have thought that the prospect of saving some of the estimated £70 million a year (or I read in the current edition of the RSPCA journal that it is now £78·6 million) of public money spent on dealing with stray dogs, would have been a most attractive initiative to the Government.
Living as I do in central London, I find the avoidance of dog mess is a daily problem. In residential areas, the roads and pavements are contaminated and it is impossible to take young children for a walk in any of London's parks without having carefully to watch each step one takes. I do not know anyone with a young family who does not regard this as a major problem. Having two young daughters myself who regularly use the London parks, I find it is an aspect which causes me great concern.

367
Experts have tested soil samples taken from parks and play areas in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Belfast, Liverpool, Hull, Exeter, Cardiff, Newcastle and Bristol and have found that at least half of these city centre parks are dangerously contaminated with the toxicara canis parasite, which is spread by dog excrement. These results were achieved on the basis of three small scoops of earth from each park, and it seemed likely that the negative result at the other five sites may only mean that they are less heavily contaminated.
The parasite eggs, which can survive very adverse conditions, can remain in the soil for many years. If these eggs are ingested by humans, they can cause various disorders, including stomach pains, liver damage and in the worst cases blindness. A paper published in The Lancet on 26th March 1988 found that 137 members of 30 families attending the National Children's Hospital were seropositive for toxicara antibodies.
The clinical features most commonly found were abdominal pain, liver damage, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, lethargy, sleep and behaviour disturbances, pneumonia, cough, sore throat, headache, limb pains and fever. These are all common childhood complaints.
The parasite cannot reproduce in humans, but if its eggs hatch, the tiny larvae easily penetrate the stomach wall and can cause damage and inflammation to nerves and body organs. Unlike some other countries, Britain has not made the disease a notifiable one and researchers believe thousands of people, especially children, suffer unexplained, hidden illness every year. About 100 cases of blindness are attributed to it annually, half of which are among children.
With considerable foresight, this House introduced an amendment to local government legislation to allow councils self-financing dog registration schemes which would pay for wardens, street cleaning and the education of dog owners. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm this fact and say whether all local authorities have powers to enforce regulations to prevent dogs having unlimited access to all areas in city parks, and to make it compulsory for owners to clean up the mess their dogs make in the parks and on the streets.
I should like to know what rights a private citizen has to help enforce the regulations concerning dogs. Every time I have tried to reason with dog owners that it is not fair that their dog make a mess directly outside my house or on the grass where my children are playing, it is not uncommon to receive a tirade of verbal abuse to which there is no polite answer.
Finally, I should like the Minister to comment on the incidence of infection with toxicara canis and whether he could recommend that it become a notifiable disease. If over 100 people a year were being blinded by a food additive, a new drug, or by airborne pollution, there would be a massive public outcry. There would be demonstrations and demands for government action. Why is it that the effect of this parasite, which could so easily be controlled, is considered so unimportant?
368
If this debate had not been taking place so late in the evening I am sure there would have been many more noble Lords speaking in favour of registration for dogs. I am only sorry we could not hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I hope that the Minister, who, I know, has had a very taxing and heavy day looking round sewerage works, has seen the excellent notes from the RSPCA. The society makes a clear and concise case for registration, and I hope the Minister can say that the Government are going to take that advice.
11.2 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for giving us the opportunity, albeit at this very late hour, to debate a problem that has been discussed previously in your Lordships' House. There was recently a Starred Question on the subject.
I wish to commiserate with the noble Earl. The lateness of the hour has obviously reduced the number of speakers. The name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has been mentioned. We miss too the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene of Ferrard, a tremendous expert on animal welfare.
It seems to me, as it must seem to millions of people, a very extraordinary and rather ironic situation that we, who pride ourselves and are known and in some cases ridiculed for our attitude to animals and our care of animals of all kinds, particularly domestic animals, find ourselves in a situation where, as has been mentioned by the noble Earl who introduced the debate, 1,000 unwanted animals are killed every day because they have been allowed to stray, have been abandoned or have been dumped. The cost of this in terms of road accidents, farm killings of sheep by stray dogs, often in packs but singly too, the damage done in public places such as parks—here again, this is often in packs, dogs being pack animals—and other costs, principally the cost of rounding up stray dogs wherever possible, amounts to some £75 million each year. That is a not inconsiderable sum.
It seems odd that in some quarters it should be considered not to be cost-effective to introduce a scheme of registration for dogs, such as has been recommended by previous speakers. Such a scheme would undoubtedly reduce the appalling scandal of the number of stray dogs and the resultant killing of those dogs. It would also reduce the costly accidents and the damage on farms which I have already mentioned.
In addition, the registration of dogs by sensible modern methods need not be very expensive. Technology has advanced to a stage where it is possible to plant a small microchip on a dog. That could be scanned easily by people authorised to do so and would give information about the ownership of the dog in order that the authorities could bring the owner and the dog together. Often it may not be necessary for a prosecution to be brought or for someone to be brought to book for dumping their dog. It may be that people's dogs have strayed. Many dogs stray, dogs which are owned by responsible and

369
caring dog owners. Dogs stray for all kinds of reasons and the present difficulty in tracing them is unnecessary when we could apply modern technology to make reuniting them with their owners easier.
The main cause of dogs being dumped is irresponsibility. There may be exceptions, but usually the reason is the irresponsibility of the dog owner. Is it not time to make the trouble and cost of registering a dog a hurdle which a potential dog owner has to get over? It is far too easy, in these days of easy access to consumer items, for people to regard dogs as an appendage to their lifestyle. Then when they get bored they discard them. I believe there should be such a hurdle to the ownership of dogs.
I do not know what the cost of such a system would be or what the Minister would consider to be an appropriate charge. It may be £5; it may be £10 or £40. After all, the cost of a television licence appears to be within the reach of most people. Of course there would be exemptions for those who are crippled with blindness or deafness, but such exemptions should not be too difficult to administer.
A number of points have been mentioned, and I was particularly impressed by the emphasis of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, on cleanliness in our cities. The situation in this city is appalling. I do not know what conditions are like in other cities in Britain, but in certain parts of London the streets are an absolute disgrace. In my experience that does not happen in cities in Europe. I believe that in France there is already a registration system which requires compulsory inoculation against rabies.
That brings me to the question of what the position in Britain will be with regard to rabies when the Channel Tunnel is completed. I should be most interested to hear, if the Minister has time, how the Department of the Environment views the future. Perhaps we shall be forced ourselves to bring in compulsory inoculation of our dogs. Perhaps we shall be forced to follow the French—something we do not like doing—and bring in a sensible system of registration.
The present situation is a scandal. It is no good our pretending that the deaths of dogs and the damage that stray dogs cause is a matter that we can ignore and that we can let the market forces decide what is to happen. We ought to show the will to act now. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister can show that his department has the will if someone can come up with the ideas. I am sure that ideas abound to bring in a sensible scheme to stop this terrible situation in the country, which is a scandal compared with what happens in some of our fellow member countries of the European Community.
The hour is late so I will leave it there. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
11. 11 p.m.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I address you briefly wearing two separate hats: one as an owner of dogs, and the other as vice-chairman of the Battersea Dogs Home. We have strong views on the subject. I think that I can fairly say that we have considerable
370
experience of dealing with the easy side of the problem, the dogs; and with the much more difficult side of it, the humans.
We calculate that 10 per cent. of stray dogs in the country pass through our hands. We receive from the police every year 15,000 stray dogs. In our view, the dog problem must be dealt with by a nation-wide education policy on how to behave to dogs. They should not be presented as a joke, a "nice little furry thing", but there should be a discouragement of indiscriminate breeding. Neutering should be carried out on a large scale.
There should be an implanting programme. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to this. I have with me an implant and, rather more interesting, an X-ray of a small dog with an implant. I shall be happy to show this to noble Lords if they so wish.
At Battersea Dogs Home we are pioneers in implanting policy. However, it is not an easy answer to the problem. The technique is not perfected yet; nor is it generally acceptable to the public, so far as we can see.
I therefore strongly support the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the policy of trying to persuade the Government to do something about stray dogs. If I were not able to claim as charitable a disposition to humans as properly goes to dogs and all animals, I might be wondering whether Her Majesty's Government had a policy towards dogs similar to their policy in regard to schizophrenics, which I noticed in the earlier debate: they rather wish that it would go away. They have a policy of neglect, and not necessarily a particularly benign neglect.
On behalf of dog owners and the Battersea Dogs Home, I strongly urge the Government to introduce some form of dog registration scheme.
11.13 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, first I thank my noble friend Lord Listowel for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter, and for what he had to say.
The debate exposes a number of inconsistencies, if not incongruities, in government policy. The first fact that no one can avoid in the debate is the horrendous one that in this country of pet lovers—and there are 5·3 million homes with dogs—in 1986 240,000 dogs were declared stray dogs, with a total from all sources of 350,000 dogs, and 1,000 dogs a day were destroyed. That is an appalling fact. Not only have the Government not been prepared to do anything about this problem, in withdrawing the dog licence if anything they have made it more difficult to maintain dog warden schemes as the money previously available from the licence, although not much, is now not even available to local authorities.
The second fact is that five years ago the Government introduced a dog warden scheme in Northern Ireland on the lines recommended by JACOPIS (the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society) of which I am chairman and of which my noble friend Lord Listowel was the previous chairman. JACOPIS involves almost every major animal welfare organisation—the RSPCA, the Small Animal

371
Veterinary Association, the Veterinary Association, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, the Pet Food Manufacturers' Association and a whole range of others.
In Northern Ireland everyone associated with animal welfare believes that that scheme has been very successful. Although the Government themselves have said that it is working well, they have steadfastly refused to entertain a similar scheme in Britain. On the contrary, they have withdrawn the dog licence without, as my noble friend said, putting anything in its place to deal with the serious problem which remains of stray dogs as a menace to our local people.
Even the money realised from the ludicrously inadequate fee of 37p has been withdrawn. The job of educating people, particularly children, in responsible dog ownership has been made more difficult. From January 1984 in Northern Ireland every keeper of a dog has had to have a licence. All the district councils have pounds and warden schemes and there have been some very positive trends. Between 1980 and 1983 47,500 licences were issued. Since then the number of licences issued has jumped by well over 60 per cent. The number of stray dogs impounded, together with the number of prosecutions for livestock worrying, although reaching a peak in 1985, are now declining. That peak was due to the establishment of the dog warden scheme by district councils. The decline in the number of strays continued in 1987. Cases of livestock worrying have fallen considerably. The Ulster Farmers' Union has commented that:
"Sheep are now being kept in areas close to built up communities where for many years past it has not been possible due to the fears of attacks from dogs".
According to the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals there are fewer strays roaming unrestrained in Northern Ireland and many more dogs are walked on leads. In the view of that society the scheme has been a great success. The director says:
"Not only are dogs looked after better but fewer are suffering from irresponsible and uncaring dog owners. I feel personally that the changing attitude towards dogs in this country is encouraging".
The general conclusion is that it has been a resounding success which makes the Government's action in abolishing the licence but putting nothing in its place in this part of the United Kingdom quite inexplicable. But the licence is not an end in itself. It is the foundation of a system of regulation that has been proved in Northern Ireland. The abandonment of the dog licence has reduced the sum of money available to local authorities because, as I have said, they will no longer receive the money collected from the licence. The Government will save the £3·5 million which they had to pay to collect the licence. The Government will gain, local authorities will lose and in addition they will be expected to find money from hard pressed resources for dog warden schemes.
As a member of a local authority I know well the pressure on finance for local government. Even when some money was available from the dog licence not every authority was able to maintain a dog warden
372
scheme. In my view the chances of further local authorities being able to maintain schemes is very limited. One of the central difficulties is that unless one can identify the owner of a dog, enforcement of the 30 Acts which relate to dogs is almost impossible. The present requirement that every dog should have a collar is not precise enough proof of ownership to enforce the law against those who are cruel to dogs or those whose dogs worry sheep or bite postmen; nor is it sufficient to enforce the by-laws which the Government themselves have promulgated in respect to the fouling of pavements. It is necessary to know not just the house but the owner against whom action has to be taken.
If there is no dog licence, we need the registration scheme. That will give this information clearly, With this information, it is hoped that, as in Northern Ireland, the number of strays in these circumstances, and the number of dogs that are slaughtered, would be much reduced. However, this can be done only if there are dog wardens, as in Northern Ireland, to supervise and enforce the law, to encourage responsible dog ownership by education, to encourage the neutering of dogs, and to take strays back to their owners as quickly as possible, thus reducing the number of dogs—nearly 1,000 a day—that have to be put down.
Ideally, a registration scheme should be a national scheme in which an owner would register with his local council. The details would be transferred by the local council to the register. The details on the register would lapse after 15 years on the assumption that that is the natural life of a dog. A national registration scheme backed by law could provide a once and for all registration fee and provide money for a dog warden scheme. It would avoid the necessity for Government to have to spend money and it would raise standards all round. Because of the once and for all nature of the registration, it would not need a large bureaucracy, as would be the case if there were to be an annual payment for that purpose.
We are not aware of any real resistance to this scheme. On the contrary, responsible dog owners and non-owners alike both welcome it and think that it would be an improvement. As has been said, 250 Members of another place have signed an Early Day Motion demanding such a scheme. The Prime Minister has spent a good deal of time lately in trying to show her commitment to the environment. Yet here is a problem affecting everyone in which the Government have, if anything, taken a step backwards, leaving problems that exist and which affect everyone in the community. The Minister has also emasculated the by-laws which were approved in the pilot schemes, reducing the areas to which they would apply and where owners would be required to remove the faeces deposited by their dogs. This nuisance by fouling is becoming increasingly distasteful to more and more people and, as the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said, to say nothing of the health hazard. Not only has rhetoric not matched action, but it has fallen further behind than it had reached previously.
One or two private schemes of registration are springing up. To be effective we need a national

373
scheme, or at least guidelines should be laid down which would regulate these schemes, so that if a national scheme were required in future this would be possible without too much difficulty. This is an urgent problem. If the Government are serious about their concern for the environment, it is one with which they should deal speedily.
11.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the opportunity of debating the emotive subject of dog welfare and control and the view of many that to deal with these matters we need a scheme of dog registration. Many people, myself included, care deeply about animals, and dogs have a very special place in over 5 million households in this country. Dogs provide companionship for the old and lonely, pleasure and enjoyment for the young, and invaluable help to the blind. Sadly, however, there is also the neglected and the unwanted dog which is allowed to stray or to cause a nuisance because its owner is irresponsible.
I would remind the noble Lords of the reasons why we decided to abolish the dog licence in the Local Government Act 1988. There was, of course, the fact that the licence cost about £3·5 million to collect, which was far greater than the sum of £1 million that it raised in revenue, as the noble Earl pointed out to your Lordships' House. But that was not primarily the reason why we decided to abolish the dog licence. Our conclusion was based on the premise that the dog licence was an anachronism which did nothing to assist dog welfare or control and that there was no case for the retention of a bureaucratic licensing system which was costly and, more importantly, impossible to enforce. Similarly we do not accept that there is a case for the establishment of a national dog registration scheme, or that it would be any more successful than the licensing system that it is proposed that it would replace.
Let us consider what might have happened if, instead of abolishing the licence, we had substantially increased the licence fee. Responsible dog owners might be willing to pay £5 or £10 or even £20; and it is, of course, true that this is a small amount compared with the cost of keeping a dog.
However, responsible dog owners are not the problem. They are not the ones who are likely to cause suffering to their animals or allow them to be a nuisance. Those who acquire a dog at Christmas without sufficient thought for the long-term commitment involved, or who are prepared to turn their dogs out of doors all day while they are at work, are hardly likely to be willing, or to take the trouble, to pay a substantially increased fee. Even if they did, payment of such a fee would not make them any more responsible or caring as dog owners.
Stray dogs are the result of irresponsible ownership. Irresponsible ownership will not be changed by the imposition of a registration scheme which would, in effect, simply be another tax on dogs or their owners, just like the dog licence. There
374
is absolutely no evidence that the number of stray dogs has increased or is increasing as a consequence of abolishing the dog licence. In fact, according to published RSPCA reports the number of dogs it puts down each year remained roughly constant during the 1980s. Dog licences provided no mechanism whereby a stray animal, without a collar bearing the owner's name, could be linked to its owner.
There is a considerable body of legislation relating to dog welfare and control which is unaffected by abolition of the licence and which does not depend on the existence of a licensing or registration scheme for its effectiveness. I cannot emphasise enough that it remains a legal requirement that a deg should wear a collar with a plate or disc showing the owner's name and address when in a highway or public place. Any caring owner will wish to ensure that his dog can be reunited with him if it wanders or, unhappily, is involved in an accident. It is irresponsible owners who allow their animals to roam the streets without any means of identification.
General legislation exists which provides powers to require a dangerous dog to be brought under control or destroyed. There is also legislation which makes owners liable for livestock worrying by their dogs. The protection of dogs from cruelty or unnecessary suffering is covered by general legislation.
I assure noble Lords that the plans to deal with rabies—this matter was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland—should There be an outbreak in this country, are not at all dependent on a licensing or registration scheme.
Apart from the general legislation I have mentioned, local authorities have a wide range of powers to deal with dogs and it is they who are primarily responsible for many important aspects of dog control. In fact, we increased their powers on abolition of the dog licence.
That was brought to the attention of the House by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. I should like to point out some of the by-laws which are enforceable by local authorities. There are four types of by-laws for controlling the incidence of dog fouling. They are: a ban on dogs from certain areas; a requirement that owners should clear up after the dogs; a ban on fouling in certain areas; and a ban on dogs on beaches. A dog owner who commits an offence against any of those by-laws is liable to prosecution and a fine of up to £100.
Home Office statistics on prosecutions under local authority by-laws on dogs do not differentiate between the different offences, but statistics which are available for all dog by-laws are as follows. In 1985, 60 people were found guilty in the courts. There were 58 people in 1986 and 79 in 1987. According to the Home Office, many local authorities have by-laws banning dogs from parks.
Local authorities can also make by-laws relating to the fouling of footways and grass verges, or requiring owners to clear up after their dogs in parks, recreation grounds and open spaces. They can also bandogs from certain areas of parks, recreation grounds or beaches. They can also make orders which designate roads on which dogs must be kept

375
on the lead. All this armoury of controls exists and is there to be used. It is quite independent of dog licensing or registration.
The Government take the view that a registration scheme would be little more than an inefficient way of funding a local authority service. Local authorities already have extensive powers to deal with dogs and the resources to fulfil their responsibilities. It is for them to determine their priorities. If local authorities were to budget for £1 per head per year once the community charge has been introduced this would produce £37 million, much more than any dog licence or registration fee. It is a better way of raising the money than charging a fee to responsible owners to pay for the problems caused by irresponsible people.
The central argument of those who wish to see a registration scheme introduced is this: by assigning a unique number to each individual animal, it would be possible to link any dog with its owner, and vice versa. By doing this, it is claimed that a number of benefits would be obtained; for example, in dealing with strays or enabling other legislation or by-laws to be enforced.
I have already reminded your Lordships that it is a requirement under present law that in public places a dog must wear a collar and tag bearing the owner's name and address. A moment's reflection will reveal that adding an identity number to the tag will not in fact achieve anything. If a stray dog has a disc with the owner's name and address, what need is there for the identity number? And if it has no collar and disc, what would be the value of the register?
One would need to go further by requiring all dogs to be permanently marked, either by being tattooed or being implanted with a microchip from which the unique number could be read. I question whether such a proposal would really be acceptable to the population at large. Indeed I wonder whether the implications have really been thought through.
There would need to be a central registry; the creation of the data-base; the design of computer systems with a network of terminals throughout the country to input data; the requirement for people to notify the central record of changes of address and dog ownership; and procedures for dealing with queries. All these things add up to a massive and expensive bureaucracy. The costs, including the costs of tattooing or implanting, would be very considerable.
But even then, even if the practical problems could be overcome, and the costs accepted, how would the scheme be enforced? Irresponsible dog owners would be likely to remain irresponsible and would evade registration. Enforcement would be likely to require draconian measures and a degree of intervention in the life of the ordinary citizen which would be unacceptable.
Would dog wardens be empowered to stop an owner, peacefully taking his or her dog for a walk, to check whether the animal has been tattooed or implanted? Or even worse, could we contemplate giving dog wardens powers of entry into private
376
premises in order to check up on whether a registered dog lived at the premises? Those are surely the sort of powers necessary to ensure full compliance with a registration scheme.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn asked about toxicara canis. I realise that the parents of young children in particular may be concerned about the possibility of damage to sight from that disease. The Department of Health believes that there are around 50 cases of eye damage per year, some contracted abroad. It has no evidence to suggest that the problem is increasing. Even one case of permanent blindness per year is one too many. The problem can be so easily prevented by regular worming of pets, clearing up their mess when it occurs in play areas used by very small children and by giving general attention to personal hygiene. Local authorities also have the power to ban dogs from children's play areas in public parks.
The noble Lord, Lord Irving, brought to your Lordships' attention the situation in Northern Ireland. However, my understanding is that the number of stray dogs impounded by the authorities remains roughly constant, as does the number of dogs destroyed each year according to the latest figures which I have to hand. The difficult though simple problem which exists is not with the responsible dog owner but the irresponsible dog owner who, in the same way that he evaded the dog licence, will avoid a registration scheme.
I hope that I have shown that a registration scheme is not only unnecessary but, more importantly, that it would probably not achieve its objectives. It would be costly, complex and, I fear, probably unenforceable.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he explain why the Government pay tribute to the way in which the scheme in Northern Ireland works, and why almost everyone concerned with animal welfare pays tribute to its effectiveness? Whatever the number of stray dogs, which may have gone up this year, that was not the case only 12 months ago. Therefore, why is the noble Lord condemning the scheme out of hand when everyone else thinks that it is worthwhile?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was not condemning it. I was presenting to the noble Lord, Lord Irving, the facts that have been presented to me. Although the scheme has been admired in many quarters the results have perhaps not been as impressive as the noble Lord feels they may have been.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, they have been sold a pup!
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before midnight.

  PRISON SECURITY
  PRISON SECURITY