Sitting of 5 December 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received development funding in the northern region; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I have approved applications for development funding for five training and enterprise councils in the Training Agency's northern region. This means that councils are now being established in all parts of the region—Teesside, Tyneside, Wearside, county Durham and Northumberland. In addition, four further councils are being established in Yorkshire and Humberside.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he confirm that the number of training and enterprise councils in the United Kingdom is touching the 50 mark? He said that consideration was being given to setting up TECs in Yorkshire and Humberside. Will Brigg and Cleethorpes feature in the list?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes. I understand that Brigg and Cleethorpes feature on the list. They will be covered by the bid for a Humberside TEC, which is expected to be made early in February. I am sure that we shall establish a TEC in my hon. Friend's constituency. On the general position, more than 40 applications have been processed and given development funding and more applications are coming in. I am confident that in the next months we shall cover the whole country with TECs.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware that between 2,500 and 3,500 people are to lose their jobs on the Thorpe construction project in west Cumberland and other construction projects in the nuclear industry? Is he satisfied that the TEC will be able to train all those people so that we can retain them in west Cumberland to rebuild our industrial base for the future?
    Mr. Fowler: I think that it will be a combination of both. The TEC will improve training in the region but in
    140
    addition we shall need to use the experience and skill of the employment service. I shall look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised to see what further action we can suggest.
    Mr. Jack: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that west Lancashire is included in his plans for TECs? Will he tell the House what is happening in the north-west as a whole? Will he concentrate his efforts on areas such as Blackpool which are still unemployment black spots and need particular help?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes. My latest information shows that in the north-west about eight TECs have been given development funding. Other applications are being considered and I have no doubt that we shall consider Blackpool and the surrounding area. Indeed, we shall consider all areas where unemployment is an issue.
    Mr. Blair: Is the Secretary of State aware that only a third of British employees have occupational qualifications compared with two thirds in West Germany, and that Britain has only 30 per cent. of the number of qualified electricians and technicians in France? Two weeks ago a British Minister told the world:
    "We are only just developing in the United Kingdom the recognition of the importance of encouraging a high level of skills."
    Does the Secretary of State agree that the training gap with our competitors is not merely serious but critical? What steps is he taking to ensure that TECs offer not only a Government programme for the long-term unemployed and young people but a strategy for adults already in work, who will form the bulk of the work force?
    Mr. Speaker: Long questions take up a great deal of time.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman almost made an Adjournment speech and I shall try to set out what is happening. With training and enterprise councils we are seeking to narrow the training gap, which has not appeared suddenly in the past few years but has been a feature of this country literally since the war, if not before. The encouraging feature about training and enterprise councils is the way in which employers have responded to them. With the new programmes we shall be able to train some 450,000 unemployed people through employment training and 260,000 young people through YTS.
    Now that the hon. Gentleman has joined the Opposition Front Bench on employment, I hope that he will reverse the Labour party's position and support employment training for unemployed people.
    Ms. Short: That was a long answer, too.
    Mr. Speaker: I know, but long questions lead to long answers, so let us have less of them.

    Unemployment Calculations
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the calculation of unemployment rates in local travel-to-work areas.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): Since October 1989, my Department has published unemployment rates for travel-to-work areas both as a percentage of the work

    141
    force and as a percentage of the unemployed plus employees. The former provide comparability with the rates published at national and regional level and full details were given in the November edition of Employment Gazette.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures are a lot of mumbo-jumbo to most people and that travel-to-work areas should be dropped? Why not simply take constituencies, such as mine? One can find the answer for each ward. We have had a drop of 53·3 per cent. in unemployment since the peak in 1984. Does my hon. Friend agree that all that proves that while Communism is disappearing from eastern Europe, so Socialism is disappearing from north-east England?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the last person to accuse the Government of producing figures which are mumbo-jumbo. He is right that the figures show how successful the Government have been in reducing unemployment figures. My hon. Friend has personal experience of that in his constituency.
    Mr. Battle: Does the Minister agree that because of the nature of the boundaries, travel-to-work areas disbar cities, such as Leeds which have pockets of high unemployment, from applying for European social fund moneys for inner-city projects? Is he prepared to relax the criteria for travel-to-work areas to ensure that, for example, women's training projects can be supported by the social fund?
    Mr. Nicholls: I accept entirely that there is no ideal way of identifying a particular travel-to-work area, but there must be some basis on which that is done and the present system is probably the best device in the circumstances.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding training and enterprise councils in Shropshire.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): Representations from a number of groups have been made to Training Agency officials regarding the formation of a training and enterprise council in Shropshire. Discussions are taking place locally to ensure that a training and enterprise council is formed as soon as possible.
    Mr. Gill: What assurance can my hon. Friend give me that any training and enterprise council established in the county of Shropshire will not be dominated by the large concentration of industry in Telford, to the detriment of the surrounding rural areas?
    Mr. Eggar: In forming TECs local business men will have to take account of all parts of their community, particularly the kind of area for which they are seeking to train and into which they seek to introduce and improve enterprise. The national training task force will ensure that those factors are borne in mind when it examines TECs' business plans.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the constituency of Delyn; and what were the figures two years ago.
    Mr. Nicholls: In Delyn, unemployment is about half what it was two years ago. In October 1989 there were 1,892 unemployed claimants in the Delyn parliamentary constituency, compared with some 4,020 in October 1987. The figures are slightly affected by the change in benefit regulations for under 18-year-olds in September 1988.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that unemployment in Delyn has been dramatically cut by half in the past two years shows the effectiveness of Government regional policy which gave my constituency the highest level of development area status—something that the Labour Government never did—and the Delyn enterprise zone, which the Labour party opposed?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right. Once again, the figures highlight the experience of his constituents and show how successful the Government have been. Since the last election there has been a reduction in unemployment in Delyn of some 54 per cent. That is a remarkable achievement, and it is obviously one of which my hon. Friend thoroughly approves.
    Mr. John P. Smith: Does the Minister recognise that the October unemployment figures show the smallest reduction in unemployment since January 1987, and an increase in unemployment in the west midlands and in East Anglia?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is not about Delyn.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the answer given by the Minister, can he confirm that he has detailed responsibility for unemployment in Britain, for example in places such as Delyn in Wales, which was transferred from the Welsh Office? In view of the success of the policy that he has announced in Delyn, can he arrange for a general review of general development boundaries to ensure that those places with substantially higher unemployment than Delyn will have the advantages to which he referred?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman, with his usual ingenuity, has taken a question about Delyn and asked me to answer it in other terms. The rate of unemployment in Delyn is not only below the average for the United Kingdom, but below the average for Wales. It might therefore be more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman stood up and said, "Thank you".

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has received to his plans to create training and enterprise councils in the west midlands areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: Five training and enterprise councils are being established in the west midlands—at Birmingham, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Dudley, and in Staffordshire. Work is also well advanced in a number of other areas, and there is no doubt that there has been an excellent employer response from the west midlands.
    Mrs. Hicks: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We are positively encouraged by the speedy response to the TECs in the heart of the manufacturing part of Britain. Will he give an assurance that when the Wolverhampton TEC is established there will be sufficient staff and adequate incentive funding fully to meet training needs and to give the response that we need in the area? Will he tell me, in general terms, whether he recognises the policy of resources for the enterprise element of the councils?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, I think that I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on both counts. Certainly, we recognise the importance of enterprise. We have considered the position in Wolverhampton and we are satisfied that staffing will be adequate at that TEC.
    Mr. John Evans: Are any of the training and development councils running courses on democracy and the conduct of ballots? If so, will the Minister attend one and explain why trade unionists have to have postal ballots for the election of their leaders, but Tory Members have a workplace ballot for the election of their leader and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what efforts his Department and the national training task force are making to ensure that best practice from those TECs already established, or in the process of being established, is being made available to those still in the process of formation in the west midlands and elsewhere?
    Mr. Fowler: One of the aims of the national training task force, under the brilliant chairmanship of Brian Wolfson, will be to spread good practice around Britain. The west midlands will benefit from experiences in other parts of the country. One of the aims of the TEC movement will be to share best experience.
    Mr. Fatchett: In relation to the west midlands TECs, is it not the case that, as with other TECs, the pressure will be on numbers and reducing costs? Against that background, what steps and assurances will the Secretary of State take and give to make sure that disabled workers, particularly the blind, receive training opportunities of the quality that they previously enjoyed? Is the Secretary of State aware that organisations for the blind are concerned that training courses will be lost as a result of the introduction of TECs?
    Mr. Fowler: I hope that we can set their minds at rest, as there is absolutely no question of that. We want the provisions for disabled and blind people to continue. The purpose of the TECs is not to save money, or to be a cost-cutting exercise, but to provide good training and to ensure that the training is delivered locally. That is the point of the reforms that we are carrying out.
    Mr. Trotter: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will discuss with the chairman of the training and enterprise councils the need for flexibility in their agreements so as to pay regard to local circumstances and facilitate local initiative.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend and I have had a number of meetings with TEC chairmen and other
    144
    interested individuals. We are confident that TECs will be given the flexibility that they need to enable them to operate effectively in their local area.
    Mr. Trotter: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is enthusiastic support for TECs on Tyneside and Wearside, where it is recognised that such institutions are vital to ensure an adequate and skilled work force for the region in the future? Can he assure us that there will continue to be adequate public funding for those bodies, that there will be sufficient flexibility in their operation to enable them to encourage local initiatives, and that they will not be subjected to undue central control, particularly financial control and regulation?
    Mr. Eggar: I can certainly give my hon. Friend those assurances. Perhaps I can tell those in the community that he represents, through him, that we recognise the widespread support that his local TEC enjoys. We trust that that will continue.
    Mr. Eastham: In response to four questions so far, Ministers have told the House how successful their employment policy is and how many training facilities there are. If that is so, can the Minister tell us how many years it will be before unemployment is brought down to what it was 10 years ago? There are now 1 million more unemployed people than there were in 1979. How many more years will it be before the Government can tell us of a success story in reducing unemployment?
    Mr. Eggar: How many more years will it be before Opposition Members recognise that we now have more people in employment than ever before? Why does the Labour party spread bad news? What about the good news in Britain?
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that the answer that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave in respect of the blind will he much appreciated at the Royal National College for the Blind in Hereford, where a keen interest is taken in these matters?
    Is my hon. Friend further aware that in our part of the world we have a large number of comparatively small employers, all of whom are enthusiastic about TECs? Can he tell us what progress is being made with the TEC for Hereford and Worcester?
    Mr. Eggar: I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend in regard to the blind and the disabled. It is important that local organisations for the disabled work closely with local TECs so that the needs are fully understood by both sides. Good progress is being made in Hereford and Worcester. I take my hon. Friend's point about the number of small employers.

    Industrial Disputes
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days have been lost through industrial disputes in the period January to September 1989; and what was the figure for the comparable periods in 1987 and 1988.
    Mr. Fowler: It is provisionally estimated that 3,237,000 working days were lost through industrial disputes in the period January to September 1989. In the corresponding period in 1987, 3,284,000 days were lost, and in 1988 the figure was 3,427,000.

    145
    The annual average of days lost through industrial disputes in the 1970s was almost 13 million.
    Mr. Wallace: As recent figures are clearly much lower than those for the 1970s, and as the figures that the Secretary of State gave appear relatively stable for the past three years, why does the right hon. Gentleman see a need in this Session for further hostile measures designed to put even more restraint on people in employment in relation to the right to strike? Is it not time to seek more constructive ways to improve industrial relations through partnership in industry?
    Mr. Fowler: I certainly agree about the importance of partnership in industry, but our proposals concern unofficial action, as a result of which we still lose a tremendous number of days each year. We are also putting an end to the pre-entry closed shop. I hope that the hon. Member will support us and that the Labour party will get its act together and support us, too.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that whereas in 1979 private sector strikes accounted for three quarters of all strikes, today private sector strikes account for only 50 per cent. of all strikes, showing that the public sector is becoming more irresponsible as the private sector becomes more responsible? Has he also noticed that unofficial strikes are now a third of all strikes and is not that why we need the proposals contained in the Green Paper and a Bill as soon as possible?
    Mr. Fowler: What my hon. Friend says about unofficial strikes is undoubtedly the case. We are losing far too many days through unofficial strike action. I believe that when the House sees the legislation that we propose it will have the support of the great majority of Members.
    Ms. Short: Does the Secretary of State agree that the industrial dispute that concerns everybody in Britain is the ambulance workers' dispute? He will know that overwhelmingly the people of Britain think that the Government are wrong and that the dispute should be settled. Will he now use his office, in the spirit of the approaching period of Christmas, to agree to arbitration so that we can obtain a settlement and get the ambulances back on the road? That is what the people of Britain really want.
    Mr. Fowler: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but the position on the ambulance dispute has been set out only today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health in one of the national newspapers. Arbitration has never been inserted into the Whitley council procedure in the Health Service—
    Mr. Cryer: As ordained by God and Mrs. Thatcher.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Fowler: —and it would not be right to set such a precedent now.

    Channel Tunnel (Tourism)
    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will hold discussions to ensure that, following the opening of the Channel tunnel, Suffolk and Norfolk are fully promoted as tourist centres.
    Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 28 November that the Government funds that the regional tourist boards receive to promote and develop tourism in their regions, including East Anglia, will almost double from 1 April 1990.
    Mr. Porter: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of those involved in employment in the industry in East Anglia on his answer, but will he bear in mind that many people are worried that when the Channel tunnel has opened, Suffolk and Norfolk will be rather left behind? Isolation is all very well for tourism, but people need to be able to get to a place in order to enjoy it.
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. A number of challenges are open to the tourist industry in relation to the Channel tunnel and we should be mindful of them. The White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity", shows that there could be real advantages for communications between his area and the Channel tunnel. However, it is fair to remind us of that point and I accept it.
    Mr. Michael Welsh: The Channel tunnel will play an important part in tourism and I hope that its opening will come quickly. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that it does, so that business people in the north, especially in Doncaster, can benefit from it?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that the people in the north will want the Channel tunnel as much as everyone else. I accept the implication of what the hon. Gentleman says—that the Channel tunnel has advantages for all areas of the country, not merely the south-east.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend accepts the importance of good communications in ensuring that more tourists from the continent and elsewhere visit Norfolk and Suffolk, but does he also accept the need for a greater emphasis on rail links? Will he do all that he can to persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends that the terminal link should be at Stratford rather than King's Cross.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Nicholls: It seems that I have unwittingly entered into a source of private disagreement and grief. I would only say that in 1988 British residents spent about 40 million nights and £555 million in East Anglia, so whatever the state of the rail links it seems that East Anglia is not doing too badly.

    Health and Safety
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he plans to extend health and safety protection at work.
    Mr. Nicholls: Increased resourcing for the Health and Safety Commission is enabling new risks from changing modern technology to be tackled on a number of fronts. Excellent progress has been made with our programme to modernise health and safety law, and to extend it as necessary. The Health and Safety Executive's programmes for advice, inspection and published guidance are being expanded to stimulate industry to improve safety performance.
    Ms. Armstrong: How will cuts in the staffing of the Health and Safety Executive enable us to make sure that the regulations about which the Minister has talked, and which I very much support, are put into effect?
    Mr. Nicholls: I shall say something to the hon. Lady that I have to say all too often to Labour Members. There is no question of resources to the HSE being cut. Those resources are at least as good as what was spent under the last Labour Administration. For three years running, its public expenditure survey bid for resources has been met in full. That analysis is the correct one. The analysis that the hon. Lady advances is not.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Can my hon. Friend confirm that one of the problems with health and safety lies in the construction industry and the failure of many workers to wear hard hats on site? How can he justify exempting Sikhs from having to wear hard hats?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend makes at least one valuable point by reminding us that the prime responsibility for health and safety on constructions sites, and in the workplace generally, has to lie with those who are there. It is not up to the inspectorate to act as the police men of safety on sites. However, my hon. Friend will be the first to admit that the question whether Sikhs should wear helmets on sites is a difficult one and not one on which it was easy to reach a quick and simplistic conclusion. We think we got it right. My hon. Friend thinks that we did not get it right, and on that we shall have to differ.
    Mr. Cryer: As the Minister has plans to extend the health and safety at work provisions, can he tell us what has happened to the legislation on manual handling of loads, which has been in draft form since 1982, and would contribute greatly to preventing industrial injuries? If the Government can pour out a torrent of legislation against trade unions, why can they not produce legislation of this importance, to reduce injuries at work? As the Minister knows, days lost through that far and away exceed the number of days lost through strike action.
    Mr. Nicholls: Presumably, the hon. Gentleman cannot be aware of the fact that the Health and Safety Commission is a tripartite body. Therefore, before any regulations or proposed legislation can be put to Ministers, they have to pass through a complicated process to ensure that all sides of industry have their say. There is no question of the Government having dragged their feet, but if the hon. Gentleman is interested in tripartite structures, he will have to accept that bringing proposals forward might not happen as speedily as he would want.
    Mr. Hind: Is not Britain far ahead of our EEC partners in health and safety protection at work? Does my hon. Friend agree that when it comes to protecting the worker in the workplace, in terms both of employment and health and safety, we need no lessons from the Europeans and certainly no social charter?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are very much in advance in this, and the Europeans have nothing to teach us either in regard to legislation or in the vigour with which it is implemented.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the Minister is serious in saying that we need no lessons on health and safety, how is it that
    148
    every year there are over 200,000 injuries at work and that every working day two people die? The Government's response has been to cut by over 100 the number of factory inspectors responsible for monitoring that situation. Is the Minister not guilty of the most disgraceful complacency when he tells my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that we have to wait for seven years for proposals to see the light of day? Are not the Government simply indifferent about what happens to working people at their place of work?
    Mr. Nicholls: The fact that the hon. Gentleman is even capable of making such a remark shows how unwise it is to write a supplementary question before hearing the answer to the main question. I have already pointed out to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) that the resources to the Health and Safety Commission have not been cut, are at least as good as under the last Labour Administration and, for the past three years, have been met in full. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that one can abolish accidents and fatalities at work simply by increasing the number of inspectors, he has an attitude to these matters that is so simplistic that, even coming from the Labour Benches, it is quite staggering.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received funding in London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eggar: The response from employers in London has been encouraging. Development funding has been awarded to a TEC covering Kingston and Merton; other applications are currently being developed.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that hundreds of new businesses have been established by the Ealing enterprise agency and that thousands of jobs have been created as a consequence since I founded that body some years ago? Is there a chance that we could now have funding for a TEC in Ealing so that the work of my Ealing enterprise agency, which only operates in the private sector, may be furthered?
    Mr. Eggar: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative in the Ealing enterprise agency. I am sure that it has been a significant contributor to the local economy. We understand that representatives from Ealing are participating in the development of a bid for a west London TEC and we anticipate that the application may be submitted by the end of January.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister tell us what efforts will be made to ensure that the interests of education, local government and employees are represented on TECs in London and elsewhere?
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently appointed a chief education officer to join the national training task force. A number of chief local government officers and education officers are already represented on different TECs, and we are confident that the education interest will be adequately represented.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are now in employment; and what was the figure in 1979.
    Mr. Fowler: In June 1989 the work force in employment in the United Kingdom was 26,343,000. This is the highest level ever in the history of this country. The figure for June 1979 was 25,365,000 so there has been an increase of nearly 1 million over the 10-year period.
    Mr. Pawsey: As unemployment in Rugby is now less than 3 per cent., I cannot say that the figures that my right hon. Friend cited are particularly surprising. But does he agree that those figures vindicate the policies of his Department and of the present Government? Does he further agree that our country's economic situation is reflected in growing prosperity and an increasing number of jobs?
    Mr. Fowler: I think that that is unquestioned. My hon. Friend is exactly right. He could have added that our rate of unemployment is now below that of virtually every other country in the European Community.
    Mr. James Lamond: Before the Minister gets carried away with his own boasting, should he not remember that the 26 million people in employment include many hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—who have been forced into part-time employment? They also include many hundreds of thousands who have lost good jobs—for example in the hospital cleaning services—and who have been forced by privatisation to accept longer hours, shorter holidays and much worse conditions just to get back to work.
    Mr. Fowler: It would be a great pity if the hon. Gentleman sought to give the impression that part-time work somehow does not count. It may not count for him, but every survey conducted by the labour force survey has shown that nine out of 10 people in part-time employment want part-time jobs. That fact should be recognised by the Opposition. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members to desist from private conversations, as it is very difficult to hear hon. Members who have the Floor, even from this end of the Chamber.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole of the EEC means that we should proceed with the utmost caution in the adoption of the social charter, which is likely to destroy jobs rather than create them?
    Mr. Fowler: The acid test of the social charter must be whether it creates jobs. We must be concerned that a number of provisions set out in the charter and the action plan add to labour costs and will therefore destroy jobs rather than create them.
    Mr. McLeish: Does the Secretary of State accept that between 1979 and 1989, the employment gap between north and south has widened dramatically? Is he aware that while 1,156,000 jobs in civilian employment were created in the south, the north lost 358,000 jobs? Would he describe that as a regional policy or a regional sell-out?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman ignores the reduction in unemployment. The position has improved steadily throughout the country and it has improved in the north and also in every region. It is a great pity that the Opposition do not acknowledge the real improvement in employment in this country.
    Mr. Evennett: How many self-employed people are there in the work force in 1989 and how many were there in 1979?
    Mr. Fowler: There has been a substantial increase of about 1·2 million since June 1979 to 3·1 million today. In other words, self-employment has undoubtedly expanded very quickly to the benefit of the public in this country.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to discourage the creation of more jobs in south-east England.
    Mr. Eggar: No, Sir. We wish to see more jobs created throughout the United Kingdom, including in the south-east.
    Mr. Wardell: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to have urgent talks with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that there is a reduction in public expenditure in the London docklands to bail out speculative development in transport which is leading to overheating of the economy and the generation of inflationary pressures? In Wales we continue to suffer because we are the only country in the United Kingdom with an incomplete motorway in the form of the M4. That motorway has still not been completed after 10 years of this Government. Higher tolls on the Severn bridge have been proposed and funding for the road programme in Wales is to be cut as a consequence of EC funding reductions. Will the Minister stop overheating the economy in that way?
    Mr. Eggar: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. Why did he not use the opportunity in his question to point out that unemployment in Wales has fallen by over 40 per cent. in the past two years? Why does he not talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about the vast amount of public money that is going into the valleys initiative and the redevelopment of Cardiff?
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that in Kent we are perfectly willing to share our jobs with the rest of the United Kingdom? However, one of the greatest single obstacles to achieving that will be if British Rail builds a railway line that cannot carry freight wagons of the European gauge. If that happens many firms will choose to set up in Kent because it will be too difficult to get their freight through the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Eggar: I have nothing but admiration for my hon. Friend's ability to get in questions about the rail link through his constituency and mine under almost any excuse whatsoever. I congratulate him on that.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Minister aware that many jobs in Scotland and the north of England will go down the shute—namely the Channel tunnel—because the Government have put forward no guarantees on jobs?

    151
    Bearing in mind all the wheeling and dealing backed by Government, is it not an absolute disgrace that they have not come forward with any guarantees for the future of the people who matter? What is the Government's philosophy for the future? Will they say that the EC is all right or do the British people not matter?
    Mr. Eggar: I am not sure whether I entirely followed the hon. Gentleman.

    East Lancashire Training and Enterprise Council
    Mr. Lee: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the East Lancashire training and enterprise council.
    Mr. Eggar: On 12 July this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that development funding had been approved for the East Lancashire TEC. The group is now working on its corporate and business plans with a view to becoming operational in April next year.
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend will know of my support for the TEC programme in general and for the East Lancashire TEC in particular. I thank him for his answer. Given the excellent range of training facilities in north-east Lancashire, particularly at the Nelson and Colne college and the Pendle training group, where will the vital pump-priming resources come from to provide lifetime training for those in work?
    Mr. Eggar: I readily acknowledge my hon. Friend's major role in the development of the policy on TECs and the way in which he has supported his own TEC. Of couse, he will want to talk to his TEC, which will want to consider how it can play a role in helping employers in his area in the development of lifetime training.

    New Businesses
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will detail the number of small firms which have started business in the last year and over the past decade.
    Mr. Eggar: In 1988, the latest year for which figures have been published, the net increase in the number of VAT-registered businesses was 64,000, an average of just over 1,200 per week. Since 1979, the net increase has been 285,000, an average of around 600 a week over the whole period.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister recognise that tourism plays an important part in those figures, which are extremely good, but that it needs help? Does he recognise that some small tourism businesses are in great difficulties because of the withdrawal of section 4 grants? Does he intend to give any more assistance to small tourist businesses?
    Mr. Eggar: Of course, tourism has been a great success story over the past 10 years. There has been a massive increase in employment in tourism, and I note the hon. Gentleman's point.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have my regular audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Wood: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the reaffirmation of NATO at yesterday's meeting of Heads of Government in Brussels, and also the renewal of the United States commitment to keeping American troops and nuclear weapons in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We had an excellent summit in Brussels yesterday, all of us reaffirming the importance of NATO for the stability and security it has brought and also welcoming the reassurance of the President of the United States that he will station significant armed forces and nuclear weapons in Europe as long as his allies wish it. We felt also that the negotiations on conventional weapons take place through the NATO pact and the Warsaw pact and that, therefore, both must continue. Altogether it was a very successful summit, and the President gave us an excellent account of his talks with Mr. Gorbachev. We welcome the changes that are taking place in eastern Europe.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree with President Bush's view that changes in eastern Europe absolutely mandate new thinking on East-West relations and on the European Community? What new changes is the right hon. Lady now making in her thinking?
    The Prime Minister: At the summit yesterday, as indicated, it was agreed that it is important to keep NATO going. Its security and the concept of NATO have been a winning combination and have been the reason for some of the changes that we are witnessing in eastern Europe. It has not been through our being weak with the Soviet Union, but through our being strong with them that we are now seeing some of the moves to freedom.
    Mr. Kinnock: It will be apparent that there was neither newness nor much thinking in that answer. Is it not obvious that the Prime Minister has great difficulty in coping with the great changes that are taking place in eastern Europe? Is that not the reason, as many in her own party agree, that she is being increasingly pushed towards the margin in both the Alliance and the Community? What good does that do to our country?
    The Prime Minister: Nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman was never very much in favour of NATO because he could not underwrite its nuclear deterrent, which is an essential force. Closer European integration causes us no problems. It was we who proposed the single market completion by 1992, and it was also we who implemented most of the directives. With regard to President Bush and his views on the European market, the right hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that he telephoned me shortly before I came into the House to say that his views on European integration had not changed in

    153
    any way and that there was no change in his position, which is one of full support for completion of the single market in 1992 and for an open and liberal Europe. That is what we stand for, but it is not what the right hon. Gentleman stands for.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does that not provide us with an interesting insight into the Prime Minister's present thinking—if she has to receive a reassuring telephone call from the President before she can say anything?
    The Prime Minister: That is absolute nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman is reduced to making that accusation, I must remind him that he has been totally isolated on NATO for years and isolated in many ways on the European Economic Community. We are up to date. In fact, our actions have been responsible in many ways for the very good changes that we have seen.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. Friend today give consideration to the fact that all the peoples of eastern Europe are now moving towards freedom, but the Poles are experiencing acute shortages of basic foodstuffs and medicines and people will die unnecessarily this winter unless urgent relief is sent? Since the Roman Catholic Church—thank God—in Poland has the necessary means of distribution, will my right hon. Friend order an airlift straight away?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, this matter was raised both at the economic summit and at the recent Paris summit. During the last part of the current year, we have provided £60 million to purchase food and to send it to Poland. We are assured that the supplies are getting through, and more will be committed for next year I have also been in touch with some of the voluntary organisations, and in particular with Lady Ryder of Warsaw, who has told me that the organisations are ready to let their lorries roll and to take more food into Poland.I shall be keeping in touch to see whether that is necessary. There is no shortage of money for providing the food.
    Mr. Ashdown: Despite the Prime Minister's words, is it not the case that she will end up totally isolated at the forthcoming summit at Strasbourg—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Ashdown: What will the Prime Minister do to end that isolation in these last remaining days before Strasbourg, or is she determined to remain in the past and to condemn this country to a future without friends, without influence and without a role in Europe in the future?
    The Prime Minister: What nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman comes out with that question almost every time like a cracked gramophone record. He is isolated if he thinks that this House would accept stage 2 or 3 of the Delors report, because it has indicated clearly that it would not. I hope that he will support us on 1992 and on the measures necessary to complete the single market. I would also hope—although I do not have very much faith—that he will support us on a liberal open-market economy.
    Mr. Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend act to dispel any baseless suggestions that she is some kind of "narrow
    154
    little nationalist"? Will she emphasise that she has always advocated a sharing of responsibility and of sovereignty where that is to the clear economic advantage of all members of the European Community?
    The Prime Minister: I think that this country has probably done as much as any other country in the European Community over the years for the freedom of Europe, for staunchness as allies in NATO and to move forward the Common Market. Yes, we continue to act as a sovereign country in respect of everything coming before this House. We believe that the future of Europe is best achieved through sovereign countries co-operating together rather than by trying to force us into a mould which would not fit all the countries of Europe.
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Mahon: Since this might be the last time that the Prime Minister answers questions at the Dispatch Box—[Interruption.]—will she tell us her proudest achievement? Is it the number of homeless? Is it the deeply unpopular poll tax or is it the image of a Government who resort to seedy bribes to get their privatisation programme through?
    The Prime Minister: I shall hope to see the hon. Lady in her place on Thursday as usual, she in her position and I in mine. My proudest achievements have been bringing Britain from the decline of Socialism to the prosperity of Conservatism, spending almost half as much again in real terms on all the social services, being a staunch ally, and known to be a staunch ally, the world over and restoring the respect for Britain overseas.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowden: In making an assessment of the most direct and cost-effective Channel tunnel rail link between the United Kingdom and continental Europe for passengers and freight will my right hon. Friend give full consideration to the advantages of Stratford over King's Cross as the London interchange?
    The Prime Minister: That will be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee which will consider the petitions against the Bill. It will be for British Rail and its joint venture partner, Eurorail, to persuade the Committee that they have made the correct choice of route and terminal.
    Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Lady consider dismissing the Secretary of State for Health for his gross incompetence in failing to solve the ambulance workers' dispute and for his ill-treatment of decent people?
    The Prime Minister: No. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, other workers in the Health Service accepted similar offers to those that had been turned down by the ambulance service way back in April or May. Since then the ambulance workers have been offered more on an 18-months basis. I very much regret that the ambulance service is out. I am afraid it is the sick and ill who suffer.

    155
    I am glad that the ambulance service is in and operating in a number of places where it is providing accident and emergency services, but where that service is unable to do so the police and army are fulfilling its duties.
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main pressure for the European social charter comes from trade unions and their political backers in some member states mainly because they fear that the single market is a threat to their long-established restrictive practices and their cosy co-operatives?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree. There are some countries that have high costs in the Community that want to saddle the rest of the Community with high costs so that those who wish to invest in the Community do not go to the lower-cost countries. Those high-cost countries call it social dumping to go to the low-cost countries. That hardly seems very communautaire to me. My hon. Friend will have seen the report that quantifies the employment prospects in this country if we adopted the social charter as presently drafted. If the minimum wages were half male average earnings it could mean that we had some 500,000 extra unemployed within three years. If the minimum wage were two thirds of average male and female earnings it could mean that about 1½ million extra people would be unemployed within three years.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the impending renewed tragedy in Ethiopia will the Prime Minister give an assurance that this Christmas rich Britain will not be impervious to the plight of those people and will give a full, generous and urgent response?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard the statement by the Minister for Overseas Development who announced a further £2 million of emergency aid on 27 November. That brings the total commitment of food and emergency aid to nearly £13 million so far this year. We are in regular touch with the British voluntary organisations. The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the problems is distributing that food so that it gets to those in need and, in addition to other things, he will know of the civil war in Eritrea and Tigre.
    Mr. Knowles: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Knowles: Does my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] It is no good the Opposition being envious of Tory intellectual ability. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sale of Rover to British Aerospace not only ensured that the company remained British, but ensured its long-term viable future?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The British Leyland-Rover group was a constant drain on the British taxpayer to the tune of £3 billion. At one stage in late 1988 its overdraft, which the Government had to guarantee, was of the order of £1·6 billion and showed little sign of going down. It is good to have got both British Leyland and Rover into the private sector, removed the burden on the taxpayer, kept the confidence of Rover and its distributors, and given its employees good prospects for the future.
    Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order after the statement.

Atomic Weapons Establishment
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a statement on the future organisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining for this important statement kindly leave quietly?
Mr. King: In its fifth report 1988–89, the Select Committee on Defence drew attention to the problems that if believed risked delay to the progress of the Trident programme. The Government have been considering the best way to address these issues.
The present position is that we believe we shall achieve the intitial production at Aldermaston and the AWE sites that will enable the Trident in-service date of the mid-1990s to be met. However, the need for increased production from 1992 for later Trident deliveries, against the background of the keen demand for skilled labour in the Thames valley area, poses an increasing challenge, and one for which a greater production management capability is required.
The Government consider that the best way to address these problems is by full contractorisation, with the land, facilities, and other assets remaining in the Government's ownership. Legislation will be required to implement this and will be introduced in due course. Under this legislation, provision would be made for the present work force to be employees of one or more operating companies.
In the meantime, and until the necessary legislation is introduced, the Government intend to appoint a management contractor who will concentrate initially on manufacturing work and site support. The contractor will strengthen the establishment by bringing in, during 1990, a small number of experienced managers from the private sector. The contractor will be selected by competition, and invitations to tender will be issued as soon as possible.
There will be no change in the purpose or direction of the establishment's programme. The first objective is to reinforce rather than to replace existing AWE management, and all the existing AWE sites will continue in operation.
The Government remain fully committed to the Trident programme, together with a strong research base to underwrite nuclear weapon capability for the future. Safety will continue to be the highest priority. A compliance office, led by a senior and suitably experienced Government official based at AWE, will monitor contract compliance and observance of safety, quality and security requirements.
Under the initial arrangements I have described, AWE personnel will remain civil servants. The work force at the establishment's sites are being informed today and consultation is being set in hand with the relevant trade unions. A consultative document which sets out in greater detail the background and the proposals I have outlined will be placed in the Library of the House this afternoon.
These changes will not affect the Aldermaston new building programme, which has been managed satisfactorily since 1988 by a private contractor operating under a Government contract.
158
The British nuclear deterrent is committed to NATO in support of the agreed NATO strategy of deterrence based on an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces. The arrangements that I have announced today seek to address the valid concern of the Select Committee about the need for improvements at AWE and to ensure that the Trident programme is successfully implemented. I commend them to the House.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: We have grave reservations about the privatisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Frankly, we shall have to await the publication of the Bill to obtain more details, in view of the thin statement that the Secretary of State has made.
Our first concern is safety. The first report, for 1978, produced by Sir Edward Pochin, criticised the procedures. Although those procedures have been improved, we are anxious to know more about the relationship between the compliance officer and the nuclear installations inspector, for there will exist a totally different set of arrangements from anything that existed previously.
As for security, will the MOD police retain their existing responsibilities? What arrangements will exist for the four AWE sites at Aldermaston, Burghfield, Cardiff and Foulness? Will they be transferred to the same contractors and operate under the same organisational structures as at present, remembering that there is now the concept of a team approach between the four institutions?
The dockyard contractors had to await the passing of the legislation before they could take control. What statutory authority does the right hon. Gentleman have to put in management contractors before they even have any legal standing?
As the main problems concern recruitment and the retention of staff, may we be told what steps the Secretary of State proposes in the short term to ensure that, following his statement, morale will not be further damaged? For example, will he be taking any steps to enhance the pay and conditions of the work force before the contractors come in? Will there be any improvement in the present situation, with about 400 staff needed to reach the establishments' staffing levels? Will there be less need for compulsory overtime? Present staff shortages mean that people must work 12 out of every 14 days.
Does he appreciate that a tight contract the like of which I imagine he will try to introduce will have to sacrifice either staff or wages? It is clear that he will not be able to increase staff numbers and pay, if he expects contractors to come in under the sort of arrangements that were made for the dockyards.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the experience of the privatisation of the dockyards has not been altogether happy? For example, progress at Devonport has been such that we have a long way to go before there is any improvement in the management of that plant as a result of contractorisation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the morale of the staff in the four establishments, who have already produced the necessary up-to-date requirements of the programme, will be severely damaged by what is proposed? That applies especially to those in middle management who have been looking forward to promotion and enhanced remuneration. Their avenues of enhancement will be blocked by the introduction of a core of professional managers.

159
The staff of the establishments, rather than welcoming these steps, will feel a sense of betrayal by the Government, who have not backed them with the money and support that should have been given in the past. The result is the shabby and cheap deal about which we have heard this afternoon.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman asked a number of serious questions that deserve serious attention, but in his peroration he got carried away into an unworthy and wholly unconnected series of remarks. I am grateful to him for clearly setting out some of the problems and concerns at AWE. He referred, for example, to the problems of compulsory overtime and of retention of staff. He clearly set out why action is needed—yet when the Government come forward with proposals he accuses us of shabby action.
The Select Committee made it clear that the Government should take action in these respects. I do not accept that our action will lead to a loss of morale. We are seeking to reinforce, not to replace, the existing arrangements. The Select Committee correctly pointed to the fact that this is very much a research-dominated establishment. The production programme has particular requirements and people are being moved across from the research side to contribute to the urgent needs on the production side. The Select Committee criticised that. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on my statement and read the fuller consultative document, from which he will see that we are seeking initially to reinforce the production side so as not to draw on the valuable expertise on the research side.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the different sites; in my statement, I referred to one or more companies. Under the proposals for full contractorisation—the legislation for this will not come before the House this Session but will be introduced as soon as possible thereafter—the whole of the AWE will be covered, but exactly where the contractors are based is a matter for further consideration.
There will be no change in security arrangements or in the role of the Ministry of Defence police—that is important. As the hon. Gentleman may know, since he has taken a close interest in this, we have been taking certain steps to enhance security.
This is not privatisation: it is what is known in the jargon as GOCO—Government-owned, contractor-operated. In case anyone thinks that an incredibly radical and unheard of concept, may I say that the whole United States weapons programme for 40 years, including the Los Alamos research and development by the university of California, has been operated under this system, so it may not be quite as novel as Opposition Members think.
Mr. Michael Mates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee will be gratified to hear that its advice has been taken, and that it is grateful to him for his kind remarks?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, far from ruining morale at the establishments, this is likely to cause a great rise in morale and a great sense of relief among the scientists who want to get back to their jobs and of the members of these establishments who do not feel that they have had the best management over the years? An example of this came at the end of my right hon. Friend's statement, when he said that since the contractors went into the new
160
building the contract has been working on time and to cost. That is precisely what we all want to happen in the rest of the establishment, and we wish the changes well.
Mr. King: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He made a valid point—[Interruption] The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) keeps muttering.
The Select Committee drew attention to the problems of retention of staff and of the difficulties posed by transfers from the research to the production side, and those are the points with which we sought to deal.
We have already moved one contract at Aldermaston from the public sector to the private sector. All who have seen the development of the new facilities there recognise the obvious success of the management of that contract in the private sector.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is an apparent paradox in attempting to introduce a greater degree of privatisation into nuclear energy for military purposes so soon after the failure to do so in relation to civil purposes? If suitably qualified staff have been difficult to attrct to Aldermaston because of the existence of higher salaries in the private sector, will not the introduction of a private contractor have the effect of increasing the costs of the programme? What calculation has been made of those costs, and what is the likely effect on defence spending in other areas? Will the Secretary of State take time to consider, in the light of what he has just said, whether the four-boat Trident system cannot be as effectively deployed with the same number of warheads as the existing Polaris system without going to the increased number of warheads that the D5 system apparently requires?
Mr. King: I should take up too much of the time of the House if I deployed the whole argument about the Trident system, about the problem of the sophistication of the threat against which it would be deployed and about our intention to ensure that it remains an effective and credible deterrent. We are committed to that and that is part of our commitment to NATO. I understand that the Labour party supports that position as well and that the next. Labour Government will accept the financial and strategic responsibilities of inheriting the Trident programme. I welcome that, and the whole House recognises the importance of our contribution to NATO in that respect.
There is no paradox, as the hon. and learned Gentleman maintains. I thought that his party recognised that one of the great benefits of privatisation, which eastern Europe now seeks to achieve, is that one can have better wages, better performance and better productivity at lower overall public cost. The message has been learnt in British Steel, in National Freight, in Associated British Ports and in the other organisations that are now privatised. Those benefits are available to the work force in AWE as well.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his practical solution to a difficult problem. Although we all hope for the day when nuclear weapons are no longer required for our security, I assure my right hon. Friend that Conservative Members do not think that that day has come and we welcome his commitment to the Trident programme.
Mr. King: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It is true that, although I have made clear beyond question from this Dispatch Box our support for the improvement of relations between East and West, for the conventional arms reduction talks, for the START negotiations and for a reduction in strategic nuclear weapons, neither side believes at present that there is not a need to maintain adequate defences and the credible deterrent of NATO. In that connection, it is necessary to make these changes to ensure that we maintain the credibility of our contributions to NATO.
Mr. John Cartwright: Will the Secretary of State accept that the main threat to Trident warhead production has been the inability of Aldermaston to recruit and to retain the key industrial staff who are needed? Will he assure us that the new arrangements will enable the contractors to operate without the dead hand of Treasury control and to offer the competitive wage rates that are necessary? If that is the case, what additional cost will be added to the Trident programme?
Mr. King: I was quite sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman said until he came to his final remark. I have sought to make the point that, with the best possible production management expertise, and with properly motivated and rewarded staff, who have properly recruited skills and who are properly organised, we may see rather better remuneration for those working in some of the key areas at Aldermaston and they will be operating under efficient and well organised production systems. That will lead, very possibly, to no increase in costs, but to a far better guarantee of performance and an assurance that the Trident programme will be implemented.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend say what difference contractorisation will make to the role of the director of the establishment? Can he give some assurance about employment security for the 7,000 employees, most of whom are my constituents? Would it not make sense for Burghfield to be included with Aldermaston as both are called atomic weapons establishments and are the only two in the county?
Mr. King: I apologise to my hon. Friend if I did not make that clear. It includes Burghfield, Cardiff and Foulness. It covers all the establishments of the AWE and the Blacknest activity contained within Aldermaston. The director is due to retire in the middle of next summer and I then envisage that the management-contractor will become the chief executive of AWE.
On redundancy, the problem—particularly at Aldermaston—is one of considerable shortage, not a surplus, of people. As hon. Members have said, there is a need to improve recruitment.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State accept that, when the Select Committee on Defence examined the contractorisation of the dockyards, it rejected the idea in two reports? Will he also accept that what is being suggested today is the privatisation of plutonium and nuclear warheads? That is not acceptable to the vast majority of Opposition Members. Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that he is creating competition to supply nuclear warheads to Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. King: In kindness to the hon. Gentleman, he should read the document containing greater detail which is in the Library and he will then see how inaccurate his comments are.
Dr. Michael Clark: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution made by AWE Foulness to the overall atomic weapons programme? Is he aware that employees at Foulness do not enjoy all the financial benefits of those employed by AWE in the Thames valley? Will he ensure that those employees have a competitive salary now so that they can be retained rather than pay a competitive salary later to regain them?
Mr. King: I should like to look further into my hon. Friend's point as I have not heard it raised before. I can assure him that either myself or the Minister will look into it.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Contrary to the belief of the Secretary of State and the Government that commercialisation can solve all problems, will the right hon. Gentleman give some thought to the probability that the setting up of a single purpose commercial organisation to increase production at Aldermaston may create a different form of problem for Aldermaston and Cardiff, which is where many of my constituents work? If the Trident system becomes the subject of multilateral negotiations, one problem will be how one has a commercial organisation able to handle—with the same flexibility as when it is under Ministry of Defence control—the conversion of factories. For example, the AWE factory at Llanishen needs to be retained as one of the premier precision engineering factories in south Wales so that we do not lose those skills if the Trident programme becomes part of disarmament negotiations in the next couple of years.
Mr. King: This proposal is intended to reinforce production skills and the capability of production organisation and management. That is important as there is a production job to be done. It is generally recognised by all who have studied that problem at Aldermaston that there is a shortage of adequate production management expertise. We are seeking to address that problem in an effective way while retaining Government ownership of all the assets and facilities involved. That must be right.
The compliance office will be responsible directly to me for safety and security, which are obviously of great concern to the House. However, we see no early prospect of any change. We have made it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to leave the country defenceless while other countries retain nuclear weapons. Therefore, although the Trident programme represents only a modest and limited deterrent when compared with the Soviet Union and its scale of nuclear weaponry, we believe that we should maintain our limited but credible and effective deterrent. That is the Government's policy, but others may intend to get rid of it. If I were a constituent of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), I would be worried about that.
Sir David Mitchell: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the changes he announced today will have no effect on the status of AWE housing in Tadley, Baughurst and other places where employees are now housed in property owned by those establishments?
Mr. King: I give an absolute assurance about interim arrangements. As far as I know, it will make no difference to subsequent arrangements after the House has approved the legislation for full contractorisation. In the short term there will be no difference, but we shall need to give that point careful consideration when drafting the legislation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it.
Mr. John McFall: The Secretary of State's statement was extremely thin. As a member of the Select Committee, I do not welcome it because I do not know what it involves. All that the Secretary of State says is that it is contractorisation. The report of the Select Committee referred to the problems with contractorisation at the A90. The "World in Action" programme on Balfour Kilpatrick also referred to those problems. Contractorisation is already causing great problems. Exactly what does the Secretary of State mean by it? The Select Committee found that pay and conditions and staff shortages were a problem. Contractorisation will achieve nothing. It is a smokescreen.
Mr. King: We recognise that there are problems in retaining staff and there have been complaints about pay and remuneration in this area, which is probably the most competitive in the United Kingdom for skilled labour. I say that in respect of Aldermaston and Burghfield; it is not so true for Cardiff. Against that background, as the hon. Member knows—he is a member of the Select Committee that studied the matter—there are real problems in this research-dominated establishment. There is a shortage of production management expertise. With such a shortage of skilled labour, it is important that labour is properly and effectively organised—
Mr. McFall: And properly paid.
Mr. King: Exactly—under schemes that ensure that productivity is achieved and that people are rewarded for it. Perhaps hon. Members did not hear what I said to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright). I made it clear that there will be new contractors with properly organised production management and arrangements under which it is likely that people will be better rewarded for productivity in a well-run production unit.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: Although I welcome the statement, nothing that my right hon. Friend has said should he seen as a reflection on the factory in my constituency in Cardiff where an excellent work force strives for the highest standards. On the contrary, he is proposing a way to create a better basis for employment for all the employees in the Cardiff factory and in other AWEs which remain a vital part of our country's defences.
Mr. King: As we know, that has been the experience. We do not have to make extravagant claims because the experience is firmly established. It has attracted the attention of many other countries, not least in eastern Europe, which sees the great damage that state ownership and public control and management can cause and the benefits from contractorisation.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Secretary of State understand that some Opposition Members unambiguously welcome any problems and delays in the implementation of the Trident programme?
164
Why does he expect the attempt partially to privatise the military nuclear industry to be any more successful than the attempt wholly to privatise the civil nuclear industry?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman and his party are entitled to their view about the need for Britain to maintain a nuclear deterrent and to be a loyal and effective member of NATO. I am not sure what his party's defence policy is, but if it does not support NATO, it is in a small minority in the House and in the country.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I applaud my right hon. Friend's decision. I believe that it will be widely welcomed. Is he aware that a handful of my constituents who work at Aldermaston will be apprehensive? Will he address himself to the familiar argument, which I expect that we shall hear again, that any delay in the Trident programme has been caused more by private contractors than by public servants and that the introduction of private management will not get to the heart of the problem?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his broad welcome. I understand entirely the initial feeling of the workers there. When any change is announced it creates uncertainty and anxiety. That is why I have sought to ensure that full consultative arrangements and consultative documents are available. In that way the proposals can be explained as quickly as possible to the people involved. The proposals can only be of benefit and will he of material advantage to many of the workers because of the problems that we face. Any competent management contractor will need to get the support of the work force if he is to do an effective job. Indeed, that will be one of his objectives and he will seek to address those points. The proposals are not bad news for the work force.
My hon. Friend asked for the reasons for the delays. A shortage of management expertise in production has been identified. We have addressed that shortage in construction, and I reported to the House that that is going well, but we must still address that problem on the production side. That is why I have made the statement. The other issues which hon. Members have raised—what about this, what about that—will become the responsibility of those who can bring considerable expertise and abilities to tackling the problems.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the subsequent business. There is a heavy demand to speak in the debate, so I shall end questions on the statement by 4.15 pm. If hon. Members ask brief questions, I shall be able to call all of them.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I voice extreme technical scepticism? Even given the Government's assumptions on Trident, why is more research and a greater capability needed if the programme is going as smoothly as we are told? What does the Secretary of State say in answer to the anxiety expressed at the recent Royal Society meeting that our real problem is that, whereas the Japanese spend 2 per cent. of their research and development budget on military research and the Germans spend 12 per cent., we in Britain spend 47 per cent? A shortage of technical skill is precisely one of the problems of the British economy and British industry.
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Dalyell: Is that not adding to the problem? Is not the Secretary of state being taken for a technical ride?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman asked my permission to express extreme scepticism. I doubt whether I could prevent him from expressing scepticism on any issue which he chose to raise. I explained the background and said that the programme seemed to be going well, so the hon. Gentleman asked why there was a need for change. As I said in my statement, we believe that we shall achieve the initial in-service dates, but there is a need for increased production for Trident deliveries from 1992. We face real problems with the operation in the Thames valley area and there is no realistic prospect of relocating those facilities. It is perhaps the most difficult area in which to recruit scarce skilled labour resources. Against that background, the Select Committee identified problems of retention and skills shortages, and we have taken the action that we have.
Mr. Robert Key: My right hon. Friend can rest assured that those of us who have major defence interests in our constituencies understand the difference between contractorisation and privatisation, and that we welcome the sensible way forward. Will he, however, clear up the confusion that arose at the start of questions following the statement? Reference was made to the Ministry of Defence police role. Surely what is meant is the role of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. Will he confirm that Mr. Reddington, the chief constable of that authority, has been consulted and that operational arrangements in particular for atomic energy transport and for guarding nuclear convoys will not be changed?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the arrangements and for his emphasis on the clear distinction between contractorisation and privatisation. I can confirm that there is no change in security arrangements.
Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Secretary of State accept that safety and security are extremely important matters and that both of them are as important as productivity? Is he not creating a fragmented management structure and chain of command, which is likely to cause difficulties? Is he not insulting the standard of management at the establishments, including the one in Cardiff, in a way that seems gratuitous, or is he simply confessing that he and the Government have not done a good job of managing resources over the years?
Mr. King: The hon. Member is giving the problem serious consideration and I agree with the first part of what he said. On reflection, he may recall that I said that safety will continue to have the highest priority. I also made it clear, when I set up the compliance office, that it will have direct responsibility to me for issues of safety, quality and security. That is important, and I shall certainly insist on it.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing radically new in involving contractors in work at the AWE at Aldermaston? When I worked there as a project manager for an outside company in 1985, there were many other companies on site. Does he also agree that the greatest single problem, apart from pay, in terms of job satisfaction which faces scientists there is that they are not able to get
166
on with science? They are sucked into production or other peripheral management duties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement will enable them to get back to the work that they want to do and that the nation needs them to do?
Mr. King: I never cease to be amazed by the breadth of my hon. Friend's management experience. The whole House has listened to his first-hand and interesting report, and I am grateful for his strong endorsement of the changes.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that the real reason for contractorisation is that the Government have lost confidence in the science-based management at Aldermaston? Is it not true that there have been repeated arguments between departmental officials and the people who run the site there? If all that I have said is true, would it not have been better to have cleaned out the management and put in a management representing the state rather than the curious system of contractorisation that is being proposed?
Mr. King: I think all hon. Members know of the hon. Gentleman's ability to translate any situation into the most malign scenario.
There have been problems needing the transfer of people on research, and the Select Committee commented on that in its report. That was due to shortages on the production side. Being science-based does not mean that one is a great expert on modern management and production techniques. We believe that contractorisation is the best way to approach the problem and get the most effective people available.
Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the new system works effectively, it will be possible for scientists to get on with their research, and to spend a lot more of their time doing so, rather than being bogged down in red tape? Will he also confirm that security will be considerably enhanced because turnover should drop dramatically, and that will lead to greater stability in the work force and to a more secure work force?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. It is not satisfactory when, albeit under public management, a number of people are recruited but not retained. We incur considerable costs and requirements for vetting procedures are obviously necessary. If we can establish a stable and effective private management contractual operation, which will be subject to the normal vetting requirements, the operation will be able to retain people, and we are likely to have a more secure operation than in the present unsatisfactory situation.
Mr. Norman Buchan: When one considers the implications of the subject, is it not the height of folly to introduce any element of profit or privatisation into it? After the events of the past few months, and the talks in Malta and elsewhere, is it not the height of frivolity to continue the production of what are, presumably, bigger and better weapons? Who are we likely to use them against? Is it not true that the only safe way forward for contractors and the rest of humanity is to end the proliferation, and is that not best achieved by Britain taking the lead?
Mr. King: I know that the whole House recognises the consistency of the hon. Gentleman's position, but his argument is really more with his Front Bench and the leader of his party, who made it clear that the next Labour Government will accept the financial and strategic responsibilities of inheriting the Trident programme. The Leader of the Opposition said that Labour has an "absolutely dependable defence policy". The hon. Gentleman had better direct his questions in that direction.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the explanation is rather more simple than the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) suggests with his conspiracy theory? The very good quality people at Aldermaston were trained as scientists, not as industrial engineers and production managers. They should be allowed to get back to the work they do best and people who can do the other job best—outside contractors—should be brought in. If that were not done, the Government would be failing in their duty to defend the country, as we would not have the fissile material we need for our submarines.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has explained the situation simply, clearly and precisely. That is why we have taken these steps.
Mr. James Lamond: Despite all the Secretary of State's bluster about defence, was he not faced with the straightforward problem of staff shortages and difficulty in recruiting people because conditions of employment do not match up to what can be obtained in outside industry? Instead of allowing the law of supply and demand to work, he has put forward this extraordinary solution of putting the work out to contract. The contractors will have to pay better wages and provide better conditions to attract the men they want. They are not like contractors in the Health Service and elsewhere for cleaning services, who can force people who cannot find work anywhere else to accept low pay and poor conditions. The people whom the Secretary of State is trying to recruit are in what they regard as a seller's market, so it must cost the country more to pursue this solution.
Mr. King: When I was Secretary of State for Employment, we conducted a study of the training needs of, and skilled labour problems in, the Thames valley. Every firm that identified a shortage of skilled labour as the greatest difficulty for the coming 10 years said that it would poach staff from the firm next door. Putting up wages is manifestly not the whole solution to the shortage of skilled labour. We must ensure that skilled labour, which I believe will continue to be a scarce commodity in the Thames valley, is managed and used efficiently and effectively.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hoped to be able to call all hon. Members who have been rising in their places, but I shall call only two more from each side and then move on to the next business.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: As major changes such as this, however well directed, cause great distress and uncertainty about pensions, promotion and housing, will my right hon. Friend tell many of my constituents who
168
work in Foulness whether they will get a small pamphlet, not a bulk consultation document, setting out the implications of the changes for employees and giving the name of someone who can be consulted if there is any doubt? Will he use as a guide the especially bad performance, sadly, of the Treasury's announcement in the Autumn Statement of the decision to move about 700 jobs from Southend? Will he try to consult employees and tell them all the facts promptly and where they can go if they do not know the answers?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and entirely agree that statements such as these often confuse more than they clarify. I am willing to respond. If my hon. Friend would like to give me the questions that he thinks his constituents would like to be answered, I shall try to reply to them.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does the Secretary of State understand that the real anxieties being expressed, not least by Conservative Members, arise because we all know from reading the history books, not from consulting a crystal ball, that contractorisation inevitably leads to worse working conditions, including pension rights, training and hours of work? What assurance can he give that, under the new arrangements, such rights, which have been hard won, will be protected? In view of recent events, what assurance can he give that a contractorised service will not be a far greater security risk than a public sector service?
Mr. King: I sought to address the hon. Gentleman's last point when I answered the interesting question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) when I said that we faced some unsatisfactory situations with the rapid turnover of employees, some with quite short service. That is not at all satisfactory from the security point of view. The background against which the proposals have been made is an acute shortage of people and a recognition of the fact that there may well have to be some improvement in opportunities for people within the plants so that we can attract people with the skills that we need, and against that background the hon. Gentleman's comments do not stack up. It is not open to the sort of criticisms that he seeks to make.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Should not this be seen as a thoroughly sensible management decision to deal with a particular production problem in this area? My right hon. Friend also mentioned the American experience —publicly owned, privately run—and many of us feel that that example could be followed throughout his Department. Will he give us some guarantee that it will have further application?
Mr. King: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that that is the way that we should operate the Ministry of Defence, but I shall take his suggestion seriously. The application where possible of that principle can have benefits. What it comes down to, as several of my hon. Friends have perceptively said, is the need to get the best people available to do the jobs that need to be done. That is not a radical concept, and it should be applied wherever possible.
Mr. Roland Boyes: In view of the acute shortage of workers, will the Secretary of State reassure the work force on safety at the AWEs under

169
the new procedures? The right hon. Gentleman has said that safety is important, and we welcome that, but has he studied the problems in the United States, particularly the Savannah river arms plant in south Carolina, which caused two of its four plants to be abandoned and two others to be temporarily closed because production was placed above health considerations and a safe environment?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall what Admiral Watkins, the Secretary of State for Energy in the new Administration, said when he first took over his department? He accused America's crumbling nuclear weapons industry of
"ineptitude, mismanagement and deliberately ignoring safety rules".
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance this afternoon that our work force will not be subject to such conditions and risks?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We looked carefully at the American experience in that respect. There have clearly been difficulties in some areas, but I shall say no more because some legal actions are flying around on some of the comments that have been made. We shall learn from America's experiences. There are some aspects of the American contract that we shall not follow. For example, we shall make sure that the contractor's contract includes incentives on the important matter of safety, quality and security, as well as on production matters. But it is interesting that the Americans are convinced that, whatever the problems that they have to sort out, the Government-owned, contractor-operated system—the GOCO method—is the right approach to take.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I have been unable to call all those hon. Members who wished to speak, but I shall bear in mind their undoubted claims when we return to the subject.

Points of Order
4.18 pm
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you due notice. It concerns an issue of importance to the House—the position of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and his role in a broadcast on Radio 4 this morning on the "Today" programme. I attended, as an observer, the first of several sessions of the Public Accounts Committee on the sale of the Rover Group to British Aerospace.
Yesterday civil servants were interviewed and a number of questions were put to them. No doubt in due course a transcript will be available for us all to read and disseminate. Basically, they adopted a defensive posture, as one would expect. This morning, when I tuned in to Radio 4, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, was being interviewed, and what he said struck me as less than impartial. During yesterday's interrogation of the witnesses, several references were made to sweetners and the fact that the Commission was being—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. King: If a Chairman of a Select Committee or of an august body such as the Public Accounts Committee has already made up his mind as to what happened in the British Aerospace-Rover deal, what point is there in calling witnesses to determine what happened? Is it not a fact that, from now on, probably no one will get a fair hearing?
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) for giving me notice that he would be raising his point of order. It is a pity that he did not discuss it with me because I would have been able to inform him of what you, Mr. Speaker, certainly know, which is that it is all here in the National Audit Office report to the Public Accounts Committee. The report was agreed with the Department concerned. What I value most is the unanimity of the all-party Committee. That is of enormous importance to me, and it is the strength of the Committee, for which I work all the time.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I must make it plain that there can be no appeal to me about the way in which Chairmen of Select Committees see their responsibilities. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, the Secretary of State for Defence said that he could not understand a question. Perhaps that was a mental blockage, perhaps it was political arrogance, but something strikes me about this place these days. It has to do with the noise and the acoustics. Could something be done about that? I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt, but something must be done.
Mr. Speaker: It is sometimes difficult to hear in the Chamber with these rather old-fashioned microphones. If the hon. Gentleman were to move a little this way and under the microphone, we could all hear him more easily. I am sorry if his question was not heard, but I shall have the matter looked into.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (England) (No. 4) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Medicines (Intermediate Medicated Feeding Stuffs) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day

  Education (Student Loans) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I repeat what I said earlier this week. There is a great demand, and I welcome it, for right hon. and hon. Members to participate in our debates these days. There is a great demand today and I shall have to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 O'clock. Again, I appeal to hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be called before that time to bear that limit in mind.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are about to debate the Second Reading of the Education (Student Loans) Bill. In the Queen's Speech, the Bill was announced with the following words:
  "A Bill will be introduced to supplement students' grants with loans."
  There is no provision in the Bill that deals in any particular with the loans, their amount, their funding, their arrangements or any other such details. This is a point of order to you to determine whether it is proper that we should debate today a Bill that has none of the detail that we were told that it would have by that short sentence in the Queen's Speech. That is germane and necessary before any proper consideration can be given to the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: The House has not yet heard the Secretary of State explain exactly what is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman can raise the matter if he is called, and if he does not like what he hears he can vote against Second Reading.
  4.25 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I shall be dealing with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at some length during my speech.
  The House debated student loans only recently—on Friday 20 October—and I do not wish to repeat all the points that I made then, but I think that it is worth restating three basic points by way of background. First, the Bill provides for loans as a top-up to student grants for maintenance, and for maintenance only. That is made clear in the long title, at the very beginning of the Bill.
  Our present mandatory grant arrangements were introduced by the Education Act 1962, following the Anderson report, which envisaged higher education student numbers eventually reaching 175,000. There was no conception then of the way in which higher education would expand in the 1970s and 1980s. This autumn, there were more than 1 million full-time and part-time students in higher education, 400,000 of whom are in receipt of maintenance grant awards. That is compared with the 175,000 originally envisaged.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend has stated clearly that clause I says that the Bill provides for top-up loans for maintenance grants alone. Will he draw attention to the somewhat misleading

  173
  petition presented by the National Union of Students, which links student loans and tuition fees, as many of us are very much opposed to tuition fees but in favour of student loans?
  Mr. MacGregor: It is made absolutely clear throughout the Bill that the provisions refer to maintenance grants and not to tuition fees. That will be made clear to everybody.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: Very well.
  Mr. Greenway: I apologise to my right hon. Friend, but it is an important point. I am grateful to him for explaining that the Bill will deal with maintenance grants. Is he aware that those of my constituents who are in higher education have still not been paid their maintenance grants by Ealing council, and that many of them have been forced into debt in connection with housing, food and everything else and so obliged by the inefficiency of Ealing council to take out loans at high interest rates? Ealing council, which is Labour-controlled, says that it opposes student loans but students have written to me and have been to see me to ask me to support the Bill so that they may obtain loans at a reasonable rate.
  Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the Labour-controlled Ealing council will get on with it. There is no doubt that loans at a real interest rate of zero such as those that we propose—I shall deal with that later—would have helped all the students in their present predicament with Ealing council.
  Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have hardly progressed with my speech, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, because, as he says, he has hardly started. He has just said that the Bill will not cover tuition fees. Will he give a categorical commitment to the effect that it is the Government's policy that tuition fees will continue to be met in full from the public purse?
  Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that what we have done this year has made that absolutely clear, despite some of the suggestions that we heard in advance of the Autumn Statement. It was clear in the Autumn Statement—I cannot make it clearer, and the Bill cannot make it clearer—that the loans are for grants for maintenance.
  I am aware that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. As I have given way three times and I have hardly begun my speech, I hope that it will be understood that, in the interests of those who want to make speeches, I shall have to contain myself and not give way further.
  The expansion in student numbers, unforeseen when the present system was introduced, is reflected in the costs to the taxpayer of the grant system. It has risen, at 1990–91 prices, from £236 million in 1962–63 to more than £600 million in 1989–90. Clearly, both the numbers and the cost to the taxpayer have risen considerably.
  174
  My second background point is that our system of student support is substantially more generous than that in any other comparable country. The latest comparative figures are for the years around 1984 but the relative position will have changed little since then, and the figures are revealing. They show that the public funding for students is £30 per student in Japan, £40 in Italy, £70 in West Germany, £180 in France, £275 for the United States and £750 for the United Kingdom. The figures are dramatic and bear out my point.
  We anticipate substantial further expansion of higher education numbers in the years ahead. I have already reaffirmed my predecessor's expectations of something like a doubling in the numbers over the next 25 years.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: No, the Minister has not done that.
  Mr. MacGregor: I have said that so many times that I do not know how often I must continue to say it. I have said it again now, and perhaps the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will believe me.
  At the time of the Autumn Statement, I announced provision of an extra £750 million to fund an expansion over the next three years, which would take the index of participation of the relevant age groups from 16 per cent. to 19 per cent. in those three years. Here is proof of action backing words: if that rate is carried forward over 25 years, it will actually more than double student numbers.
  It is not going to be feasible to ask taxpayers to bear the extra burden of student maintenance at that rate over the years ahead. We already have a higher proportion of our university expenditure going to student maintenance support than most other countries. We are indeed generous in this area with regard to maintenance, particularly when we consider how other countries provide for maintenance and residence support. Most other countries have loans systems, some depend on loans heavily rather than grant, but none is so grant-oriented. By our proposals we shall in most cases, be moving only some small way in their direction, and their examples demonstrate that loans do not inhibit access.
  It is important for the House to note that most of the taxpayers who are contributing to that support will have earnings levels throughout their working life which will always be lower than the incomes which students can expect to earn for most the time after they have graduated. I must stress that.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley rose—
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I must make progress, because I have a lot to say. I have already given way a great deal.
  I have now set out the background to the Bill. Its purpose is to implement the proposals set out in the White Paper "Top-Up Loans for Students" published in November 1988. It is worth repeating the Government's objectives as set out in that White Paper. They are to share the cost of student maintenance more fairly between the taxpayer, students' parents and the students themselves.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment, after I have made a little more progress.
  Other objectives of the Bill are to reduce, over time, the contribution to students' maintenance that is expected

  175
  from parents and to reduce, over time, direct public expenditure on grants. The objective is also to increase resources available to students and to implement the Government's decision to remove students from the social security benefits system, which was never intended to be a form of support for student maintenance. It is also intended to reduce students' sense of dependency on the state and promote an awareness of self-reliance and investing in their future, which will bring with it, as in other countries, a greater readiness to obtain value for their investment in their courses.
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I will give way in a moment.
  I am confident that that is the right way forward. Our scheme will benefit students. It will increase the maximum resources available to them while they are studying by nearly a quarter and it will give them greater independence from their parents. It will benefit their parents by cutting the contribution expected of them, over time, by nearly half. It will also benefit taxpayers because part of the burden of student support will be shifted from taxpayers at large to graduates.
  Mrs. Ewing: How will the Minister's plans benefit disabled students seeking access to higher education? Additional expenses are built into their courses and they may not find employment at the end of their courses to enable them to repay their loans. In passing, will the Minister refer to the four-year degree course in Scotland and the implications of the new Bill for that?
  Mr. MacGregor: I will refer to the hon. Lady's points about disabled students later in my speech. One of the difficulties with so many hon. Members wanting to intervene early in my speech is that they pre-empt the natural flow of my speech.
  The hon. Lady's point about Scottish student grants was discussed at length in a previous Question Time. I myself am a beneficiary of a four-year course in Scotland. Although I did not have a maintenance grant, I got scholarships and earnings during university vacations. Those who wish to have and can benefit from the four-year course in Scotland—I am aware that a considerable number of English students wish to do so—will not find that the cost of a small additional loan repayment will outweigh the benefits of that course. The choice is for them to make.
  Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I will not give way. I must get on.
  I refer next to the Bill, and, later in my speech, I will deal with a number of general issues arising out of the proposals.
  I have seen some criticisms of the form of the Bill. I believe that they are totally misguided and I wish robustly to defend our approach. I shall spend some time on this matter, because many hon. Members have raised it.
  Our approach is right for three good reasons. First, it follows precedent. The nearest analogy is the Education Act 1962, which introduced the maintenance grant system for which these loans will now be a top-up. This Bill follows pretty well precisely the shape and approach of that Act. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn
  176
  (Mr. Straw) can make his points later. Perhaps he will allow me to develop mine, instead of constantly interrupting me.
  Like the Education Act, the Bill identifies the purpose for which loans may be made and those to whom they may be made, as with grants. Like it, the Bill sets the framework, on eligibility and on qualifying institutions, and the ground to be covered in regulations and other arrangements. Like it, the Bill leaves the detail of loan rates and conditions, just as for award rates, to regulations made under the negative resolution procedure. I have not heard any complaints about the way in which student grants procedures are undertaken, in terms of parliamentary accountability or in other ways. We follow that precedent.
  Mr. James Wallace rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I will not give way. I must finish my three points.
  My second point is that, like the Act before it, the Bill covers the crucial issues. Schedule I is explicit and precise in its definitions of the categories of higher education courses and the kind of institutions to which the loan system will be applicable. Schedule 2 stipulates in some detail—I will come to it—the ground to be covered in regulations and other arrangements. So the notion that the Bill gives me "unlimited powers" to make loans is utter nonsense. I have not heard such charges made about grants.
  Thirdly, the Bill follows the 1962 Act in providing the flexibility, through regulations, to revise year by year such things as the amounts of loans, the period and manner of repayments, the deferment or cancellation of a borrower's liability, and even changes to eligibility. I should have thought that that is very much in both Parliament's and the students' interest.
  For Parliament, can it really make sense that such details as the size of the loan each year and conditions that we might wish to change in the light of experience should be the subject of regular primary legislation? No one argues that for grants.
  I want to mention specifically a very important point. We shall, of course, monitor closely the effects of the introduction of the scheme. We have already carried out, in 1987 and 1989, three surveys of students' income and expenditure. We shall continue to commission periodic surveys in this matter and others if that is shown to be desirable. [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] The flexibility that the structure of the Bill gives us will allow us to act speedily and effectively on the findings of our monitoring. That is "so what", and it is very sensible. That flexibility will also benefit students. They will not wish to wait for a place in the parliamentary primary legislative queue to get an uprating in loan amounts or a beneficial change in eligibility.
  Let me give a specific example. The House should understand this matter, because the critics on this score are totally wrong. This summer, a case in relation to student grants, which is our parallel, was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). It related to a very technical point about a clergyman who, for many years, had worked in another European Community country but who had now returned to live and work in the United Kingdom. Owing to the technicalities of the regulations, without a change, the grossly unfair situation

  177
  would have arisen that, because the son and daughter of my hon. Friend's constituent had not had three years' ordinary residence in the United Kingdom, they were not eligible for maintenance grants, whereas other European Community citizens resident here for a shorter period would have been. We were able to change that and to make grants available to those students by regulation. Without that approach, as embodied in this Bill, they would have had to wait for primary legislation to make that small change. I do not believe that the House would feel that that is in the interests either of Parliament or of the students.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree with two points on this—first, that it was an exceptionally hard case? The gentleman in question had given his whole working life to the Church and was on an income of less than £9,000 per year, yet he was unable to get any grant for his daughter who was on an extremely expensive music course. Secondly, does he agree that, besides reflecting the sensitive and speedy way in which the Minister concerned handled the application—I saw him about it in July and it had been fixed by September—it could not have been done had we not had a flexible framework in the legislation, depending mainly on secondary legislation?
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. It would have deprived a student who, through a technicality, would not have been able to undertake that course. My hon. Friend makes his point very well. Indeed, it would have deprived such a student of ever having the chance to go on such a course, because it would not be possible to find a place in primary legislation for dealing with such a narrow technical point. That is what we are proposing in the Bill.
  I hope that the House will agree that these are powerful reasons for having this Bill in the form it is. Those who criticise it have to justify why they are not criticising also the parliamentary arrangements for student grants.
  Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has made comparisons between the 1962 legislation and the Bill, so will he tell the House what references that Act makes to Scotland? The only specific reference to Scotland in the Bill appears to be, ominously, with regard to insolvency and sequestration of estates. Will separate regulations be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Finally, recognising that in recent years the principal of Aberdeen university has talked about reducing the Scottish university degree course to three years, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this could be yet another burden that puts a nail in the broad-based traditions of Scottish education?
  Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, the Education Act 1962, which I have with me, contained some technical requirements relating to Scotland. Such requirements are not really necessary in the Bill. Clearly, it will be for us to decide exactly how the regulations are followed through in any case, but I believe that the Bill applies perfectly sensibly to Scotland.
  I turn now to the detail of the Bill itself. The heart of it is in clause 1: this gives the holder of my office power to make loans for student maintenance within the policy described in the White Paper and according to the arrangements set out in schedule 2.
  178
  Clause 1 and schedule 1 empower the Secretary of State to provide funding for loans for students' living costs. They define the students eligible for loans in terms for the courses they attend. These must be higher education courses of at least one academic year's duration. They must be provided at institutions which receive support from public funds, or at other institutions to be designated for the purpose under regulations.
  The clause also provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations other conditions of eligibility, such as residence conditions and the exclusion of students aged 50 or over. We intend that students will not be excluded on the basis of their financial record and there will be no means-testing.
  Clause 2 enables the provisions, which extend directly to England, Wales and Scotland, to be extended by order to Northern Ireland.
  Clauses 3 and 4 make the necessary financial provisions—on which more later—and give the short title, interpretation and extent.
  Schedule 2 identifies the main administrative elements of the loan scheme to be prescribed in regulations. It goes into considerable detail and requires the Secretary of State to specify the amount of the loan and the arrangements for repayment, deferment and cancellation. It sets out the basis for calculating the zero real interest rate which will apply to the loans. The Secretary of State shall be empowered to require higher education institutions to issue certificates of eligibility to their students. There is provision to arrange for third parties to undertake administration of the loans, which must include machinery for handling appeals. Finally, the schedule modifies bankruptcy law by excluding from a student borrower's bankruptcy any sum advanced by way of loan and the corresponding debt.
  As I have already explained, the details of the loan scheme will be in regulations, and we shall lay those before the House in the usual way. The arrangements to be made will be built on the basis of clause 1 and schedules I and 2, just as the whole apparatus of mandatory awards is built on section 1 of the Education Act 1962.
  Since I have just mentioned section 1 of the 1962 Act, let me make it clear that that section is to remain on the statute book: local education authorities will continue to have the duty to make mandatory awards: there is no question of abolishing the student grant. Once the loan component of student support reaches the level of the maintenance grant and parental contribution—that, of course, will be some considerable way ahead, in the early part of the next century—we intend that the two will continue in parallel.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State has slid over a central part of the White Paper, which proposes that the real value of the grant should be reduced and that the grant should be replaced by student loans. Is that still the Government's policy?
  Mr. MacGregor: I did not slide over it. It has been clear all the way through and I have made it absolutely clear here that we are intending that the level of the maintenance grant and parental contribution will be reduced in real terms, of course, because I have talked about a fairer distribution of the burden—[Interruption.] I make two points about this. First, that position will not be reached until the early part of the next century, as I have

  179
  emphasised, and, of course, there is the opportunity for review at any stage during the 1990s. Secondly—I shall come to this later—it behoves those who pretend that we can go on financing that degree of higher education expansion by continuing to place a burden on parents and taxpayers to say how they would do it. I shall come to that later also.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Caborn rose
  Mr. MacGregor: In fairness to the many hon. Members who wish to speak, I should now get on with my speech. I am sure that that is the mood of the House and that that is what people—[Interruption] It is perfectly fair—
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: No, I am not giving way. It is perfectly fair—[Interruption.] No, I am not giving way, because it is important that we now proceed with the debate.
  I turn now to various issues on which the public debate has also focused so far. I have already referred to the fact that most other comparable countries have loan schemes, but it is worth stressing to the House that we shall continue to be putting more emphasis on grants rather than loans than nearly all of them, and our loans scheme itself will have more generous conditions than most.
  For example, loans are a top-up to existing grants and are concentrated on maintenance only. Others have fewer grants and loans for fees. All students may take out a loan; there will be no credit conditions. The interest rate will he in real terms zero, which is clearly a preferential rate. That means it will be beneficial to those students who currently have commercial loans. Repayment will commence only in the April following graduation, and then only if income is above 85 per cent. of the average wage.
  Let me illustrate that point by giving an example. A student embarking on a three-year degree course outside London and taking up the loans during those three years to the full extent, and then earning a salary just above the likely deferment threshold in 1994—that is, just above 85 per cent. of the average wage threshold—would make an annual loan repayment of little more than 3 per cent. of his or her net income. That puts the position clearly in context. I would add that deferral terms are much more generous than, for example, in the United States, which is why I would expect default rates and individual difficulties to be much different here from there.
  But what is common to other countries is that, even with less generous terms than ours, access to higher education in those countries has not been inhibited. That brings me to access. I do not believe that the introduction of loans to top up maintenance support will impede access. Loans are top-up loans: they will provide more money to students while they are studying— for all students. There will be no credit rating. In that way, the Government will establish the conditions for wider access.
  In addition—this is an important point which has not yet had sufficient attention—the parental contribution over the period will be cut by nearly half. We know that some 40 per cent. of parents—two out of every five—do not pay their student children the full sum for which they are assessed. Our scheme will reduce the burden on families with student children. The aggregate parental contribution, and the average parental contribution, will be frozen in cash terms.
  180
  The effect is that parents, as their incomes rise in line with the general trend, will pay less and less in real terms. They will feel this as a saving equivalent to the rate of inflation. It will also mean that many students will be less dependent on their parents.
  I have seen a recent survey purporting to show that some young people assert that they would not go on to higher education were a loans scheme in operation. Many will share my scepticism about the usefulness of evidence derived from such surveys. If people are asked if they want a loan rather than a grant, it is pretty obvious what they will reply. One would get the same answer about business loans or grants, and so on, but that begs a lot of questions. It is also important to consider some of the questions posed by that survey.
  The response to the National Union of Students' sample was limited to 40 per cent. of all those asked. Therefore, the response is more likely to have come from those who are against loans—yet, despite that, many more said it would make no difference to their decisions. It is not at all clear whether those questioned were given a proper account of the loan proposals that we are actually making. Was the alternative put to them? It is unrealistic to suppose that the alternative to a loan is a bigger grant. Unless there is a student contribution, the alternative is a continuing decline in the value of the grant.
  Above all, I have serious doubts as to whether such statements represent accurate predictions of what others will do in future. Students know the value to them of a degree—the educational and cash value. Let us fully acknowledge the first and not be ashamed of the second. I have no doubt that increasing numbers of students will wish to invest in their higher education in future.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I shall give way, but this must be the last time.
  Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State has said that his proposed scheme will not harm access to higher education. He has talked about predictions. Can he predict whether the number of students applying for courses in the next two years, when the loans scheme is operating, will be fewer or greater than those who would apply under a better funded grant scheme? We believe that loans will be a substantial deterrent to access to higher education, and the people share our fear.
  Mr. MacGregor: Since I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will be comparatively reasonable in his speech, as I know that a number of my hon. Friends want to speak. The experience of other countries that operate loans schemes offering much less generous student support than our own is that such schemes do not inhibit access. I do not believe that that survey gives an accurate prediction of the future. There has been a large increase in the number of students going on to universities and polytechnics this year, and they will be the first students to whom the loans scheme will apply. In practice, therefore, the number of students has already increased.
  It is in the nature of a loan that it has to be repaid. Most graduates' incomes are well above the incomes of non-graduates. With a zero real interest rate on the loan, they should not find repayment of their loans a difficulty. I have already illustrated that.

  181
  We do not propose to exempt any categories of graduate from repayments, but I repeat two points that the Government have already made clear many times. First, those following long degree courses may well need longer periods of repayment, and we are considering that sympathetically. Secondly, as I have already said, students with low or no incomes at any point in time will not be penalised: in those cases, repayments will be deferred.
  Let me take this opportunity to repeat that, in the Government's view, the repayments should be real repayments and should not be hidden away in the tax or national insurance systems. Today, one newspaper said that, although it supported the concept of loans—it is important to stress that support to the Opposition Front Bench—there had been no convincing rebuttal of the suggestion that loans should be repaid through tax or national insurance. I dwelt at length on this in my earlier speech to the House. Our reasons for not adopting such a scheme are practical. We do not wish to add to bureaucracy, or to place additional burdens on employers. More fundamentally, we want to encourage students, through the loans scheme, to see their higher education as their own investment in themselves.
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again.
  The students should know that they are borrowing money from, and repaying it to, the taxpayer.
  I know that there are some who continue to argue for a graduate tax. I do not see virtue in a differential tax which affects graduates irrespective of whether their income is low or of how much they contributed to their own higher education costs.
  Our estimate is that the social security benefits received over a full year by the average young single student would amount to £210 in 1990–91. Among those in this group who actually claim, we estimate that the average receipt would be £315. So the top-up loan, averaging £420, will more than compensate most students for any loss of benefits. We are, however, setting up the access funds to cater for students who may need further financial help.
  It is unhelpful and misleading to take the outside, extreme case and to suggest that that will apply to most or all students. It is clear that that is not so, but in cases of extreme difficulty we have set up the access funds. They will be there for those who genuinely demonstrate that they need further financial help.
  Mr. Wigley rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again.
  The three access funds will be funded under existing powers. I will make regulations under section 100 of the Education Act 1944 to enable me to pay grant to the governing bodies of direct grant-maintained and assisted institutions of further and higher education, in respect of expenditure they incur in giving financial assistance to their students. Sections 131 and 132 of the Education Reform Act 1988 provide that the Universities Funding
  182
  Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council respectively shall be responsible for administering funds, made available by the holder of my office
  "for the purpose of providing financial support for the provision of any facilities and the carrying on of any other activities".
  That provision will enable the operation of the grant.
  Concern has also been expressed about disabled students and disabled graduates. The existing support provided for disabled students through the social security system will continue, unaffected by the introduction of loans. Unlike other students, they will not be excluded from the benefits system: the loan will be a net addition to their resources. The deferment provisions were designed with the difficulties of disabled graduates, among others, very much in mind.
  As to the banks, I should like to make it clear that we have never asked them to express an opinion for or against the loans scheme as such. That is a decision for Government and Parliament to take.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. MacGregor: I believe that it is the wish of the House that I should continue.
  We have simply asked the banks to assist in the administration, on a contractual basis, because they have the branch network—
  Mr. Rhodes James rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. MacGregor: It is important that I continue. Because the banks have the branch network—
  Mr. Rhodes James rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I shall give way in a moment.
  Because of the noise from the Opposition Benches, I am not clear whether that point was heard. Let me repeat that all we have asked the banks to do is to assist in the administration, on a contractual basis. We have done so for two good reasons. Those banks have the branch network and the experience of lending.
  As the House knows, I announced on 16 November that I had reached agreement with ten major banks on the next steps. Those banks have formed the company, to be known as the Student Loans Company Limited, which is undertaking the necessary preparatory work.
  I made it clear that, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation and to final agreements being reached between Government and financial institutions, the Government intend to enter into a contract with Student Loans Company Limited for the administration of the loans scheme itself. I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the memorandum of understanding signed by the participating banks and a report by Price Waterhouse on stage 2 of the preparatory work on the scheme.
  It was always clear that some banks would not wish to join in from the outset; that was their decision. We needed enough banks to join in a national network, which is what we have got. Banks and other financial institutions cannot commit themselves to participate in the scheme until they have seen the terms of the brochure which will appear in due course. Those terms are still the subject of negotiations between us. Our aim is to ensure that the scheme is likely

  183
  to be underpinned by a broadly based network of institutions, the services of which will be available to students. That will also be to the benefit of students.
  Mr. Rhodes James: If the scheme is so marvellous, why is it not in the Bill?
  Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not listening. I should have thought that the basis was exactly the same as that for the grants scheme. If there are objections on the grounds of parliamentary accountability, they apply also to the grant scheme. I would have concluded that the vast majority of hon. Members would believe that it is to the benefit of students to have the ability to change the scheme, often to their benefit, by secondary legislation, rather than primary. I have already shown by example why that is so.
  Mr. Wigley rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give way for the moment. The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to make his point.
  Clause 2 concerns expenditure. I take this opportunity to set out again the loan figures, together with our forecasts of expenditure and related matters. Our intention is that the maximum full-year loan facilities for 1990–91 will be: £460 for students attending institutions in London; £420 for students at institutions outside London; and £330 for students living at home, with some adjustment to the corresponding final-year figures.
  Annex E of the White Paper shows the financial effects of the loans scheme, net of access funds and administrative costs. The table in that annex is based on a series of deliberately cautious assumptions, including a constant 10 per cent. default rate. If default were 2 per cent.—a more plausible figure—it would bring forward to 2000 the year in which savings outweigh outgoings.
  Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate the Secretary of State said that he would respond to the point about the needs of disabled students raised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). The matter has been raised with the Minister in briefings on behalf of disabled people, and clearly he has not responded. Is there any redress for the House when the Secretary of State refuses to meet commitments that he gave earlier in the year?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have no responsibility for what appears in a Minister's speech. We are at the start of the debate and doubtless during the debate there will be opportunities to raise matters relevant to the Bill.
  Mr. MacGregor: In the interests of many hon. Members who wish to speak, I did not want to give way again. I have already referred to disabled students. We take that matter seriously. If points are made during the debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will certainly respond to them when summing up.
  Administration costs will not be precisely known until contracts have been concluded, but will be in the range of £10 million to £20 million in the first three years.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn attempted to make play of the fact that in the early stages the loans scheme would cost the taxpayer more. It is inherent in any loan system that outgoings exceed repayments for an initial period. That indicates graphically that we are increasing
  184
  resources for students. The hon. Gentleman's criticism brings us to the heart of the matter, which is that we have recognised that some change in student support methods is required for the period of expansion ahead to avoid an increasingly heavy burden on taxpayers—most with lower incomes than graduates—and on parents. We have been clear and realistic about that.
  What is the Labour party's alternative? Although the hon. Member for Blackburn complains about the higher cost, I assume that he would not wish to offer the student less in total than we are. However, he makes it clear that his party's alternative is a continued exclusive reliance on grant. On the assumption of the already published figures and the basis that the grant would not be less generous than the loans policy, but that both would replace social security benefits, that system would cost £145 million in 1990—91, assuming a 100 per cent. take-up of grant, which we would expect.
  In total, the costs of the loans scheme and access funds would be £135 million. That is not a big difference in year one, but is slightly less expensive. However, if the Labour party proposes to continue social security benefits, the extra cost could rise to £65 million in year one. We should like to be clear about the Labour party's position on that.
  During the decade, the amount will accumulate. The extra costs of paying grants instead of loans would continue year in, year out, whereas the loans proposal promises savings for both parents and taxpayers. The loan repayments will then start to come in on an accelerating scale.
  Mr. Straw: No.
  Mr. MacGregor: That is bogus. There are considerable changes in the 1990s, which I am spelling out to the hon. Member for Blackburn.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I shall not give way again.
  This shows two things: first, the point at which loan outgoings are overtaken by repayments; secondly, the point at which the totality of repayments is greater than the totality of outgoings—[Interruption.] That is in balance. Obviously, the hon. Member for Blackburn does not understand, and I do not want to spend much more time explaining it to him. The point he misses is that he is being critical of the cost of the loans scheme in the 1990s, but his alternative throughout the 1990s would be more expensive. I am about to tell him by how much.
  I have already said that, in the first year, it could amount to £65 million. During the decade it will accumulate because the extra costs of paying grants instead of loans will continue year in, year out, whereas the loans proposal promises savings for both parents and taxpayers. In the second half of the 1990s, the loan repayments will start to come in on an accelerating scale. Therefore, on White Paper assumptions only, the difference between the schemes would be £165 million in a single year by the year 2000 or £225 million, depending on the Labour party's position on social security benefits. That means that, before too long, we shall see a widening gap in the burden on taxpayers and parents produced by our proposals and that produced by the Labour party's proposals as I understand them.
  However, even more significant, the White Paper assumptions on increased student numbers are already out

  185
  of date. This year's Autumn Statement expenditure plans are based on considerably higher numbers, so the extra cost of the Labour party's alternative would be a good deal higher.
  What is the Labour party's alternative? Is it the proposal put forward in early-day motion 117 by some of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Blackburn,
  "aiming towards a living grant of two-thirds average wage levels"?
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will repudiate that now. He has been bobbing up and down, so perhaps he will bob up and repudiate that now.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that the Secretary of State has given me a chance to intervene in his speech. He refused to do so earlier when I gave the figures, not that we had produced, but that he had produced in answer to questions from the Opposition, to show that there would be no cumulative savings on loans until 2013.
  The Labour party's position is made absolutely clear in the policy review. We shall continue the grant system and increase its real value as resources allow—[Interruption.] There is no dubiety about that.
  How does the Secretary of State's assertion about the cost of the grant system being greater than the cost of the loan scheme fit with annexe E, which shows that in every year between now and 2002 the loans system will be a greater burden on the Exchequer than grants, even if they are uprated in line with prices? The Secretary of State made an important commitment at the start of this debate, when he said that he categorically committed the Government to paying the full cost of tuition fees for the increased number of students to which he is now pledged. That must mean a dramatic increase between now and the end of the century in public expenditure on higher education. Is he committed to that, and to what amount?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have explained the point about cumulative savings. The hon. Gentleman is simply not prepared to accept that the Labour party's alternative during the 1990s will cost taxpayers and parents—or possibly just taxpayers—a good deal more for student maintenance alone. I noted—I assume that this is the point of the hon. Gentleman's answer—that he has already repudiated the proposal put forward by some of his colleagues in early-day motion 117. I hope that he will make his position clear. Alternatively if it is to finance the higher student numbers through a non means-tested grant at the same levels as the totals we are making available today or at higher levels, that will clearly be more expensive.
  In any event, I hope that everyone will have noted the weasel words "as resources allow". No wonder those weasel words came into it, for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has already spiked the hon. Gentleman's guns by saying:
  "We are all agreed that we cannot spend what has not been earned."
  We recall the experience of the last Labour Government when they failed to earn and thereby totally failed to meet their expenditure commitments. No wonder the hon. Gentleman uttered the weasel words "as resources allow".
  Our position is more honest and is more likely fairly to finance higher education expansion. That is why the hon. Member for Blackburn has been careful not to commit
  186
  himself to anything today—[Interruption.] He is behaving as though he is still a superannuated students leader—engaging in a massive con trick, giving the impression of spurious promises without substance, attacking us in the hope that nobody will notice his weasel words.
  By contrast, we are making realistic proposals to underpin our objective of substantial expansion in higher education. By making available a loan facility to top up maintenance grants, the Government are providing a valuable extension of the resources of support available to students. The cost of supporting students' maintenance will be shared more equitably between taxpayers, students' families and the students themselves. Students, with a loan on generous terms, will have a greater personal stake in their own higher education.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: The Bill contains one operative clause. Three and a half years of public debate and almost universal criticism of the proposed loans scheme are compressed into just three lines. Forty-eight pages of the loans White Paper and 68 papers of two successive consultants' reports are reduced to 27 words. Those 27 words give the Secretary of State power by ministerial diktat to establish whatever loans scheme he chooses and to deny to Parliament and the people who elected us any serious opportunity properly to scrutinise the detailed effect and operation of the scheme, for there is no detail in the Bill.
  We have before us three lines and 27 words by which this wretched Government tell the rest of the world that they have no interest in reasoned argument and the views of others. The Bill is a grave abuse of parliamentary democracy. It is an enabling Bill. It confirms the march of an "elective dictatorship," as the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, described the Government earlier this year.
  The Bill gives more power to the Executive, with less parliamentary check on their discretion, than legislation such as emergency powers and defence of the realm measures designed for wartime emergencies, and it is so arbitrary in scope that it would today be thrown out by the Parliaments of East Germany, Poland, the Soviet Union and Hungary—[Interruption.] Indeed, the drafting might even bring a blush to the face of a member of the Russian politburo. Yet the Bill produces no shame in the Secretary of State. When it comes to contempt for parliamentary democracy and abuse of power, he and the Government know no shame.
  It is fitting that the Second Reading of the Bill should take place on the day of the contested election for the Conservative leadership, for nothing symbolises better than this measure the arrogance and incompetence of the Government and the fact that, with honourable exceptions, the parliamentary Conservative party is packed full of cowards, sycophants and wimps who know what is right but vote for what is wrong. The Bill will receive its Second Reading by the same large majority which has driven through ill-considered, half-baked legislation such as water privatisation, social security legislation and the poll tax. Recently, in a newspaper, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) issued this warning to his colleagues:
  "We are potentially into another poll tax scenario in which MPs"—

  187
  Conservative Members—
  "welcome the principle of loans without waking up until it is too late for its practical repercussions."
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): In reliving his past as president of the National Union of Students, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why, if this sort of enabling approach is so inappropriate, the Labour Government, when they had the opportunity for many years, did not repeal section 1 of the Education Act 1962, which provides for making grants in exactly the same way as our proposal for making loans.
  Mr. Straw: There is a profound difference between the 1962 Act and this legislation. First, section 1 of that Act imposes a clear and justiciable duty on local authorities to pay grants. This measure imposes no duty on the Secretary of State to do anything; it gives him the widest possible arbitrary discretion to establish a loans scheme without any possibility of its detail being properly scrutinised by this House. Secondly, the 1962 Act was far longer. Thirdly, it was an all-party measure. Fourthly, it was based on more than 20 years' experience of local authorities and the Department running a grants scheme, whereas this measure is based on no such experience.
  As I was saying, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West warned his colleagues that they were
  "potentially into another poll tax scenario".
  But this Bill is worse than the poll tax measure, for even that dreadful Bill contained much more detail and constrained the powers of Government to a greater extent. On the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme on 27 November, the Secretary of State was asked why no detail was contained in the Bill. He declared that that was "a normal procedure." The interviewer then asked:
  "…is it so short because you don't actually know what you want to do?"
  When the Secretary of State replied, "Not at all," he was asked:
  "So what do you want to do?"
  The right hon. Gentleman answered:
  "We will come forward with details of the scheme and we have illustrated one poss … one approach in the White Paper … we can do so partly during the debates but we can do so properly when the regulations come forward."
  Can we take it from that that the scheme in the White Paper is just a possibility, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested on radio? Is it just an illustration and not necessarily the scheme that will be brought into effect? If so, what scheme will be brought into effect?
  Mr. MacGregor: It will be possible for any Secretary of State to come forward with proposals to change the level of loan and to change the eligibility in the light of reviews to deal with the sort of situation that I illustrated in relation to grants when answering my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I should have thought that the House would regard that as a sensible step to take.
  Mr. Straw: Far from being sensible, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that it will be possible for any Secretary of State, by negative resolution or by regulations, to impose a completely different loans scheme from that suggested in the loans White Paper and to do so without any proper scrutiny by Parliament.
  In that BBC interview, the Secretary of State suggested that Parliament could "debate and approve" the detail of
  188
  the regulations made under the Bill. Who was the right hon. Gentleman trying to deceive? Later tonight the House will have one and a half hours in which to debate a crucial order on teachers' pay and negotiating rights. That instrument will be unamendable, but at least under the terms of the teachers' pay legislation the Minister must, by law, lay the order before Parliament before it can come into effect. In this Bill, the power to make regulations is subject only to the negative procedure, by which Parliament has no automatic right to debate or approve the regulations before they come into effect and no right to amend them.
  Mr. MacGregor: There is considerable detail in the Bill about the kind of scheme that we propose to have; schedules 1 and 2 contain considerable detail. As for giving details when one wants flexibility year by year, we are following the process applied to grants. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we approach the grants system year by year in the wrong way and that that is a great abuse?
  Mr. Straw: I have already dealt with the fact that there is no parallel between the loans legislation and the grants legislation. What is more, everyone knew how the grant system was to be administered. That was the purpose of imposing a duty on local authorities. Under this scheme there is no detail about the administration of the loans, and no detail will ever by written into law about the administrative arrangements with the banks.
  The scale of the Government's arrogance and contempt for the views of others can only be measured against the ever-growing mountain of opposition to this loan scheme. When the Government started on this road they promised
  "wide consultation before any scheme was implemented"
  —the exact words of the Government's response to the Education Select Committee as long ago as 1979–80. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), said much the same when he announced the student loans review in June 1986. Is it any wonder that people become so cynical about this Government when what has characterised this consultation has been the Government ignoring everyone they have consulted? No institution of any standing and no individual of any standing now supports the measure. Even the Government's best friends have deserted them —[Interruption.] This proposal was not in the manifesto. The manifesto contained a promise to bring in legislation to supplement the student grant system—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is what we are doing."] By their comments, Conservative Members show their ignorance of the effect of the scheme, for this loan scheme does not supplement the grant scheme—it replaces it. That is clear from the White Paper and the Bill.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that university grants will continue under the White Paper proposals?
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State has admitted—under duress—that the idea of the loans White Paper is that the real value of the student grant should be cut by half. That is not a supplement—it is the replacement of half the grant.
  Students and parents oppose this scheme. So, too, do vice-chancellors, who say in a scathing note that the form of the Bill means that there will not be a proper opportunity for Parliament to debate the scheme. An overwhelming majority of Conservative Members who have ever bothered to think about the scheme also oppose

  189
  it. In the debate on 20 October, opposition to the scheme came not only from the predictable Conservative critics of the Government's higher education policies, such as the hon. Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), but from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), who voiced unease about the simultaneous loss of benefits to students and the impact on lower-paid careers. It also came from the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who questioned the practicality of the scheme, from the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), and from the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who correctly described the Government's arguments about access as bogus—and said:
  "far from helping poorer people to gain access to higher education, the scheme will amount to an indiscriminate subsidy to the middle classes who need it least."—[Official Report, 20 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 422.]
  Dr. Keith Hampson: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned me so often, I should remind him that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition shared many platforms with me when he was Labour education spokesman. He used to attack the middle-class, highly subsidised, elitist higher education system in this country and was prepared to consider a loan scheme so that people from better backgrounds would be able to contribute to prevent poorer families from paying through taxation for the benefit of better-off families.
  Mr. Straw: That is complete fantasy and fabrication.
  Mr. Caborn: I represent a poor constituency in which about 18 per cent. of the young people are unemployed. The removal of social security benefits, rent rebates and income support will have a devastating effect. Contrary to what the Minister has said, it has been calculated—not by the student unions, but by professionals in the DSS—that students aged under 25 currently in receipt of rent rebates and income support will be £1,240 per year worse off. I remind the Minister that since rents were deregulated they have risen by 25 per cent. and students now pay on average £30 per week. Students aged over 25 will be some £1,400 or more worse off. This will have a profound effect on people from inner cities who want access to higher education but who will be denied it by what I have described, quite apart from the loan scheme.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is exactly right. If we take account of the fact that the real value of the grant has been cut by 23 per cent. in the past 10 years and that it will be cut again under the Government's policies, and that housing benefit will be cut, there is no question but that many students from lower-income families will be plunged into severe hardship.
  Outside the House, the opposition of many Conservatives to this scheme is well known—for example, that of the Tory Reform Group, which counts among its numbers the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Health, the Foreign Secretary, and perhaps even the Secretary of State for Education and Science who, in a previous incarnation, was political secretary to the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
  190
  Today, however, there is opposition to the Bill from inside the very temple of Thatcherism—from the high priests themselves, such as Professor Alan Peacock, who is now executive director of the David Hume Institute. He wrote to The Times after the last debate that it was almost generous to describe the scheme as a dog's breakfast. Opposition has also come from Stuart Sexton of the education section of the Institute of Economic Affairs—a former adviser to the previous Secretary of State, Lord Joseph. He demanded in The Daily Telegraph that the scheme be scrapped, saying that
  "if ever a subject got the Government in a tangle it is the student loan scheme".
  The result
  "is a bureaucratic nightmare and one which produces no immediate savings for the public purse"—
  Mr. Steve Norris rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Norris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although he has listed a great many articulate interest groups who have expressed a view on the Bill, one group who are singularly under-represented in this argument are elderly income taxpayers? What has he to say to them about their tax contributions financing middle-class families and their children to enjoy an even higher standard of living in the future?
  Mr. Straw: Parliamentary answers from the Under-Secretary of State and the debate on 20 October clearly established that the loan scheme between now and 2013, 24 years away, will cost more than the grant system that it replaces. If the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) does not understand that, he should read annex E to the White Paper.
  Given the extent of the opposition, why are the Government pursuing this madcap scheme? The speech by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on his resignation as Chancellor was one of the strongest and most sustained pieces of controlled invective that I have ever heard delivered by a Member of this House against his own side, but the accolade for the very strongest goes to the noble Lord Beloff, a Conservative with a distinguished record of fighting the implementation of Conservative higher education policy, including the establishment of the private university of Buckingham. Speaking in the other place in the debate on the Loyal Address on 23 November he said:
  "I am convinced that the loan scheme which has been evolved … is so absurdly inefficient and damaging to the students, their universities and colleges and the community at large that one is tempted to wonder how any government department could have come up with so outrageous a set of propositions.
  I remember that when it was first talked about in this House … I warned the Government that if they were trying to act through a consortium of banks, they would find the banks very reluctant to co-operate. That has been borne out by experience. After all, a fishmonger sells fish; that is his business. A banker lends money; that is his business. One does not have to bribe a fishmonger to sell fish, but apparently the Government have to bribe the banks to lend money. Could we get further into absurdity?
  One may ask: who is the author of so absurd a scheme? Some people say that it was thought up by a young man strong on ideology but weak on arithmetic and totally removed from the experience of ordinary students and ordinary families. Some people say, 'No, it was the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Education, Mr. Robert

  191
  Jackson'. Some people say that those two explanations are not contradictory."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 1989; Vol. 513, c. 186–7.]
  Mr. Jackson: It is flattering to have a former professor of government at Oxford attribute so much interest to a mere Under-Secretary of State. The important point to note is that the banks have signed a contract to administer the scheme.
  Mr. Straw: The important point to note about what the banks have signed is that, whatever they have signed, it is not a contract. Paragraph 10 of the "Memorandum of Understanding" says:
  "it does not create legal relations."
  I offer the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State some free legal advice. One of the principal elements of a contract is that it creates legal relations.
  The first charge against the Government is of arrogance and the second is of incompetence. A senior Conservative —not from the Left of his party—said to me in the Lobby that the loan scheme was so fundamentally flawed that he could only assume that it was put together by someone who wanted to discredit the idea of loans for all time. The scheme fails on every test that the Government themselves have set. The Government claim that the scheme will simultaneously reduce the burden of student support on the taxpayer, increase the resources available to students and improve access to higher education by freeing a flow of taxpayers' money for the future expansion of higher education. Each of those claims is utterly bogus, as the Secretary of State must know.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that on 20 October I presented a petition from 600 medical students at the London hospital and Newham General hospital pointing out the potential damage to medical education in London, where costs will be high and where the students will not have the opportunity of working in their last three holidays, as the Secretary of State did? The scheme will especially affect women doctors and medical education in our capital city. The petition also asks for an inquiry into the damage that the scheme will cause. Is my hon. Friend aware that I have now had a card from the Table Office telling me that the Department of Education and Science is not carrying out its usual courtesy of observation on that petiton? Is that not wholly untypical of the Secretary of State, but wholly typical of the present uncaring and ignorant Administration?
  Mr. Straw: I am not surprised that the Department of Education and Science is not responding to the petition because it has no answer to the fact that the loan scheme will cause immense damage to medical students and their careers. It is a further illustration of the contempt in which the Government hold this House and those who protest against the loan scheme.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I have already given way to many hon. Members, including Conservative Members.
  Each claim that has been made by the Secretary of State is utterly bogus. The facts are that under the scheme the burden of student support on the taxpayer will increase. The income of students, especially those from the poorest
  192
  families, will be cut and access to higher education will be restricted. There will be and can be no freeing of any flow of funds for expansion.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I have given way a great deal.
  As we have established in parliamentary answers, there will be an increased cost to the taxpayer between now and at least 2015, more than a quarter of a century away.
  Mr. James Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will give way for the last time.
  Mr. Pawsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a parliamentary answer to me on 1 December? It says:
  "the estimated net cost of the scheme is some £13 million in 2000; in 2005 there is estimated to be a net saving of some £37 million rising to some £49 million in the year 2010"—[Official Report, 1 December 1989; Vol. 162, c. 440.]
  Mr. Straw: I am always aware of the questions that the hon. Gentleman tables because they always alert the Opposition to the fact that they are a plant.
  Mr. Pawsey: It was not a plant.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that it was not a plant on this occasion. If he had bothered to read out the rest of the answer, we should have heard that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary referred the House to the answers that he had given to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). Those answers clearly established, with detailed tables, that cumulative savings will not arise until 2013. Well over £1·5 billion will he wasted in that period.
  An early sign of that waste was given in the announcement by the Secretary of State that £492 million was to be spent on loans over the next three years. While the burden on the taxpayer will increase, most students will not benefit. The only students to benefit will be those who least need the help. Forty per cent. of all students are on a full grant. One quarter of those receive a full grant because they are older and independent of their parents and three quarters because their parents' income is so low that even this Government do not expect the parents to contribute to their childrens' upkeep at university or college. That 40 per cent. will be hit immediately by the loan scheme. Their cost of living increase is cancelled and their housing benefit entitlement is cancelled altogether. All that they receive instead is a loan which, in cash terms, cannot even meet what they have lost and which they will then have to repay. What is true without question for that 40 per cent. of students is almost certainly true of a further 40 per cent. of students who receive some grant and some parental contribution.
  The Government have made much in their social security policy of the case for targeting of benefits, which has been their excuse for abandoning their pledged uprating of universal benefits such as child benefit. For student loans, they have turned the principle of targeting on its head. The rich student from the rich family is targeted for help from the state while the student from a middle or lower-income family will have that help taken away. Under the scheme, there will be no means test for the loan. The rich student can take out a loan at a subsidised rate of interest, invest it in a bank or a building

  193
  society and at the end of the loan period clear £250 or £300 in interest, while still being able to repay the principal. What kind of public purpose is served by such beneficence to the already rich while students from poor and modest backgrounds lose out?
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: It is that discrimination against those from low-income and modest backgrounds which gives the lie —for lie it is—to the preposterous claim that loans will improve access, especially for those from working-class and ethnic minority homes. Loans will increase the price of a higher education, and a higher price will mean a reduction in the demand which otherwise would exist.
  From 1962 until the early 1980s, the grant system led to a threefold expansion in the proportion of children from working-class homes who benefited from higher education. Loans will most surely cut down the opportunity that so many of us from such homes have enjoyed in the past.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: That fact emerged with crystal clarity from a survey published yesterday by the National Union of Students. Particular groups will be hit by the scheme, such as all those at Scottish universities, medical students and those taking nursing degrees. Entry into key but lower-paid professions will be hit. Teaching is an example.
  A recent study by the Institute of Manpower Studies makes it clear that the proportion of graduates entering teaching has already slumped from 8 per cent. in 1980 to 4 per cent. in 1988. More graduates now train for the law than for teaching. The proportion entering teaching will slump still further if the loan scheme goes through because the income level below which a graduate can defer his loan is set so low that it will catch new teachers. Those with careers with low initial earnings but with high pay prospects will be able to defer loan repayments, but those who go into careers in which the starting salary may be broadly acceptable but which have poor career prospects will not. That will lead to an absurd situation in which young barristers will be able to escape repayment, but young teachers will not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] Conservative Members say that that is quite right. It is no wonder that we now face the most terrifying shortage of teachers that we have seen for decades. The Government are not only keeping down the pay of teachers and causing their morale to collapse, but they will impose loan repayments on young teachers when they seek to eke out a meagre living from their salaries.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I have already said that I shall not give way.
  In the debate on 20 October, as today, the Secretary of State sought to link loans with the Government's plans to expand higher education. The House may recall that it was once Government policy—or at least the policy of the former Secretary of State—to double the numbers in higher education over a 25-year period. On 20 October when I asked the Secretary of State how that was to be paid for, he said that I should wait to hear the answer of
  194
  his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. However, when I asked his hon. Friend in the debate, he said that he had "nothing to add" to the answer given by the Secretary of State. One month later we obtained the answer. The Secretary of State told The Guardian in an interview on 24 November that the commitment to double numbers has been dropped. The article said:
  "he denied that Mr. Baker's commitment had ever been agreed Government policy and insisted that no Government could ever plan beyond three years in financial terms".
  I have read the Secretary of State's rebuttal, which appeared in The Guardian on 27 November. He said that the report was totally misleading. He never once said that it was wrong or that quotations attributed to him were wrong. He said:
  "I reaffirm the points set out by Kenneth Baker in his speech earlier this year … when he foresaw something like a doubling of numbers in higher education over the next 25 years".
  The Secretary of State did not say then or today—if one listens with great care to his words as we did—that he is committed in the same way as the previous Secretary of State to a doubling of numbers. That was not the previous Secretary of State's expectations or foresight—it was his policy. So far the Secretary of State—despite his earlier words—has ducked that one.
  Mr. MacGregor: That is not true.
  Mr. Straw: If that is not true, I will be happy to give way to the Secretary of State. Before I do, perhaps the Secretary of State will answer the question that he refused to answer on 20 October or today. The Secretary of State gave an important categorical commitment that the total tuition costs in higher education of an expansion—whether a doubling or less—would be met from the public purse.
  We all know that the costs of tuition far outweigh the cost to the public purse of maintenance. Therefore, the Secretary of State's statement means that, under Conservative policy, the burden of public expenditure on higher education expansion will increase significantly. That is in complete variance with his other statements, in which he says that the share of public spending borne by higher education cannot increase. If I am wrong, I should be delighted if the Secretary of State would intervene and tell me where I am wrong.
  Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear in previous speeches that there cannot be a huge increase in the proportion of GNP spent on higher education in any country. That is accepted throughout the Western world. The importance that we attach to higher education expansion is shown by the priority that we gave to it in the Autumn Statement and the public expenditure plans—it is in the public expenditure plans that the reality of expenditure is shown—and by the extra £750 million that we intend to provide over the next three years.
  Mr. Straw: The House will note that the Secretary of State did not use that opportunity to deny the comments attributed to him in The Guardian or to put on record a commitment to a doubling of the numbers in higher education over a 25-year period. The Secretary of State also failed to square his personal commitment given to the House that the public purse should meet the cost of tuition

  195
  completely with his weasel words that there could be no significant increase in the share of public spending borne by higher education.
  The Secretary of State was once Chief Secretary to the Treasury, where he used to make high-flown speeches about hard work, prudent planning, careful management and how to achieve value for money. It is a great pity that he has not applied some of those principles to the Bill. The hundreds of millions of pounds to be spent on loans does not go into the pockets of students in need but into a vast black hole of defaults, deferrals and administrative costs. It is time that Conservative Members woke up to the fact that there are not only the administrative costs of the loan scheme but the double administrative cost of running a grant scheme, albeit at a diminished rate, alongside the cost of the loan scheme. By 1995, more students will be defaulting or deferring their loans than will be paying them back. An army of debt collectors will be created. Earlier the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that loans will be made available to European nationals, so the army of debt collectors will be chasing around Europe seeking out graduates who have defaulted on their loans. The House has still not been told the full cost of the scheme because the Secretary of State does not know those costs and cannot say what price the banks will finally extract from him.
  If the Government's competence has been sorely tested in the conception of the scheme, it has been completely exposed in its execution. For more than a century the public service has had extensive experience in the administration schemes of benefits, grants and loans to members of the public. All that experience has been cast aside by the Government because of the Prime Minister's pathological obsession with the possibility that the public service might be better able to administer anything than the private sector. Instead of the public service administering the scheme, the banks have been asked to run it, and what a pantomime the negotiations with the banks have become.
  Originally the negotiations were between the Government and the Committee of London and Scottish Clearing Banks. Then three of the committee's members decided to boycott the negotiations. Those three were Lloyds, the Bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale bank. The Government then had to establish their own front organisation for those banks willing—at that stage—to participate in the scheme. Even the remaining banks have shown themselves to be profoundly unhappy about the scheme. In the original Price Waterhouse report the banks said that they wanted an additional payment over and above that needed to cover costs and profit for the remaining risk that they were taking on. The banks said that the remaining risk was
  "not a financial risk but a risk that their reputation could be impaired by their involvement".
  We are told that the participating banks agreed to the so-called "memorandum of understanding" published on 16 November only after panic and arm-twisting by the Secretary of State. On close examination of the document, the banks have agreed nothing. All costs are to be met by the taxpayer and not by the banks. The banks that have signed the document are not bound to participate in the scheme, but can withdraw at any moment. Participants are protected against all liability—and, to ensure double protection, clause 10 of the agreement announces that
  "it does not create legal relations".
  196
  Since the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State described a contract that has been signed with the Government, perhaps now or when he replies he will give a categorical undertaking that no private or secret sweeteners have been offered to the banks for them to participate—hon. Members may laugh, but that is what happened over Rover—and that all material documents have been laid before the House. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is also laughing. He seems to dismiss that.
  When I wrote to the chairmen of the participating banks to inform them that the Labour party would end the scheme, the chairman of the National Westminster bank, Lord Alexander of Weedon, wrote to me to say that his bank was in
  "no sense promoting or supporting"
  the introduction of the student loans legislation.
  That statement is welcome but if the National Westminster bank is not promoting or supporting the legislation, it is inexplicable and inconsistent that it should have agreed to throw a lifeline to the Government to bail out the administration of the scheme.
  The National Westminster bank has 42 per cent. of the student market. Students, parents and colleges are not fools. They detest this scheme. They have economic power and are already using that power to shift their accounts to other non-participating banks. I asked the chairman of the National Westminster bank and the other banks whether they believed that the best interests of their shareholders were served by participating in the scheme when they must see that they will suffer grave and tangible loss of market share and serious if incalculable damage to their reputation. Why should any bank these days want to be the lickspittle of a Government supported by barely one third of the electorate?
  The Secretary of State again today repeatedly claimed that the British system of student support is one of the most generous in the Western world. That is untrue in many respects. What is true is that, although the British system may not be the most generous, it is the most efficient. Students spend less time obtaining a degree than in other countries and far fewer drop out. The cost of producing each graduate compares favourably with other countries. In that efficiency, the grants system has played a significant part.
  Loans, by contrast, are unfair and inefficient. In the United States, for every three students who have a loan, one drops out. The default bill is now $1–6 billion and countries which in the past the Secretary of State prayed in aid, such as West Germany and Sweden, are returning to a grant system. The shift to loans began in 1982 in West Germany and has led to lengthening of courses, a high wastage rate and a collapse in the number of working-class students going to college. The same has happened in Sweden. Both countries have announced the reintroduction of a partial grant system.
  The Bill is a fraud. It is a fraud on students, promising them more but giving them less. It is a fraud on parents, promising to reduce their children's dependency but actually making it greater. It is a fraud on the taxpayer, promising to cut the cost of student support but increasing it for each of the next 25 years. Through this Bill, Ministers are perpetrating a fraud on Parliament, pretending that the House can scrutinise a measure without details or reasons being produced. The measure is meretricious and disreputable. It will put a mortgage on knowledge and a

  197
  debt charge on skills. It shows a contempt for Parliament and a disregard for the needs of higher education and of the economy. It is unworthy even of the present Secretary of State and we shall oppose it in the Lobby today.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. George Walden: Over the years I have followed the evolution of the Opposition's attitude to student loans. It moved from a first phase of intellectual dishonesty to a second phase of political opportunism. Tonight it has entered a third phase, which is procedural disingenuousness.
  No discussion of student loans should ignore the beginning of the era of debate on loans which was Lord Robbins' report in 1963. He produced a highly prescient report on the whole question of student expansion. He is treated by the Opposition and the academic world as a semi-divine entity because the report forshadowed the expansion of higher education. The Opposition and, I regret to add, the academic world failed to recall that, although Lord Robbins rejected loans, he said that as higher education continued to expand and more women entered—as they have done, particularly under this Government—the time would come when there would have to be an experiment with student loans. He gave three reasons, which I should have thought would appeal to the Opposition: first, social equity, secondly, disruptive justice, and, thirdly, the need to encourage a sense of financial discipline and self-reliance among students. It seems to me that his prognostication has come true.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) implied in his criticism of the Government's procedures that they are rushing into student loans, but it is more than a quarter of a century since the Robbins report was published. It seems perfectly reasonable to move ahead with this highly tentative and limited system of loans, but I shall come back to that point later.
  I admit that the Opposition have moved on from the abject intellectual dishonesty of not recognising, even in their own terms of social equity, the importance of student loans in Lord Robbins' report. They have done so at a time when we are once again considering the mass expansion of higher education. They have moved on from their initial stance because they have lost, absolutely and decisively, the public debate which has been going on for several years.
  Anyone who listened carefully to the hon. Member for Blackburn would have discovered that a critique of student loans in principle was almost entirely lacking from his speech. He gave no undertaking to scrap any system put in place by this Government.
  Mr. Straw: I have given that undertaking. I did so on 20 October, and I have done so outside the House.
  Mr. Walden: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that statement. It brings me to the second phase of the Opposition's attitude to student loans, political opportunism. The hon. Member for Blackburn says simultaneously that he will finance a mass expansion of higher education while not charging anyone fees and that he will not only maintain but increase the grants system.
  198
  He says that all those net costs will fall on the Treasury at precisely the time when there will be a huge expansion in the elderly population.
  We are back to the old Labour party. It is not a new party but the old party of political opportunism which dishes out unsustainable promises to both old and young with complete contempt for public opinion and intelligence. Everyone knows that what the hon. Gentleman promises is unsustainable. It has not been done and cannot be done in any other country, even in countries richer than Britain. I have in mind the United States of America, West Germany and France, each of which has a gross national product greater than ours. It is dishonest for the hon. Gentleman to attempt to assure the House and public opinion that a future Labour Government will give preferential treatment to our students when there will be a distortion in the population balance in a country with continuing economic problems. It is false, and it is political opportunism.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: In the event that a Labour Government were elected, a few students would have had loans in the intervening period. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) did not tell us what would happen to those loans. Would a Labour Government repay the student or the bank, or encourage the student to renege on the loan?
  Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend makes a useful complement to my speech.
  To move on to a more fundamental point, in the past few years we have been in danger of misdirecting our attention to a matter that is essentially peripheral to the expansion of higher education. Even if the arrangements are implemented, students will pay for only between 6 and 7 per cent. of the true cost of their higher education. With an impending expansion of higher education, of course we should focus our attention on cost and who will pay, but above all we must consider quality. What is the point of putting more people through higher education if in 20 or 30 years the degrees awarded are not worth the paper on which they are written? Some countries have gone through that process. In considering how to prevent loss of quality we must ask ourselves how we can deploy the limited available cash in such a way that quality will not be compromised.
  The only future for this country, which is a middle-ranking power facing the resurgence of an economic colossus in Europe in the shape of a united Germany, lies in a highly and extensively educated population with expanded higher education of quality. While we discuss tonight the exact way in which the 6 to 7 per cent. of the cost will be apportioned, what will happen to the prospects for quality? We have seen what has happened with GCSEs. There has been a miraculous increase of 50 per cent. in A grade passes in two years. We all know that that represents dangerous educational inflation. The A-level examination councils are now working to dilute A-levels to increase the number of people who will have the necessary qualifications on paper to go into higher education.
  The danger is that, while we are fiddling around on the periphery with this piddling sum—that is exactly what it is—which is to be repaid by people who will have benefited

  199
  from higher education to earn relatively high salaries, we shall see a slow erosion in the quality of higher education which has been by far the best aspect of British education.
  I am in favour of the Government's proposal on student loans, not because it will bring in much money in the short term, but because, if it is administered carefully —I have no delusions about the intricacy and complications of that, having handled it a little myself—it will limit the outgoings at a time when we are trying to expand higher education.
  I believe that we should increase spending on education. If a Government have spare money to spend on education, they should invest it in ways which will guarantee the continuing quality of higher education. By that I mean that we should start with nursery schools. We should have 100 per cent. high quality nursery provision if we are to keep up with the future Japanese of Europe—the Germans. Teachers should receive higher pay in return for much higher performance. All that involves large sums of money. Although the hon. Member for Blackburn could say this without any intellectual difficulty, I cannot honestly bring myself to argue for greater public expenditure on nursery schools and greater expenditure in return for quality in secondary education and simultaneously suggest that I shall give students exactly what they want in higher education. That is a dishonest position, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider it.
  If an American were in the Strangers' Gallery tonight listening to the Opposition and he knew the position of the National Union of Students in this, he would go away saying to himself, "What gives with the Brits? Are the privileged young who will not be unemployed but will do well and will start on a salary of over £10,000 a year so selfish that they do not want to repay a mere 6 or 7 per cent. of the cost of their education? What kind of young population does Britain have?"
  I do not believe that the Labour party or the NUS represents the true views of young people. If we explain to them the demography that we shall face, the fact that we shall have an aging population and that they will be far better off than the average, we shall appeal to their generosity. If we explain to them that we are asking them to pay only a mere 6 or 7 per cent. in return for which they will get a life chance 100 times greater than anyone else, they will understand the issue. It is a sad day when the Opposition pitch their appeal to the young of this country at such a low level.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: I oppose this ill-conceived Bill on the grounds of principle, practicability and procedure. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said in his point of order, it is an abuse of the House to present an innovation in four clauses and two schedules and rely entirely on regulations.
  Before you came to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker advised us to make short speeches because many hon. Members on both sides wished to speak. For that reason, I shall not take any interventions. It is not meant as a discourtesy. My experience is that interventions can add up to 50 per cent. to the time of a speech, and once one starts giving way, one must continue, otherwise hon. Members think that they have been singled out in some way.
  200
  In our debate on 20 October, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science said that past Labour Governments had
  "taken a considerable interest in the idea of student loans." —[Official Report, 20 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 438.]
  That is true. In 1976, I was appointed Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science with special responsibility for higher education. Hon. Members who were Members of Parliament at the time will remember that we were going through an extremely difficult time. All spheres of policy and all Departments were looking at money carefully. Student loans was one of the first questions to arrive on my desk. It had been around for years, but I was a new Minister in a new climate, so we had to consider the matter afresh.
  I was morally opposed to the idea of students having to pay for their education and maintenance, but I had to swallow that and examine the issue on its merits. Several difficulties arose. Whatever the scheme and no matter how one looked at it or tried to avoid it, poorer students would be hardest hit. That was the inevitable result. Then there was the problem of the Scottish universities which have four-year rather than three-year courses of study. It would create a considerable anomaly if we had a scheme in one country and not in the other. There was the problem of medical students and others whose degree courses inevitably take five or six years. The Swedish solution was considered. Social Democratic Sweden had a loans system, but even in 1976 the Swedish Parliament and Government were having doubts about the administration of that system.
  All those objections to the scheme have not gone away. They are precisely the objections that remain today. The scheme will hit the poorest students most, and there is the problem of longer courses at some universities and of longer courses according to the subject being studied.
  I saw an excellent article in The Economist of 15 July which concluded that the Swedish scheme
  "costs more than just giving the students the money."
  The Swedish and West German Governments are beginning to realise that, yet we are considering this discredited scheme.
  I said that I opposed the Bill for three reasons, and I shall deal first with my opposition in principle. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) had not dealt with the principle. I firmly believe that education is an investment in the future of the country. It is not expenditure. The United Kingdom has coal and some oil, which will eventually run out, but precious few other raw materials. The one asset that we have and on which we have survived for decades is the skill, ability and education of our people. That is the root of the matter. Any Government of any complexion who ignore that do so at their own peril.
  Fifteen per cent. of our population receive some form of higher education. That is half the number of our competitors France and Germany, and one quarter of the United States figure. We live in a highly competitive world and face the prospect of a united Germany, as the hon. Member for Buckingham pointed out, yet that is the percentage of the population receiving higher education.
  According to the Government in a written answer printed in Hansard on 29 June at column 539, 5 per cent. of socio-economic groups 3, 4 and 5—not the poorest. but the poorer sections of the community—are in receipt of

  201
  some form of higher education. They represent 60 per cent. of that age group. What a waste of talent. If education means anything and if Britain is to survive, let alone progress, we need to use the skills of all young people—girls and boys, black and white, from poor homes or rich homes. We cannot do that if we educate 5 per cent. of the 60 per cent. who make up a certain socio-economic group.
  Student loans will make the situation worse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, there is a sharp difference between a rich young student, who can put the money in a building society, pocket the interest and pay the loan back, and a poor student who will have the burden round his neck if he gets a degree or finishes a course and goes into employment.
  The scheme could not come at a worse time. The Government are perfectly well aware that, demographically, there will be a shortage of young people during the next few decades. If we add to the burdens of young people by reducing access to universities, that will have a disastrous effect. We should encourage more people to take training or degree courses, but the scheme will encourage fewer people to do so.
  On principle, it is a bad scheme. It is the duty of a nation to educate its young people, and pay for the maintenance of those young people while they receive education. That is my firm belief.
  I understand that 120 organisations responded to the Minister about the loans White Paper, and 95 per cent. of those organisations said that they were opposed to the scheme. One Tory county council wholeheartedly supported it. Who wants the scheme, apart from a few people in the Government? I am convinced that many Conservative Members do not want it.
  Who has opposed the scheme? The National Union of Students violently and bitterly opposes it. [Laughter.] Some hon. Gentlemen laugh. They treat the NUS as an outpost of the Albanian Communist party. That is the standing, in Conservative Members' eyes, of the body that represents organised students in Britain. If hon. Members think that the NUS does not speak in accordance with the wishes of its members, let them look at their postbags and the letters that they receive from students. They are not all prepared, mass-produced letters, although we all get that kind. They are carefully thought out, hand-written letters from the students concerned and some are from students whose parents are Conservative voters. Students are opposed to the scheme.
  The universities, polytechnics and institutions of learning are all opposed to the scheme, and I believe that the majority of parents are opposed to it. Parents are not taken in by being told that they may have to pay less money, because they want to secure the best education for their children. Many parents are prepared to pay for that education, if they can afford it. They know that the scheme will not save them money.
  What about the lending institutions? They want no part of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn mentioned that Lloyds bank, the Bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale bank have pulled out. I have yet to hear of any bank or building society that enthusiastically espouses the scheme, and yet they are in the business of lending money.
  Dr. Hampson: The problem with that argument is that the Clydesdale bank and the Co-operative bank are
  202
  offering loans. The only question is about the type of scheme. When the Government are subsidising the interest rates—up to £5,000 for borrowing for vocational courses —the banks are happy to participate.
  Mr. Oakes: Yes, but they do not want to administer the crazy scheme on behalf of the Government, and the Government admit that. If one considers the financial effects of the Bill, which was ordered to be printed as late as 22 November, the explanatory and financial memorandum states:
  "The administration costs of the scheme will be in the order of £10 to £20 million and will be settled when contractual negotiations are concluded."
  No firm contractual negotiations have yet been concluded. Discussions are going on, but the banks do not want to know. The reason is that they are in the business of attracting customers, and so are the building societies. They do not want young people, particularly highly educated young people, to think of them as an ogre or as the institution to which they owe money before they have begun to earn. They do not want that image, and so they do not want to participate in the scheme.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, the cost of the scheme will be horrendous. Considerable concessions were given to the banks. I understand that the banks have been offered a special rate of loan and that student loans will be exempt from the banks' balance sheets. Banks will be guaranteed higher than standard interest rates, and I believe that the Government are promising to indemnify the banks against a change of Government policy or a change of Government. Even with those inducements, the banks still do not want to know.
  What about the procedure of the Bill? It is absolutely disgraceful that we should approach the issue in a four-clause, two-schedule Bill. The Secretary of State said that the Bill was drawn up as a parallel to the Education Act 1962. That was a very different thing. A duty was then placed on the Secretary of State for local authorities to administer a scheme that was already in existence. That Act was not a leap in the dark, but the student loans scheme is.
  Clause 1 introduces the power to make orders and regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, such resolutions need not be debated by the House. Many prayers are tabled, but are not debated.
  Clause 2 goes to extraordinary lengths about Northern Ireland. I see that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is in his place, and I have no doubt that he will want to speak on the subject. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, the House assumed responsibility for Northern Ireland, and one of the fears was that orders could be swept under the carpet and dealt with by the House without any debate. It was therefore provided that most orders made under the Act had to be debated under the affirmative resolution procedure, and had to come before the whole House. Why do the Government want to sweep that away for education grants in clause 2, so that a whole province can be hauled into this scheme without any debate in the House?
  Schedule 2 provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the amount of a loan, the rate of interest and repayment, and regulations that impose a duty on the governing bodies of higher education institutions to issue certificates of eligibility. All those matters can be decided by regulations made by the Secretary of State

  203
  without any debate in the House. No Government and no Secretary of State should have such powers, and I would say the same if my party was in government. No Secretary of State should have unbridled and unlimited powers, and the House should not grant them, because the Secretary of State should be responsible to the House.
  This Bill is a bad Bill for a number of reasons. It is bad for students and very bad for young people. It is bad for higher education generally. It is bad for the financial institutions, which do not really want to know it. It is bad for the democratic process in the House, as matters will not be debated but will be decided by Order in Council. Most of all, it is bad for Britain's prosperity, which is what we should all consider.
  The Minister said that the scheme will reduce student costs by 6 or 7 per cent. If, for that, we reduce intake and accessibility to higher education, we shall have done a bad thing tonight for our country's prosperity.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Alistair Burt: I am grateful to be called so early in this interesting and important debate, the subject of which I have followed for the past three years while I have been Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). During his stewardship of the Department of Education and Science, he was heavily involved with this issue. I enjoyed that time in the Department, working with civil servants and others there. It was an interesting time.
  We are dealing with a matter that is rather more difficult than it ought to be because we are dealing with a change of culture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said at the conclusion of his remarkable and excellent speech, there is a difference of attitude between Britain and the United States. If we had been born and bred in one of the many countries where a loans system exists, we would not be having this debate; we would deal with loans as a matter of course. Whenever we consider a change of culture, or a change from the norm, we have to go through this enormous rigmarole of believing that everything that went before is correct and that any change must be for the worse. In this case, that is simply not true.
  What irks Opposition Members so much is that the debate takes place against a background of higher education receiving enormous support from the Government. There are 200,000 more students in higher education than 10 years ago. There are more part-time and more mature students and there is extremely generous maintenance support. Labour cannot come to terms with that. As a result, Opposition Members persist in suggesting that, by proposing student loans, the Government have abdicated from their support for higher education. We know that that is not true. Higher education is a partnership between the Government, who will continue to fund tuition and the capital cost of buildings, and students. I do not believe that that partnership has been remotely equal—students should make a greater contribution.
  It is important to keep a sense of proportion. It is just such a sense of proportion which puts Opposition Members in difficulty when they say what they might do to ensure that the number of students in higher education increases—something which we are determined to do. The grants system was perfectly adequate for a small higher
  204
  education scheme, but it is inadequate for a larger and growing one. Robbins suggested that that would be the case.
  Nick Barr of the London School of Economics has calculated how much it might cost to abolish the parental contribution, to return the grant to a serious level and to increase by at least 50 per cent. the number of grants available to expand higher education. He suggests that lit would be about £2·25 billion. I do not believe that any Government could make that sort of commitment to higher education maintenance—we should remember that that has nothing to do with bricks and mortar and tuition. It is not realistic to make such a commitment to students. Labour has been dishonest, suggesting that it can make such a commitment.
  If we want to expand higher education but know that we cannot do it through the existing grants system because it is inadequate for the purpose, the loans system is a useful way in which to supplement student maintenance while the student is in higher education. I believe that the scheme is useful and appropriate on three grounds. First, there is a moral argument in favour of loans. Secondly, they are not a disincentive. Thirdly, I believe that they are flexible.
  I shall deal first with the moral argument. We have heard many statements from Opposition Members of how immoral it is to demand from the student some backing for his or her higher education. What could be more immoral than a student having to depend on the state in the form of social security benefits or on parents? What could be more moral than for the individual student to say, "I have some commitment to my future and I am prepared to make an investment in it"? That seems entirely moral and appropriate.
  Some of my lower-paid constituents are perfectly happy to make a commitment to higher education, although nobody from their families may have seen a university. They know that they and the rest of the country benefit generally from higher education, and they are happy to contribute to the education of doctors, teachers, scientists and others who receive higher education. If, however, they are asked for a greater commitment for the maintenance of students while at university, I think that they are entitled to ask, "What are they doing for themselves? Where is their commitment to their future?" We are presenting the perfect moral riposte. The student who no longer wants to have thrown at him the argument that he is a drain on the taxpayer—I do not believe that students are a drain on the taxpayer—could thus demonstrate his commitment to his future.
  I shall deal, secondly, with whether loans are a deterrent. It has been suggested that the Government should predict, as have surveys done by the National Union of Students, what a deterrent a loans system might be. That is not the right approach. We should consider the experience of other countries and ask whether their loans systems have deterred people from going into higher education. We all travel to Europe and the United States. Do we see there a desperate shortage of people going through higher education because of a loans system? Of course not. They are used to it. They are perfectly happy with it. Moreover, the system suits students from low-income families. A task force that surveyed student assistance under the Canadian student loans programme in 1980 concluded:
  "aid programmes were important and necessary elements in supporting students from lower income families".

  205
  Loans were as effective as grants at encouraging participation by low-income students, but loans cost less and so enabled federal and provincial Governments to help more students without increasing the cost to the taxpayer.
  If there is one thing we suffer from in Britain, it is lack of access for students from poorer socio-economic classes. The grant system has not dealt with that. I do not believe that access is governed by cost. I shall not go all the way with the argument that the loans system is a necessary adjunct to greater access, because I believe that access is controlled by different things, but there is no evidence anywhere in the world to suggest that the introduction of a loans system deters people from participating in higher education.
  We should note that West Germany has three times as many students in higher education from poorer socio-economic groups than Britain. The average loan there is about £2,000 a year. The system works for them; it is no deterrent. I urge those who are worried by the deterrent argument to look not at predictions or the answers to surveys which suggest replies, but at the experience of countries all over the world. There such questions are answered.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Burt: Would hon. Members be so quick to step into my grave?
  Thirdly, we know that Britain's higher education system needs expanding, and we want a flexible economic system in order to make that possible. The flexibility that the loan system gives in providing an extra channel of resources for the individual student will make an important contribution, particularly to those students who are dependent on means-tested grants from their parents but whose parents do not contribute fully. About 40 per cent. of parents do not make up the proper level of grant and their chidren are deprived of that element of money which they would otherwise receive. The loan will not be means tested so that for those who find it hard to make the parental contribution the loan system will provide a flexible way out. It will provide extra money, non-means tested, for the benefit of their youngsters.
  I have three points of concern, which I have already mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The first is in relation to disabled students. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have a particular concern for the arguments raised by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf which has lobbied on behalf of those whom it represents and other disabled students. It is clear that deaf students have lower salary prospects than hearing graduates. International comparisons for disabled student support show that many countries provide more generous support for such students than Britain has up to now. The Bill, through access funds, will give Britain an opportunity to top up the support that we currently provide for disabled students. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider that matter carefully during the passage of the Bill. We do not have many disabled students in higher education and we want to encourage more. They have particular problems and their anxieties might be set at rest if we were to take the appropriate steps in the Bill.
  206
  Secondly, we should look carefully at housing costs and the abolition of benefits which are a worry, particularly in some regions. It will do the Government no harm to examine that carefully.
  Lastly, we need to make it clear that, contrary to the allegations made by Opposition Members, the scheme has nothing to do with the raising of loans to pay for tuition fees. It is all to do with maintenance. There is a balance in higher education between the Government and individual students. We all benefit from higher education and, as taxpayers and as a Government, we contribute to its bricks and mortar, to the teaching and to the resources available. But here is a cast-iron opportunity for the individual student to show his or her commitment to his or her future. The youngsters of Britain will respond to that challenge. They will see the loan system as an assistance, not a deterrent, and, in a few years' time, like many other parts of the world, we will wonder what this debate and this fuss have been all about.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This evening there are two bits of bad news. One is the Bill and the other is the result of the leadership election in the Tory party.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The result of the leadership election of the Conservative party is that the Prime Minister has only 314 votes—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Whatever interest that might create outside the Chamber, we are now dealing with the Second Reading of an important Bill.
  Mr. Hughes: I was going to summarise the result as Finchley 314, Clwyd, North-West 33. There were 24 abstentions, so that means 57 dissatisfied Tories. Are they here now, is what we would like to know.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I assume that the hon. Gentleman will now speak on the Bill.
  Mr. Hughes: I was going on to say that I guess that that means that, sadly, policies such as those in the Bill will go on unchanged. Therefore, that means that the Opposition will continue having to expose the weaknesses of the argument and the proposed legislation. I want to take head on the arguments as to why this is a wrong Bill.
  Hon. Members have dealt with the constitutional impropriety of the Bill. The inadequacy of the Bill has not only been mentioned in this House. When my noble Friend Lord Addington spoke in the debate on the Loyal Address in the other place, he said that when he picked up the Bill from the Vote Office he thought that the middle must have fallen out of it, it was so thin.
  For the reasons that have been given, no parallel can be drawn with the Education Act 1962, which introduced grants. This is a thin Bill simply because the Government have not yet been able to make arrangements for its proper implementation. No doubt it would have had much more substance had they been able to do so. However, rather than not go ahead with their commitment and find themselves in difficulty, they have introduced this shadow Bill—that is effectively what it is—and we shall no doubt spend all our time in Committee having to debate things that might be or might have been.

  207
  As a result, the Government may find themselves in some difficulty in the other place, where I gather that even Conservative Members, and not just the noble Lord Beloff, are significantly unhappy about the fact that they will have the substance of the Bill only in secondary legislation. I must warn the Government that, contrary to convention, there may well be votes on this Bill's secondary legislation in the other place if it is earlier deprived of the substantive material which should be in the Bill.
  We are being asked to change from a grant system to something which is not entirely a loan system but which in due course will become half a loan system—half grant, half loans. As has been pointed out, no other country has gone from an entirely grant system to a loan system.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No other country has one.
  Mr. Hughes: That is right. Therefore, all the arguments about the effect of such a change on access elsewhere are invalid. No other country has in the past thought it sufficiently important to invest adequately in students to provide a full grant system rather than a partial grant system. It is no good the hon. Lady shaking her head despondently.
  When the Select Committee on Education, Science and Art considered the matter only a couple of years ago—it had a Tory majority and it was chaired by a Conservative Member—it recommended the continuation of a grant system. It considered whether there should be a loan system and it concluded, without having all the inhibitions of being in government but representing parties across the Floor of the House, that the grant system should be retained because it was the single best way of ensuring maximum access.
  I accept that we have not been very good at that. It is poor that only 8 per cent. of the lower socio-economic groups have gone into higher education, but that does not mean that we should take a step, for which there is no obvious precedent, that points towards a conclusion that will not increase access for people who have the least money to spend. There is no evidence to support the argument that to change from a system whereby people are funded either, if they are poor, entirely without any parental contribution, or, if their parents have larger incomes, partially by parental income, to one whereby they have to decide before they go into higher education whether they wish to take out a loan, will act as an incentive to continuing in education as opposed to going out to work to earn money.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the greatest destruction of access to those from blue-collar families was the destruction of the grammar schools? If youngsters can be persuaded to stay on in education after the age of 16, there is a good chance that they will go to university, and in the grammar schools they did. Grammar schools in my constituency have a good access rate for the children of blue-collar workers, including some who are now in the Cabinet.
  Mr. Hughes: First, most grammar schools were destroyed under a Tory Government. Secondly, that is not a provable case. Thirdly, as the Secretary of State was at pains to point out, access has increased in recent years, as it should have done, but we are still falling substantially
  208
  behind all comparable countries; in some cases so far behind that only 15 per cent. of our students go on to further and higher education compared with more than 50 per cent. elsewhere.
  There is a big difference between addressing that question by saying that people have to pay for a public service before they can benefit and the way that we pay for future increased social security expenditure through people contributing to occupational pensions. The latter is on the basis that, as one earns, so contribution is made. The former is on the basis that one takes on the liability speculatively in the belief that one will be able to make up later that cost incurred at the beginning. They are entirely different arguments.
  No Minister has disagreed when we have said that those countries that have looked at their present mixed grant-loan system—Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany—are moving away from balancing it in favour of loans and towards balancing it in favour of grants, not least because they find that the former is inadequate for giving access to the groups that most need it and because debt repayments are growing rather than being reduced.
  Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has heard the answer on this several times, but he keeps making the same point, which suggests that he is not prepared to listen. We are moving from a wholly grants system to a 50:50 grants-loans system. The Swedes are moving from a pretty well wholly loans system to a rather less than 50:50 grants-loans system. The Germans are moving to a grant-loans mix along the same lines, with the same sort of balance, as in the system that we are proposing. The crucial difference is that, while our grants and loans will be available to virtually 100 per cent. of full-time students, in Germany they are available to only 30 per cent.
  Mr. Hughes: I have made the point that there is no exact parallel because we start from a different point. It is therefore also invalid for Ministers to say, as the Secretary of State did today, that we do so much better by our students because, per year, they get so much more support. We know the answer to that too. It is because, in many other places, the length of the course is significantly longer. Therefore, the amount that we contribute is good value for money. There should be more contributions, not fewer, and more from the public purse.
  It is no good the Government trying to hide their embarrassment about saying that they are committed to education and the expansion of further and higher education, when at the same time, in public expenditure plans, not only does the Secretary of State start back-tracking on the commitment apparently made in January by his predecessor but we are clearly not funding higher and further education in any way that is likely to produce the increase in student numbers that the country desperately needs.
  Mr. Straw: Is not the point about the international comparisons that, whatever the mix of loans and grants with which one starts, wherever there has been a shift to greater reliance on loans, access has been cut? That is why Sweden and West Germany are moving back the other way.
  Mr. Hughes: That is the point that I made when we debated the White Paper, and it has been made elsewhere. That is why the Minister and his colleagues are under

  209
  attack, not just from the Opposition and students who have an immediate interest, but from academics and even from Conservative Members.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has already referred to the noble Lord Beloff, who has no little credibility as an academic and is a Conservative whom the Government have always previously prayed in aid as somebody to whom serious attention should be given. He said that the student loan plan is
  "absurdly inefficient and damaging to the students, their universities and colleges and the community at large".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 1989; Vol. 513, c. 186.]
  That is partly because of its risk to access for the whole community.
  Mr. Jackson: I am sorry to intervene again, but it is necessary to correct what has been reported incorrectly. In Germany, for example, the proportion of students from working-class backgrounds in higher education has risen from 16 to 18 per cent. since the introduction of the loans scheme.
  Mr. Straw: That is not true.
  Mr. Hughes: The change in other countries has been assessed and analysed, and all those countries that are reviewing their schemes are moving to increase the amount of grant and decrease the relevant proportion of loans. I am happy to sit down with the Under-Secretary and go through the figures, but the trend in all the other countries is in the opposite direction to the trend in Britain. We have the worst record on numbers, and we should be doing everything to increase those numbers.
  We have no detail before us. The Bill effectively comprises one part of one clause and two small parts in the schedule. There was far more detail in the White Paper and in the consultants' reports, which we expected would have been transferred into proposed legislation. There is no mention of access funds, of the administrative body that is to be set up for which the senior executive post has already been advertised, of the way in which the money for the loans will be provided, or of what the intended initial sum would be—£420 has been mentioned—or of the way in which that will be reassessed.
  Furthermore, there is no mention of any arrangement with the banks because, as I hope that the Minister now accepts, no final arrangement has been made with the banks. Some of the banks have agreed to help draw up a proposal, depending on the passage of the Bill and on further details being worked out, but clearly there is no contract and nothing firm. The banks are obviously extremely unhappy because they stand to lose substantial numbers of customers. I hope that students and others will consider carefully which banks are subscribing and which are not subscribing to the scheme. If the Government believe in customer power, perhaps they will respond to the fact that customers of the present and future customers will use their power to tell the banks not just that they are against the scheme and will not support it, but that they will have nothing to do with the banks which commit themselves to the scheme.
  Our opposition is not just that because we have no details and because all that we are being told is that we are changing from grants to loans. We know too that students
  210
  will be disentitled from housing benefit, unemployment benefit and income support. Those are substantial reductions from the entitlements that people had begun to believe were part of the general panoply of the welfare state. I heard the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) say that he was worried about that. Many people are worried because the combined costs of deregulation of rents and the poll tax that students will have to pay next year, albeit at a reduced rate, will be more than the entire grant.
  Furthermore, in some parts of the country, because of high living costs, the amount of money left in students' pockets will be reduced from about £30 a week to about £6 a week within the year. My noble Friend Lord Ritchie has given the figures on this in the other place. That could be a real loss per student of over £1,000 a year.
  It is wrong and unfair to students to say that attitudes will change if their grants are replaced by loans. Many students find it difficult to survive. Many make substantial sacrifices to go to and stay on at further and higher education establishments. Many do other jobs to bring in money, and the vast majority are entirely financially responsible. At the moment, they have to go into debt to subsidise themselves. The difference that the Government are introducing is that they will have to go into official debt, authorised by the Government and probably at a high level.
  There will also be no great saving. We know that, for at least 13 years, there will be no saving to the public purse. There may be no saving for another decade after that. It is ludicrous to plan against an eventuality of increased access in the long term with a short-term provision that means that it will cost more to introduce a scheme about which there can be no certainty. This is a speculative venture.
  I only wish that we were debating today a measure arrived at in an entirely different way. The reform of student finance could have been tackled completely differently. Consensus could have been sought, as it was in 1962. Instead of bullying the banks and undervaluing the students, there could have been debate with the people who know about these things to try to arrive at an agreed solution. There could have been, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) suggested, an experiment. We could have looked at certain systems, without introducing them wholesale with no ability to calculate their consequences.
  We could have worked out a way to reduce dependency on parents. I believe that there should be a reduction in the parental contribution, because many parents do not pay it and students of such parents have great difficulty. There could have been a way to ensure adequate public funding, and I and my colleagues are not ashamed to say that we believe that there should be more public funding, for higher and further education. It is no good the Government saying that they cannot solve the problem simply because they are not willing to put more taxpayers' money into the kitty.
  There is no guarantee that access will not be damaged. No answer has been given to the concerns expressed about deaf students and students suffering from many other disabilities, who will necessarily incur hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds' worth of extra costs in completing their courses. No answer has been given to the concerns expressed on behalf of mature students, many of whom give up well-paid jobs to return to education. Many of them already have difficulties, especially those who have

  211
  families. Above all, no answer has been given to the concerns about the poorest students of all, who are already finding life extremely difficult and who will find it substantially more difficult in future.
  What about longer courses? In England, no answers have been given to the concern expressed about dentists, medical students, architects and vets. In Scotland one starts from the premise that courses are longer, but hardly anything has been said about Scottish students, either.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: My hon. Friend is aware of the Bill's serious implications for the unique Scottish education system and the broad four-year degree courses that we have north of the border. Did my hon. Friend note that, during the long speech of the Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman never once mentioned Scotland? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."] He referred only to the four-year degree course. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that that is disgraceful, coming from a supposed Scot—or ex-Scot. I hope that the Minister responsible for education in Scotland will tell us that the Government propose to take Scottish universities out of the ambit of the London-based Universities Funding Council immediately.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. The Secretary of State mentioned Scotland only once, when he said that he had been a beneficiary of the Scottish system. It is a bit rich for him now to make proposals that will do more harm to Scottish education—the system from which he benefited—even than to education elsewhere in Britain.
  Conservative Members find the arguments against the scheme unpalatable but their logic is fundamentally flawed. They say, "We cannot afford to pay more grant, because more people will be entering higher education and that will cost the Exchequer more." If the argument is that entering higher and further education increases one's ability to earn well, there must surely come a time when more than 50 per cent. of young people enter further education and, presumably, eventually they will all be earning more. They will then be able to pay their way and make their contribution. The logic of the taxpayer funding the student—the person who earns most paying most—is eminently applicable if the Government argue the numbers of students will be expanded.
  The increased resources which the Bill will provide are primarily the increased resources that the students will have to find. The Government's attempt to prevent an increase in dependency will result only in increased dependency on credit. The only access that will be increased will be the use of little plastic cards. It will be a sad day for education in Britain if this shadow of a Bill is passed. My only hope is that, given that the Government have found it so difficult to get anyone to support it so far, it will disappear completely before it completes its stages here and in another place.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Before I come to my remarks on the Bill, I hope that the House will allow me to say one sentence on another matter. May I, on behalf of my hon. Friends, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the massive and overwhelming vote of confidence that she has received as leader of the Conservative party—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I called the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to take part in the debate, and I hope that he will now do so.
  Mr. Stewart: The purple passages in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who opened for the Opposition, had some entertainment value, but what was most interesting about his speech was what he did not say about the Labour party's policy. We have heard from him that he is in favour of grants, but when asked, "At what level?", he says that he is in favour of grants at the level that resources allow. The ringing cry will go round the campuses of Britain: "Trust us lads. We'll see what we can do." Perhaps the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) would like me to give way to him so that he can tell the House where Opposition Members stand on early-day motion 117 in the names of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and others. Does that reflect Opposition Front Bench policy? I note that the hon. Gentleman is silent.
  The Opposition have failed to understand the basic reasoning behind a loans and grants system. As the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said earlier, higher education is an investment. Because it is an investment that benefits society, there should be a grant element. But because it is an investment that also benefits individuals, a loan element is also justified.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) talked about the constitutional argument. Somewhat unusually, Opposition Members have criticised the Bill for being too short; generally Bills are criticised for being too long. As a former Scottish Office education Minister, I had the duty of administering the grant system which in Scotland is run not by local authorities but by the Scottish Office. In the light of that practical experience, I can tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I would be appalled at the prospect of primary legislation being introduced to cover every change in the grant or loan system. Of course, changes in detail arise from time to time, and it is appropriate to implement them by regulations.
  We have heard the charge that loans would be a disincentive to access by lower income groups. As the very good briefing note available to all hon. Members from the Library explains, experience in Canada, Sweden and America shows that working-class students are willing to borrow to finance tuition or—as in this case—living expenses. The Canadian study is particularly interesting. It points out that those from lower socio-economic groups are more willing to take on loans than those from higher socio-economic groups. That is precisely what one would expect, because the returns from higher education are likely to be more marked for those entering it from low income groups than for those with a higher income background.
  Family resources affect the likelihood of qualified students entering higher education, but the effect is on the parental contribution. That is the potential determinant. Under the Bill, the parental contribution will fall in real terms. Under a top-up scheme, the inability to borrow can no longer be a constraint and willingness to borrow is wholly unrelated to present family income. It is not a charge against a student's present income but will be related to his or her perception of future income—the difference between what he or she expects to earn as a

  213
  graduate and as a non-graduate respectively. That is why access will be widened. The real constraint imposed by the parental contribution will be lessened and guaranteed loans will be repayable out of future income, not out of present income.
  In a lengthy intervention, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) mentioned the Scottish four-year degree. I should point out that there are also three-year Scottish degrees. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am a beneficiary of the Scottish system. Indeed, I gained the same degree in the same course from the same university, although not at quite the same time.
  Let us consider the financial position in 1990. A graduate on a four-year Scottish degree course would incur £600 more in debt than a student on a three-year degree course. People who claim that that extra debt will be a disincentive are saying that the student incurring that debt for the fourth year sees the year as less valuable than the cost of the loan. We are talking about 6 or 7 per cent. of the total cost of the education. If repayment of that percentage is enough to discourage students from taking a four-year degree course, why should the taxpayer pay the extra 93 per cent.?
  Mr. John Marshall: I thank my fellow beneficiary of the four-year Scottish degree system for giving way. Does he agree that the Scottish four-year degree course at the University of St. Andrews has always been heavily subscribed by students from south of the border, despite the fact that there are financial disincentives in the short term in their applying for those courses?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not believe that there will be any disincentive with regard to the four-year loan system. Those who argue that there will be a disincentive argue that students place a very low value on the fourth year. If that is their argument, why should the taxpayer pay the rest of the money?
  I am aware of the constraints on time. In conclusion, I believe that the present system is manifestly unsatisfactory. There is an overriding need for the right balance in the payments made by the taxpayer, the students and their parents. In the long term there is an overriding need for a system that is stable and acceptable to society as a whole. I believe that this Bill achieves that.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a constraint on time. Speeches should be limited to 10 minutes between now and 9 pm.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The only good thing that can be said about the Bill is that it has probably saved a forest or two by its brevity. Apart from that, it is an affront to our democratic procedures. It is a legislative outrage that so little detail can be presented to the House before the Bill enters Committee. The Bill is an educational irrelevance as well as an administrative and very costly nightmare.
  Let us consider the Government's claims for the Bill. They claim that it will spread the costs among the parent, the student and the taxpayer. They really mean that the Government are desperate to cut their commitment to the
  214
  maintenance of students in higher education. It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads; that is exactly what the Bill will do.
  Many students receive a full grant and social security benefits because their housing and other costs are so high and the grant is so small. Despite receiving the full £420 loan available for students outside London, they will still be much worse off under the new scheme when the system is changed to a 50 per cent. grant and a 50 per cent. loan. When the Government talk about spreading costs, they are simply using Orwellian "newspeak." The Government want to cut the costs involved in the maintenance of students in higher education.
  I want now to consider the cost forecasts. The figures presented in the White Paper are based on the assumption that there will be no increase in student numbers. They are based on the fact that the Government believe that only 80 per cent. of students will take up loans. The figures assume that in the first year inflation will be 5 per cent., in the second year 3·5 per cent. and 3 per cent. thereafter.
  In the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts the Minister admitted that he thought that there would be a 100 per cent. take-up of loans and that invalidates the table in the White Paper. As far as we can understand, there is a commitment to a continuation of the increase in student numbers in higher education. The White Paper takes no account of that. Furthermore, we must consider the Government's inflation statistics which seem to come from the Mad Hatter's tea party in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland."
  Over the past 20 years inflation has been less than 3·5 per cent. only twice. In the Tory years it has averaged 8·7 per cent. and it was just a little higher than that under a Labour Government. The rate of inflation is roughly the same under both Labour and Conservative Governments. However, over a 20-year period, the rate of inflation is more than double the estimates used for calculating the figures in the White Paper. If I had longer than five minutes to speak, I would read out the figures to show that the record of Labour and Conservative Governments on inflation since 1967 are comparable, although the Labour rate was a little higher.
  When the Secretary of State said that the rate of interest on the loans would be nil, he meant that the loans would be revalued every year based on the rate of inflation. If that is not a kind of interest payment, I do not know what is. In two years under the Conservative Government the rate of inflation was higher than the then bank interest rate. I wonder what the real figures might have been if the Government had bothered to consider inflation rates over the past 20 years and then calculated the cost of the scheme. I am sure that if they had done that the picture would have been very different.
  The Government also claimed that the plan is to increase resources available for students. The Secretary of State said that the average amount taken by students in social security benefits is £210 and that the £420 maximum loan would therefore give a student more resources. However, the Secretary of State knows that that average figure is disingenuous. It does not give the House a completely true picture. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will tell us how many students over the past year claimed benefits in excess of the £420 which a student would receive in the first year or above the £310 that it is

  215
  planned a student should receive in his final year of study. I believe that we will discover that a considerable number of students will be affected.
  Currently, of all students in receipt of mandatory awards where parental incomes are taken into account, 30 per cent. of students receive a full grant. In Wales about 35 per cent. of students receive a full grant. In five Welsh counties the uptake of full grant is even higher. In Gwent and Gwynedd it is almost 45 per cent. and in Dyfed, Mid Glamorgan and Powys it is almost 40 per cent. Students in Wales will be particularly hard hit by a system which provides half a loan and half a grant. Those students will find that, in effect, their incomes will be capped.
  The Government have introduced a new concept in the provision of state services. That is, some people who use the service will be expected to make a substantial contribution to its cost. Conservative Members have asked, "Why should someone who has not used the higher education system make a contribution to the maintenance of students who are involved in it?" They are enunciating a principle which, of course, paves the way for the introduction of a full loan scheme at a later date. They will not be prepared to give a cast-iron commitment that, at some future date, they will not deign to go beyond the 50:50 split and introduce further loans.
  The Government claim that the Bill will increase access. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was the eldest of seven children. I had a full grant, but I still had to work at Christmas time and in the summer. I took a stake in my own future by forgoing the opportunity to take a job at the age of 15. My parents had already made sacrifices for me, and they continued to make sacrifices for my brothers and sisters who went to university. It is rubbish to talk about this scheme giving students a stake in their own future. Many people have taken a stake in their own future by being prepared to forgo the opportunity to earn money from the age of 15 and, instead, take up higher education. Furthermore, I am quite sure that my taxation contributions in the past 20 years or so have more than made up for the cost of my education.
  Education is not a burden. The Secretary of State constantly used the word "burden". Education is an investment in our future, and I sincerely hope that the scheme will be rejected.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill states:
  "The Bill, which gives effect to proposals outlined in the White Paper, 'Top-Up Loans for Students'".
  I mention that because, in a reply to a parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science stated:
  "On the assumptions made in the White Paper, 'Top-Up Loans for Students' . . . the estimated net cost of the scheme is some £13 million in 2000; in 2005 there is estimated to be a net saving of some £37 million rising to £49 million in 2010." —[Official Report, 1 December 1989; Vol. 162, c. 440.]
  In other words, the answer to my question is on the same level playing field as the White Paper, so like is being compared with like.
  Hon. Members with reasonably long memories on education will recall that when the Education Reform Act 1988 was introduced Opposition Members criticised its length. They said that it was too much, too complex and covered too many issues. This Bill is criticised for precisely the opposite reasons. Opposition Members say that the
  216
  Education (Student Loans) Bill is too brief. Clearly, they are more interested in opposition for its own sake than in opposition for any real, cogent or constructive reason. This Bill is short and concise. It sets out the framework for intended legislation, with detail to be found in regulations. Its raison d'être is the need to attract more students to advanced education and, at the same time, to generate more funds.
  I support student loans because they represent new money. The proposed £420 is additional to the existing grant. That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he opened the debate. No hon. Member can doubt that there must be a limit to the number of students whom taxpayers can afford to support on the present grants only basis. I do not believe that the taxpayer should be soaked for every single student penny. The loan, which is interest-free and not repayable until the student is earning 85 per cent. of the national average wage —about £9,500 on current standards—will form an important addition to student finance. In addition, women who start families will not be required to repay the loan until they actually start to earn. There will he no such thing as a negative dowry.
  My hon. Friends and I have been touched by the great concern expressed both within and outside the House about the likely level of default and about bankers' profits. We have heard figures from the United States which would curdle the blood of any true blue British banker. As all hon. Members should know, the principal reason for the high incidence of default in the United States is that there is no general provision for graduates to defer payment when their income is low. That contrasts sharply and unfavourably with what the Government are proposing. If we need to seek an indication of student default we can look to Scandinavia, which is much closer to home and where the level of default is between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent.
  It has been argued that a high measure of taxpayer support is necessary to guarantee admission to advanced education, but since 1979 the real value of the student grant has fallen by at least 10 per cent. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that it had fallen by 23 per cent. Despite that real reduction, there are almost 200,000 more students in higher education, and the percentage of 18 and 19-year-olds entering higher education has increased from less than 13 per cent. to more than 14 per cent. There is thus no reason to argue that a reduction in grant equals a reduction in student numbers. That is demonstrably untrue.
  However, I share some students' apprehensions. I have met a number of delegations and, in general, they are apprehensive about the loss of social security benefit. Incidentally, Beveridge, the great initiator, never foresaw a situation in which students would be the beneficiaries of social security payments. If it is argued that with adequate funding for their support they would not need social security benefit, I return to my general principle that the proposed loan will be part of their support.
  With regard to access funds and the part that they have to play, the problem is not their number but their size. The access funds totalling £15 million are inadequate. I again urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to reconsider the amount of funding. The sum should be substantially increased. Access funds will be required to assist young people, especially those from disadvantaged sections of

  217
  our community, who wish to enter advanced education. If they are to be assisted to any marked extent—and that must be one of our principal aims—access funds must be increased.
  Most graduates can expect to receive substantially more remuneration than non-graduates. As students benefit most from higher education, why should the tax paid by those who leave school and start work at 16 materially assist those attending university? Can it really be fair or just that the non-graduate should be called upon to subsidise the graduate? Economic analysis shows that graduates receive a personal return of about 25 per cent. on their investment in higher education. Society's return by contrast is only between 5 and 8 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) says that loans will discourage young people from blue-collar homes from entering advanced education—
  Mr. Win Griffiths: It will.
  Mr. Pawsey: That point is made as though the present system worked to their benefit, but currently, although they account for 60 per cent. of the population, they only manage 21 per cent. of university admissions.
  Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Pawsey: No, I cannot give way. They account for only 21 per cent. of university admissions or 24 per cent. of admissions to polytechnics, so the present grants system does not seem to be an outstanding success for working-class youngsters.
  A further reason why I support top-up loans is that about 4 per cent. of parents do not make the full parental contribution and students have to make good the shortfall in various ways. Many, for example, borrow and, if they do, they borrow at commercial rates of interest, which compare unfavourably with the zero rate of interest proposed in the legislation.
  I am absolutely convinced that a mixed system of grants and loans is fairer. It at once represents better value for the taxpayer and improved access to higher education. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: In the age in which we live, under this Government, we receive lectures on the Health Service from a Cabinet whose members never use it. We receive lectures on the education service from a Cabinet whose members never use the public service. Practically all the Cabinet come from wealthy homes and went to prep or private schools and to Oxbridge, and although they lecture us about what we should do for our children, they have always depended on mummy and daddy. That is a fact of life for this Cabinet, although I am not saying that it applies to every Conservative Member.
  The scheme is really a cut. It is a cut made in a foundering economy. Indeed, the Government are having to make such cuts—they have no choice. The economy has foundered so badly that one Chancellor of the Exchequer has resigned and his place has now been taken by another. Furthermore, an election has now taken place that nobody
  218
  ever thought would take place. I have not yet heard the result—[Interruption.] Well, in other words, there is a crisis in the Government and—
  Mr. John Marshall rose—
  Mr. Flannery: No, I shall not give way because I have only 10 minutes in which to make my speech.
  This is not one but two debates, although they are essentially the same. They are both about how to cut the education service. One is about keeping down the wages of teachers and school conditions and the other is about how to cut students' money. That cut is not so much a plot as a necessity. The Government have to make that cut—they have no choice. Having seen the whirlwind coming, Ministers continually visit America to study schools there. The Americanisation not merely of our economy but of our health and education services is now well under way.
  However, the Government who are now making these cuts had access to a boon that no other Government in Europe have had. One of my hon. Friends has costed the money that the Government have received from North sea oil at at least £80 billion. We did not have the benefit of that. From selling the family silver, the Government have received at least £30 billion—even after the massive advertising on a grand scale, hitherto unknown, involving public and taxpayers' money.
  Those are the people who are lecturing us about what we should be doing, yet the Government know full well that they are looting the common exchequer. Although more millionaires than ever are emerging and they are growing richer than ever, just outside the House people are sleeping in cardboard boxes. When Opposition Members try to set that right, the Government drag up all kinds of arguments to try to prove that we are somehow in the wrong; but we are not in the wrong. We know that the students will now take a kicking and a beating from the Government and that many of them will no longer enter areas that they have previously been able to enter.
  As I said a month ago, I am one of only a few hon. Members who had experience of higher education before the grant system. Only a handful of ordinary boys and girls could get to university on the few scholarships available. The others could not go. Many of them took up teaching so that they could get a loan from their local education authority for two years. When I came back from the war, it took me four years to pay back my loan. Despite all the boasting from Conservative Members, some former students in America are in penury as a result of trying to pay back their loans and pay off their mortgages, yet that is what the Government are driving us towards. The Government have driven our economy to such desperation that their own party is now in deep crisis and they are trying to shift that crisis on to us.
  However, there are some who realise the present serious condition of education. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has briefed the Opposition on this, stating that it believes that such a scheme should ensure that students have enough to live on while they study and that it does not deter increasing numbers from applying for higher education.
  Although it has been said that more people enter advanced education in America and West Germany, that has nothing to do with grants; it is because those countries have much stronger economies than we have. Indeed, even the Italians and the French now have more powerful

  219
  economies than we have. That means that they can afford advanced education without the grants that we would give. Nevertheless, ours was the most advanced system when we helped more students to take up higher education, but our economy has foundered since then and has driven the Government into a loans system.
  The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) knows of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals because he is a former don. The Committee said that such a plan should be simple, that it should provide adequate means and that it should not deter students from poorer families. It concluded that the White Paper failed to satisfy any of those criteria.
  The loans scheme, which Conservative Members have praised so much, will cut, stabilise or freeze grants, yet it will take more money from the taxpayer—and from the students themselves. It will also remove the housing and other benefits that students so urgently need, so it is socially unjust.
  The loans scheme could deter students from entering higher education. Of course, it will not deter the rich students. It will not deter the sons or daughters of the present Cabinet. Like the cuts in the Health Service, the scheme will not affect them because, like the Prime Minister, they can still go private. Members of the Cabinet can do all that, but they still lecture us about how we should deal with our education system—the one that we built. I remind Conservative Members that Robert Peel built the National gallery for the poor—for those who could not afford pictures of their own. However, the Government's hard-heartedness and their lack of care for ordinary people mean that this and similar schemes will be heaped on working people.
  It is likely that the scheme will stop students becoming doctors, teachers and graduate nurses. Conservative Members have no intention of facing reality, but they should study the briefing from the Royal College of Nursing, which deplores the fact that the number of graduate nurses will decrease. I note that several of my hon. Friends nod their heads in agreement, but Conservative Members are not interested in briefs that give them facts. They are interested only in briefs that uphold the necessity to cut the Health Service, and attack the ambulance service and the education system. They are interested in briefs that help their people. Eventually, Conservative Members will leave the scene because they will be kicked out, but they will do so with pockets full of loot from the common exchequer. They have not used that loot on education, on building hospitals and so on.
  The scheme is vicious. It is anti-education and anti the poorer student. It is deplored by nearly every group in this country except those who sit on the Conservative Benches. The scheme should be kicked out, because it is against the interests of ordinary people. Conservative Members may smile, but they are well-heeled, and they know it. They do not like hearing the truth; instead, they give a nice smile. When the Labour party gets the chance, however, the scheme will be thrown out.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. John Maples: The Opposition have sought to confuse the issue and to make it much more complicated than it is. Both parties are agreed that they want to double the number of students in higher education
  220
  in the next 20 years. The simple problem is who will pay for that increase and how that cost will be shared among taxpayers, parents and students.
  The issue is relatively simple. Will we double the £500 million a year currently spent by the Government on student support? Will we increase parental contributions, or should some of the burden be put back on to students? I believe that the right solution is to put some of the burden back on to students. The other alternatives would never allow us, or any other Government, to double the number of students in higher education.
  The loan proposals will enable the number of students to increase. It will also greatly help those who rely on parental contributions, as we know that those contributions are often not made. More money will be made available for all students. The proposals will especially help students from the poorest families, as the amount of total grant and loan will be increased by 20 per cent. They may be poor students, but they will not be poor graduates and the time when they need help is when they are students.
  The debt repayments will not represent a significant portion of a graduate's income. When the scheme is in operation the maximum debt that a student will be able to incur is about £3,900. To repay that over five years requires a payment of £ 15 per week. Over 10 years, the cost would be £7·50. We know that the average graduate earns about 30 per cent. more than the national average income. After tax, a graduate's income represents an additional £3,000 per year in his pocket compared with the earnings of a non-graduate. We are talking about 25 per cent. of that additional £3,000 being needed over five years to repay the loan, or 12·5 per cent. of that income being needed for 10 years. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable burden, nor is it likely to discourage people from participating in higher education.
  At a time when real incomes are rising extremely fast, it is right to start to shift some of the burden from public expenditure to private, and at the same time to allow the Government to reduce taxes. Student loans are an example of where that can be done to great benefit.
  The Opposition have criticised the scheme as they believe that it will inhibit access and that it will be costly to administer. If I felt that their criticism about access was justified, I should be against the scheme. That scheme, however, will make more money available to students from the poorer families and it will help those who are discouraged from higher education because their parents do not make up the total contribution. In future it will be unnecessary for them to demand so much from their parents.
  We do not need lectures from the Labour party about access. Between 1975 and 1979 the number of full-time students at universities and polytechnics rose by 1 per cent. Between 1979 and 1987 the number rose by 20 per cent. Whatever mistakes we have made, they are obviously nothing like those made by the Labour party. I do not believe that the scheme will have any effect on access, and I believe that participation in higher education will go on growing, as it has in the past decade.
  Germany and Japan are often held out as examples of more successful economies than ours because their education and training are better. During the period of their great success, those countries operated 100 per cent. means-tested loans and offered no grants. A higher percentage of our adult population have degrees than is

  221
  the case in West Germany. It is extremely difficult to construct an argument to prove that the scheme will hinder access to higher education.
  I suppose that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) had to find some basis on which to oppose the scheme—after all, that is his job—and, as is common in the Labour party, he followed his prejudices, wrapped himself up in social concern and trailed a lot of red herrings through his argument in an attempt to confuse it. The same goes for the other leg of the Opposition argument, relating to cost.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) has written articles and asked many questions trying to prove that the cost of the scheme is much greater than estimated. I am not sure whether he is trying to say that we are spending too much on the scheme. He has said that we should do more for students, but at the same time he appears to be arguing that we are doing too much. I should have thought that he would welcome our efforts.
  The Labour party would be likely to spend more and achieve less. In its policy review, it says that it wants to retain grants and to review the parental contribution. Subsequently it has said that it wants to abolish the loans scheme. At the same time, however, the Labour party has said that it wants to double the number of students in higher education. The only way it could do that would be through far more public expenditure than we propose.
  The Opposition argue that the Government scheme will result in an increase of £660 million in public expenditure by 2001. By 2012, however, the net additional cost to public expenditure will be zero and, thereafter, the scheme will result in a negative cost—a reduction in public expenditure—of £200 million per year. If the Labour party simply turned the loans to grants and did not ask for repayment, the deficit by 2001 would be £1,525 million. By 2012, instead of the accumulative deficit being zero, the cost to the Exchequer would be £4·1 billion. Thereafter, the costs would increase by £200 million per year. In other words, the Labour party would incur an additional £400 million per year on public expenditure. If, on top of that, the Opposition sought to make some reduction in the parental contribution, the cost would be even greater. The parental contribution totals about £300 million per year. If the Opposition reduced that by one third, a further £100 million would have to be found from public expenditure. If the number of students doubled, that cost would increase to £200 million per year. That means that the Labour party would be spending about £600 million per year more than we propose to spend.
  If I were Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Chancellor told me that I had £600 million per year to spend on higher education and on encouraging more people to take up such education, I cannot imagine that I—or, indeed a Labour Secretary of State—would spend it in the way proposed by the Labour party. It is all fiction, as we know that the shadow Chancellor has said:
  "We are all agreed that we cannot spend what has not been earned. If that means postponing some of our social ambitions—we may have to do this."
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also quoted that remark. It is a fair bet that the £600 million additional expenditure proposed by the Labour party would be one of the early postponements. The Labour party would be unable to increase public expenditure, but it would not
  222
  agree to loans, so there would be no way of increasing the number of students. Once again, the Labour party wills the end but not the means.
  We are faced with a simple problem—the problem of who is to pay. I believe that shifting a small part of the financial burden on to students will mean that the number of students will increase and that more support can be given to individual students and we can reduce the burden on taxpayers and on parents. I do not believe that the scheme will affect access and it will certainly reduce long-running costs. It is a truly Benthamite solution and everyone—students, parents and taxpayers—will benefit.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I wish to speak against the Bill. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) that it is a simple issue. We recognise that money spent on all levels of education represents an investment in the future of our nation which will benefit it. We are prepared to spend money on that important service.
  The Government keep challenging us on the question of payment. We have said that we are prepared to increase taxation for those most able to pay and those earning the most who have benefited the most under the present Government. We are prepared to put up taxation from 40p in the pound to 50p in the pound. This is one service—
  Mr. Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much money these tax changes will generate and compare that with the £600 million estimated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples)?
  Mr. Pike: I should not have given way because I do not have time to go into detail about that—[Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but I shall deal with that aspect when we have a proper debate without time restrictions. I cannot do so now, particularly as the Secretary of State talked for nearly an hour when he opened the debate. We are debating one of the nation's most important principles: educational opportunity. One reason why my hon. Friends and I are in the Labour party is that we believe that there are some things in life to which all people should have a right regardless of their ability to pay and background. One such is education and another is health care. Fate has determined that this week the Government are trying by various measures to remove people's rights to both these essentials.
  We are anxious to increase the opportunities for people to be educated. Only 5 per cent. of the 18-year-olds in the socio-economic groups 3, 4 and 5 entered higher education in 1987–88, despite the fact that they represent more than 60 per cent. of that age group. That should be a matter of concern for Conservative Members. Why are only 5 per cent. of young people in that group able to take advantage of educational opportunities?
  Mr. Tim Janman rose—
  Mr. Pike: I shall not give way because the 10-minute rule is in operation.
  We must take into account the fact that people within those groups have ability and should receive educational opportunities, which is what we are arguing for. The former Secretary of State for Education and Science said:

  223
  "I confidently expect that the numbers in higher education, in polytechnics and universities will increase because of our proposals."—[Official Report, 9 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 320.]
  The Secretary of State's speech this afternoon has not convinced me for one moment that that will be true. I believe that the exact reverse will be the case and fewer people will be able to receive university education if these proposals are forced through. Many people have referred to the opportunities for university education in France, Germany and the United States. It would benefit this nation if we followed their example.
  This is a squalid, enabling Bill in a long series of such Bills. It is time for Conservative Back Benchers to be as concerned as Opposition Members that Members' rights are continually eroded by the powers given to the Secretary of State without those proposals being debated in the House. We are moving in the wrong direction, as is reflected by the Bill.
  Schedule 2(1)(c) provides that the Secretary of State can
  "make provision for the deferment or cancellation of a borrower's liability in respect of a loan."
  While the loan is deferred, it continues to attract interest—although the Government claim that it is not interest. However, to increase the amount owed by the inflation rate is at least the equivalent of an inflation-linked interest rate. Whatever the Government call it, they cannot get over that fact. In many cases the repayments will be deferred for many years which will create tremendous administrative problems. I accept that the Government have said that repayments can be deferred if the borrower is not earning 85 per cent. of the national average earnings.
  This is one proposal—if time permitted I could give several other such illustrations—about which we do not have the nitty-gritty or the facts to debate properly because this is an enabling Bill. That is deplorable and Conservative Back Benchers should be concerned about the Government's increasing tendency to remove hon. Members' rights to debate issues before decisions are implemented.
  On 20 October I asked the Secretary of State whether he accepted—Conservative Members have accepted this today—that people who have had a university education earn on average 30 per cent. above the national average and, therefore, the higher taxes that they pay would cover the cost of maintaining them while they were at university. That seems a perfectly reasonable and sensible proposal. With the exception of the poll tax, which does not take into account someone's ability to pay, most taxes are fair, and income tax is certainly fair because it is based on ability to pay.
  This afternoon the Government have skirted round the loss of benefits that students will suffer. It is clear that many students will lose more in benefits than they will receive in loans, which is regrettable.
  Whenever the Government consider education, they fail to recognise the challenges facing the nation. They fail to recognise that education is an essential investment in this nation's future and the need to ensure that everybody in this country, regardless of background, should have an equal chance to receive education. The Government's dogma, their attitude that come what may they must cut public expenditure and the Prime Minister's—and therefore the Cabinet's—obsession that public expenditure should govern everything the Government do mean that
  224
  they judge issues only by the amount of Government expenditure. They fail to ensure that we tackle these problems positively.
  This is a bad Bill which does nothing to ensure or enhance people's educational opportunities. When students graduate from university and are faced with the expenditure of setting up their own homes, the Government's proposals will burden them with debt repayments. The Bill is bad for the nation's education and should be rejected.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. David Davis: Much of the case put by Labour Members so far hinges on two arguments: that the introduction of loans will reduce participation overall in higher education, or will reduce the participation of those in the less well advantaged groups. Either outcome would constitute a poor result for our policy, if either were true. In fact, there is no distinguishable correlation between the existence of grants or loans and the take-up of higher education.
  That may seem odd, because one might expect that a subsidy plus the advantage of a 40 or 50 per cent. increase in income would lead to a great take-up of higher education, but experience of take-up in West Germany and Sweden, which have predominantly loan-based systems, is no worse than experience in this country. That should be explained clearly when we say that loans will not curtail higher education for our youngsters but will have the opposite effect.
  In making my case, I will develop a point put first by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and then by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). For this purpose I shall cite three cases—a youngster from a very low income family, a youngster from a very high income family, and one from a family in between. I shall examine those cases from the point of view of parental contribution to see what effect that contribution has on the decision whether to go to university or college.
  We have heard that 35 or even 40 per cent. of students do not receive a full parental contribution.
  Mr. Jackson: It is 40 per cent.
  Mr. Davis: With the very low income family, no parental contribution applies, so I can set that case to one side. At the other extreme, the high income family typically will have a lot of discretionary income and, if it is a managerial or professional family, will have some experience of higher education and therefore an understanding of its value. Indeed, such a family will probably already have been paying school fees, perhaps of £6,000 or more a year. For that family, a payment of £2,000 plus would not represent a great deal.
  The difficult case occurs with what I have heard described as the class three person, perhaps a relatively well paid skilled manual worker. The family income for such a worker is now significantly more than £300 a week. That family will have to find over £1,000 to send its offspring to school, a large sum for such a family.
  We must remember that the head of that household himself probably left school at 15 or 16 and went on to do an apprenticeship for a pittance for several years. He has no experience of the value of higher education and could

  225
  reasonably reach the conclusion that it was not a good investment, for he or she will see all of the costs but none of the benefits.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the examples he is giving could be of people who are in professions which are badly paid? They may be social workers, school teachers and others who earlier in their lives were graduates and who have the same understanding of higher education as those in higher income groups.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is making my case. I was about to deal with the very cases to which he referred, and I will do so later. Meanwhile, I am making a clear case affecting a large number in the population in the income categories of which I have been speaking.
  Let us not forget that the decision on this issue is not made by the beneficiary—the person who will receive a 40 per cent. gain in income. The decision is pushed on to the parents rather than on to the youngster. The Bill moves that decision, at least in part, back to the beneficiary, the youngster, and that is a key issue in the debate.
  Opposition Members have suggested that what is proposed will become a millstone for that beneficiary later in his or her life. That argument ignores the practicality of the timetable of the imposition of the scheme. It goes through the whole of the 1990s, and we have heard in other debates that throughout the 1990s there will be a demographic shortage of young workers. In other words, there will be more than enough demand for every available graduate leaving university.
  Companies searching for new graduates will pay off the loans. In other words, companies will bid against each other to pay them off. Rather than a millstone, it will enable youngsters to see where they can get the best return on their education. Instead of being a millstone, it will be an economic lodestone.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: The proposed student loans scheme, together with freezing parental contributions and grant in cash terms from 1990–91, will cause unnecessary hardship for students in Northern Ireland and in other areas of high unemployment and deprivation.
  To deny most full-time students in further and higher education income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit is a further attack on the least well off in society. Disabled students will not be well served by the proposals.
  I can only assume that those radical advisers who were responsible for promoting these new measures for financially supporting students have limited knowledge of the struggle to make ends meet experienced by students from less-well-off backgrounds. "Access funds" to provide discretionary support in individual cases of financial need for students losing entitlement to benefit will not be an acceptable alternative. Harold Wilson, when Prime Minister, was given a clear message from Northern Ireland after his "spongers" remark. We in Northern Ireland are not spongers, and the Government should not attempt to make our students beggars and borrowers.
  It is generous of Government not to abolish parental contributions and to provide parents with the option of
  226
  paying more, thereby requiring the student to borrow less. That may be acceptable in the affluent south and south-east of England, but many parents in Northern Ireland—where there is a higher cost of living, lower than average national income and higher unemployment—cannot afford to pay more.
  Every young person in Northern Ireland and throughout Great Britain, irrespective of class, creed or sex, whose academic achievements qualify him or her for further or higher education should automatically qualify for sufficient grant to enable qualifications to be obtained which will ultimately lead to gainful employment. A highly educated and skilled population will help us to bring economic prosperity to Northern Ireland. Education is the soundest investment we can make.
  I do not believe in encouraging anyone to borrow or to get into debt, and least of all in burdening with loan debt students who have enough stresses and strains to cope with already. Loan sharks are causing a lot of trouble in my constituency. I should hate to think that students would ever get into their clutches. That is why we should pay students grants and let them pay their way.
  It must be a matter of concern, especially to those who have read the huge document, "The Higher Education Demands Survey: Final Report" commissioned by the Department of Education and Science, when the reseachers Cormack, Miller, Osborne and Currie, looking at the proposed change from a grants to a loan-grant system, said that one third of students had reported that they would reconsider their decision to enter higher education in the event of a loans scheme replacing student grants.
  The final paragraph in the chapter dealing with student loans said:
  "Overall, therefore, it must be concluded that the introduction of a loans policy as a replacement to the existing grant system could radically alter both the size and social characteristics of participation in higher education by Northern Ireland students."
  The survey did not take into account the precise loan system being promoted by the Government; it came to general conclusions, however, that back up the fact that there is a real risk that students from poorer backgrounds and Roman Catholics would be more likely to reconsider entry into higher education.
  If the loans scheme is introduced to Northern Ireland, it will more adversely affect the prospects of students from working-class backgrounds of getting into further and higher education than it will affect those of students in Great Britain. At present in Northern Ireland, entrants into higher education reflect a good balance of Protestants, Roman Catholics and females. To deny opportunities to Roman Catholic students from poorer families will lay the Government open to allegations of discrimination against Catholics and provide the very evidence that is needed to confirm them. I firmly believe that no student should be denied the opportunity to realise his or her full potential in our education system, but I have nothing in common with the small Republican group of graduates who offensively dishonour the state that has provided them with a full and free education.
  The proposed system of student loans will not encourage greater participation by students in further and higher education in Northern Ireland. The Government must further examine international evidence which shows that loans schemes and a desire to avoid debt are

  227
  diminishing the proportion of poorer students entering higher education. There can be no comparison betwen the ability of wealthy West German parents to support their students and that of parents on low incomes in Northern Ireland to do so.
  Dissuading less well-off students anywhere in the United Kingdom from entering higher education may well sentence their offspring in succeeding generations to missing the obvious advantages of higher education. Acknowledging the fact that demand for higher education outstrips its provision in the Irish Republic, can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that the high level of entry qualifications demand in Northern Ireland and the increasing demand from students from the Irish Republic are not already disadvantaging many able Northern Ireland students and preventing them from obtaining places in higher education?
  Ulster Unionists want legislation in this House to be applied to the United Kingdom as a whole, but we cannot welcome this Bill, which will be applied later to Northern Ireland through the Order in Council procedure. All hon. Members should be concerned that we are being asked to approve a blank cheque to cover any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under the Act. I fear that the estimated low costs of introducing the scheme may prove higher than those of the present grant and maintenance system in the long term.
  Finally, I ask the Secretary of State to review the additional burden placed on parents in Northern Ireland, who are already paying much higher rates for their homes than are paid in some parts of Great Britain for similar properties and whose children are required to pay the poll tax when studying in Great Britain. That injustice should be removed by exempting Northern Ireland students from the poll tax while they are studying in Great Britain.
  I urge the House to reject this scheme. The Government are gambling with the educational prospects of many potential higher education students. We cannot risk losing opportunities of higher education.
  8.4 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Because of the time limit, I shall sum up my arguments against the Bill in eight points.
  First, I reject and oppose the Bill because it cushions the rich and discriminates against the poor. Secondly, it will discourage students from going in for courses that do not offer a high-salary profession on graduation—art and the social sciences will suffer. Great gifts in these fields could be lost to the nation. An unbalanced student body is bound to lead to an unbalanced society.
  Thirdly, the scheme will harm female and disabled students who, on graduation, do not generally enter high-salary jobs but who will be lumbered with a heavy debt.
  Fourthly, Northern Ireland graduates will suffer even more than the GB counterparts, for graduates of Northern Ireland are underpaid compared with those in the rest of the country and, for them, the paying back will be much harder.
  Fifthly, the scheme discriminates against potential students from working-class backgrounds, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. I support what my colleague the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) said—Sinn Fein has indeed lobbied on this matter. I
  228
  dissociate myself entirely from that lobby, but decent, ordinary, working-class Protestant and Roman Catholics will be discriminated against by the scheme and the prospect of debt will put many of them off the idea of a university education altogether.
  Sixthly, money will not ultimately be saved. Taxes will eventually have to be increased to pay for the interest not charged and to make up for the many defaulters under the scheme. The scheme does not make good business sense.
  Seventhly, the scheme strikes at the whole structure of further education. In the long run, we cannot afford not to invest money in the education of our families. A fully funded grant system that takes proper account of students' well-being when studying and of the ability of their parents to meet their educational requirements is what we should be planning; we should not be discussing a system of debts.
  Even if everything else in the Bill were in order I would still oppose it, because at its heart there lies a time bomb, specially sent by the Government, to remove another vestige of democracy from Northern Ireland. The explanatory memorandum says that the Bill is not to apply to Northern Ireland, yet in clause 2 the Government remove from the representatives of Northern Ireland the few rights that they have left.
  Those rights are that an affirmative resolution be brought before both Houses when changes are made, but this Bill sacrifices that procedure and introduces the negative resolution, which means that the Order in Council will take effect immediately. It can be prayed against, but when does the House have time to hear those prayers? Many of us have signed such prayers but they have been neither heard nor heeded. I want to know why the Government have put that time bomb right in the heart of the Bill.
  So we are not discussing the Bill; we are discussing a decree to hand over tremendous power to the Secretary of State. But for us in Northern Ireland the Bill goes further than that. We in Northern Ireland have only one opportunity to discuss matters. We had a debate last night and how long did it last? It lasted for one and a half hours.
  I was handed today a massive Order in Council on education, which was like a book. I was told that next week I should have three hours to discuss it. The order changes the whole education system in Northern Ireland lock, stock and barrel, yet our representatives are told that they will be permitted to discuss it for only three hours. We cannot, of course, amend the order or do anything about it.
  I warn hon. Members from Great Britain that they are starting on the same road in this Bill. The medicine that they have served to Northern Ireland and that they have voted for Northern Ireland will be put down their own throats. They will realise that this Government will take from them the vestige of their democratic right to discuss matters properly in the form of a proper Bill. All hon. Members should be concerned about that. They are voting for a decree to hand over immense power to the Secretary of State. That is a carefully laid time bomb with a kick-strap on it which would do honour to the IRA. When we kick the strap, we shall blow up any vestige of democracy.
  Mr. Jackson: No.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman may be annoyed by my remark, but it is a fact. If he were a Back-Bench

  229
  Member, he would be the first to cry out against the Bill. It is because he has now moved from the Back Benches to the Front Bench that he feels that he should not cry out against it.
  Mr. Jackson: All of us would object to being compared with the IRA.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I said that the Bill was like an IRA bomb and that when one kicks the strap, it will explode.
  Why is such a power put into the Bill and the order? Why can we not properly discuss and amend the provisions? The Under-Secretary of State knows that I am not suggesting that he is in any way like the IRA. He need not make a big fuss about my comment, because I was using a metaphor. If he does not understand that, he had better come to Northern Ireland to find out how the Ulster people speak. I thought that he had some knowledge of how the Ulster people speak and how they do business.
  When the House votes for the Bill, it will vote away its powers and its authority. The House is giving a blank cheque to the Secretary of State to carry on and it will have no say in what his final plans will be or how they will be executed.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I fully support the sentiments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). The Bill is a disgrace because it contains no details about what is to happen and the scheme will be introduced by regulation with little debate in Parliament. The Government's excuse for the introduction of top-up loans is that it will give students a grasp of economic reality. That is true, although it will be a grim reality. The value of the present grant has fallen so sharply in the past few years that the students' grasp of economic reality is unquestionable. To compensate students for their losses and to sharpen their awareness of money management, they will now have to pay for their education by borrowing the money, presumably on the pretext that the more hardship one suffers, the greater the lesson one will learn.
  Durham university, which is in my constituency, has well over 4,000 students. The Government's loan plan could mean student debts of £7 million to £10 million at universities such as Durham. Many substantial companies are facing bankruptcy trying to repay investment borrowing of less than £10 million, yet the Government want to put students in the same boat. A debt of that size has serious implications for students, for the university and for the city. Some students will have difficulty with their rent and the pressure is likely to result in poor academic achievement and greater stress.
  Despite the huge wave of opposition to the loans scheme, the proposals are for grants and parental contributions to be frozen at their current levels. Students will be debarred from claiming housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit, and from next year they will have to pay a proportion of the poll tax, which will also affect many of them adversely. Some students will lose social security benefits to a greater value than the amount of the proposed loan, so they will be allowed the dubious entitlement of being able to take out an even bigger loan.
  230
  There is a misconception that all graduates are irresponsible, lazy, beer-drinking layabouts who are set to move into cosy, well-paid jobs. There may be a few like that, but others after three or four years of study will enter jobs with a salary no higher than if they had not gone to university. The motive for going to university should not be money, but the pursuit of knowledge in an area of expertise. Students should choose a subject for which they have a particular ability and in an area to which they can eventually contribute their skills.
  Will students be expected in future to scan the prospectus for courses that will land them in lucrative jobs for which they have no aptitude? If a potential arts student were persuaded by lucrative rewards to choose a science degree, grave problems would result if and when he realised that the course was not for him. Will aesthetic subjects be pursued only by the rich? The result will be either fewer graduates or graduates of poor quality. Who would want to train to be a teacher with the prospect of a large loan, due to the length of the course, and then a relatively low income with which to repay it? A teacher would almost certainly be in debt anyway if he or she wished to buy a house or start a family. Yet that is the profession which is in desperate need of 18-year-olds who want to train for it.
  The Government have claimed that the scheme will simplify the system. I remember the same fine words being spoken last year when they claimed that the social security reforms would simplify the system. If that is the case, we can all watch out for a system that is hugely complex, impenetrable and unintelligible. If higher education is to be an attractive prospect for students, there must be full provision for student financial support. Financial status should not be a factor when deciding whether to enter higher or further education, as the pursuit of educational goals is in the interests both of the individual and of society.
  The scheme is geared towards creating a student population which is wealthy, white and male. Social groups which are already under-represented in higher education will be discouraged from seeking places and students seeking to follow courses in the arts, social sciences or non-vocational subjects will think twice. The Government say that they intend to expand access to higher education. I am delighted to hear that, but I should be interested to know how that can be achieved if students do not receive adequate financial support. The widening of access would involve attracting groups not traditionally represented at university, such as working-class students and mature students. I cannot imagine that many from those groups will be tempted into higher education when it involves living with a debt burden for several years afterwards.
  The Government will be in a quandary. On the one hand, they want to admit more students despite the demographic trend of a fall in the number of 18-year-olds. On the other hand, they do not want to fund those students through higher education and they want them to exist on increasingly less money. Students deserve a far better deal than that.
  During the present Government's term of office, the parental contribution, which represented 30 per cent. of mandatory awards in 1979, has risen to 86 per cent. and the grant has declined by more than 21 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The spectre of loans must be removed and the grant must be restored to its 1979 level before the

  231
  Government's fine words about access can be taken seriously. As the present grant is barely adequate, freezing it and encouraging students to take out huge loans and to proceed through their academic life with that burden is hardly an attraction.
  Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steinberg: No. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) has just come in. He should sit down.
  Loans will increase dependency on parental support, especially over the summer holiday, which is unfortunate for the 40 per cent. of students whose parents do not provide the full amount. A wider variety of students must come forward from more varied backgrounds with varying experiences and ages.
  The banks have poured scorn on the scheme and are not falling over themselves to participate in it. They are no doubt aware of the student opposition to the scheme and understandably they will want to avoid a possible boycott.
  It is a fallacy that the scheme will save taxpayers' money. The setting up of the procedures necessary to administer the scheme will be costly and complicated. The Government are playing down just how costly and complicated the scheme will be. If, as the Government intend, there is a 100 per cent. take-up, the system will not begin to pay for itself until well into the 21st century. It will take even longer if administration costs reach £150 million per year as is estimated by some. By that time it will have taken so long for the system to be remotely worth while that it will be nothing more than a liability.
  Who is the system designed for? It is certainly not designed for the student. It is another Tory money-grabbing exercise. As total student awards are now costing the taxpayer £850 million, freezing them is a desirable prospect for the Treasury—not forgetting the £65 million that it will be saving in stopping eligibility for social security benefits. Increasing grants to a decent standard would encourage more students to consider going into higher education and so cost the Government more money. Although the Government are tight-lipped about the future of the loan system, a decline of the grant in real terms will lead to its gradual disappearance.
  If we wish the universities to be places of restricted access and a privilege for the few, this system is the right way to go about it. Fewer young people receive higher education in the United Kingdom than in South Korea. The scheme is a form of hire purchase which treats education like the latest sports car—fine for those who can afford it, but the majority will have to do without.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Steve Norris: Like many colleagues on both sides of the House, I went through university on virtually the maximum grant. I know that that experience is not uncommon. However, what distinguishes my case and, I suspect, that of most hon. Members is that my parents, who had little money available, made up the parental contribution required. It was not a large amount but they did make it up. One of the great pleasures that I have in Epping Forest is to represent the mother of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
  Mr. Straw: She did not vote for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Norris: There is more room in heaven for a sinner who repents.
  Mr. Straw: Would the hon. Gentleman care to place on record his congratulations to my mother, as she has just been chosen for a safe Labour ward in the Epping Forest district?
  Mr. Norris: I would indeed. I had intended to send her a copy of this Hansard, as she is a frequent correspondent. I am sure that she too paid her full parental contribution.
  It is important to note that 41 per cent. of the parents assessed for a contribution do not make the full contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) pointed out, those entitled to the full grant do not involve themselves in this arena.
  Ironically—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will accept this—it is by no means the case that that 41 per cent. are the poorest. It is sad and all too common that many of the students finding themselves without the means to survive, from their parents and grant combined, are amongst the wealthiest. As hon. Members have said, that is because their parents do not believe that education is of any particular value and do not know why they should contribute to their child's education at that level. Therefore, they leave the child to fend for itself.
  There was talk earlier of the new arrangements being regressive. It was said that the system of loans was regressive because it impacted most on the poor. However, all the evidence shows that the opposite is true. The evidence shows that what would be regressive—if it were practicable—would be to abolish all parental contributions. That would cost about £2,250 million in a full year. No doubt it would happen "when resources allow", or whatever mealy-mouthed phrase we now have to learn in respect of Labour education policy. More importantly, it would mean that the wealthy would be treated the same as the less well-off. That would be regressive. The advantage of the loans scheme is that it allows the student to overcome regression because, regardless of parental income, the facility will be there. Whether the student is supplementing a full parental contribution or—sadly—using the loan to make up an absent parental contribution, at least a facility would be provided. Such a facility has been denied by successive Governments, especially Labour Governments, since the grants scheme was introduced.
  I am concerned about the way in which the scheme will ensure that we take students out of the social security system. I see in his place—he has been here throughout the debate—my successor, the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) to whom, as ever, I wish well. He will know—as I do—that in Oxford the Department of Social Security office and the local authority found it difficult to provide a service to the genuinely needy—those in the community who needed instant access to the social security system because they had a pressing need for funds—because at times the office was legitimately besieged—I make no complaint about that—by students in higher education. Whatever definition we adopt for social security, it cannot be used to supplement higher education. It is bizarre to have that element in our funding of further and higher education.
  I welcome the new arrangements, which will mean that officials in the Department of Social Security and in housing benefit offices will be able to concentrate on those who need their help. It will be for students to take

  233
  advantage of a combination of grant and loan to fund their eduction. Surely that is one of the major advances in the Bill.
  I endorse the concept of the Bill, even if it will take some years to turn the balance. It seeks to redress the balance between the student, the parent and the taxpayer. Opposition Members do not seem to have an answer for the elderly, low-income taxpayer who is funding middle-class children and helping them to become even better off as they enjoy the substantial benefits of higher education.
  It is all very well for Opposition Members to point out that in the first, second and third years the scheme will be more expensive. We accept that—it is obvious. The Secretary of State is in an odd position if he is now to be criticised for spending more on the new system. I am the first to accept that the system means that in due course we will turn the corner to a point at which students will be accepting not a hugely greater but at least to some degree a greater reponsibility for the financing of their own education.
  I welcome that, if only because what distinguishes my earning capacity and that of my brother from that of my father and mother who grew up in Liverpool after the war is that I had the advantage of attending university and, as a result, moved on to a different plain of earnings. They did not begrudge what it cost them to provide me with that finance. By any standards, any student who is given the great advantage of a university education should be prepared to take more responsibility for financing it than the present arrangements allow. I commend that element of the new scheme.
  My last point is about the terms of repayment. I welcome the fact that the Bill is short. I commend one or two important observations on repayment terms to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. There is an argument for being careful about the relationship between repayments and starting salary. It is important that we do not discriminate against, for example, jobs in research and in less high-profile areas of adult life where salaries are perhaps not high. We want to ensure a steady stream of competent graduates into what are acknowledged to be the less well-remunerated professions. It will be perfectly within the powers of the Secretary of State to ensure that the reasonable attitude that he has said he is prepared to adopt on repayment is extended to ensure that repayments are not burdensome in jobs with low starting salaries.
  Another important element which the Secretary of State should consider is inflation. I enter this caveat on the definition of nil interest rates in real terms. That is fine as long as there is a Conservative Government who believe in combating inflation even at the expense of raising interest rates. In that case, interest rates are likely to be higher than inflation. However, the Labour party's attitude would allow inflation frequently to run ahead of the rate of interest. In those circumstances, everyone would lose and the provision would operate to the disadvantage of the students. The Bill has such merits that I welcome it and commend it to the House.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate, as I represent a constituency where some 15,000 students live. Universal opposition to the top-up loans has been expressed to me by those students in several different forms. The last time that the matter was debated in the House, I presented a petition on behalf of some of the students. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that he had received a response to those petitions to the effect that no action was to be taken. I have received similar information, which will not be acceptable to my constituents who are students or the parents of students.
  Universal opposition has been expressed to the Bill. As we have already heard, of the 120 or so organisations which responded to the White Paper, 95 per cent. registered opposition. One might ask why the Government bother to consult when, even if such levels of opposition are expressed, they still introduce the legislation in the form originally intended. Opposition is coming from many sources, some of which one would not normally expect to encounter. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Royal College of Nursing are among them.
  We are already aware that the British Medical Association has been politicised by the Government to an extent that no one would have expected; now the Royal College of Nursing is apparently going the same way. I have received a communication from it asking me to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. It said:
  "the average nurse graduate usually starts on a salary of £8,025 pa … Yet nurses will have to repay the same loan as any other graduate, albeit with repayments strung out over a longer period".
  That is cold comfort. It went on:
  "Applied to nursing, the RCN believes student loans threaten to undermine the future development of the profession, which will ultimately be to the detriment of both the NHS and patient care."
  I also received communications from the principal of the Robert Gordons Institute of Technology and a director of Glasgow college, two of the Scottish polytechnics. Again, they outlined their opposition to the loans plan. They are not individuals or organisations who are normally sympathetic to the policies of the Labour party. Nor are the banks, but to say that they are luke warm would be too kind in describing their reactions to the proposals. After arm-twisting and several concessions, some of the banks are now willing to go along with the plan but, to their credit, two of the three major Scottish banks have said that they will have nothing to do with it.
  It was noticeable that, of the eight Conservative Members who took part in the Adjournment debate on 20 October, only one was in favour of the proposal. It is also noticeable that of those Members, only one has spoken this evening. I take it that the others had other diplomatic engagements.
  I have three main areas of anxiety. First, the proposals will reduce still further access to higher education. Secondly, everyone will be worse off as a result of the introduction of a loans scheme. Thirdly, Scottish students and colleges and universities will be hit disproportionately hard.
  One of the problems of speaking late in the debate is that other speakers have already used up one's arguments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes)

  235
  and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) have said that take-up of higher education is 15 per cent., some 6 per cent. lower than that in South Korea. That is a damning statistic.
  Particularly damaging for those thinking of going into higher education is the decision to deny students unemployment and housing benefit and income support. That will compound the problem. Conservative Members have said today that the loans scheme is about students being responsible and made to bear a burden. However, many students bear a considerable burden as a result of their studies. For students who cannot rely on their parents to subsidise them, there is already a student loans scheme. They have been bearing the burden through bank loans, bank overdrafts, parental loans or charity from other members of the family.
  No one, from the Minister to Conservative Back Benchers, has explained how top-up loans will increase access to education. They have denied that there will be a detrimental effect, but they have said nothing positive. I and my hon. Friends remain to be convinced, because we have been given no evidence.
  It is a truism to say that everyone will end up worse off. Students will experience greater hardships in two ways. First, as a result of having undertaken studies, they will be required to go cap in hand to their parents for a subsidy or to the banks for loans to make sure that they have enough to get by.
  I have been given some figures by the National Union of Students. I was dismayed that, while the president of that union was in the Gallery, Conservative Members rubbished the organisation. It may not have the resources or facilities of the Ministers' back-up team, but it is a well-resourced and well-respected organisation. It has produced figures which show the extent to which students will be worse off as a result of loans. I refute the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He said that the average loan will be £600. The figures from the NUS research show how the repayments will depend on the rate of interest that the students are asked to pay. The loan will be at least £400 a year and up to £1,400, outwith London depending on the rate that must be paid. The question of who will be worse off refers to parents. It is not true that, because the burden of parental contribution will be raised from parents, they will not have to make a contribution.
  The vacation period is a crucial aspect of loans. If a student cannot find a job, how is he or she to pay his way during the vacation? Housing for students is at a premium, so if they cannot afford to pay for houses or flats over the summer, they cannot be guaranteed housing of a reasonable standard when they return. The only people to whom they can turn are parents. The vacation aspect has been completely disregarded by the Government.
  Then there is the question of the Exchequer and its losses. It has been estimated that the scheme will cost the Exchequer £1·6 billion more than the cost of grants. That was the figure quoted to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) in a parliamentary answer on 21 March this year.
  The Government admit that, as repayments start to be made, we shall reach a point where the scheme will cost less than the present system. The date is estimated to be as late as 2026—in other words 35 years after student loans are first introduced.
  236
  Students who take out student loans in the first year will be grandparents, if not great-grandparents, by the time the scheme begins to break even. No Government have ever introduced a policy proposal based on financial and economic assumptions over a 35-year period. I ask hon. Members to imagine what they might have thought of 1989 back in 1954. Who could possibly have imagined the position that we face now? To make proposals based on what will happen so far in the future is economic, not to mention educational, lunacy.
  At a time when higher education is seriously under-resourced, it is a disgrace that public money is to be wasted in this way. For the same sum, grants could have been increased, parental contributions reduced and more places funded in higher education over the next decade. The Government should seriously consider that, even at this late stage.
  All too little has been said or thought about Scotland in preparing the legislation. Scottish students will face additional financial burdens. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Eastwood has returned, because I shall address some of my remarks to his earlier comments. He was not in the Chamber when I quoted the figure of £600, which he said would be the total cost of the scheme to students. That is not true. Simply to add a fourth year for Scottish students has a compounding effect which is likely to mean additional costs of 60 per cent.
  We must consider not simply Scottish students or English and Welsh students at Scottish colleges and universities, but courses throughout the United Kingdom for doctors, architects, various art students and vets which are longer than three years. Additional years impose additional burdens. It is particularly galling that the Secretary of State for Scotlnd can say that he has considered the matter but does not believe that any special provision for Scotland is necessary. People who apply for courses at Scottish colleges and universities will weigh that up and see that they are punished for applying to them. That is an insult to Scotland and its unique system of education, which is done a grave disservice by this proposal.
  People in Scotland are not bought off by the proposal that the loans headquarters should be based in Glasgow. Some 250 jobs, most of them debt collecting, are not welcome. We give as firm a no to that as to the remainder of this discredited, costly, unwarranted and unwanted Bill.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that a future Labour Government would increase the real value of grants as resources allow. What happy memory has that conjured up? In 1974 a Labour spokesman would have said that he would increase the real value of the hospital building programme as resources allow or that he would increase the real value of nurses' pay as resources allow. British students are far too intelligent to be fooled by a conditional promise. They can look at the record and see how badly the Labour Government behaved and how badly a future Labour Government would behave.
  The White Paper has been warmly welcomed by parents who find the present system of parental contributions a major burden, the thousands of students who do not receive discretionary awards, many of my constituents in Hendon, South, the 40 per cent. of students who do not

  237
  receive their full parental contribution, and the 40 per cent. of students who have overdrafts at commercial interest rates and who in future will have to pay only a nil real interest rate.
  The White Paper incorporates a simple element of social justice. Both society and students benefit from higher education. We are assured that, generally speaking, those who enjoy higher education subsequently enjoy incomes 30 per cent. above the average for society as a whole. Surely those who enjoy such massively higher incomes should contribute to the benefits of higher education.
  The irony is that we have the most generous system of university support and the lowest percentage of people in higher education. It is no use Labour Members talking about South Korea and asking why it does better. Why do other countries do better? They have a different system of university support. Does that not suggest that our system is failing? It is surely madness for Labour Members to say that the system must not change but that its results are useless. Surely that underlines our case and undermines theirs.
  It must be obvious that our proposals will eventually produce savings which can be used to provide more places in higher education. We must ask ourselves whether it is better for the privileged to go to university with the present grant system or for more places to be provided in higher education. I am sure that everyone will agree that there should be more places in higher education and will recognise that only the Government can provide them.
  We have heard the most cant and hypocrisy from Labour Members talking about access from the lower socio-economic groups. No one has done more to harm the educational opportunities of those groups than the Labour party and Labour local education authorities. It is no accident that the children of inner London have little chance of going to university. The Inner London education authority has the worst education results of any education authority. It is no accident that it was the Labour party which led the campaign to abolish grammar schools. How many children from lower socio-economic groups left grammar schools able to go on to universities?
  Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Marshall: No, I have a limited time to speak, unlike the hon. Gentleman who spoke for far too long, which is why I have a limited time.
  How many children leave our state comprehensive schools qualified for university? To increase access to universities for the lower socio-economic groups we need to encourage more children to stay on at school longer and to improve their results. The two great reforms to encourage children to stay on at school have been Conservative reforms. It was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who raised the school leaving age to 16 and the Conservative Government who introduced GCSE, which is encouraging more children to stay on at school.
  Mr. Rhodes James: A Conservative Government also introduced student grants instead of loans.
  Mr. Marshall: That was a semi-sedentary intervention without the permission of the hon. Member speaking.
  238
  The Conservative party, through the Education Reform Act 1988, has done more than any other political party to improve the results in our schools. It is that combined policy of encouraging pupils to stay on at school and to improve their results which will ensure that more children from the lower socio-economic groups go on to university.
  I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) said about the Scottish higher education system, and I yield to no one in my admiration of it. My late father spent 30 years serving Scottish universities and I was connected with them for 12 years. The reason why Scottish education has always been deservedly popular is that it has an intrinsic worth and uniqueness not shared by the English system. It may be significant that a large number of students from south of the border have always been willing to go to St. Andrews university where they know that the politics are sound and the education even better. I do not believe that the introduction of our proposed loan system will discourage one student from attending St. Andrews or any other Scottish university. Indeed, it will encourage many more to do so.
  Medical students know that the return that they will get at the end of the course from their salary will be so large that they can certainly afford to repay the relatively modest loan.
  I hope that universities in Britain will become more flexible and more market-oriented as a result of the Bill.
  Why do universities not introduce a four-term year? Is anyone seriously suggesting that the great universities of the United States suffer from lower esteem because they have four terms a year? Of course they do not, and there is no reason why British universities could not do the same. Is anyone seriously suggesting that graduates of Buckingham university suffer because they graduate more quickly than those of other universities?
  Mr Straw: What did Lord Beloff say about the scheme?
  Mr. Marshall: Because a man is right 99 per cent. of the time does not mean that he is right 100 per cent. of the time. Labour infallibility may be a good religion, but it is not good politics.
  The students at Buckingham university do not suffer because they have a shortened academic year. I do not believe that some of our universities have considered the potential of shorter university courses, and a longer university year. If they did that, it would be to the benefit of universities and of their students.
  8.51 pm
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) referred to the fact that politics at St. Andrews university were sound. We can vouch for that because the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is a graduate of St. Andrews, and I see that he is sporting the St. Andrews university tie. However, I shall not enter the arguments about Scotland, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about four terms a year. I have taught in adult education and at the University of Wales—sometimes I still do—and I support the principle of four terms for mature students and first entry students.
  The debate is not about education policy, but it is a debate that we have been having for many years about

  239
  reductions in state support from the taxpayer for a portion of the cost of supporting students—that is, the cost of their homes and lodgings rather than tuition.
  The Government plan to introduce a loans scheme which will provide a 50:50 grant and loan scheme, although that is not provided for in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said on another occasion. What is not clear is how that scheme will interrelate with the changes taking place in income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit schemes.
  I should like the Minister to respond to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon—the way in which the special access funds will be used and applied to disabled people, particularly those with communication difficulties who need communication support. I refer particularly to deaf people. Hon. Members have been lobbied by a number of groups who are concerned that the loan scheme, particularly in the future, will have to bear half the burden of the day-to-day cost of student support as opposed to tuition.
  It is important that we consider the additional support costs required by disabled students. The Minister has not responded clearly enough to that, either during the debate on 20 October or today.
  We have heard the familiar arguments today about how the scheme will affect educational take-up, but the debate is not about that. It is about the Government's attempt to reduce their public expenditure commitment to student support.
  Many of the arguments that are being rehashed about access are unproven. The Government seem to be saying that the scheme is likely to increase access, because at present it is appallingly bad. That seems to be a baseless argument. The fact that we have an age participation rate, a women's participation rate, an ethnic minority participation rate and a class participation rate that are inadequate compared with—
  Mr. Jackson: I have had many friendly discussions with the hon. Gentleman in the past. The argument about access is simply that the main determinant appears to be the scale of education. If one extends the scale, access will get better. The argument behind the student loans scheme is that it will provide more money to expand the system.
  Dr. Thomas: The Minister has clarified the position, and I agree with him that the determinant of participation is the scale of the system. We are returning to the old arguments about universal benefits of the 1960s, when we talk about the need for general provision of social service and of education—of which the Robbins report was the higher education component—in order to ensure greater participation. However, it is not proven to me when I consider the system in other countries and hear the advice of leading academics and people who are concerned about how their schemes operate.
  There was a good study of the American system in the Financial Times of 24 November 1989, just after the Bill was published, which quoted Mr. Roger Koester, the associate director of financial aid at Northwestern university, as saying:
  "Students are no longer making education decisions based solely on their academic talent, but on starting salaries. We are breeding a far more mercenary group of students."
  No doubt that is what the Conservative party would like. It is significant that some experts in the United States say
  240
  that that country and its great academic system have only a few years grace before they are forced to overhaul the way that students pay for higher education. We may find that United Kingdom students are having a new loans and grants scheme inflicted upon them, whereas the United States is having to move—
  Dr. Hampson: The United States system, of which I have experience, and systems in other countries are having to be reviewed, because the sheer cost of the loans scheme is forcing them to cut back, as we saw in the Reagan years. They do not want a more costly scheme of full grants for all students.
  Dr. Thomas: The whole point of a comparison with the United States system is to consider the level of deferred payments and of defaulting and whether the system is a burden on individual students. We will go down that road if we rely on the loans scheme for our support.
  Concern about the total cost of the scheme, and recovery costs in particular, has been stressed. In the United States, total federal spending on the guaranteed student loan programme component of higher education is one third of £3 billion. That is being spent on substituting private sector bank loans to students and the rest is being eaten up by paying the default rates. That gives us a clear warning about a loans scheme. I see that the Minister is indicating dissent. I shall let him do that from a sedentary position, otherwise I shall not complete my speech in the time available.
  We are also worried by the fact that the Government regard the scheme as a solution to the problem of access to higher education. We must devise a policy for higher education that makes it much more flexible in terms of access. I refer to flexibility of course structure, and flexibility as between the designations of further, higher and recurrent education, so that students are attracted at all stages of their careers. It is extremely unlikely that a loans system which imposes additional burdens on earners will attract people back to the education system, especially for retraining.
  Graduates who return to higher education for further training and others who decide to go into higher education later in life will provide many of the skills needed in the economy in the next century. I know that the Minister cares deeply about this, but any deterrent to people participating in higher and continuing education will inhibit the flexible skilling that the economy needs.
  For all those reasons, we shall oppose the Bill. We are especially worried that the existing hardship schemes that are operated voluntarily by student unions and universities are being used to the full. I have been lobbied by students who tell me that such funds are often swallowed up early in the term. Already students in the grant system are having to borrow or take overdrafts of £300 or £400 a year. That shows the pressure that is already on them. A loans scheme will only increase that pressure. The Government want that. They want a clear financial incentive in higher education. They want to turn it into a marketable commodity, as they have tried to do with the rest of the economy.
  9 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I strongly support the Bill because it is right, and it is about time that we asked students to repay some of the investment that is made, often by much lower-paid taxpayers compared with students' potential earnings.
  The Bill seems at last to be tackling the new realities at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. In the next century, the successful economies will not be those which are natural resource or capital based; they will be the knowledge-based economies. Charles Handy, of the Institute of Personnel Management, has calculated that 30 years ago 30 per cent. of the population worked in knowledge-based industries, but that 70 per cent. will do so by the end of this century. Because we rely purely on a grant-based system and parental contributions, we have unnecessarily handicapped ourselves.
  Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that people who work in factories do not apply any knowledge?
  Mr. Coombs: I suggest—I am sure that Professor Handy does, too—that a significantly higher proportion of jobs in the 21st century will require higher education qualifications. We handicap our scope for economic growth by relying purely on grants and parental contributions.
  Student loans are not exactly new. The Anderson committee of 1960 rejected them only because it estimated an increase in higher education to 175,000 students by the end of the century rather than the 400,000 that we now have. In 1963, Robbins said that once the habit of contemplating higher education is
  "more firmly established, the arguments of justice in distribution and the advantage of increased individual responsibility"—
  through a system of loans—
  "may come to weigh more heavily and to lead to some experiment in that direction."
  In 1985, Lord Glenamara and others in the Labour party—in a paper entitled "Student Financial Support"—effectively accepted the principle, but rejected loans in practice because they were concerned about repayment difficulties, especially for low-paid groups and people who had career breaks.
  The upshot of all that was that nothing was done and Britain was left with a system of student maintenance which was expensive, gave relatively low access and was socially regressive. Britain spends more on higher education than any other European nation except the Netherlands. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already given, at constant 1984 prices, the United Kingdom figures for average maintenance support compared with our industrial competitors. The United Kingdom spent £270 per student, West Germany £70 and Japan only £30. Moreover, grants in Britain are available to 80 per cent. of the student population, which is much higher than anywhere else in the industrialised world, far more than any other country with the exception of the Scandinavian countries. That amply demonstrates the generosity of our system.
  Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend was right to quote Lord Robbins. Another aspect of the early 1960s was the Anderson committee which, in 1960, recommended the current system, envisaging about 175,000 grant awards per
  242
  year whereas we are now running at more than 400,000 grant awards per year. The system was first started when people did not realise what the total cost to the taxpayer would be.
  Mr. Coombs: That is precisely the point that I was making earlier. I concur with what my hon. Friend says.
  The loan system being introduced will be universally available to 100 per cent. of the population. Comparing that with similar loan facilities available in other countries, we find that in Canada they cover only 30 per cent. of the population, in France they are used for emergencies only and cover less than 1 per cent. of the population, and in Japan they cover less than 12 per cent. of the population. Even in the United States, where they were pioneered, loan facilities apply to only 25 per cent. of the population.
  Despite our generous system of student support, our participation rates are significantly lower than those of our industrial competitors at 14 per cent. compared with 28 per cent. in Germany and 44 per cent. in the United States, and a considerably higher rate is expected in other competitor countries, particularly in south-east Asia. That is the greatest challenge to the mythical proposition that loans will necessarily mean less access.
  One does not need a great amount of cynicism to realise that the National Union of Students will not fall over itself to accept loans when it has previously been offered grants. But even its own survey, showing that at present only 7 per cent. would forgo a university education with a loan scheme, is belied by the fact that figures for student entry this year are some 2 per cent. up, despite the fact that the loan scheme will no doubt impact on their higher education in future years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made the valid point that, although the grant has shown a reduction in real value of some 25 per cent. since 1979, there have been 180,000 extra students. In the past two years, social security support has declined, as have parental contributions, but that has had no effect on student access—indeed, rather the opposite, as students have, rightly, increased their employment income, as they are expected to do in other countries in the vacations and at other times by more than 51 per cent. in the past two years alone.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) said, the moral argument is that it can only be right that the 15 per cent. of the population who have the opportunity of a university education, and who are subsidised by the 85 per cent. who have not—especially as a quarter of the income tax paid in Britain is paid by people with incomes below £10,400 per year—should make some contribution towards the university education that they receive. Ultimately, access to higher education in Britain will depend on the numbers suitably qualified in our schools, not on the type of student maintenance available.
  The scheme shows no evidence of being a deterrent. It is socially more progressive and it will provide a higher level of income support and encourage independence if parental contributions are halved. Except perhaps in the early-day motion put forward by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall), which amounts to spending an extra £3·5 billion of taxpayers' money each year, I have heard no credible alternative which addresses the problem of increasing participation in higher education in Britain

  243
  over the next 20 years and does not involve a loan system. It is a practical alternative and one that will be accepted by the people and by future students. I strongly support the scheme and I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I heard the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) speak in the debate on the White Paper, so I exempt him from the criticisms that I shall now make of the Government and Tory Members. They do not have any serious interest in education. They are interested only in education as real estate. They judge education and educational advances by assessing the real estate of the mind and its development and the price that can be paid for it and the earnings that people can make after receiving a university education. They look at education like that rather than discussing what it is about and how we should be directing it.
  Education should be about opening people's minds and giving them the wit and intelligence to turn their hands to anything and to tackle problems in life. Increasingly, the Government are interested only in closing people's minds, limiting and restricting their horizons and making them pick up specific attitudes and regurgitating them. That is contrary to the spirit of liberal education at all levels.
  The contributions made by Tory Members made me worry about higher education institutions, because many said that they are products of British universities, but they put forward arguments that had no concern for the values that there should be in an education system, or for the notion that education is about understanding situations. It is not about getting facts and regurgitating them, but about analysing and discussing them. If one analyses situations and understands other people's arguments, it is easier to remember the facts and details.
  The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) used many statistics. If one were a university undergraduate going into an exam, it would he difficult to use figures such as those. To do that, one would have to be like Leslie Welch, the memory man, but he did not necessarily understand what he was repeating. The hon. Gentleman had to follow his notes very closely to give us that information. If people investigate and analyse situations, they often find that the information they need is attached to that analysis. Sometimes, they do not understand where it has come from, but they have understood it, not because they have volumes of encyclopaedic information available to them but because they have argued the information out.
  In education, we need a questioning attitude so that we investigate matters, which will give us an opening into what we are investigating. When we have solved that problem, it opens up far more questions than it answers. Such an attitude and approach would help us to handle the economic problems that the hon. Member for Swindon mentioned, because people would have their wits about them and could advance. The flowering of understanding should take place in higher education institutions in particular.
  What is education for? It is to help individuals to develop so that they can lead full lives and realise their potential. In Britain, we place many stumbling blocks in the way of people's progress. We must not find yet another stumbling block in the form of a student loans system. We
  244
  also want an intelligent society. We want people to discuss and argue, to participate in the democratic process and to make collective decisions. We would do well to remember in Britain the flowering of the democratic process that is taking place in eastern Europe.
  There is another reason why education is especially important at the moment: we are undergoing a technological revolution. We can no longer depend on raw materials for our survival; to survive these days, we must begin living on our intelligence. If we fail to educate our people, we shall fail to earn a position in the world. Economic and social factors are both very much to the fore.
  I shall not detain the House much longer, as I know that the hon. Member for Cambridge wishes to develop the argument further. Among those who will be hit by a student loans scheme are those adults who are prepared to sacrifice a tremendous amount in the present and perhaps some of their earning potential in the future by giving up good jobs, and who are prepared to take risks. No one ever seems to talk about students who fail. How are they to earn the money to pay back the loans?
  No one is in a worse position than women—both those who return to education and those who enter it for the first time later in life. They bear a heavy burden, and when they have completed their education they may have to take time off work to have families and so on. The last thing they need is the additional burden of a loan, especially as they tend also to enter badly paid jobs such as speech therapy.
  People from working-class backgrounds and members of the ethnic minorities will also suffer. They already feel that they have to open many doors to complete their education. If we place yet another closed door in their way, they will give up. We should be encouraging them to push open those doors, and that can be achieved only if the state provides the necessary resources.
  9.17 pm
  Mr Robert Rhodes James: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who is not as well as one would wish, has asked me to convey this message to the House.
  "If I had been able to attend the House, I would certainly have been speaking against the proposals and possibly voting against them as well. I certainly would not have supported the Government's policy."
  I have spoken so often on this subject, in the House, in my constituency and elsewhere, and my views are so widely known that I shall not need to trespass long on the patience of the House. I still find it baffling that, after two years of apparently deep consideration of the problems of student finance, the Government have come up with a widely disliked and extremely complicated scheme, which will be horrifically costly in the initial period and which, in my judgment, will act as a serious deterrent to many potential students. The scheme also runs counter to the Government's declared policy, which I warmly support, of dramatically increasing student numbers. Ministers say that there is no contradiction, but I beg to differ.
  We all know that the extravagant hopes and expectations of the early 1960s, when the Conservative Government embarked on an enormous expansion of higher education and introduced student grants, turned into disappointments. We must look back on that period. Certain academics and former students should reflect on

  245
  their roles at that time. However, I fear that that is history. The House and the former Labour Government should share the blame of which there is plenty to go round.
  Some time ago, the Prime Minister invited me to take on responsibilities in these matters. I visited every university and polytechnic in the country. I reflect on the fact that I played some part in saving Coleraine from being closed. I learned certain things then. I discovered in certain famous institutions that there were bad debts and in certain not-so-famous institutions I discovered superb debts. I came across wonderful teachers and bad teachers. I was struck by the great diversity.
  I strongly supported Sir Keith Joseph's proposals in 1981 because they were urgently and desperately needed. In private, vice-chancellors told me that they agreed with those proposals, but in public they would denounce the Government. Reforms were urgently needed. I discovered much that was bad and lamentable. However, I discovered a wonderful spirit among students. I attended many public meetings, but did not experience any outcries.
  I recall that Durham university at the time was developing a cricket ball for the blind. It was successful; a superb example of applied technology for a social purpose. In that connection, I sometimes think of Mr. Dexter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I also recall a professor at Newcastle polytechnic who had the opportunity to go to Cambridge and Oxford, but he decided to stay in the north-east because he had a deep commitment to the area.
  If I had been involved in the Government's new proposal, I would have introduced a real top-up loans scheme to be administered by the institutions themselves and not by the banks or some monster in Glasgow. I would not have proposed a plan in which the loans element would be at the expense of the grant. I dislike the Government's scheme in principle and in practice, and I will vote aainst it tonight.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: A distinguishing feature of the Government's students loans proposal is that the more time Ministers have to consider it, the less information they are prepared to put before the House. Instead of learning more about the scheme, hon. Members learn less. We might have hoped that Ministers would have carried this "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" course to its logical conclusion and made the Bill disappear altogether so that only the grin of the former Secretary of State for Education and Science was left.
  The present unfortunate Secretary of State for Education and Science, on taking up his office, could have taken the opportunity to dump all his predecessor's ill-judged, ideologically motivated measures and set education on a course that was better for the country and for the Conservative party. As it is, he has chosen to stick to the very worst proposals and dilute what was better. The sympathy that hon. Members might have felt for him is accordingly evaporating even more quickly than the information in the Bill.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, it is nothing short of a constitutional outrage that such an important change in higher education which affects the opportunities of so many people should be
  246
  brought forward in this shameful fashion, denying the House the information upon which to make a reasoned judgment.
  The key point at issue is that the Bill has been specifically designed to minimise the time and opportunity for public knowledge and debate of the central elements of the legislation to put the scheme into effect. Let us examine some of the important information that Parliament is still not being told about.
  Hon. Members are not being told about the amount of the proposed loans, how they will vary for London, outside London or for home students, or how repayments are to be made. We are not given details of the access funds about which the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) expressed concern. We are not told about the withdrawal of social security benefits or any exemptions. We are not being told what the student loans company is, what it is to do, or how it is to work.
  Hon. Members are not being given any breakdown of the administrative and start-up costs. As several hon. Members have pointed out, we are not being told anything to mitigate the damage that the Bill will do in Scotland. We are not being told anything about the damage to nursing as a graduate profession. That point was stressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson). We are not being told of any measures to help people such as medical students who are on especially long courses and face even greater outstanding debts at the conclusion of their studies. The Secretary of State's advice that longer repayment periods are being seriously considered will be of scant comfort to people in that position.
  We are not being told of any help for disabled students such as the deaf, on whose behalf the Royal National Institute for the Deaf wrote to hon. Members yesterday reminding us that deaf students do not receive social security payments and seeking an access fund and an overhaul of disabled students' allowances. How can Ministers ask hon. Members to approve the Bill without addressing those matters? We are not told much. Hon. Members are being asked to vote in ignorance for ignorance.
  One of the main reasons why the Government are in such a mess with the proposal and why they have resorted to this shabby expedient of an enabling Bill is that they are vague and confused about the purpose that they are seeking to achieve in the legislation. We are told variously that it is to save money and that it will do students good. We are told by the Secretary of State that it will not impede access. But the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and others have said that it will extend access—perhaps a significant difference. It bears repeating that, even on the Government's own figures, there will be no cumulative savings for taxpayers to the year 2026 with the 100 per cent. take-up which the Under-Secretary of State has said that he hopes to achieve, and no cumulative savings until 2014, even with 80 per cent. take-up. Over the next two decades the Government are seriously proposing to spend £1·6 billion on giving students less. That money is being taken from the taxpaying pensioners to whom my hon. Friend referred.
  It is a pleasure to take part in a debate with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). He gave an

  247
  excellent exposition of why he fared somewhat better with the more affluent voters of Epping Forest than he did with those of most modest means in Oxford, East.
  Hon. Members have heard claims and counter-claims about overseas experience. My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and others have argued that is makes no sense for the United Kingdom to opt for loans precisely when other countries, notably Sweden and West Germany, are moving from them by increasing the proportion of grant. That view has much to commend it. Other hon. Members such as the hon. Members for Bury, North and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) have argued, as have Ministers, that loan schemes in various other countries co-exist with higher participation rates than in Britain.
  There are two important points to make about that. First, if hon. Members consider the number of students graduating as opposed to entering higher education, they will note that Britain's relative performance is much better. Chart H of the Department's own White Paper shows that 27 per cent. of the relevant age group in the United Kingdom have graduate qualifications, compared with 25 per cent. in France, 21 per cent. in West Germany and 18 per cent. in the Netherlands—all countries that operate student loans schemes. That is testimony to the cost effectiveness of the grants system and to the relative efficiency of British higher education in thereby holding down the rates of drop-outs and retakes which poorer financial systems of support foster.
  Secondly, it is a plain logical fallacy to suppose that, simply because higher participation may coexist with loans schemes elsewhere, the shift to a loans scheme here would in any way increase participation. The proposition that increasing the effective cost of something will, by some mystical means, increase demand or take-up is an affront to common sense and flies in the face of the evidence available.
  Ministers will be aware of the survey that was published yesterday by the National Union of Students which showed that 16·2 per cent. of respondents stated that they would not go into higher education if the Government brought in the scheme. That proportion rose to 23·6 per cent. among students from low-income families.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: When the hon. Gentleman says that students will not take up university places, does he not find it strange that during the past 12 months, when they have been clearly told that there will be a student loans scheme during their period of higher education, they have come forward in greater numbers?
  Mr. Smith: Obviously they have confidence in the prospect of a Labour Government coming to power at the earliest opportunity and repealing the scheme. If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the debate, he would have heard the arguments on that.
  Ministers will also be aware of the survey carried out by the British Medical Association Students Group, showing the serious effects of the scheme for those contemplating studying medicine.
  As for the claim that the scheme will be good for students and, in the words of the Secretary of State, that it will
  "reduce students' sense of dependency on the state, and will promote a proper sense of self-reliance and responsibility."—[Official Report, 20 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 375.]
  248
  the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect the House to accept simultaneously the contradictory assertions—on the one hand, that the scheme will hurt and that students will therefore think carefully about what they are getting and how they will pay the loan back, and, on the other hand, that the scheme will attract people who have previously not taken advantage of grants to take advantage of the loans. The scheme can hurt or it can help, but it cannot do both.
  In practice, it will hurt, especially the proposal uniquely to penalise students by taking away their access to income support and housing benefit. There is no doubt that the scheme will most hurt those students from poorer backgrounds, those studying in London and, as the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) have said, students in Northern Ireland.
  The Research Services Limited study, "Student Income and Expenditure Survey", which was commissioned by the Government, showed that 70 per cent. of students from C2, D and E backgrounds receive some money in benefit, as compared with 44 per cent. of those whose parents are in social class A. The sums involved are significant, with average students in receipt of housing benefit receiving on average £286, rising to £310 for working-class students and £499 for those studying in London. There is no doubt that the removal of such sums will cause hardship and that cannot but act as a disincentive for poorer students.
  The Government clearly have no idea about how this loans Bill ties in with the previous Secretary of State's commitment to double participation in higher education over the next 25 years. As my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) have ably pointed out in their excellent speeches, there is a glaring inconsistency in the information being provided to the House. All the Government's projections of costs and savings relate to chart 5 in the White Paper, which shows participation of the relevant age group rising from just above 15 per cent. in 1990 to just above 18 per cent. in the year 2000. In the tables estimating the financial effects of the loans scheme it is said:
  "The estimate is based on the hypothesis that the number of students eligible for loans grows in line with the projection shown in Chart 5 up to the end of the century, then remains constant thereafter."
  Ministers talk about increasing access and about doubling the number of students in the next 25 years, but all the costings that we have been able to squeeze out of them—the £1·6 billion cumulative cost in the next 20 years—are based only on a marginal increase in participation between now and the end of the century. No clearer evidence could hardly be available to show that Ministers either have not done their sums on costs or that they do not understand the implication of what they are saying about access, or possibly both.
  I challenged the Under-Secretary about that in a letter dated 19 July to which I have not yet received a reply. That silence speaks volumes for the weakness of the Government's argument on how they will pay for the expansion of access to which they say they are committed.
  Faced with all that, to say nothing of annual default rates of more than 100,000 after 2010 and deferral rates of more than 700,000 in the same year and onwards, no wonder that the poor old banks do not know which way to turn or what to do for the best. I never thought that I

  249
  would get applause at student rallies for the banks. One need only say the Co-operative bank, Lloyds, Bank of Scotland or Clydesdale to have them cheering to the roof-tops.
  The Under-Secretary should say how the scheme will be administered. In a written answer to me he said that students will be obliged to seek a loan at a branch of one of the participating banks. Will he clarify that a student needing to take out a loan will not need to hold an account at the bank providing it? Will he confirm that a Co-operative bank customer can go along to a participating bank, which, in return for the £12 fee paid by the Government, will do all the administrative work and pass the loan amount provided by the Government to that student's Co-operative bank account at no charge to the student or to his bank? The non-participating bank will incur no risks, no additional administrative costs, and will not face queues of students filling in loan claim forms who will then clog up the counters at the beginning of the academic year. It will also not suffer any damage to its reputation in the eyes of students. It appears that the costs, the risks and the administration will fall on the participating banks in return for which they will receive £12 per application and a pat on the back for acting as an administrative arm of the Government. Will he confirm that that is broadly the picture? Is he surprised that some banks would prefer not to take part?
  Mr. Walden rose—
  Mr. Smith: I shall not give way as I am running out of time.
  The question that has come up time and again is why the Government have not listened to the volume of opposition expressed by all groups that have responded to the White Paper. If the Government will not listen to students, to colleges, informed commentators, the banks or to us, why will they not listen to their colleagues here and in the other place who have no confidence in the proposals?
  The House is confronted with an apology of a Bill. Its very omissions speak volumes for the weakness of the case that Ministers have attempted to put to us. If they are really convinced of the strength of their loan proposals, why have they not had the decency, to say nothing of the constitutional propriety, to set out those proposals in full before us? It is not as though the Government have not had enough advice. So far they have spent no less than £451,223 on the consultants, Price Waterhouse. It looks as though that company and debt collectors will be the only ones to get any benefit from the Bill.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that the Bill is squalid. Frankly it stinks as it reeks of Ministers' fear as to what the House and the other place would do if the full details were included in the Bill. It reeks of the sweat that Ministers are now in because they are trying to meet the Government's self-imposed deadline of having the scheme up and running by next autumn. The Bill shows contempt for the House and the best interests of higher education in this country. It will pave the way for entry to higher education to depend more on ability to pay and less on ability to benefit.
  As we heard in the debate on 20 October, many Conservative Members are opposed to the likely practical
  250
  implications of the Bill, its high administrative—and particularly public expenditure—costs. In addition, others such as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) rejected it for its effects on access and because it starts to dismantle the system of grants which we believe, and Conservative Members were once proud to believe, most effectively opens up opportunities for higher education.
  This is a thoroughly bad Bill, as expensive in its costs as it is disastrous in its consequences. It will be bad for our country, higher education, students, and especially those people we wish to attract into higher education. It has been brought before the House in a thoroughly shabby way. It invites rejection from hon. Members on both sides of the House who should stand up for educational opportunity and reject it.
  9.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): It is always agreeable to follow the carefully prepared diatribes of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and I look forward to our further encounters in Committee when his advice is rejected as it will be today.
  We have had an interesting debate which has been notable for the substantial contributions made by Conservative Members. With all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), what has been said from this side of the House has been more representative of Conservative opinion than what was said in the previous debate.
  Many issues have been raised in the debate and I shall make my way through them in turn. These include the nature of the Bill, international comparisons, access, student attitudes to loans, equity and social justice, the disabled, and housing and social security benefit. I shall try to address all those subjects in the short time that I have.
  The structure of the Bill has been raised by many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). A great deal of play has been made of the way in which the Bill is drafted. We have been told that it is a constitutional outrage and the hon. Member for Antrim, North compared it with an IRA bomb, which was an analogy in poor taste. The structure of the Bill is identical with the structure of the Education Act 1962 providing for student grants which has not been subject to any complaint during the 20 or so years of its operation.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave no cogent explanation as to why it was inappropriate to follow the path laid down in the 1962 Act. Anybody who thinks for more than a minute about how to administer a grant or loan system will see that the legal arrangements that we envisage are the only sensible ones. We are taking power to provide money for loans and to table regulations for the administration of loans on the model of the grant provisions. We had a valuable testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) who has been responsible for running the grant regulations in Scotland, as I have in England and Wales.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made an important intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he pointed out how it was possible to use the flexibility given

  251
  by the regulation-making power to the advantage of his constituents. There have been many such cases. Let us hear no more of this totally bogus argument.
  Dr. Hampson: When my hon. Friend is putting flesh on this thin skeleton of legislation, will he consider two developments? One is to try to get more of the banks' own money into higher education by co-operation between the Treasury and the Department of Employment in extending the career development loans system that we already have, which uses some Government subsidy to assist the banks in lowering interest rates so that we can help as wide a range of students as possible. The second is not to go to a full 50:50 loan and grant but to have a higher grant element, as the United States has in its basic educational grant, to help get more participation from families on low incomes.
  Mr. Jackson: I hope that my hon. Friend will assist us in Committee to improve the Bill. It will be open to the House to amend the regulations and it will be possible for the House to take a view about whether it is desirable to have a 50:50 loans scheme or to change it in other ways.
  Mr. Straw: How can this House amend regulations?
  Mr. Jackson: The regulations come before the House for debate, as they have done for a long time in respect of grant legislation.
  The issue of international comparisons was raised by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), and much play has been made of that. There are many different systems of student support. Indeed, if one imagines a sort of spectrum of generosity towards the student, the British system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) pointed out, is almost certainly the most generous in the world. It provides for free tuition, free maintenance grants for nearly all students—certainly for all full-time students—and at a generous level. The result is that Britain is spending a higher proportion of GDP on student support than any other country and spending a higher proportion of its higher education expenditure on student support.
  At the other end of the scale, Japan is probably the least generous. The Japanese charge for tuition, they have no grants, only loans, and those loans are available to only 10 per cent. of students. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) in saying that Japan has more students in higher education than we have, which suggests that there is no correlation between student support arrangements and participation.
  Our proposals will create a loans system which will be among the most generous in the world. It will be available to all full-time students. The loans scheme in the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, is available to only 30 per cent. of students. Ours will be at a real zero rate of interest. That is to be compared with the positive interest rates which are commonplace in other loan schemes. We are moving towards a 50:50 ratio of loan to grant. Compare that with the movement in the Federal Republic and with the position in other countries in northern Europe.
  We are making extensive provision for deferral if incomes fall below 85 per cent. of the national average income—about 10,000—a facility that is not available in United States loans system. In view of what has been said
  252
  about mature students, it is important to remember that under our proposals loans will be available until age 50. Many countries cut off entitlement to a loan at age 30. Our proposals are for a generous loans scheme.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister will be aware that there is a higher participation rate in university education in Scotland than south of the border. Has he seen the calculations of NUS Scotland? Using the Government's figures, but substituting a 6 per cent. inflation rate, at the end of a four-year degree course the outstanding debt will be 60 per cent. greater than at the end of a three-year degree course. Will that not be a substantial disincentive to participate in the four-year Scottish course? Does the Minister accept those figures, and does he intend to do anything about that?
  Mr. Jackson: The calculations of the NUS are not correct and I believe that the value of the fourth year to many will be such that they will be prepared to pay a reasonable sum for it.
  There has been much discussion about access, and I shall not recite the names of all those hon. Members who referred to that important question. The issue of increasing participation in higher education by students from working-class backgrounds is too important to be left to the superficialities espoused by the Opposition.
  Let us start with the facts. Britain has relatively poor working-class participation, despite 30 years of generous grants which have mainly benefited the children of the middle-class—I do not complain about that, but it is a fact. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), having admitted this, asked why it should be but suggested no answer. The answer has not much to do with student support—it is that working-class children are less inclined to stay on at school after 16. My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Hendon, South were right to say that the Labour party is in no position to lecture us on this point as it was largely responsible for dismantling the ladders of working-class opportunity.
  Rather than emphasise that negative point, I wish to emphasise the positive point that if the most important determinant of access is the staying-on rate, we can look forward to an expansion in higher education because the staying-on rate has risen from 34 per cent. when the Labour party was last in office to 42 per cent. now, and the rate of increase is rising. We believe that the number of children staying on at 18 will increase, and the evidence is that there is no class differential in entry to higher education among those who have stayed on to 18.
  Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Jackson: There is no reason to suppose that a working class 18-year-old will be deterred from entering higher education by the introduction of a loan. If he is bright enough to enter higher education, he will be bright enough to see the benefits that will accrue to him not only in educational terms—the hon. Member for Derbyshire North-East (Mr. Barnes) was right about that—but in terms of future income. Such students will see that student loans will add to the resources available to support them while they are studying and they will recognise that it will be a risk-free investment, because they will not be obliged to repay after graduation if they cannot do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood observed, it is

  253
  extraordinary to argue that any price higher than zero will deter someone from higher education. Either that grossly undervalues higher education, or it grossly underestimates the intelligence of younger people.
  Mr. Pike rose—
  Mr. Jackson: Student attitudes to loans were evoked by the hon. Member for Oxford, East. In common with other Conservative Members, I think it a bit of a joke for the National Union of Students to use taxpayers' money to ask students whether they would prefer a free gift to a repayable loan. The union did not need to invest taxpayers' money in that inquiry to derive the answers that it was seeking. The real question is what students are doing, not what students are saying in reply to politically motivated surveys.
  As has been pointed out, this was the first year of recruitment of young people who knew that the Government planned to introduce student loans in their second year, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest actually understated the effects. This year the evidence available suggests there has been a 5 per cent. increase in recruitment to universities, a 13 per cent. increase in full-time students going to polytechnics and a 10 per cent. increase in the number of part-time students going to them. Those facts shed light on the false proposition that young people will not enter higher education if there are to be loans.
  Mr. Andrew Smith rose—
  Mr. Jackson: I do not have much time.
  I want to say a word about the argument that the scheme is a subsidy to the rich, which was advanced by the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Antrim, North and, in the last debate, by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). No doubt my predecessors shared my experience of dealing every week with letters about young people whose parents refuse to fill in the forms to assess their income and hence their parental contribution. Surveys have shown that 41 per cent. of parents do not pay their full assessed parental contribution, so I must tell hon. Members who think that our loans will be a subsidy for the rich that I listened to their arguments with some bitterness, because I know that many will find that the loans enable them to take part in higher education when their parents refuse to support them.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to social justice and equity. In our analysis in the White Paper, we explained how the return to the taxpayer in terms of an economic investment in higher education could be compared with the returns to the individual graduate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) argued, there is no doubt that graduate earning power is greatly enhanced by the experience of higher education. At present, the graduate makes no financial contribution and the taxpayer has to pay for the whole of that education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) argued, one quarter of all taxpayers are on incomes below the national average and the difference between their incomes and those that graduates can expect is considerable. From the point of view of equity in public expenditure, student
  254
  grants are a system of taking money from the less well off and giving it to the better off. I wonder about the equity and social justice of that position.
  A number of speakers, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, referred to the disabled. I have had several meetings with representatives of groups for the disabled. I have listened carefully—and we shall continue to listen carefully—to what is said. I emphasise that the student loan will be additional for disabled students and that there will be no disentitlement to benefits. In addition, disabled graduates will be able to benefit from the ability to defer repayment if their income is below a certain level. We have made it clear that we are prepared to review the arrangements in relation to grant support and we shall monitor the effects of student loans on disabled students. If the legislation is passed, as the Government propose, we shall have the flexibility to respond to the results of that monitoring by amending the regulations. If we put such provisions in the primary legislation, as the Opposition wish us to do, we should probably not be able to respond for many years.
  The Government have carried out two surveys which provide information about student use of supplementary benefit and housing benefit. From those surveys, we know that as many as 40 per cent. of all students do not claim any benefit. We also know that the average claim amounts to about £315 per year per student claimant, which means that a top-up loan of £420 would be not only a complete addition to the resources of the 40 per cent. who claim no benefit, but a substantial addition to the resources of most of the rest. There will also be the access funds for those who are out of pocket. I note what has been said on several occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and we shall review the question of the access funds to take care of any genuine difficulties. I emphasise that we intend to continue to monitor and to survey the picture. If we have the means to do so—and if the Opposition will allow us to do so—we shall be able to take action through the regulation-making power in the Bill.
  Several hon. Members have raised the question of the cost of not having loans. The Opposition have tried to make much of the simple, natural, logical fact that with loans there is a period when one pays out before money comes back. We have to compare the cost of our proposal with the cost of the Opposition's alternative, about which they have been coy. We were told that they would increase the grant "when resources allowed". Resources do allow, and the Government are making that provision now in the form of the student loan.
  If the Opposition simply replaced our proposed loan with a grant—that is, a grant with a 100 per cent. take-up instead of a loan with an 80 per cent. take-up—and if they kept social security and housing benefit entitlements, their scheme would be more costly than our scheme from year one. Our scheme will yield savings compared with their proposals from year one. I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West calculated that by the beginning of the next century it stacked up into a difference of hundreds of millions of pounds in the costs of the schemes.
  The burden of repayment will not be all that heavy. For the average course, it will be about £400 per year. which compares with the cost of a ski-ing holiday—and about 1

  255
  million people from Britain went on ski-ing holidays last year. [Interruption.] My predecessor made a distinguished speech on these issues. When he visited Sweden—
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 220.

  Division No. 8]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alexander, Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Allason, Rupert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Eggar, Tim

  Amess, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Amos, Alan

  Evennett, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Ashby, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkins, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forth, Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bellingham, Henry

  Franks, Cecil

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  French, Douglas

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gale, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, George

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gow, Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gregory, Conal

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bright, Graham

  Grist, Ian

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

  Ground, Patrick

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grylls, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hague, William

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, John

  Butler, Chris

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

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayward, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Heddle, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chope, Christopher

  Hind, Kenneth

  Churchill, Mr

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howard, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

  Colvin, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Conway, Derek

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, David

  Irvine, Michael

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

  Irving, Charles

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert

  256

  Janman, Tim

  Price, Sir David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Key, Robert

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rost, Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knowles, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lightbown, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Squire, Robin

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Sumberg, David

  Maples, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Marland, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mates, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thorne, Neil

  Mellor, David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mills, Iain

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Tredinnick, David

  Moate, Roger

  Trippier, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trotter, Neville

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Neubert, Michael

  Walden, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill (Tside North)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Norris, Steve

  Warren, Kenneth

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Watts, John

  Page, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Wheeler, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Whitney, Ray

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Pawsey, James

  Wilshire, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Portillo, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  257

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. Alastair Goodland and

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

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

  Allen, Graham

  Dewar, Donald

  Alton, David

  Dixon, Don

  Anderson, Donald

  Dobson, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Doran, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Douglas, Dick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dover, Den

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Battle, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beckett, Margaret

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beggs, Roy

  Fearn, Ronald

  Beith, A. J.

  Fisher, Mark

  Bell, Stuart

  Flannery, Martin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Blair, Tony

  Foster, Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Foulkes, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Gould, Bryan

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buckley, George J.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caborn, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Haynes, Frank

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cartwright, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clay, Bob

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clelland, David

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Geraint

  Cohen, Harry

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cummings, John

  Hume, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Janner, Greville

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles

  258

  Kilfedder, James

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Radice, Giles

  Knox, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Lamond, James

  Reid, Dr John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Lewis, Terry

  Robertson, George

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Livsey, Richard

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAllion, John

  Salmond, Alex

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCrea, Rev William

  Sheerman, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McFall, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Short, Clare

  McLeish, Henry

  Sillars, Jim

  Maclennan, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Mallon, Seamus

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Marek, Dr John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Maxton, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meacher, Michael

  Stott, Roger

  Meale, Alan

  Strang, Gavin

  Michael, Alun

  Straw, Jack

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Turner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Vaz, Keith

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wall, Pat

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mullin, Chris

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Murphy, Paul

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Nellist, Dave

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  O'Brien, William

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Worthington, Tony

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Wray, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Frank Cook and

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Martyn Jones.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Education (Student Loans) Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (Student Loans) Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under that Act;

(b) the payment of any sums received by him by virtue of that Act into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

10.15 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I thought that, by popular request, I would make a few comments on the money resolution, which is important for several reasons. It is not so much the amount of money involved—compared with what we discussed last night, it is relatively modest—as the fact that there are some peculiar arrangements regarding the Secretary of State's ability to administer it. That is why I want—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the money resolution. I ask the House to listen.
Mr. Cryer: As ever, Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to you.
We should take some interest in the expenditure that is authorised by the House, sometimes with so little scrutiny. The explanatory memorandum says that 10 to 20 per cent. of the annual outlay will go on administration. I imagine that most people will think that a relatively high proportion. As £109 million is involved in the first year —it will double by 1992–93—it is worth observing that the Secretary of State could spend the money on far more important and pressing things. For example, Bradford local authority has applied for £28 million in capital allocation this year, but the Government, who are of the same political conviction, have awarded it only £8 million.
Buttershaw first school has been partly housed in three temporary classrooms for so long that they are crumbling and have had to be taken out of use. The children have to he bussed for an eight-mile round trip day in, day out, and a school has been reopened to accommodate them. That demonstrates the pressing need for expenditure on educational provision in Bradford.
I should have thought that, rather than concentrate on money resolutions that facilitate a turnover of £109 million in the first year, we should satisfy such a basic requirement as we have in Bradford. I remind the Minister, if he knew it in the first place, that Buttershaw first school, like many schools in Bradford, has been waiting for years for permanent extensions. School rolls in Bradford are increasing, not diminishing.
We have 600 temporary classrooms in Bradford, many of which are reaching the end of their lives. It is time that money was allocated to provide permanent extensions so that our children can have decent facilities. I hope that the Minister notes that. That would represent a far better priority for this money.
One of the rather curious features of the Bill that has not been mentioned so far is that it gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers, all linked to expenditure. The Bill is basically a thin framework delegating a wide range of powers to the Secretary of State. They include a Henry VIII clause which, as I am sure the House knows well, is a clause which enables the Minister to alter the primary
260
legislation, the Education (Student Loans) Bill, without the necessity of coming before the House for further approval.
Schedule 1, which settles the Bill's ambit, the number of institutions available for students who qualify for loans, can be added to, subtracted from or changed under negative procedure regulations by the Secretary of State without any guarantee that the regulations will come before the House. If, as the Bill makes plain, they are by annulment, the regulations are subject to revocation by a prayer.
As the House knows, there is no guarantee that a prayer will be debated and, even if it is, the debate will last for no more than one and a half hours. If the prayer is down for hearing after 10 o'clock and there is a Division, the time taken by that Division is taken out of the debate. Therefore, only one hour and 10 minutes will be given to debating the regulations, and then only if the Government Whips agree, yet those regulations affect primary legislation. In effect, the Minister is being given the power to produce the equivalent of primary legislation without the House necessarily being involved. That is a wide power, to which attention should be drawn.
Schedule 2 sets out the financial parameters of where the £109 million will be spent in the first year, doubling by 1992, and so forth. When the Under-Secretary of State replied to the previous debate, he made no reference to the arrangement which may provide for the loans to be made and recovered. Arrangements have no statutory meaning. [Interruption.] As a Back-Bench Member says sotto voce, I missed some of that speech because I was chairing the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which was taking extensive evidence from civil servants on yet another statutory instrument which in the Committee's view was defective and that will be reported.
Presumably, the arrangements are those provided for by regulation. I know of no statutory provision whereby Ministers simply have the right to arrange things. They must present what they do to the House for scrutiny. If they have the power simply to make arrangements, that does not occur.
Schedule 2, paragraph 3(4), says:
"Regulations made under paragraph 1(1)(b) or (c) above may confer functions on any such person or body as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, including power to exercise a discretion in relation to any matter for which the regulations provide."
In its strict legalistic phraseology that means that the House is handing over to the Secretary of State power to sub-delegate regulation-making powers. I am sure that the House would not agree to that if there was a clear alternative.
That means that the Minister, through regulations, can confer functions—that is, hand over powers—on any body that is provided for in the first paragraph of this part of the schedule, which means those persons and bodies that will deal with the loans and repayments. It includes a power to exercise a discretion in relation to any matter for which the regulations provide. Therefore, the Minister is handing over a power to a body that can simply ignore the regulations that the Minister, if a prayer is tabled, will bring before the House for debate. This is an important matter and relates specifically to the money, so it is not unfair to raise it on the money resolution.
Paragraph 3(7) of schedule 2 says:

261
"Any person or body having the function of recovering loans under the arrangements may, for appropriate consideration, assign the right of recovery to a third party."
That means that debts can be sold, and that means that the accountability of the Secretary of State to the House for the money resolution—that is, paying all receipts into the Consolidated Fund—is simply moved a stage further. He can say that no money is coming in and he cannot get any money back, because the person or body who had the function of recovering loans—the person or body mentioned in schedule 2—has assigned the right of recovery to a third party, and that party has been wound up in 14, 15 or 100 cases.
The detailed administrative provision for this legislation is through regulations. The accountability for delegated legislation is minimal, and the Minister is abusing it. The Government claimed that they would take government off our backs, but they are producing more delegated legislation each year than was produced by the whole of the 1974–79 Labour Government. The Tory Government claimed that that Administration produced a huge mass of legislation that bore down on manufacturing industry and the population in general. The Government are producing more instruments and it is an abuse of the House to provide for annual expenditure of £100 million to £200 million in such a way that the responsibility is one stage removed, through regulation and delegated powers granted by the legislation. Then, within that framework of legislation, the Government have provided for sub-delegation of legislation. That makes the accountability of the Minister to the House one stage further removed and even more diffuse.
We should look carefully at the money resolution. Having been prepared with a brief because I might speak, the Minister should explain these points. They are reasonably important and merit an answer. The money resolution debate is an important opportunity, brief though it is, to raise these issues and try to get something on the record.
10.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has a habit of raising points such as these. He spoke first about the contrast between the estimated administrative cost of the order of £10 million to £20 million and the flow of funds in the early years of the scheme. He made a perfectly fair debating point, but if we are to set up a student loans operation, quite extensive machinery needs to be established before the volume of the business builds up.
262
We shall need staff, a computer and buildings. The amount of money involved will build up eventually to thousands of millions of pounds. As we argued in the previous debate, big savings will be made from the start of the operation of the scheme. Unlike the alternative envisaged by the Opposition, the loans scheme will result in due course in substantial savings building up, in relation to which the administration costs will be rather small.
Let me say a word about the arrangements that are to be embodied in regulations to be brought before the House.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The amounts recorded for loan outgoings in the financial and explanatory memorandum are quite different from those recorded on page 43 of the White Paper. I see no mention of the access funds, which are part of the scheme, in the financial and explanatory memorandum, nor is any account taken of the costs of deferral or default. Are those taken into account anywhere in the memorandum? The memorandum states that loan repayments will exceed the cost of the scheme "in due course". Can the Minister tell us exactly when he thinks that will happen?
Mr. Jackson: That depends entirely on the assumptions made in the projections. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well; we have discussed it on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman asked about access funds. We do not propose to take powers for that purpose in the Bill, because we already have powers to constitute such funds, and we shall set them up under those existing powers. Their cost does not, therefore, arise in the explanatory and financial memorandum, but it is, of course, taken into account in the White Paper. The figures differ because the White Paper refers to the academic year and the financial and explanatory memorandum to the financial year.
Let me finish answering the hon. Member for Bradford, South. The arrangements will be embodied in regulations that will be brought before the House and will be constructed by analogy with the arrangements for the payment of student grants. We discussed all that in our previous debate. We also discussed the regulation-making powers—in that picturesque phrase, "the Henry VIII clause". We have discussed all these matters extensively. I have nothing to add to what was said, and I do not believe that the hon. Member for Bradford, South has added much to the argument.
We merely seek to establish in a flexible and responsive way the legal arrangements for paying student loans that are most sensible in terms of the administration of a loans scheme. That is what we propose, and that is what we hope to be able to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions
10.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the draft Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 7th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Section 6 of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 provides that the Act shall expire on 31 March 1990 unless it is continued by force for a further year by an order laid before and approved by resolution of each House. The order now before the House provides for the Act to continue in force for a further year, until 31 March 1991. This is necessary to enable me in due course to give effect to the teachers' pay settlement for 1990–91, following the report of the interim advisory committee, due next January, and consultation on its recommendations. If the life of the Act is not extended in the way proposed, it will not be possible to deal with the 1990–91 pay settlement.
My predecessor had always hoped to be able to put new pay determination arrangements in place in time for the 1990–91 settlement, but we never expected that it would be easy to devise new pay determination arrangements which, to be worth while, would need to be permanent, stable and effective.
The deep differences of opinion between the six competing teacher unions, the employers and the Government, which were very evident during the events which culminated in the failure of Burnham, the passage of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 and the establishment of the interim advisory committee made that only too clear. The problem is not to obtain complete agreement on new pay determination arrangements—I suspect that that could never be achieved—but enough to ensure that they can operate successfully and are likely to endure. We need more time to achieve that, so it is necessary for the present arrangements to be in place for one more year. That is why the order has been laid before the House.
In 1987, the Government's immediate concerns were to bring pay and conditions together and to establish a proper career structure for teachers. That was achieved in the 1987 settlement, which gave teachers a 16–4 per cent. pay increase. Aspects of that settlement which were controversial at the time are widely welcomed now. Incentive allowances have proved their worth, and following the recommendations of the interim advisory committee, their introduction has been speeded up so that there are now some 170,000 available in schools. The effectiveness of the interim advisory committee itself has been widely praised, and rightly so, and I would like to pay tribute to the committee today for all the hard work that it has put in and which it is doing now.
In October 1987 the Government published a Green Paper discussing the question of new permanent teachers' pay machinery. We stated three key principles relevant to the establishment of new teachers' pay determination machinery which are in the interests of the education service and the nation as a whole.
The principles were that it should be designed to provide that settlements have due regard to the need to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient teachers of the right quality. Secondly, it must ensure that settlements support effective management of the schools and provide for
264
proper career-long development and incentives for teachers. Finally, it should be designed to ensure that settlements have due regard to affordability and to the needs of the national economy.
The Green Paper discussed a number of different possible future pay determination arrangements and proposed the establishment of a teachers' negotiating group with the Government in a majority on the management side and with an ability for the management side to break deadlock by imposing its proposals subject to the approval of Parliament.
It became clear from the written responses to the Green Paper from the interested parties and from the views expressed during meetings with my predecessor in the autumn of 1988 that there continued to be widely differing views about the best way forward. In particular, there was no basis of agreement on such fundamental features as the role and powers of the Government, how to deal with a breakdown in negotiations and how to cover the interests of heads and deputies.
There was no prospect of meeting our original aspiration of having new permanent machinery in time for the 1990 settlement, and no advantage in trying to rush things to this end. The subject is too important and too much hangs on our getting things right for it to be sensible to do that.
It was against that background that my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House in July that he was arranging a further series of meetings with the teacher unions and employers, at which he saw the discussions as ranging more widely than the proposal for a teachers' negotiating group set out in the October 1987 Green Paper.
Mr. Conal Gregory: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at such an early stage. Will he confirm that the negotiations took place against a background in which it was clear that teachers' salaries increased under the Labour Government by an average of 6 per cent., while they have increased in real terms by 35 per cent. under the Conservative Government?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the relativities, but he has not got the figure absolutely right. Under the Conservatives, the figure is 30 per cent. However, the relativities are quite correct and his point is absolutely right.
I was referring to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House in July. He recognised then that it would not be easy to find a solution which was acceptable to all parties, but he reaffirmed the importance of getting the new arrangements right. He recognised that this would take time and said that he was accordingly asking the interim advisory committee to sit for a further year to give that time. He also said that he would in due course ask the House to approve a consequential one-year extension of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987. That is what we are considering today.
The remit which I have set the IAC is challenging. In addition to considering what the permanent pay increase for 1990–91 should be, I have asked it to make recommendations for the further expansion of incentive allowances to help local education authorities to tackle their particular teacher shortage problems; to look at the

265
situation in London, where there are particular problems in some inner-London boroughs; and to review the pay of heads and deputies.
In recognition of the task which I have set the committee, I have provided for the teachers' pay bill for 1990–91 to increase by the fair and substantial sum of £600 million—55 per cent. more than this year's remit and twice that of last year. I look forward to seeing the committee's report in January. I am sure that it will match the high standards set by its two previous reports.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Since the Act was passed, as the Secretary of State well knows, the International Labour Organisation has ruled that this method of settling teachers' pay is in breach of the convention to which we are a signatory. How on earth does the Secretary of State justify coming back to the House with not only an extension of what, in international law, has been ruled an unacceptable procedure but restrictions, even if they were more generous than they were before, on the amount available for settling the teachers' pay claim?
Mr. MacGregor: The ILO is well aware that we intend to establish a permanent new pay machinery, and it is content with that. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I have just been talking about that, and I will talk about it again right now. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members will allow me, I will refer to the point right now.
The House will rightly be concerned whether the extension I am seeking today will enable me to bring forward legislation to establish new permanent machinery in the next Session. Obviously, I cannot commit the Government in advance of the next Queen's Speech—any Queen's Speech—but let me tell the House tonight that that is my aim. At the meetings held in July, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, outlined three new options for consideration: negotiations between employers and unions, with necessary safeguards for the Government's interests; a permanent IAC-type body, possibly linked to a no-strike agreement; and a movement towards greater local flexibility, which might lead to individual LEAs or schools opting out of national negotiations.
I have just completed a helpful and constructive round of meetings with the teacher unions and employees at which I have heard their views on each of these options.
Mr. Jack Straw: The Secretary of State has just spoken about provision for local authorities to opt out of national negotiations. Leaving aside other arguments, does he understand that that will lead to a significant increase in the teachers' pay bill? Is he willing to ensure that the Government will support that increase through the poll tax?
Mr. MacGregor: I must make it quite clear that we have been looking at all the options with all the organisations concerned. We have been receiving a wide variety of views in response. My position is quite clear: I need to consider the position, taking into account the responses that I am receiving, not only from those whom I have met formally but from others who are putting views forward.
Mr. Michael Stern: My right hon. Friend has said that he is considering all the views
266
from the organisations he has consulted. Does he agree that there is one particularly difficult body of people whom he cannot consult? I refer to teachers who are either not members of trade unions or would welcome the opportunity, if my right hon. Friend were only to signal it, to leave in droves the unions which they regard as useless but in which they remain only because they can otherwise have no influence on their pay and conditions?
Mr. MacGregor: I have had formal meetings and received representations from all six teacher unions. I am, or course, prepared to receive views from any quarter during the consultation period.
I do not under-estimate the difficulties, but I believe that there is a strong desire on all sides to make progress, and I intend to pursue this matter vigorously. In the meantime, we need this order to pay teachers an increase next year. I commend the order to the House and ask that it be approved.
10.44 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: We oppose the order. It breaks clear undertakings to restore negotiating machinery by March 1990 and is part of a policy approach that has collapsed teacher morale and constricted teachers' pay and is leading to a mounting teacher shortage crisis.
Although the history of the principal Act involved in the order is well known and need not be repeated, there have been the clearest undertakings that negotiating machinery would be restored by 1990. That point was made in January this year in response to a question from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) when the previous Secretary of State said:
"The Government hope to introduce new permanent machinery in time for the 1990 settlement".—[Official Report, 31 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 159.]
On 27 July 1988, in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the Minister of State said:
"it is not possible to have negotiations in 1990 with a negotiating body unless such a body has been thought through and some conclusions have been reached by the end of 1989."—[Official Report, 27 July 1989; Vol. 138, c. 483.]
But the Government have already given that commitment. In other words, if there are to be negotiations on pay and conditions, there must be negotiating machinery.
In breach of those undertakings, however, we are being asked to continue with imposed settlements for another year. Those imposed settlements are in clear breach of the convention of the International Labour Organisation. Imposed settlements have already produced a wholly unsatisfactory situation for teachers and teachers' pay. The Government have not even allowed the interim advisory committee the freedom to arrive at its own recommendations, as is allowed to a review body, before the Government then make a decision on those recommendations. Instead, the interim advisory committee has been put in the straitjacket of a prior cash limit.
The IAC has protested about that, saying that that limit has forced it to recommend lower pay increases than it would have wished and than would otherwise have been the case. It has also meant that part of the increase last year—and, no doubt, part of the increase this year—will be borne entirely by local ratepayers and subsequently by poll tax payers without the benefit of any rate support grant.

267
The Secretary of State said that this year he set the interim advisory committee "a challenging task". He has not set it a challenging task—he has set it an impossible task. It is impossible to make compatible the requirement on the IAC to bring forward salary recommendations which can solve the mounting crisis of teacher shortages within the cash limits that the Secretary of State has imposed on the IAC in advance of its considerations.
The consequence of those imposed settlements has been a collapse in morale, which has led to a flight from the profession and a grave reduction in the attractiveness of teaching. It is time that the Secretary of State faced up to the scale of the crisis over which he is now presiding.
In the loans debate earlier, I mentioned that in the past eight years the proportion of graduates entering teaching had halved—from 8 per cent. in 1980 to 4 per cent. in 1988. More graduates are entering the law than are entering teaching. Of those who qualify as teachers, three in 10 do not enter the profession the following year, and of those who do, four out of 10 leave teaching within five years. There are as many people with teaching qualifications who are not teaching as there are with teaching qualifications who are teaching. There are teachers everywhere—except in schools. I am surprised that the Secretary of State does not understand just what a serious effect the collapse of morale has had.
Mr. Max Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that apart from low pay and the denial of negotiating rights, one reason for the collapse of morale among many teachers in places such as Bradford is the determination of local education authorities and the Government to push ahead with doctrinaire education policies in the face of public opposition? Is he aware, for instance, that the Minister of State revealed today that even though Bradford education authority had given an undertaking that it would postpone the magnet schools programme, it has put in bids for nearly £3 million for the development of such magnet schools in Bradford and has had secret meetings with the Minister of State to further that programme? Does he agree that that sort of deceit and duplicity is doing much to damage morale among teachers and to alienate parents from these unpopular and doctrinaire policies?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is surprising that the Secretary of State does not understand what effect a collapse of morale has upon the recruitment and retention of teachers.
In June 1976, a newish Conservative Back Bencher complained to the then Secretary of State for Social Services about near-record wastage in a profession. He said that, because of the low state of morale in the profession, the poor terms and conditions and the poor salary prospects, there had been a flight of individuals from it. That Back Bencher is now Secretary of State for Education and Science. He was referring to the medical profession, but the case that he made then applies equally to the teaching profession now.
Mr. James Pawsey: Medicine is an old and long established profession.
Mr. Straw: The point is exactly the same. In June 1976, the Secretary of State, then a Back Bencher, said that low morale and low pay had led to a flight of people fom the
268
profession. Exactly those circumstances are now leading to a flight from the teaching profession and to problems of retaining teachers.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall not give way, as I am about to conclude.
In his first three and a half months in office, this Secretary of State managed to visit just one school outside his constituency but did not manage to speak to any of the pupils about the effects of Government policy upon their school. Only someone who has kept himself holed up in Elizabeth house could possibly introduce this order or come out with the complacent claptrap that he and the Minister of State peddle about there being no serious problem in terms of a teacher shortage or teachers' pay.
Educational standards depend critically on the number and quality of teachers in our schools. Those requirements and teacher motivation will be maintained and increased only if negotiations are restored and teachers are better rewarded. We therefore oppose the order.
10.52 pm
Mr. David Madel: I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the cash increase for next year's financial settlement for teachers' pay. In common with my right hon. Friend, I hope that this will be the last occasion on which we must debate such an order. I hope that we shall have some form of new negotiating body in place next year. I also welcome what he said in his remit to the interim advisory committee about its need to extend local flexibility for teachers' salaries in 1990–91.
I hope that the IAC will pay exceptional attention to the high housing costs and the high travel-to-work costs in certain parts of the country. I hope that it will also remember the extra costs of implementing the national curriculum and all the extra work involved.
There is a move towards a common recognition of educational qualifications within the European Community. People hope that that policy goal will be achieved by 1993. To attain that goal, the highest educational standards and the best teaching must be achieved throughout the EC. It also demands the full implementation of the national curriculum in Britain. I hope that the Government will consider whether there are some areas where the European social fund could be used to tide us over when we run into difficulties about the payment of teachers' costs and salaries.
Educational reform has gone ahead at a tremendous speed and my right hon. Friend has already said that the implementation of that reform should not go ahead at such breakneck speed. The introduction of the important reforms relating to the national curriculum should be introduced at a slower pace. For 1990–91, the IAC should pay particular attention to the rates of pay for supply teachers and remember that different aptitudes are needed for being a supply teacher in a secondary school as opposed to a primary school.
Another point which I welcome, and to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred, is that he wants the education services and local authorities to consult widely with industry about how industry can help to alleviate teacher shortages. When we look at what industry already does in education, with the technical and

269
vocational education initiative and city technology colleges, it seems that industry is almost subsidising teachers' salaries. When the interim advisory committee is asked next year to consider the modification of selective payments in relation to teacher shortages in some subjects, it should also consider whether industry can temporarily directly subsidise teachers' salaries in some parts of the country for a certain period.
The impact of greater local flexibility in pay scales has an effect on the looming community charge. Local education authorities must be compensated properly from central Government if they have to bring in a host of local additional pay scales to ensure not only that the national curriculum is met, but that shortages elsewhere are overcome.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already given warnings about what inflation may do in the next financial year, and certainly in the next calendar year. Therefore, what the IAC recommends for 1990–91 could have an effect on the community charge and how it works out in relation to Government and the revenue support grant. Therefore, all I ask is that the Government do not contradict themselves. They must push ahead, quite rightly, with the national curriculum and solving teacher shortages, but they must not load the extra financial burden on areas which, through no fault of their own, have to grapple with teacher shortages.
With regard to the new negotiating machinery, I hope that we can reach a new teachers' incomes forum, call it what we will. However, three factors must be right before we can do so: first, the trade unions must work out a common position and speak with a single voice in any such forum; secondly, if we are to have a forum which has direct talks with employers, we must have a fallback position —a board of mediation which intervenes to overcome difficulties—rather than having teachers resorting to industrial action in the classroom. Built into the system there must be an automatic form of conciliation and mediation so that we do not slide into the classroom disruption that we experienced earlier this decade. Thirdly, if employers are to agree to this they must have a system which ensures that the settlements they make are met with the resources necessary to implement them.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will succeed in bringing forward new negotiating machinery, but if he fails we must accept that we cannot have a new negotiating system which takes local authorities into account. In that case we would have to pay teachers centrally, and grasp the financial nettle which that would entail.
10.58 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: I am glad of the opportunity to speak in this debate because I, like many parents in So,uthwark, am concerned about the teacher shortage in the borough. I shall give some examples of how the teacher shortage is hitting schools in Southwark and say how the Government should respond to it.
Some children at primary schools in my borough turn up at school not knowing whether they will be sent home or who their teacher will be. They may be in the same classroom as usual but with a different teacher. It may be
270
that their class and the children with whom they are used to working are divided into two and placed into other already overcrowded classrooms.
At one school in my constituency, children had been prepared by their parents during the summer holidays to begin school in September. But the school had to tell parents not to bring their children for the first day because there was no teacher for the reception class. Imagine the feelings of the parents and children, the children having talked to brothers and sisters about starting school and the parents having prepared them for the occasion. Because parents in that situation cannot tell their children when they are likely to start school, a great feeling of insecurity is created among parents and children. However secure and stable the home background, an insecure and unstable school situation creates a feeling of insecurity in the child.
A high percentage of probationers teach in my area, and there is a terrible dearth of experience. Heads and deputy heads cannot do the important work in school that they should be doing, because they are having to cover classes. Section 11 teachers are having to be in the classroom instead of doing the valuable work that they should be doing. Supply teachers are filling permanent vacancies instead of being available to cover for teachers on maternity and sick leave.
All that has a terrible effect on standards. Schools must hang on to their teachers and, when there are vacancies, there is no question of selecting from a mixed group of qualified teachers. Heads must take anybody who offers himself or herself for teaching. That, too, creates a feeling of insecurity among parents. The teacher may be perfectly adequate, but if it is known that there was no competition for the vacancy and no choice, morale is undermined. So, in addition to the problem of children being sent home, we have the insidious undermining effects of insufficient teachers and the result of that on the quality of education in primary schools.
The Government can do something to improve the situation. They are constantly talking about market forces. They cannot be paying teachers enough when we canot obtain sufficient teachers to teach in Southwark's primary schools. But it is also a question of the value that the Government place on teachers.
When attending the Labour party conference Brighton, I stayed with a friend who is a primary school teacher there. She was always awake at 6 o'clock in the morning preparing for the day's work and, however late I arrived home after conference fringe meetings, she was doing her papers and preparing for the following day's classes. Although she has two children, she assured me that the hard work and insufficient pay to meet her increased mortgage payments were not the only problem. Being committed to her work, she feels that the job is not given enough public recognition and value. The Government have an important role to play in that context.
Housing is another problem in that people cannot afford on a teacher's salary to buy or rent housing in Southwark. The Government must consider that problem if we are to resolve the teacher shortage.
In speaking of primary school teachers, we are referring to a largely female work force. If they are to return to teaching after maternity leave, they must be able to combine their working and family life, and that means more flexible hours, with the Government encouraging the provision of high quality child care for teachers, with after-school and school holiday provision. With female

271
teachers being expected to work to a male employment pattern, we must not be surprised if they do not return to teaching at the end of their maternity leave. It is not only a question of leaving this to the local education authority. The Government should take a lead in financing the provision and in highlighting and fostering good practice.
A child's first term and years at school are vital. The teacher shortage is jeopardising that start for the children of Southwark. The Secretary of State has a clear duty, and he must act.
11.5 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I declare an interest as a long-time member of the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. Like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I am a parliamentary adviser to that association.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his comments of recent months, in which he has fully acknowledged the commitment, dedication and professionalism of teachers in this country. Those qualities are widely recognised. There is certainly a problem of low morale in the teaching profession, but, like the president of the AMMA, I must say that too often teachers talk themselves down. That is a major problem, and it is not helped by some of the comments that have been made here this evening. I very much hope that problems of morale will start to be tackled by the teachers themselves.
I do not doubt that there is a strong case for better pay and conditions and for a better career structure for teachers. There are new and serious problems. There are teacher shortages, for instance, but as my right hon. Friend said, they represent about 1 per cent. of the work force. In many other professions, that would not be regarded as exceptional, and the problem is unevenly spread throughout teaching; it is uneven geographically and by specialty.
Attracting people back into the teaching profession will be a succsssful answer, I believe. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, there are as many graduate teachers outside as inside the profession. We should surely welcome them back with open arms. I advocate bringing into the classroom well qualified graduates who can be trained on the job.
I received an unsolicited letter from a constituent about this only this week. She says:
"Having seen, on South To-Day last night, Jack Straw pontificating on the question of employing graduates in schools without training except in school, I felt constrained to write to BBC South to point out that graduates could be employed in state schools without any further training in teaching until the 1970's."
My constituent graduated in modern languages. In 1965 she decided to teach and answered an advertisement placed by the Labour-controlled ILEA for graduates to teach in primary schools:
"I was then appointed as a qualified teacher, with no experience or training whatsoever, to a London Primary School. I learnt on the job with help from another untrained graduate! This was Labour Party policy when they were in office to overcome the shortage of teachers in London.
After moving to Salisbury I was employed in Secondary Schools both by Wiltshire and Hampshire County Councils as a qualified teacher…
It seems disgraceful that the BBC gives such prominence to Labour Party propaganda in suggesting that this is simply Conservative policy and therefore to be denigrated."
I must concur with that.
272
There is now in the teaching profession, particularly among its professional organisations, a welcome feeling of glasnost which I do not wish to upset. It must be recognised that there is a great deal of disquiet about the financial constraints—£600 million—on the interim advisory committee. They are widely resented, largely because they are misunderstood. I have tried as a former economics teacher to explain the nature of public spending rounds and the way in which we run the financial affairs of this country, but I must be rusty as I have not got very far. I invite my right hon. Friend to explain these constraints.
As my right hon. Friend said, we must move towards a permanent pay system. I hope that it will include a full and open role for Government. I do not want a return to the Burnham system, which led to breakdown. There is a spirit of realism in the teaching associations now, and the AMMA has written to me as follows:
"We hope that proposals will now evolve…towards a system where the Government has a full and open role, where the evidence and reasoning of particular cash figures can be debated sensibly."
It adds:
"We regret the continuation of the Act's provisions for another year, although we fully recognise that there is no better alternative yet available."
That is important, and that is why I shall support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this evening.
I have for a long time agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) that we must face the issue of teachers being paid centrally. A few years ago, with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), I visited Germany and became acquainted with the interesting system of mixed funding that prevails there. Teachers' salaries are paid centrally, but local communities have great autonomy over the extent to which they support their local schools. That is important, and with the advent of the community charge it will become more important. The system provides for parental support, and local taxation is accepted by the community, which recognises needs and wishes to meet them. That sort of flexibility would be allowed under the system which I have in mind.
We all want to see a well motivated, well paid, fully trained and effective teaching service. I believe that that is the aspiration, too, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
11.11 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: We live in a strange world—one in which teachers are asking to be allowed to negotiate but being told in effect that the matter will be arbitrated for them, while ambulance workers are asking for arbitration and being told that they must resume negotiations.
I am happy to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) who, like the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and me, is parliamentary adviser to one of the six leading teaching unions. One of the interesting pieces of background to the debate is that there is unanimity among the unions in opposing the idea of an imposed cash limit, which the Secretary of State has introduced. That idea effectively predetermines the outcome of the decisions of the interim advisory committee in January.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the order unless the Secretary of State or the Minister of State pulls something out of the fire. I think that the teaching

273
profession would accept only two courses. One would be a commitment that the day when negotiating rights are reinstated will never again be postponed, especially in the light of the ILO ruling. Secondly, there would have to be a commitment that the Secretary of State would lift the announced £600 million limit. If the right hon. Gentleman fails to take that action, we shall oppose the implementation of the order for strong reasons of principle as well as of practice, and I hope that some Conservative Members will take the same course.
It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) who elicited a response from the Minister of State to the effect that it was the Government's intention that a negotiating procedure should be in place by now. It is not as though the planning for that has taken place only in recent months. The Secretary of State gave us a date, and the Green Paper was submitted for consultation two years and two months ago. Yet there is still no sign of a conclusion to the deliberations on the Government's proposals. Clear undertakings were given by the then Secretary of State and the Minister of State, but they have been breached.
We are in clear breach of our undertakings as signatories to the ILO convention. Article 4 makes it clear that the Government are obliged to offer voluntary negotiations between employers and employees with independence of negotiating bodies, and that that is the way to regulate the terms and conditions. When the Government argued against that in their submissions to the ILO they were told that submissions to the IAC did not constitute voluntary negotiations, so commitments made both in the House and internationally have been broken.
A further constraint on the £600 million limit is not acceptable. It represents approximately a 7·4 per cent. increase across the board. The Secretary of State will know that to restore the morale of the profession and to reverse the trend of people leaving, we shall need a greater increase in many areas. It is paradoxical that, although the limit is fixed, the teachers have been asked in recent weeks to give their views on what the pay settlement should be. That is like appointing a judge and telling him or her to reach a judgment before hearing the evidence.
It is noticeable that the differences between the unions have faded away. The Secretary of State will have seen the letter which has been sent to all schools by the salaries campaign 1990. It bears the signatures of the general secretaries of the six unions. They are in agreement and state that they are in "unanimous opposition" to a predetermined constraint. They say that they have made that point to the current and previous Secretaries of State and they ask, even at this late stage, for the constraint to be lifted.
That is the prelude to tonight's debate. The hon. Member for Peckham, (Ms. Harman) mentioned the experience of people in one of the areas of acute teacher shortage and crisis. I am her parliamentary neighbour. On a practical basis, as I told the Minister of State a few days ago when she was good enough to see me, there is neither sufficient action nor sufficiently urgent action. That shows a lack of commitment. Teachers do not believe that the Government are committed to them, to their profession or to education. Because they do not believe that, they are not staying. Heads and teachers who have been in the
274
profession for 10 years or more are leaving because they do not feel sufficiently valued. Teachers are not applying to schools in high-stress areas, and some of the advertisements are going unanswered in areas which are in desperate need of teachers. That is taking place at the same time as reception and nursery classes are sent home and teachers are doubling up, covering for each other and coming under increasing stress.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of status implied by the award is having a severe impact on morale when teachers are working harder than ever to bring into play local management schemes and the national curriculum? That is putting a great strain on them, and they are not being rewarded adequately.
Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. It is the same in rural areas of Wales as in urban areas of England. As a result of the Education Reform Act 1988, teachers have been charged by the Government with considerably greater responsibility. They are being asked to take on the consequences of recent legislation, but they are finding it difficult to sustain the additional level of commitment when there is no recognition of their right to negotiate or any prospect of adequate remuneration. I wish that the Secretary of State and Ministers were more aware of the profession's concern. People in the profession want to convince the Government of that but, sadly, the Government do not seem to have been convinced. For that reason, we shall vote against the order.
11.18 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I listened with interest and reassurance to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the withdrawal of the right to negotiate one's wage or salary is a serious step. I supported that step for teachers' salaries in 1987 because at that time, once the majority of those involved in the teaching profession agreed that the Burnham arrangements were unworkable, there seemed to be no alternative. However, we are now two and a half years on. During that time it should have been possible to set up new negotiating machinery.
The Government may blame the unions for the failure to reach agreement, and the unions will undoubtedly blame the Government. I am not interested in allocating blame. My concern is for the teachers. Whoever is to blame, the Government had the overriding responsibility to ensure that the new body was set up in the time scale allowed in 1987. Their failure to do that and the resultant need to extend the order are difficult to accept, especially at present.
I could not in any way support the industrial action taken by some teachers in the mid-1980s, but since then teachers have coped admirably with the education reforms introduced. Change is never easy. For teachers, the changes in education have coincided with changes in society which have resulted in less respect for people in authority. Teachers come face to face with the results of that change every day.
The cumulative effect of all that, the trauma of the reforms, the changes in behaviour of pupils, the reductions in teachers' standing in the community and their inability to negotiate their pay are responsible for so many

275
long-serving, dedicated, experienced, excellent teachers leaving the profession. That is extremely worrying. Applications for entry into teacher training may well have increased by 15 per cent. this year, but we must stop the loss of teachers with years of experience.
The Government can do little about changes in society, but they can show their support for teachers and show that they understand the problems, first, by constantly recognising publicly the excellent work that the vast majority of teachers do—I am pleased that the Secretary of State does that—and, secondly, by paying teachers at a level which compensates for the additional problems that they face and which improves their standing in the community.
That cannot be done while this order is in place. It is a matter of regret that the order must be renewed, and I hope that this is the first and last time that the Government will seek to renew it. I hope that the establishment of the new negotiating body will be dealt with as a matter of the utmost urgency, as the Secretary of State promised. Otherwise, there will be a further loss of morale and of experienced teachers.
11.22 pm
Ms. Mildred Gordon: The Government's refusal to negotiate pay and conditions with the teachers' unions causes great resentment and makes our teachers feel that they are enslaved—in worse conditions than teachers anywhere in Europe.
In Tower Hamlets the position is critical. Hundreds of children cannot be placed in schools and hundreds more are in the hands of supply teachers—sometimes as many as 15 different teachers a year. That is child-minding, not teaching. When the matter was mentioned in the House the other day, the Prime Minister's reply was, in effect, "What a pity that they cannot come to my constituency where they would get the best education." What a solution. It would be nice if children could all be removed from the east end to a leafy suburb. However, a couple of days later I read in the Hendon Times, which covers the Prime Minister's constituency, that the London borough of Barnet was taking on licensed teachers—I nearly said unlicensed teachers, because that is what we used to call unqualified teachers—so the position cannot be so happy there either, although it is probably easier than in Tower Hamlets.
Teachers cannot come to Tower Hamlets because of the housing shortage, the high cost and difficulty of travel and because they cannot afford a place to live. The worse the shortage of staff, the more reluctant teachers are to come. In some areas teachers will not even apply for a post as head or deputy head because the task is impossible.
Recently the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teacherscarried out a survey which revealed the degree of stress on teachers. Sixty-six per cent. of serving teachers said that they would leave if they had the chance. There is a great increase in mental illness among teachers who are suffering from severe stress. Throughout the country there are people who have left teaching who have no intention of ever returning, whatever is offered. When the Government ask women who have left teaching to start a family to come back to teaching at the same time as the number of evening meetings is being increased, they are being ridiculous, as
276
such meetings make it quite impossible for mothers to take on a teaching job when, increasingly, they have to stay behind at school when their children have come home.
All teachers worthy of their salt keep good records and know how important good recording is, but the Government's new measures have introduced an entirely unbalanced situation of recording, with yearly profiles and formative and summative reports. Teachers are having to keep their classes quiet while they sit in front of them ticking boxes. They cannot find time to teach or prepare work because of the amount of recording and ticking of boxes that is required. They do not have enough free time to do their recording. Their task is becoming impossible.
Teachers bitterly resent the Baker days. They bitterly resent the fact that, throughout the country, in other professions, people are getting longer holidays, but five days of their holidays have been stolen. That rankles very much.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: They have 12 weeks.
Ms. Gordon: They do not do nothing in those 12 weeks. They take children on trips, they prepare their work for the coming year, and they need a restorative period because teaching is a profession of great physical and mental stress. If the hon. Gentleman has never taught, he should come and try it for a day or two in one of our local schools—he will see why teachers need a restorative period.
Hon. Members: He used to be a teacher.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I have been a teacher. Does the hon. Lady agree that Conservative Members appreciate teachers taking their children away for holidays and educational experiences, but that they need a holiday themselves when they come back?
Ms. Gordon: Yes, indeed, because they are working a 24-hour day on such holidays.
Another form of stress on teachers is the introduction of the national curriculum without sufficient teachers and without sufficient money. Teachers have marked the fact that the national curriculum is not being forced upon private schools. We have the worst working conditions in Europe. I hold my surgery in a sixth form centre. The women's toilet is partitioned off a room where there is a butler sink and a gas ring. It looks like something out of the 1930s, not the 1980s. That is where teachers are expected to prepare their lunch. The conditions in many schools are a crying disgrace.
We are scouring the world for teachers. We cannot get our own teachers to come back because of the appalling conditions. Yet when we get teachers from abroad, we treat them in a very uneven fashion. Teachers from New Zealand, for instance, sometimes have to spend years, waiting for their qualifications to be recognised. Teachers from Bangladesh with 14 years' experience who speak the mother tongue of the children in the schools are considered unqualified, but teachers from European countries, who often cannot understand the children, are considered qualified.
Teachers in our schools are watching the money that is being poured into the city technology colleges while their own schools are being starved of money. This order is just another nail in the coffin of state education. It will increase resentment and the seepage away from the teaching profession of well qualified, experienced, good teachers.
11.28 pm
Mr. Michael Carttiss: I declare an interest in that some years ago I was a member of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, but I do not advise it. I believe that free advice is a waste of time and that paid advice is a waste of money. I speak simply as someone who has been in the classroom as a teacher. When I left teaching, I eventually became chairman of an education committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I met many times in Norfolk to discuss education before he reached the office which I know that he will adorn with great success and to the great benefit of the education service nationally.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that this is an interim order for one more year. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) said that he hoped that this was the first and last time that such an order would come before the House. In fact, it is the third time that we have been asked to continue the life of the interim advisory committee.
I understand all the points that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in advancing the case for our supporting the measure today and I will have no difficulty in doing so because I know my right hon. Friend to be a man of his word. He was cautious in saying that it would be his aim to have the new negotiating machinery in existence in time for the next round of pay awards. I am sure that he will do his best to meet that aim, but we have to tell him that he must meet it.
I have strongly supported the Government's employment legislation because it is important that in a free society everyone should have the right not to belong to a union. I also believe, however, subject to the obvious constraints of national security and the public interest which apply to some occupations, that people should equally have the right to belong to a union and that that union should be able to represent them. I regret that the teachers' unions are denied the opportunity to engage in negotiations on their pay. I do not blame the Government for that. Teachers must accept a large measure of responsibility. I cannot understand why the teachers' organisations have never been able to sink their differences and get together to approach the Government with a clear-cut idea of how they would like their salaries and conditions to be dealt with. They never come along.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) quoted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talking about a shortage of doctors in 1966, as though that had anything to do with us now. The power of the British Medical Association, lately abused in its idiotic approach to the National Health Service reforms, has nevertheless enabled that profession to achieve a great deal for its members, which teachers, too, should be able to obtain if they were united in their approach to their problems.
I would not go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) in all that he said, but he made one of the most powerful speeches that we have heard on this subject. Everyone has spoken extraordinarily well, but my hon. Friend encapsulated succinctly many of the concerns that inform all of us who are keen to see a successful education service.
278
Teacher shortages go in cycles. I do not want to minimise the problems that the education service is experiencing today. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that on the schools sub-committee agenda for Norfolk county council tomorrow for the first time ever there is an item dealing with teacher shortages. We have never had difficulties recruiting teachers in Norfolk, but we are beginning to do so—and if we are beginning to have problems in Norfolk, whatever must it be like in other parts of the country?
It is no good my right hon. Friend pretending that the problem does not exist. It is no use pretending that, while money will not solve everything, we can expect a highly motivated teaching profession if we do not reward teachers accordingly.
Many teachers do not deserve as much as they get. I deeply regret that in the one reform with which the Government should have gone ahead rapidly—teacher appraisal—they have backed off because they are not prepared to fund the additional teachers who would be necessary to introduce the properly run teacher appraisal scheme that many teachers would like to see. If I am wrong on that and my hon. Friend the Minister of State can reassure me when she replies, I will take back what I have said. Nevertheless, I am still worried about the attitude on some of these issues.
The teacher shortage is cyclical. The year 1966 has been quoted, but I started teaching in 1959, as a student with no qualifications. We were so short of teachers that we were appointing people on the basis that they had A-levels and the offer of a place at college. We were also appointing teachers with just one year's mature training, straight out of the services. I trained with some of those people and they were first class, but let us not pretend that it is good for the teaching profession to solve shortages in that way.
The Government must get their act together on teacher negotiations. There must be a body to deal with conditions. Teachers must also stop bleating about low morale. There have always been teachers who do not like their jobs. I know that they are required to do more, but the more they tell us about their suffering and their breakdowns, and how difficult their job is, the more one wonders whether they are the right people to be in those jobs. If they are not the right people, the negotiating body must be the right mechanism to attract more of the right people into the profession.
11.36 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) ended on a sad note. Nobody hearing that ungracious remark would ever think that he had taught.
The last negotiated pay settlement for teachers was in April 1986. In 1987, the then Secretary of State imposed the interim advisory council and settlements for 1988 and 1989. The year 1990 is now coming, and if this continues for a year after, it will mean that, for five years, the democratic machinery of trade unionism will have been abandoned by the Government. As my hon. Friends have said, the Government were denounced for violating the International Labour Organisation convention, which has existed for a long time. The ILO is a United Nations body, so the Government have contravened international law. No other nation has done this. it is disgraceful that that should have been imposed on the teachers when at the

279
same time the Secretary of State was attacking the teaching profession and trying to split its ranks. Instead, they have been united because the Government have driven them into such a corner that they have decided to get together.
The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act became law early in 1987, and the Government said that it was only a temporary measure. They needed such a draconian measure because they could not get what they wanted to impose on the teachers through free democratic negotiation, because the teachers were resisting them. Therefore, they imposed their diktat and destroyed the negotiating machinery, saying that it would be for only a year.
It is sad to see how easily Tory Members go along with violations of democracy when they are done by their Government, but denounce everybody else. I would never have thought to hear from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) some of the things that he said today. He jollied us along with a heap of anti-democratic proposals under the guise that they came from the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. It is one of the bodies that have written to the Secretary of State demanding the right to a negotiating machinery. The letter says:
"We are equally agreed that teachers should have genuine participation in the determination of teachers' pay and conditions whatever the nature of the machinery."
If I read the whole letter, it would strengthen what I said. Five other bodies, including the Professional Association of Teachers, signed that letter.
During the period of consultation on the Education Reform Bill, head teachers drew attention to the teacher shortages, and in his evidence to the Select Committee, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers pointed out that the shortage was becoming "a catastrophe". Conservative Members who have cited the figure of 1 per cent. grossly under-estimate the problem. It is as though they do not want to solve it and will not face reality.
Now that the Government have imposed this draconian measure, they are in such an economic mess that they cannot find their way out. They have decided once again to hold down teachers' pay and conditions and imperil the education of our children. Let me make it clear that it is not the education of their children—
Mr. Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Flannery: No, I do not have time to give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I would if he had spoken more briefly.
All the members of the Cabinet—with perhaps one exception—went to public and preparatory schools. Conservative Members criticise a Health Service that they do not use and an education service into which they do not send their children. [Interruption.] One of them may have done, but the reality is as I have explained.
The Government were condemned by the ILO in May 1988 for denying teachers their negotiating rights and breaking a convention to which they themselves were a signatory. We appeal to the Minister to fulfil his promise, although if the Government can remove negotiating rights for five years, there is no reason to have any faith whatever that they will restore them at the end of the fifth year. They are eminently capable of imposing the conditions once more. They have got themselves into an impasse by their actions, their leadership election and all the other nonsense that they are crying about, and they are ready once again
280
to impose the conditions on teachers. It is the Government who are the cause of the low morale in the teaching profession and of the shortage of teachers, about which the Select Committee is trying—against the Tory party's wishes—to publish an important report. It is vital to show the real picture.
Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, as a long-standing teacher, that since the early 1970s, when teachers had their morale restored and were given a decent salary increase arising from the Houghton report, teachers' morale, the conditions in which they work and the rewards that the Government make available to them have continued to deteriorate, and that the responsibility now lies with the Government to put matters right?
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) is absolutely right that things have gone downhill since 1974—[HoN. MEMBERS: "1974?"] In 1974, the Houghton report gave teachers the lift to which the hon. Member for Antrim, East referred. Did not Conservative Members know that? But in the past 10 years, things have gone steeply downhill, to the plaudits of Conservative Members. It is up to the Government to set matters right. Otherwise, the education of our children will be as ruined as the British economy now is.
11.43 pm
Mr. David Evennett: As a former teacher and also a member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, I was appalled at the speech made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). He finds it easy to criticise and condemn, but his speech lacked any constructive suggestion. Opposition Members generally have had nothing constructive to say about teachers' pay and conditions; their remarks have been appalling.
Conservative Members believe that teachers are a vital part of our education service and our nation and that they should be paid a decent salary for the important job that they have to do. The education of our children is vital, both for individual children and for the future of our country. Historically, Opposition Members seem to have forgotten how the Burnham committee worked. It was a total and complete failure. It did not work effectively, because the whole aspect of teachers' pay and conditions was not considered. It considered only the annual pay review. In the past few years, the interim advisory committee has been quite successful at formulating teachers' pay. However, it is interim and temporary. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we are looking for a permanent structure to determine teachers' pay in the future.
We have heard many reasons why no permanent structure has been created to date. One of the most important of those reasons must be that the teachers' unions are not united in their approach. It has been very difficult to achieve agreement across the teachers' unions. We have heard that the teachers want more money, but there has been no general agreement about the machinery to formulate teachers' pay negotiations in future. The IAC has therefore been necessary.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there are already shortages of teachers in key subjects and in certain regions. However, we must not overstate the

281
problem. It is easy to talk about the problems and make them worse. There are limited problems but that does not mean that they are not serious, because they are.
As a Member of Parliament representing an area in greater London, I believe that the problems are greater in London than elsewhere. The London allowance is totally inadequate for teachers working and living in London today. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House today, as he told the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts last week, that the IAC is considering that, and we look forward to the Select Committee's comments.
I should like to see more emphasis on supply and demand in teaching recruitment and pay, more local bargaining and more regional agreements. I believe most passionately that living costs in greater London are different from those elsewhere in the country. That factor must be considered when we are looking at teachers' pay.
We obviously need a well trained, well paid professional teaching force. We owe teachers a great deal. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) was wrong to say that Conservative Members do not appreciate the difficult job that teachers have to do. We want them to be paid a decent salary, but we must look at the whole problem and not just at specific parts of it.
We need a new body to negotiate teachers' pay and conditions, and we look to next year with great interest. Conservative Members hope that this is the last time that we have to debate and discuss an interim advisory award and an extension of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987. Under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we shall get there, and we shall have a good new negotiating body which will do the best for the teaching profession.
11.48 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Two main themes have run through the debate—the quality of education, and the democratic rights of teachers. It was very interesting to note that every hon. Member who spoke was prepared to accept that we are now facing a crisis in the supply of teachers and that we have a teacher shortage. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) even went so far as to say that, if the problems had come to Norfolk, they must be deep elsewhere.
I suspect that one discordant voice will not recognise the problem of teacher shortage, and it will be that of the Minister of State. At the beginning of this term, when she was presented with the figures on teacher shortages and vacancies, she said that they were "very encouraging". They do not seem to encourage Conservative Members, nor do they encourage parents. As my hon. Friends the Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and others have said, parents are concerned about the quality of education. They are concerned in London and in the inner-London boroughs because there may not be a teacher in front of the class. Parents in many parts of the country are concerned because there are hidden shortages and because a teacher in front of a class may not be qualified to teach the subject on the timetable. They are concerned because they know that the problem of the supply teacher may get worse.
282
The Minister may have recourse to the Prime Minister's response to me during the debate on the Queen's Speech. The answer, she said, for all parents and children in inner London is to live in Barnet. Does that not show total contempt and disregard for the children and parents of this country and for the quality of our children's education?
Conservative Members talk about teacher supply and say that they are now concerned about teachers. I am pleased that Central Office has now supplied them with a new script and that they are talking to it. In the early years of this Government, every Conservative Member used to denigrate the teaching profession and run down teachers' contributions.
Mr. Key rose—
Mr. Fatchett: I cannot give way.
That is why there has been such a collapse in teacher morale. The Secretary of State shakes his head and says that that is not true. Let me pose two more questions to him about teacher supply and morale. First, I refer to the £600 million envelope on the interim advisory committee recommendations for this year. The right hon. Gentleman knows, as every Conservative Member knows, that that figure will lead to a reduction in teachers' real living standards. How will we attract people into the teaching profession if we are to run from paying teachers what they need and what they deserve? This country should value their contribution to our society and economic well-being.
My second question is about democratic rights. How are we to restore teachers' morale when we hear from the Minister of State that teachers' democratic rights are still not to be restored and there is still no definite promise from the Secretary of State? As the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth said, the Secretary of State chose his words very deliberately. It is his aim to restore collective bargaining machinery. We heard those words from the previous Secretary of State in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989, and we have heard them from the Minister of State. When will the Government act and turn that promise into reality?
The Government are quickly turning an interim, temporary arrangement into a permanent arrangement. I suspect that teachers will simply not believe the Secretary of State and the Minister of State when they say that this year is the final year for the interim advisory committee. Teachers have good reasons for that. The previous Secretary of State, backed up by Conservative Members, at a stroke wrote away teachers' democratic rights to bargain with their employer, so why should they believe the Government now? Why should they believe a Government who, under section 222 of the Education Reform Act 1988, challenged the employment rights of teachers and others in the teaching professions? Why should they believe a Government who take away from workers at GCHQ the right to belong to a trade union? Why should they believe a Government who, in consecutive Employment Acts, have taken away from workers rights that are enjoyed throughout the rest of western Europe? Why should they believe a Government who so passionately and dogmatically resist the social charter? This is a Government whose record on employment rights stinks, and that is why teachers simply do not believe them.
What we want to hear from the Minister of State is not just a name or an objective but what the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) said, a real commitment and

283
a real promise that this is the last occasion on which teachers will have their pay fixed by the Secretary of State. We want to hear a real commitment to the restoration of collective bargaining.
We shall oppose the order in the Division tonight and make one final promise to the teachers: in two years, when there is a Labour Government, we shall restore collective bargaining to teachers.
12.56 am
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): We have had an interesting debate and I have noted with pleasure the number of hon. Members who have made a contribution this evening. It has been interesting not only because we have heard from several hon. Members who represent London constituencies and who have expressed their concerns about the situation of teacher supply, recruitment and retention in the London area, but because we have also heard from colleagues of all parties who have been teachers in the past.
At the outset, I should say that I hope that all hon. Members will vote for the order, if for no other reason, for the very good reason that without a clear vote for the order, the recommendations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will receive from the interim advisory committee will not be able to pass through the House and into teachers' salaries next year, which would be a great mistake. Of course, many teachers throughout the country will note those hon. Members who did not wish to give them the rewards to which we believe they are entitled.
Several hon. Members have spoken about teacher morale and have made their points in various ways. Some have said that teacher morale is low because of the circumstances in which they find themselves, especially in inner cities and in London—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Everywhere."] It is particularly important to realise that there are difficulties for hon. Members representing London. We have been talking with the London education authorities-to-be following the abolition of the Inner London education authority. A number of those authorities are taking the retention and recruitment of teachers extremely seriously and are making intelligent plans, such as those to which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) referred, including recruiting married women back into the profession.
Like several of my ministerial colleagues, I spend a considerable amount of time in schools talking to teachers about their conditions and about the new national curriculum and many of the things coming into schools at present. When one discusses with teachers the introduction of the national curriculum and of local management schemes, one finds a great deal of enthusiasm for the new ways in which the schemes are going to be taken on in their schools. They recognise the great improvements for the children of this country from the introduction of the national curriculum and the ability to run their own schools with their own budgets. They see possibilities in that for the schools to achieve better value for their budgets and for better resourcing, because they are managing their schools as governors and teachers.
When it comes to considering the interim advisory committee and the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor have had with the teacher unions, it has been said that we have not been
284
moving very fast. I must point out to the Opposition that discussions have taken place for a number of months about, for example, the Green Paper published for discussion with the unions. That document made important proposals for a teacher negotiating group that gave some rights to the Government to intervene should that group not reach satisfactory conclusions.
After extensive discussions with the teacher unions over a considerable time, it was not possible for the unions to agree. For that reason, a new set of proposals were put to the teacher unions and to the local education authority employers earlier this year. My right hon. Friend has already said that those proposals included the possibility of a new negotiating body composed of the unions and local education authority representatives, which might also include Government participation. Another proposal related to local negotiations. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) warmly welcomed the possibility of introducing some form of local negotiation. My hon. Friend and others have recognised the difficulties encountered in the home counties and in London in recruiting as successfully as other less costly parts of the country. The third possibility related to some form of review body.
Those various proposals are currently under discussion by the unions and the employers, and they are showing considerable interest in them. My right hon. Friend wants those talks to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Although he has been in office for only a relatively short time, he has already managed to conclude a complete round of discussions with the interested parties. That shows conclusively that he is extremely interested in making progress on this matter. Hon. Members must therefore accept the good faith that he has demonstrated.
My right hon. Friend, other Ministers and myself have been accused tonight of under-estimating and undervaluing teachers. My right hon. Friend has gone to great lengths to demonstrate his genuine belief that teachers are doing an excellent job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) asked about appraisal. My right hon. Friend asked the teachers if they would postpone the introduction of appraisal because he understands the pressures to which our teachers are now subject with the introduction of the national curriculum and local management schemes. That request was not made because my right hon. Friend does not want appraisal to be introduced—he knows full well that the teachers are anxious for such appraisal to be introduced. As soon as the national curriculum and the local management schemes are operating, it will be possible to introduce the appraisal scheme. I believe that all hon. Members want that.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) noted the letter that had been signed by the six leaders of the teacher unions. We are glad that those unions have agreed on at least three points in that joint letter. That letter is significantly briefer than the individual representations from those unions to my right hon. Friend. Therefore, we must continue to have discussions. We shall have those discussions in good faith, and I hope that the House will vote for the order.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 181.

Division No. 9]

[12.3 am

AYES

Adley, Robert

Gardiner, George

Aitken, Jonathan

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Alexander, Richard

Gill, Christopher

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Goodlad, Alastair

Amess, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Amos, Alan

Gow, Ian

Arbuthnot, James

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Ashby, David

Gregory, Conal

Aspinwall, Jack

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Atkins, Robert

Hague, William

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Baldry, Tony

Hanley, Jeremy

Batiste, Spencer

Hannam, John

Bendall, Vivian

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

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Harris, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hayward, Robert

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Heddle, John

Body, Sir Richard

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hind, Kenneth

Boswell, Tim

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Bottomley, Peter

Howard, Michael

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Brazier, Julian

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Bright, Graham

Hunter, Andrew

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

Irvine, Michael

Browne, John (Winchester)

Jack, Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Jackson, Robert

Buck, Sir Antony

Janman, Tim

Budgen, Nicholas

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Burns, Simon

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Burt, Alistair

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Butler, Chris

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Butterfill, John

Key, Robert

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Carrington, Matthew

Kirkhope, Timothy

Carttiss, Michael

Knapman, Roger

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Chope, Christopher

Knowles, Michael

Churchill, Mr

Knox, David

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

Lang, Ian

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Latham, Michael

Colvin, Michael

Lawrence, Ivan

Conway, Derek

Lee, John (Pendle)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lightbown, David

Couchman, James

Lilley, Peter

cran, James

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

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

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Day, Stephen

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Dorrell, Stephen

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Maclean, David

Dover, Den

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dunn, Bob

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Durant, Tony

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Dykes, Hugh

Madel, David

Eggar, Tim

Malins, Humfrey

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Mans, Keith

Evennett, David

Maples, John

Fallon, Michael

Marland, Paul

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Marlow, Tony

Fishburn, John Dudley

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Forman, Nigel

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Maude, Hon Francis

Forth, Eric

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Fox, Sir Marcus

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Freeman, Roger

Miller, Sir Hal

French, Douglas

Mills, Iain

Gale, Roger

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

286

Mitchell, Sir David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Moate, Roger

Shelton, Sir William

Monro, Sir Hector

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Shersby, Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Neale, Gerrard

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Nelson, Anthony

Squire, Robin

Neubert, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Nicholls, Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Stern, Michael

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Stevens, Lewis

Norris, Steve

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Page, Richard

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Patnick, Irvine

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Sumberg, David

Pawsey, James

Summerson, Hugo

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Portillo, Michael

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Price, Sir David

Thurnham, Peter

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Trippier, David

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Twinn, Dr Ian

Riddick, Graham

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wheeler, John

Rost, Peter

Widdecombe, Ann

Rowe, Andrew

Wiggin, Jerry

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wood, Timothy

Ryder, Richard

Sackville, Hon Tom

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sayeed, Jonathan

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mr. Greg Knight.

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Crowther, Stan

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Cryer, Bob

Allen, Graham

Cummings, John

Alton, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Anderson, Donald

Cunningham, Dr John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dalyell, Tam

Armstrong, Hilary

Darling, Alistair

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Dewar, Donald

Barron, Kevin

Dixon, Don

Battle, John

Dobson, Frank

Beckett, Margaret

Doran, Frank

Beggs, Roy

Douglas, Dick

Beith, A. J.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Bell, Stuart

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Eadie, Alexander

Bermingham, Gerald

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bidwell, Sydney

Fatchett, Derek

Blair, Tony

Faulds, Andrew

Blunkett, David

Fisher, Mark

Boyes, Roland

Flannery, Martin

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Foster, Derek

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Foulkes, George

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Fraser, John

Buckley, George J.

Fyfe, Maria

Caborn, Richard

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Callaghan, Jim

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gordon, Mildred

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Gould, Bryan

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Canavan, Dennis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Grocott, Bruce

Clay, Bob

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clelland, David

Henderson, Doug

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hinchliffe, David

Cohen, Harry

Home Robertson, John

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hood, Jimmy

Corbett, Robin

Howells, Geraint

Cousins, Jim

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

287

Hoyle, Doug

Pendry, Tom

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Pike, Peter L.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Prescott, John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Ingram, Adam

Radice, Giles

Janner, Greville

Randall, Stuart

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Reid, Dr John

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Robertson, George

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Lamond, James

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Leadbitter, Ted

Rowlands, Ted

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Sedgemore, Brian

Lewis, Terry

Sheerman, Barry

Livingstone, Ken

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Livsey, Richard

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

Short, Clare

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Skinner, Dennis

McAllion, John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McAvoy, Thomas

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

McCrea, Rev William

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Soley, Clive

McFall, John

Spearing, Nigel

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Steinberg, Gerry

McLeish, Henry

Stott, Roger

McNamara, Kevin

Strang, Gavin

Madden, Max

Straw, Jack

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marek, Dr John

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Turner, Dennis

Maxton, John

Vaz, Keith

Meacher, Michael

Wall, Pat

Meale, Alan

Wallace, James

Michael, Alun

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wareing, Robert N.

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Morgan, Rhodri

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Morley, Elliot

Wigley, Dafydd

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Mowlam, Marjorie

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Mullin, Chris

Winnick, David

Murphy, Paul

Worthington, Tony

Nellist, Dave

Wray, Jimmy

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Young, David (Bolton SE)

O'Brien, William

O'Neill, Martin

Tellers for the Noes:

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Paisley, Rev Ian

Mr. Frank Cook.

Patchett, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 7th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

PETITIONS

  Wages Councils
  12.15 am
  Ms. Joyce Quin: I wish to present a petition on behalf of about 8,000 people in Gateshead and other parts of the county of Tyne and Wear who wish to protest against the proposal to abolish the wages councils. The petitioners are concerned at the large number of people in the north-east who have to live on very low wages, below the Council of Europe decency threshold, and who have fewer employment rights than people in virtually every other country of the Community.
  The petition reads:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Employment to withdraw the proposals on the abolition of the wages councils and work towards the introduction of a basic minimum wage and an extension of current Employment Protection in line with TUC agreed policies.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Broadcasting (Deaf People)
  12.16 am
  Dame Jill Knight: I seek to present a petition signed by 650 people, not all of whom are my constituents, but all the signatures were collected by my constituents. The petitions asks for more access to television for deaf people through the use of teletext. The part of the petition to which I draw particular attention is:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will ensure that legislation be passed placing an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using teletext, subtitles, sign language or other means, and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  12.18 am
  Mr. Iain Mills: I should be most grateful to be allowed to present not one but two petitions, both on behalf of those who would like better access to the entertainment and interest of television but who are deaf.
  The first petition has been presented to me by Mr. Austin Reeves of Balsall Common who, despite the handicap of deafness, is secretary to the Deaf Broadcasting Association and a tireless worker on behalf of those who try to achieve better facilities for deaf people. I have supported his work for many years.
  The second petition is from Mrs. Lister of Knowle in my constituency, whose son Jonathan prompted her to take tireless trouble to ensure that there are so many signatures that I hold two huge bundles of thousands of them. The petition reads:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will ensure that legislation be passed placing an obligation on the television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using teletext, subtitles, sign language or other means and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date.
  Adding a final thought about the coverage of this House on television, I beg leave to present the petitions.
  To lie upon the Table.
  12.19 am
  Mr. Andy Stewart: I am pleased to present a petition, which is signed by my constituents and others, on behalf of the deaf and the hard of hearing. It bears more than 500 signatures, and urges that the 4 million of our fellow citizens who have little or no hearing should be able to enjoy television programmes through the far greater provision of teletext subtitling and sign language to accompany programmes. The advent of television in the House emphasises the need for such facilities, and the forthcoming broadcasting Bill provides an opportunity to oblige the BBC and television companies to provide it.
  The petition reads:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will ensure legislation be passed placing an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using teletext subtitles, sign language or other means, and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Homelessness (West Yorkshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
12.20 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I wish to highlight the lack of awareness shown by the Government of homelessness outside London and the south-east. I do not begrudge a penny that is used to alleviate homelessness wherever it occurs.
I draw the Minister's attention to the excellent report that has been produced by Shelter in Yorkshire and Humberside, which is entitled "Housing Myths—Northern Version". By using Government and local authority statistics, Shelter firmly exposes the myth that there is no homelessness in the north. In 1988, almost 9,500 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. In west Yorkshire alone, there were 4,551, and more than 12,000 presented themselves as homeless. These figures relate only to households eligible for housing under the Housing Act 1985, which places a responsibility on councils to house those who are homeless and in priority need. I believe that the definition set out in the Act is inadequate and needs redefining.
In the local authority of Calderdale, which comes within my constituency, 271 households were accepted as homeless in 1988, yet 1,158 presented themselves as homeless. The director of housing, Mr. Brian Fairclough, said:
"For every homeless person known to the authority, there are at least twice as many who we do not know about. Most young single homeless do not show up on the statistics, and nobody knows exactly how many there are."
We know, however, that in the past five years homelessness has doubled in Calderdale, while in the country as a whole it has taken 10 years to double. That is a worrying trend by any yardstick. In the past 12 months there has been a increase of over 20 per cent. Even more worrying is the fact that, during July, August and September, 281 single-parent or parent-with-children households were recognised as homeless. That is an increase of 17 per cent. on the previous quarter.
These figures expose the myth that homelessness is only a big city problem. Most housing experts recognise that that is so. In its briefing on the Autumn Statement, the Institute of Housing stressed that areas other than London and the south-east needed resources. I contend that that means areas such as west Yorkshire.
There is a growing national problem and local councils find it increasingly difficult to deal with it. At the beginning of 1988, 43 per cent. of homeless households, as accepted by councils, were living outside the inner cities. In Calderdale, as I am sure that the Minister is aware, there is 75 per cent. owner-occupation. That is a higher than average percentage, because there is much low-cost terrace housing in the area. Also, we are faced with the same problem as many other authorities in that we have been badly hit by the right to buy and by Government restrictions on council building. That has led to a shrinking of housing stock at an affordable rent. As a result, people on low incomes are stretching themselves to the limit in order to buy. Those are the very people who can least deal with the current high interest rates, and will end up as part of the homeless statistics.

291
Until now, many people have sold up before repossession because they have seen a way out and tried to find rented accommodation or some other alternative. Also, building societies have been tolerant and have acted responsibly. However, time is running out. Building societies are answerable to shareholders and accountants and there is a time bomb ticking away of which we are not yet aware. The Government are betraying the very people they say they want to help. With the high number of home owners in my constituency and the high incidence of low pay, I am sure that the Minister will understand why I am worried about the problem.
Young homeless people are totally ignored by the Housing Act 1985 and by the Government's review of homelessness. When that group become homeless, they are not eligible for rehousing. No matter how caring a local authority is, they are not a priority under the 1985 Act. Recent research carried out for the Government showed that, on average, single people under 26 represent only 7 per cent. of acceptances by local authorities.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Is my hon. Friend aware of the direct consequence in terms of homelessness for young people in West Yorkshire of the provisions of the Social Security Act 1988? Is she aware of the growing concern among social workers and probation officers in West Yorkshire about the increasing number of young people—male and female—who become involved in prostitution because they have no other means of survival?
Mrs. Mahon: I also attended a briefing at which social workers told us about that problem. I know that my hon. Friend has had to deal with such cases in his surgery. It is a tragedy.
In 1988, my local authority, in partnership with Stonham housing association, put forward an imaginative scheme for the provision of furnished flats—Hebble court in Mixenden—for 16 to 25-year-olds. Some of them were ex-offenders and the scheme had the support of the Home Office. That scheme has now collapsed because of Government cuts in benefit. That confirms the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).
The targeted age groups could not afford to meet their outgoings from income support and housing benefit. It is a disgrace to have in Halifax a problem of homelessness of the young coupled with empty but usable buildings and no mechanism to bring them together. The costs of the project were economical and effective, especially when compared with the high cost of institutional care. The cost in human terms is immeasurable.
In Halifax last year the housing department estimated that there were over 1,000 young people with nowhere to live. Those are the people we know about. Many do not bother to apply to the council because they know that they do not stand a chance. It is a fallacy and it is cruel to suggest, as did the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, that they have a roof over their head and that they demand a free home. We are often talking about youngsters who have had little chance in life, who have lived in care and who do not have the support of a loving family. We may also be talking about youngsters who have been abused at home or who left the family because of some form of breakdown. It is disgraceful for a Secretary of State, who is supposedly responsible for the more vulnerable in society, to make such a remark. I should love
292
to recommend the Minister to read the report of case studies that I have received from Shelter in West Yorkshire. It links poverty and homelessness among 18-year-olds to the Government's benefit cuts in 1988.
Earlier this month, the Government announced a £250 million package to help the homeless in London and the south-east. We welcome any help for the problem wherever it is, but it is worth pointing out that Shelter and other reputable organisations have estimated that the £250 million is enough to repair 10,000 houses only. Not a penny is coming to the north. It goes to areas where the Government are embarrassed by the visible presence of the homeless or to constituencies in the south-east of Tory Back Benchers who have got on to them. We are entitled to ask about the 9,500 homeless households in Yorkshire and Humberside. Why are they invisible? Why cannot the Government recognise the problem in Bradford, Kirklees, Leeds or Wakefield? Why do the Government think that only one part matters? They have a nerve to say that they have no intention of subsidising inefficiency. They have deliberately starved councils of money for repairing and building housing.
This year, my authority is asking for £35 million for its housing investment programme. Last year, it was granted less than £2·5 million. The local authority estimates that it will cost about £8 million to bring the stock up to date. Government policy is inadequate and disastrous. The Government should give the local authorities the resources that they need to cope. Most of all, we need the Government to recognise that a home is a fundamental right.
12.31 am
Mr. John Battle: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for allowing me to take part in this brief debate. It is inexcusable that so far the Government have not initiated a debate on the homeless crisis in Government time so that it can be given a proper airing and full consideration by Parliament. I shall highlight one feature where the interaction of social policy in the social fund is compounding the problem of homelessness because people in hostels cannot move from them.
It was encouraging that the Government's recently published homelessness review at last accepted that homelessness was caused by a shortage of homes to rent, especially for those on low incomes. The northern region has experienced a 10 per cent. rise in homelessness during 1988. It also has the highest proportion of poor quality housing. The money recently made available for the next two years will be divided between councils which will get £117 million and housing associations which will get £73 million. It will go to schemes in the London boroughs and the following districts: Essex, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, East and West Sussex, Kent and the Isle of Wight. It is difficult not to ask why none of those resources can go to West Yorkshire, which has the same needs.
In the current financial year, Leeds city council hid for permission to borrow £97·6 million for its housing investment programme. The Government approved an allocation of only £15·5 million. This year's bid document states:
"The regional office of the Department of the Environment are satisfied that last year's submission represented a comprehensive statement of needs across a

293
whole range of housing problems of the city and do not require repetition in detail…A further year, therefore, has started where it is not possible to make significant inroads into the range and scale of housing problems. If anything this lack of investment compounds the problem for the future."
It is that lack of investment, that short-termism, which is the real waste and the real test of inefficiency in the Government's policy.
The practical impact of reduced resources in Leeds has been an escalation of homelessness, to the extent that it is now estimated that 300 people are accepted as homeless each month, 150 of them young people. During the past few weeks, that number has increased as a result of relationship breakdowns and people finding themselves in difficulty with mortgage repayments because of high interest rates. Meanwhile, there has been a decrease of more than 2,000 in the number of local authority properties during the past two years. Because the housing stock is diminishing as a result of discount sales under the right to buy, there is little permanent accommodation on offer. As a result, more people have to go into the hostels in Leeds such as Brett Gardens, Richmond Court or Mount Cross.
The problem is that the pressure on temporary accommodation is such that two or three families have to share units. They even have to sleep on the floor or be put up in the play room. There are 70 families in units for 31 —and that is temporary accommodation.
There is one barrier to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. It is the working of the cash-limited social fund which, in 1988, replaced single payments. The cash-limited arrangements for social fund loans and community care grants means that the local Department of Social Security office cannot make an offer of assistance, sometimes for up to six weeks, because it has spent that month's allowance. More than half the 70 families in the units for 31 have had offers of a transfer to permanent accommodation lined up by the council, but they cannot move because the grants and loans designed to help them set up a new home are not available. In other words, the DSS social fund arrangements are trapping people into temporary hostel accommodation when they could be in their own homes.
The Government should not tell us about empty properties that are kept empty by councils when the social fund makes it impossible for people to move into their own homes. The Minister should ask his counterpart in the Department of Social Security to break that logjam, otherwise care in the community will unfortunately remain one of the Government's slogans but be beggared by the inefficient working of the social fund.
Today I received a report from Leeds citizens advice bureau entitled, "Homes and Money". The covering letter said:
"At Leeds CAB we are very concerned currently about the growth in our housing caseload, particularly in connection with homelessness and householders faced with possession proceedings. Our experience confirms that actual and threatened homelessness is an increasingly severe problem in Leeds."
My surgery experience and what my colleagues in Leeds tell me bear witness to the accuracy of that statement.
On Friday, the Yorkshire region's radio station is to have a phone-in programme on homelessness. I am informed that the Minister for Housing and Planning, the
294
hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), has said that he cannot take part in the questioning session but that he will make a telephoned-in statement at the end. I invite the Minister to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider that decision. The people of West Yorkshire are not convinced that housing can be provided by the market alone. They want their questions about the right to a home being a basic need to be answered. They want the right to rent at a price that they can afford. If the Minister is not prepared to take part properly in that programme, the only conclusion that the people of West Yorkshire can draw is that the Government's housing policy is calculated, callous and indefensible.
12.38 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who was lucky enough to secure the debate, has spoilt her case slightly through exaggeration and a rather negative attitude, which was perpetuated by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).
All hon. Members recognise that homelessness, wherever it occurs, is a problem that must be tackled, and that is true whether the homeless are in west Yorkshire, or anywhere else in the country. However, fair-minded hon. Members will accept that the scale and intensity of the problem varies greatly from one place to another.
The Government have recently completed their review of homelessness and I was disappointed that there was only the most grudging acceptance on the part of the hon. Members for Halifax and for Leeds, West of the Government's conclusions in that review. It has been generally welcomed by people who do not have a party political axe to grind, and it will make a genuine contribution to solving the problems of homelessness.
One of the most striking features of that report is that it reveals that 50 per cent. of the homelessness acceptances are concentrated in 10 per cent. of the local authorities. Although statistics have to be treated with caution, it is clear that the hardest hit areas are in London and the south-east. That is why we have designated those as the pressure areas, and we shall be making an additional £250 million available over the next two years to reflect their special problems.
I can understand that hon. Members from west Yorkshire and other parts of the country are disappointed that local authorities and housing associations in their areas will be unable to bid for the additional £250 million of resources. But I hope that hon. Members will accept that, if we are to tackle the problem sensibly, we should recognise the geographical incidence of the problem and target resources accordingly.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister advise hon. Members from West Yorkshire and other parts of the country what level homelessness in their areas must reach before the Government will give assistance? Will the Government allow time to debate in the House the report to which he has referred and the issue of homelessness?
Mr. Chope: The Government help local authorities with problems of homelessness not just by this additional £250 million, but by the general housing investment programme

295
and the credit approvals. The new system that we are introducing for next year is designed to target more resources to the sort of authorities represented by Opposition Members. It is nonsense to suggest that the only money provided by the Government is the £250 million. That is £250 million extra to go to the particularly hard-pressed areas of London and the south-east.
A brief examination of the relevant figures in the housing investment programme returns shows that the five local authorities in west Yorkshire recorded 4,900 homelessness acceptances in 1988–89, around 4 per cent. of the total in England. By comparison, the London boroughs of Southwark and Islington alone accounted for 4,900. The total for London and the south-east was more than 40,000. Some London boroughs are having to allocate 70 per cent. of their new lettings to homeless people, compared with a national average of 32 per cent. and an average for West Yorkshire authorities of 17 per cent. The hon. Member for Halifax quoted many statistics, but she declined to quote those. However, they show the relative scale of the problem and the ability of the respective local authorities to deal with it.
In West Yorkshire, 17 per cent. of the lettings are going to families and to other individuals accepted as homeless. In some parts of London, the figure is as high as 80 per cent. and in many boroughs it is 70 per cent. I hope that hon. Members will agree that, in the light of such comparisons, it would have been irresponsible of the Government if they had not targeted the additional resources for the homeless on the pressure areas in London and the south-east.
In the past three years, more than £139 million has been allocated to authorities in west Yorkshire for their general housing needs. Spending can also be supplemented by the ability of authorities to use capital receipts for housing purposes and additional allocations totalling nearly £19 million were made available for Estate Action to tackle problems of rundown estates and to bring vacant property back into use in the West Yorkshire area. A further £1·6 million has been allocated specifically for the homeless projects, enabling the provision of 148 units of accommodation, including 41 in hostels for the homeless.
We shall shortly be informing local authorities in West Yorkshire and elsewhere of their housing allocations for next year, in the form of their annual capital guidelines. The amounts calculated for individual authorities will, as always, take into account their responsibilities for the homeless. This year, the new capital control system will enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to distribute resources more accurately in accordance with housing needs, to take account of the authorities' ability to generate resources through receipts as well.
I emphasise that it is for each authority, within the guidelines and controls laid down by Government, to determine its own priorities. [Interruption.] If Labour Members are so concerned about the subject, I am surprised that they are spending so much time talking among themselves during my reply to the points that they have made.
Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Chope: No, I will not give way now. The hon. Gentleman has not been taking any notice. I am just coming to what I understand will be a sensitive point—empty properties.
In Calderdale, where in 1988–89 there were 265 homeless acceptances, there had been 250 in 1986–87. That is hardly a massive increase. In 1988–89, there were 508 vacant properties in Calderdale—3·5 per cent. of the housing stock. That shows that Calderdale has considerable resources available to help the housing problems in the area, and has not been making sufficient use of them.
Mrs. Mahon: The Minister knows that 200 of those properties are tower blocks, and I have already explained that the Government prevented one of the blocks from being brought back into use. The council is waiting for the right to borrow to do something about the other tower block. It is cynical of the Minister to make that comment.
Mr. Chope: The Government have already allocated money to help to meet the cost of improving one of the tower blocks. Specific money was allocated for that purpose, but the local authority, which has the right to spend money as it wishes, chose to spend that money in a different way. The Government believe in giving local authorities discretion to spend their resources, but if the local authority chooses to spend its money in one way, it ill behoves it to do so and then to blame the Government for the consequences.
It is right that there are empty tower blocks in the hon. Lady's constituency, but they could be brought back into use if the local authority had the will to do so. Strong hints have been given to the local authority that an Estate Action submission on those blocks would be considered favourably by the Government, but no such application has been made. I can only assume from that that the local authority lacks the will to put its house in order.
Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Chope: No, I shall not give way again; because of the time taken by Labour Members, I have little left to conclude my remarks.
The Government recognise that there is a need to ensure that help is available for people who have problems with their housing, and that includes young single people who leave home and come to London and other cities. We are currently examining the way in which various departmental policies interact, and how they might better work together and we shall make further announcements on that.
I was asked about the social fund. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security has said that, if people between the ages of 16 and 18 are experiencing genuine hardship, their cases will be looked at by Ministers at the Department. Loans are available and there is little evidence to suggest that people who need and find accommodation are priced out of it. Housing benefit is widely available, and all that is needed is for proper advice to be given to people at local level—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at ten minutes to One o'clock.

ENERGY

  Offshore Workers (Safety)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provision his Department is making for safety and survival courses for offshore workers.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is for an employer to ensure that his employees are adequately qualified and trained for the duties they are required to undertake. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 places a duty on an employer to provide the necessary instruction, training and supervision to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of his employees.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of Statement for Energy (1) what encouragement he is giving to commercial organisations wishing to set up wind electricity generators on Welsh farms;

  (2) what assistance has been given by the Government to commercial organisations in Wales to install wind energy generating capacity which can be sold to the grid.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department has not given any assistance to commercial organisations in Wales to install wind energy generators for the purpose of subsequent sale of electricity to the grid. Such installations will however be eligible for consideration under the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  We have collaborated with a number of organisations in the design and construction of experimental wind turbine generators at the CEGB's test site at Carmarthen bay, and we are also collaborating with the CEGB in a project to construct an experimental wind farm at Capel Cynon.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much money has been spent in Wales on sources of renewable energy over the past three years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The table includes expenditure by the Department of Energy over the past three years on projects based in Wales such as the 160 kW vertical axis wind turbine at Carmarthen bay, and work undertaken by Welsh contractors, for example, university of Cardiff.

  Year

  £

  1986–87

  656,935

  1987–88

  854,459

  1988–89

  833,020

  Information is not available to say precisely how much of this expenditure was in Wales.

  Mining Statistics
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will state the numbers of men employed underground in privately owned mines on 3 April 1989 as recorded in the registers which are required to be maintained under the terms of section 2(1) of the 1908 Act.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Daily tallies for the number of men working underground in licensed mines are not collected centrally. British Coal does, however, give a total figure for the end of each financial year in its annual report and accounts, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the average number of hours worked below ground by mineworkers and deputies in 1978 and in 1988.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for British Coal. I have asked the chairman of British Coal to write to the hon. Member.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Housing
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which have sold fewer than 10 per cent. of their council house stock.

  Mr. Chope
  Of those authorities which have provided a complete record of their sales from April 1979 to March 1989, only two authorities, Oldham and Blackburn, report sales of less than 10 per cent. of their stock. Six authorities —Arun, Bracknell Forest, Bromley, Crawley, Fenland and Havant—report sales of more than 35 per cent. of their stock.

  There are 12 authorities where an incomplete total of sales between April 1979 and March 1989 shows that less than 10 per cent. of their stock has been sold, but who may have exceeded the 10 per cent. threshold if unreported sales were to be included.

  I have today laid a table in the Library giving available information up to March 1989. It shows year by year information for each authority since 1984–85, together with cumulative figures since April 1979.

  Over 1 million local authority dwellings (about a fifth of the England 1979 stock) had been sold by the end of March 1989, the majority to sitting tenants, and sales are continuing at a high level. Information on total year by year sales of local authority houses and flats in England is listed in the following table. The number of flats sold in 1988–89 was greater than in any previous financial year and the number of houses sold was the largest since 1982–83.

  Sales of local authority dwellings England1

  Year

  Houses

  Flats

  1979–80

  52,386

  1,162

  1980–81

  66,946

  1,282

  1981–82

  125,200

  2,967

  1982–83

  175,334

  5,902

  1983–84

  113,613

  8,430

  1984–85

  85,487

  5,885

  1985–86

  76,088

  6,230

  1986–87

  77,677

  8,454

  21987–88

  90,852

  16,728

  1988–89

  116,933

  26,895

  117

  Year

  Houses

  Flats

  980,516

  83,935

  1 Includes some small transfers to housing associations.

  2 Excludes the sale of 5,480 dwellings by the London Residuary Body to Thamesmead Town Ltd.

  Methane
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to reduce methane being released into the atmosphere.

  Mr. Trippier
  The sources of methane emissions to the atmosphere are diverse. Some are natural, some man-made. Our understanding of the contribution from different sources and the way methane behaves in the atmosphere require further research, which is now under way. The Department of Energy has a programme to promote the use of landfill methane as an energy source.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the relative impact of(a) methane and (b) chlorofluorocarbon gases on global warming.

  Mr. Trippier
  The relative importance of all the major greenhouse gases for global warming in the past, at present and in the future is discussed in detail in the booklet "Global Climate Change", published by the Department in association with the Meteorological Office in October. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the factors in the 1989–90 scheme to determine community charge support which are different from or additional to factors used in earlier years to calculate local government support.

  Mr. Chope
  There are two main differences. First, the rate support grant system aims to equalise resources between authorities measured in terms of rateable values, whereas the new revenue support grant system equalises resources measured in terms of numbers of community charge payers in an area. Secondly, there has been a major review of the method of distributing grant between authorities and as a result the following additional factors will now be taken into account: the numbers of residents aged 11 or over, aged 65 to 74, aged 75 to 84 and aged 85 or over; the proportion of children aged under 16 years living in private households in rented accommodation; the number of residents aged 65 or over in independent registered residential homes whose primary function is reported as the care of elderly people, elderly people who are mentally infirm and elderly and other people who are handicapped; the number of fire false alarm calls; current expenditure on coast protection.

  The full extent of the differences can be identified from a comparison of the GRE indicators given in appendix 2 to annex J of the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1989–90 with those given in annex A to the draft Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) issued on 6 November by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  118
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what help will be available under the poll tax transitional relief scheme to students presently living in a hall of residence.

  Mr. Chope
  Full-time students will be liable to pay only one fifth of the community charge of the area where they live during term time. Students will be entitled to receive transitional relief, whatever type of accommodation they occupy, provided a comparison between rates and either one or two assumed community charges (depending on the number of community chargepayers in the property) shows an increase of more than £156 a year. Any student entitled to relief will receive it at the rate of one fifth of the normal rate to match the reduced community charge liability.

  Football Membership Scheme
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress there has been on the preparation of the national membership scheme for football specators.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend and I had a helpful meeting with the president of the Football League and the chairman of the Football Association on 14 November. They made it clear that it was still their wish that the football authorities should have first refusal to form the company that will be appointed as the Football Membership Authority. We confirmed that it was our hope and expectation that they would do so on the basis which had been agreed—that the Secretary of State would approve the composition of the authority; that the body appointed was willing and able to produce a scheme which he could approve and which satisfied the requirements of the legislation and that he was satisfied about the implementation timetable.

  We propose to hold further discussions shortly with the football authorities about the membership of the FMA. The FMA will be appointed following parliamentary approval of the commencement order bringing section 3 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 into operation. We intend that the commencement order should be laid and debated in the new year, after the publication of Lord Justice Taylor's final report on the Hillsborough inquiry.

  I welcome the progress which the working party set up by the football authorities has made in its preparations for the national membership scheme. I understand that it has now issued an invitation to tender to the seven companies and consortia which are bidding for the contract to operate the scheme.

  I share the hope of the football authorities that it will be possible, from a wide range of financial options, to meet the requirements of the national membership scheme, on a self-financing basis, at no direct cost to football clubs. If the clubs adopt a positive approach to promoting the scheme among their supporters, there is every prospect that this approach will be pursued successfully. The Government have provided a share of the costs incurred on the preparation of the scheme in advance of Royal Assent to the Football Spectators Act. The full funding of its implementation will be football's responsibility.

  It will be for the Football Membership Authority, in conjunction with the chosen supplier, to come forward with an acceptable timetable for the implementation of the scheme. The Government want the scheme to be in place

  119
  as soon as practicable. We will approve its introduction when we are satisfied that it will be effective, workable and safe. Before that can happen, both the Football Membership Authority and the Football Licensing Authority will need to be confident, among other considerations: that the technology has been tested properly; that the flow of spectators through the turnstiles will proceed smoothly; that the implications for the stewarding and policing of designated football matches have been fully assessed including the methodology for handling invalid cards, and that any structural alterations which may be needed at individual grounds have been made. The Football Licensing Authority will not license a ground to hold a designated match unless the requirements of the national membership scheme have been complied with and they are fully satisfied on safety requirements.

  I look forward to continuing co-operation between the Government and the football authorities in preparing for the implementation of the scheme and to the major contribution which the scheme will make to break the link between football and hooliganism.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals have been made in each of the last three years; if he will express these figures in terms of percentage increase; how many planning appeal inspectors have been in post in each of the last three years; and what percentage of appeals within the last 12 months have been heard within the time limit prescribed by the relevant legislation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested is as follows:

  Planning Appeals

  Year

  Planning appeals received

  Percentage increase over previous year

  Per cent.

  1986–87

  19,856

  11·3

  1987–88

  22,482

  13·2

  1988–89

  28,659

  27·4

  Salaried inspectors in post as at 31 December

  Number

  1987

  166

  1988

  173

  11989

  190

  1 As at 30 November 1989.

  A total of 1,424 planning appeals have so far been processed under the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988 and the Town and Country Planning (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988. In 724 cases (50·8 per cent. of the total) the inquiry was held within the timetable set out in the rules.

  Tourism
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that local authority districts in which a large part of the income comes from tourism are not penalised for this in the revenue support grant calculations for 1990–91.
  120
  Mr. Chope
  In the proposals for revenue support grant for 1990–91, no account is taken of income from tourism in calculating individual authorities' standard spending assessments.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to exempt from the community charge elderly people who are being looked after in private homes and who would otherwise require residential or nursing care at public expense.

  Mr. Chope
  No. Any elderly person being looked after in the community will be eligible for community charge benefit in their own right if they meet the income and capital requirements of the benefit scheme. Benefit can cover up to 80 per cent. of the community charge bill, and any elderly person receiving income support will have included in it an amount reflecting the fact that they have to pay the other 20 per cent. Thus, there should be no financial incentive for people caring for elderly relatives to seek to place them in residential or nursing care. We have recently announced changes in the regulations to ensure that people being cared for in the community will receive the same relief from the standard community charge as those in residential care homes.

  Satellite Dishes
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which planning rules apply to the erection of satellite television dishes on blocks of flats; whether he ha .s any intention to change these rules; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Part 25 of the General Developmen.t Order 1988 gives permission for up to two satellite antennae up to 90 cm in diameter on blocks of flats over 15 m high, provided the antennae are sited to minimise their visual effect. That permission does not apply in conservation areas, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty or the Broads. My right hon. Friend hopes to issue a consultation paper on planning controls over satellite antennas and other telecommunications development within the next 2 months.

  Noise Control
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he intends to give to local authorities on the control of noise pollution; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department is currently consulting local authorities about the adequacy of their powers to control noise nuisance under the Control Pollution Act 1974, with particular reference to acid house and similar parties. We have already received helpful responses from the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the London Boroughs Association. Together with other Government Departments, we shall take whatever action is necessary to strengthen the law in relation to noise nuisance generally. We will also give clear guidance to local authorities about exercising their powers.

  College Green
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has authorised the erection of the double-decker media hut on the green opposite the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had, concerning the erection of temporary huts on College green; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Permission was given to ITV and Channel 4 to put up the hut for broadcasting purposes associated with the state opening of Parliament and the experimental televising of the House of Commons. Further permission was given for the hut to remain in place until after the election for the leadership of the Conservative party. It will be dismantled and removed on Thursday 7 December. It is usual to allow the media to put temporary facilities on Abingdon street gardens to cover important events.

  European Environment Agency
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the United Kingdom will participate in the proposed European Environment Agency; whether United Kingdom statistics on environmental damage would be made available to East European countries through such an agency and vice versa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Unanimous political agreement was reached at the Environment Council which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended in Brussels on 28 November. There is a firm commitment that the United Kingdom will participate in the agency's work.

  The EC regulation, endorsed at the Environment Council, makes specific reference to participation of non-EC countries, such as EFTA and the eastern bloc, in the work of the agency. Participation will be based on agreements drawn up between individual third countries and the agency, requiring unanimous agreement by the Council. Such agreements should allow for United Kingdom statistics on environment damage to be made available to east European countries through the agency and vice versa.

  Forestry Industry Committee
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has not held any meetings with the committee, but I have received a copy of its report on "Options for British forestry 1989–1990"; and the recommendations in this are being considered by the Forestry Commission and other relevant Departments.

  Mersey Tunnel
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to the Mersey tunnel's case for Government assistance which has recently been sent to him.
  122
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  We are considering Merseytravel's request for Government financial assistance. A decision on the case it has presented will be made as soon as we have considered it fully.

THE ARTS

  Arts Council and Crafts Council (Merger)
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the merger of the Arts Council and the Crafts Council; and if he will take steps to ensure that the balance of funds available to the Arts Council and the Crafts Council will remain the same.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received many representations on this issue. No decision will be taken until the new year, but I have already given indicative figures of the level of support for the crafts for the next three years, in my grant announcement of 15 November.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when serious misdeclaration penalty and default interest for value added tax will be introduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Customs and Excise has been publicising, and traders have been preparing for, the introduction of the final phase of the Keith civil penalty regime from 1 January 1990. In the light of the recent consultation exercise of the VAT (Accounting and Records) Regulations, and of the technical arrangements for introducing the new regime, I have been giving further careful consideration to the timing.

  The regulations, incorporating important changes beneficial to business, have been laid before the House today and will come into force as planned on 1 January 1990. As part of the procedures, traders will have the opportunity to make separate voluntary disclosure of their larger errors to Customs, thereby avoiding penalty, rather than, as at present, including them on their VAT returns or adjusting their VAT accounts. In order that all traders may become familiar with the new regime, I have decided that serious misdeclaration penalty and default interest will not be introduced until 1 April 1990.

  Employee Share Ownership
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the provisions for encouraging employee share ownership in the United Kingdom and in other member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Lilley
  Major legislation providing tax reliefs to encourage the spread of employee share ownership in the United Kingdom was introduced in the Finance Acts of 1978, 1980, 1984 and 1989. These provisions have been improved or extended in most of the intervening years. By March 1988, they had resulted in more than 1·75 million employees receiving shares or interests in shares with an initial market value of £4 billion. The available
  123
  information in other European Community countries is limited, but we are aware that Belgium, Denmark, France, the Republic of Ireland and the Netherlands also provide fiscal incentives to promote employee share ownership.

  Civil Service (Southend)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons are employed in Civil Service duties in Southend-on-Sea; and what was the comparable figure 10 years ago.

  Mr. Ryder
  At 1 April 1989, there were 3,875 non-industrial civil servants (full-time equivalents) serving in Southend-on-Sea. This compares with a total of 4,924 at 1 April 1979.

  Taxation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total tax burden (including value added tax and indirect taxes) on the average family at the present time; and what was the burden in 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  The total tax burden (excluding rates) on a married man with two children on average male earnings is estimated to be about 33 per cent. of gross earnings in 1989–90, compared with around 32 per cent. in 1978–79. The corresponding figures for a married man with no children on average male earnings are about 38½ and 39½ per cent. respectively. If real earnings had remained at their 1978–79 levels, both family types would now be paying a considerably lower proportion of their earnings in tax than in 1978–79: down to 29½ per cent. for the married man with two children, and down to 36½ per cent. for the married man with no children.

  Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to review inequalities in occupational pension levels among retired public servants of the same grade or rank who retired in different years.

  Mr. Ryder
  None.

  Interest and Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he estimates that the increase in interest rates and the exchange rate will have on incomes in the banking sector and in industries wholly or mainly engaged in producing importable and exportable goods.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no sectoral estimates of the type requested.

  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions he has made in the married couple's allowance to be introduced in April 1990 for those couples who choose to maintain independent financial affairs in marriage.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: Under independent taxation, husbands and wives will be treated as individual taxpayers, and their incomes and gains will be taxed independently. The arrangements for giving the married couple's allowance enable couples to maintain independent financial affairs.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the European Community countries which do not include(a) mortgage interest rates and (b) house rent payments in the calculations for their retail prices indices.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: Of European Community countries, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Greece do not include mortgage interest payments in their calculation of the retail prices index. Only Portugal does not include house rent payments.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what items have been(a) taken out and (b) incorporated into the calculations in the retail prices index, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: Only minor changes have been made to the coverage of the retail prices index since 1979 the most important of which took place at the beginning of 1987 when, following recommendations of the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee, the index was restructured to incorporate a number of items on which expenditure was relatively small and which had previously been excluded. The items in question were:
  fees paid by households for educational and recreational courses;
  subscriptions to trade unions and professional associations;
  non-food expenditure on pets;
  fees for medical, dental and optical treatment and the provision of spectacles;
  premiums for house contents insurance;
  expenditure on hobbies not covered by any other section of the index.

  In addition housing subsidies, which used to be partly included in the calculation of the retail prices index, were excluded from 1987. At the begining of 1989, the coverage of fees was extended to take account of new charges for eye tests and dental checks, and in April 1989 community charge payments were brought into the retail prices index in respect of Scotland in place of domestic rates.

  The methods by which the retail prices index has been compiled have remained essentially unchanged. Price changes are obtained for a selection of goods and services and this selection is continually updated in order to maintain the index as a reliable and representative measure of the change in prices across all the goods and services commonly bought by consumers.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of United Kingdom manufacturing companies' investment in research and development; and how this has changed since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: Figures for United Kingdom manufacturing companies' investment in research and development from 1978 to 1987 are included in the relevant aggregates of intramural expenditure on research and development carried out in United Kingdom industry which were published in British Business on 3 February 1989, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Figures for 1979 are not available. 1987 is the latest year for which figures are published.

  Wealth Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution is made by the annual wealth tax on housing in West Germany and by domestic rates in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available; and what would be the yield of a wealth tax in(a) housing and (b) other assets in the United Kingdom at the rate charged in West Germany.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: The latest figures for receipts from the annual taxes on immovable property and on net wealth in West Germany are available in "Revenue Statistics of OECD Member Countries 1965–1988". The net payments of domestic rates in the United Kingdom were £7,553 million in 1987–88.

  An estimate of the yield of a wealth tax applied to assets in the United Kingdom using the West German tax rate and system of allowances, exemptions, reliefs and valuation rules could only be provided at disproportionate costs.

  Duty-free Allowances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he is making to the European Economic Community on the future of duty-free allowances for travellers within the European Economic Community; what studies have been carried out by his Department of the costs of benefits of(a) increase and (b) abolition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: The Commission recently proposed transitional increases in the travellers' allowances for goods obtained duty and tax-paid in another EC country. Between 1990 and 1992 limits would rise in three stages from 300 to 600 cigarettes, 1·5 to 3 litres of spirits and from £250 to about £1,000 for goods subject only to VAT.

  The Government welcome these proposals and would indeed prefer to see a single early increase rather than three stages; but decisions have not yet been taken by the Council. An immediate increase to the levels proposed would cost about £17 million a year.

  The Commission has made no proposals affecting allowances for passengers arriving from outside the EC, where the Government would also like to see higher limits. Nor have proposals been made affecting goods obtained duty—and tax-free within the EC, but the Commission's assumption is that duty-free shopping for intra-EC travel will cease after 1992.

  Official Secrets Act (Correspondence)
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why two letters, dated 30 August and 23 October, from the American Privacy Foundation in Washington DC to the Campaign for Freedom of Information in London, on the subject of the Official Secrets Act and the interception of communications, have been opened for inspection by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 1 December 1989]: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have powers to require the opening by the Post Office of any postal packet or letter arriving in the United Kingdom. These powers are used only in the pursuit of contraband and especially drugs
  126
  which are frequently discovered in the mail. Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and LSD are often concealed in flat, apparently innocent, letters and packages.

  Detection in these circumstances is extremely difficult and is made no easier by the possibility that packets containing certain drugs may contaminate other mail. Innocent letters and packages may be opened for internal examination, but will be resealed immediately if it is apparent that no contraband is present.

  The size of the drug threat in the mail may be judged from the fact that 2,000 seizures of drugs have been made in a single year at one postal depot alone. Attempts to evade customs controls have led drug smugglers to use ingenious and sophisticated methods. They have been known to address a letter or package to a famous or highly respected person or organisation in the hope that it will not be examined, arrangements having been made for it to be extracted from the mail before delivery.

  No letters are opened for examination at Customs' request for any other reasons than to discover goods prohibited by law.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what gain in revenue arises by virtue of the termination under the poll tax rules of the right of self-employed people to claim their rates liability income tax; and what is the estimated average loss to the self-employed.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 1 December 1989]: The introduction of the community charge will not affect the income tax treatment of business rates payable on non-domestic property. These rates will continue to be deductible in computing profits for tax purposes. No deduction will, however, be available in respect of the personal community charge payable by persons who use their homes partly for business purposes, because the charge is not a business expense but is personal to the individual concerned. Information is not available centrally upon which to base an estimate of the additional income tax which may be payable in consequence.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Family Credit
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland are currently in receipt of family credit; and, of these, how many were advised in writing to return their books to central benefits branch because of the new regulations issued in October.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The number of families receiving family credit at 23 November 1989 was 14,131.

  No family credit recipients were asked to return their order books because of the Family Credit, Housing Benefit and Income Support (General) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989 which came into force on 1 October 1989 or because of the guidance from the chief adjudication officer issued recently on the interpretation of provisions in the main regulations on the treatment of expenses incurred in self-employed cases.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the new regulations in
  127
  respect of family credit applications which came into effect from 1 October, with reference to self-employed persons; and if he will make a copy available in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Family Credit, Housing Benefit and Income Support (General) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989 which came into force on 1 October 1989 have been published and a copy is available in the Library. The regulations, which provide for payments of allowances to adopters under approved schemes to be disregarded in the calculation of income, cover but do not specifically refer to self-employed persons. Recent guidance for adjudication officers on the interpretation of provisions in the main regulations which deal specifically with self-employed cases has also been published and a copy is available in the Library.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the new regulations formulated in respect of family credit; and, of those whose books were requested for adjustment, how many received(a) an increase and (b) a decrease in allowance.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Family Credit, Housing Benefit and Income Support (General) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989, which came into operation on 1 October 1989, provide for payments of

  Persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974, 1976, 1984 and 1989

  19741

  1975

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19892

  Number of persons detained

  0

  8

  908

  938

  1,309

  1,459

  1,717

  843

  Held for under 48 hours

  0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  868

  1,077

  1,248

  624

  Held for over 48 hours and under 5 days

  0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  350

  295

  394

  197

  Held over 5 days

  0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  91

  87

  75

  22

  Charged under 48 hours3

  0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  215

  205

  192

  61

  Charged over 48 hours and under 5 days3

  0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  108

  97

  138

  73

  Charged over 5 days3

  0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  35

  41

  43

  13

  Notes:

  n.a.—Not available.

  1 The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 came into force on 29 November 1974.

  2 Information up to 30 June 1989.

  3 Persons charged—not necessarily with scheduled offences.

  Comprehensive figures on the operation of the emergency provisions Acts are not available before 1975. Between 1984 and 31 March 1989, 3,589 individuals were arrested by the police using powers under section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and detained for a maximum of 72 hours; 18 individuals were arrested by the police under section 13 of the Act; and 638 people were arrested by members of Her Majesty's forces under section 14 of the Act and held for a maximum of four hours (a number of whom were subsequently re-arrested under the PTA). In total, 655 individuals were charged with scheduled offences during the period as a result of these arrests. The powers under section 11 of the EPA were repealed in 1987.

  Police and Criminal Evidence Order
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to lay before Parliament the draft codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  Draft codes of practice under article 65 of the PACE (NI) Order 1989 dealing with the exercise of police powers, and the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons in custody, were laid before both Houses of Parliament today.
  128
  allowances to adopters under approved schemes to be disregarded in the calculation of income for the purposes of family credit. In addition, the chief adjudication officer recently issued guidance on the interpretation of the Family Credit (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987, as amended, which provide for the calculation of the net profit of self-employed earners. Only expenses which are wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the self-employment may be allowed in calculating the net profit. No order books have been requested for adjustment as a result of either the new regulations or the guidance.

  Detainees
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been held under the Emergency Provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, respectively, in Northern Ireland(a) between 1970 and 1975 and (b) between 1984 and 1989 for periods of less than 48 hours, for periods of between 48 hours and five days and for periods in excess of five days; and of those persons held, how many were subsequently charged with scheduled offences permitting trial before a non-jury court.

  Mr. Cope
  Readily available information is as follows:

  An order bringing the codes into operation on 1 January 1990 will be laid shortly.

  It had been the Government's intention to lay at the same time a draft of the code of practice on the tape-recording of police interviews with suspects; but this code will not now be laid in draft until the steering committee set up to implement and monitor the procedures has had an opportunity to evaluate the tape-recording pilot schemes which will get under way in the new year and to assess and consider the arrangements which would be appropriate for Northern Ireland.

  When this has been completed the draft code of practice 'on tape-recording will be laid before Parliament and thereafter an appropriate order will be made placing (subject to parliamentary approval) the Royal Ulster Constabulary under a duty to tape-record interviews with suspects in accordance with the code.

  Footpaths (Accidents)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the number of cases(a) of applications made and (b) in which compensation was paid to persons who tripped on a footpath in each of the last three years in each council district, or if more convenient each housing executive district;
  129
  (2) what sums have been paid out in compensation by public bodies in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years to persons who alleged they had tripped and hurt themselves on footpaths.

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Organisation

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  £000's

  £000's

  £000's

  Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) Roads Service Divisions

  Ballymena

  306

  20

  118

  314

  26

  65

  264

  47

  209

  Belfast

  2,628

  938

  1,885

  2,570

  883

  1,612

  1,959

  1,015

  1,956

  Coleraine

  870

  216

  243

  742

  188

  282

  461

  128

  221

  Craigavon

  586

  186

  283

  626

  214

  373

  513

  186

  388

  Downpatrick

  654

  176

  325

  748

  176

  313

  649

  177

  449

  Omagh

  239

  127

  231

  271

  65

  193

  234

  130

  365

  SUB TOTAL

  5,283

  1,663

  3,085

  5,271

  1,552

  2,843

  4,080

  1,683

  3,588

  Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) Water Service Divisions

  Eastern

  297

  114

  210

  238

  132

  205

  322

  122

  363

  Northern

  42

  21

  42

  44

  16

  27

  27

  17

  18

  Southern

  58

  29

  49

  77

  30

  64

  45

  25

  35

  Western

  94

  42

  55

  83

  31

  56

  64

  12

  15

  SUB TOTAL

  491

  206

  356

  442

  209

  352

  458

  176

  431

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive Regions

  Belfast

  1,165

  1,055

  1,351

  1,078

  732

  1,290

  984

  393

  638

  South East

  275

  301

  274

  South North East

  263

  245

  257

  North East

  229

  232

  180

  North West

  542

  460

  299

  West

  96

  89

  87

  SUB TOTAL

  2,570

  1,055

  1,351

  2,405

  732

  1,290

  1,981

  393

  638

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  198

  68

  72

  189

  48

  94

  173

  19

  25

  TOTAL

  8,542

  2,992

  4,864

  8,307

  2,541

  4,579

  6,692

  2,271

  4,682

  (i) Number of personal injury claims received.

  (ii) Number of claims in which compensation was paid.

  (iii) Amount of compensation paid.

  Patrols
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the number of(a) Royal Ulster Constabulary patrols, (b) Regular Army patrols, (c) Ulster Defence Regiment patrols as a percentage of the total number of patrols carried out by the security forces, for each month since November 1985 and (d) Ulster Defence Regiment patrols which were accompanied by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as a percentage of the total number of patrols conducted by the regiment, for each month since November 1985 and the dates by which he intends to ensure that (i) 70 per cent., (ii) 80 per cent., (iii) 90 per cent., (iv) 100 per cent. of Ulster Defence Regiment patrols will be accompanied by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: As I told the hon. Member on 23 October at column 305, information is not regularly collected in the form
  130
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answers 28 November 1989]: Information is not available in the precise form requested. The following table sets out the number of claims made for personal injury and compensation paid out in each of the three years requested.

  requested and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. The Government are committed to increasing the present level of RUC accompaniment of military patrols, especially those which are likely to come into direct contact with members of the community. But the question whether or not a particular patrol should be accompanied by the RUC is an operational matter, and it would not therefore be appropriate for the Secretary of State to lay down firm timetables of the kind envisaged in the hon. Member's question.

  Traffic Flows
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will show for the latest available date, the number of vehicles passing along(a) the Ballyrobin road, (b) the Killead road and (c) the Oldstone road per 24 hour period; and if he will indicate the maximum and minimum hourly traffic flows.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Latest traffic survey figures are:
  131

  Road/Location of survey

  Date of survey

  Peak daily flow vehicle per day

  Peak hourly vehicles per hour

  Minimum daily flow vehicles per hour

  A

  Ballyrobin road/Templepatrick side of traffic lights

  August 1989

  8,636

  913

  10

  Ballyrobin road/Airport side of traffic lights

  August 1989

  13,903

  1,125

  16

  B

  Killead road/Killead Village

  August 1986

  13,099

  1,279

  7

  C

  Oldstone road/North of traffic lights

  June 1987

  8,225

  715

  5

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Breath Testing
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General what criteria the Crown prosecution service applies when undertaking the independent legal review of charges brought by police for alleged excess alcohol offences arising from breath tests administered to motorists stopped at random.

  The Attorney-General
  The CPS applies the criteria set out in the code for crown prosecutors. Accordingly, crown prosecutors must be satisfied that there is admissible evidence sufficient to allow a realistic prospect of a conviction before authorising continuance of the criminal proceedings. For this purpose the matters which it will take into account include the following:

  (i) It is lawful for a police officer in uniform acting in the execution of his duty to require the driver of any vehicle on a road to stop.

  (ii) A police officer who stops a vehicle on a road with the purpose of investigating whether its driver has alcohol in his body is acting in the execution of his duty.

  (iii) It is accordingly lawful for a police officer in uniform to stop vehicles at random with that purpose, provided there is no malpractice such as oppression or capricious conduct on the part of the officer.

  (iv) It is lawful for a police officer in uniform to require a driver who has been stopped in such circumstances to provde a specimen of breath for a breath test, provided that the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) at what stage pupils with special educational needs will be tested;

  (2) whether special educational needs will be tested at seven, 11 and 16 years regardless of the level or attainment target they are working on at the time.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The national curriculum and its assessment arrangements will apply equally to all but the very small minority of pupils in respect of whom a statement provides otherwise or a statutory exception has been made.

  The attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements are being designed to bring out positive achievement at all levels.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if(a) special schools will be
  132
  expected to publish results and (b) schools will be expected to publish results of pupils with special educational needs.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Regulations under section 22 of the Education Reform Act concerning the publication of information about aggregate pupils' achievements under the national curriculum will be made in due course. My right hon. Friend will consider nearer the time whether special provision is appropriate for pupils with special educational needs.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will allow more time to be given for preparation of individual programmes for pupils with special educational needs within the national curriculum framework;

  (2) if he will consider giving extra time for the disapplication procedures for special educational needs children;

  (3) what consideration he has given to the problems of those SEN pupils who require developmental curriculums as opposed to academic ones.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The national curriculum requirements will not apply to pupils with statements of special educational needs until August 1990, one year later than for other pupils. This will allow time for statements to modify or disapply national curriculum requirements and for individual programmes to be prepared. We have no plans to extend the year's delay beyond August 1990.

  Under section 18 of the Education Reform Act, a statement may modify or disapply any or all of the requirements of the national curriculum. My right hon. Friend expects statements containing modifications or disapplications to set out the alternative provision to be made. However, where exceptions have been made, maintained schools are still under a duty to ensure that the curricula they offer pupils are balanced and broadly based, in accordance with the requirements of section 1 of the ERA.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider a dispensation from the national curriculum for special educational needs children with severe learning difficulties and speech problems from taking a foreign language.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Section 18 of the Education Reform Act already makes provision for the national curriculum requirements to be lifted or modified for pupils with statements of special educational needs. This could include exemption from the modern foreign language requirements; but my right hon. Friend expects the benefits of learning a modern foreign language to be made available to as many children as possible.
  133
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what extra resources he is prepared to give to schools to help in teaching the national curriculum to pupils with special educational needs;

  (2) what plans he has to allocate extra resources to mainstream schools to enable special needs children to have maximum access to the national curriculum;

  (3) what plans he has to allocate extra resources to special schools in order to equip them to offer a broad, balanced curriculum to all children.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The cost of implementing the national curriculum will be met largely from the redirection of existing resources. However, we are giving local education authorities specific grant support for the introduction of the national curriculum. This financial year there will be support for over £100 million expenditure. It is for authorities to decide how much to spend to enable pupils with special educational needs, whether in mainstream or special schools, to have maximum access to the national curriculum and a broad, balanced curriculum.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he intends to take to ensure that when local education authority centrally retained funds are reduced from 10 to 7 per cent. the services provided by the local education authority to special needs children will not be adversely affected.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under LMS, LEAs will retain the statutory duty to ensure that the requirements of statements of special educational need are fulfilled for those children who have such statements. A number of LEAs believe that the needs of statemented pupils can best be met by delegating resources to schools and have made appropriate proposals in their submitted LMS schemes. Others have indicated that they wish to retain central control of such resources. As LEAs move towards the target of reducing the proportion of funds retained centrally, it will remain for individual LEAs to judge whether the needs of pupils can best be met by delegating or retaining central control over resources and services for those with special needs.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if national priority training money will be made available to provide national curriculum training for all teachers to enable the most effective response to be made to the needs of children with significant learning difficulties.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Substantial support for training teachers to implement the national curriculum is available through the LEA training grants scheme. This support includes training in respect of national curriculum requirements as they relate to pupils with special educational needs.

  Educational Psychologists
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent he proposes to make additional resources available to meet the extra demands made on educational psychologists in advising on modifications of the national curriculum for some children.
  134
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Modification to and disapplications of the national curriculum for children with statements of special educational needs are expected to occur only in exceptional cases. Advice in this area should not place any significant extra demands upon the schools psychological service.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he intends to take to ensure that the demands of statutory work on educational psychologists do not reduce the amount of time available to deal with the psychological interests of children who have the specific learning difficulties in dyslexia.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Local education authorities are responsible for the employment of educational psychologists in the maintained sector of education, and it is for them to ensure that adequate numbers are employed to meet local needs.

  Psychological Services
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science under local management of schools what action he will be taking to ensure that psychological services continue to be available to all children and their families.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under LMS, LEAs may choose whether to continue to manage centrally the provision of educational psychology services or to delegate the responsibility and resources for such provision to schools. LEAs will continue to have the statutory duty to secure the advice of educational psychologists when assessing children for the purposes of statements of special educational needs.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the setting up of a committee of inquiry into teachers' pay and conditions; and what has been his response.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Professional Association of Teachers has recently suggested to my right hon. Friend that a committee of inquiry into teachers' pay and conditions should be established. My right hon. Friend, in reply, has made it clear that in his view this would not be appropriate.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many salary allowances to teachers have been awarded to teachers for good classroom practice without the acceptance of additional responsibilities since 1986.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government have stressed from their introduction in 1987 the importance they attach to incentive allowances being used to reward teachers who demonstrate outstanding ability in the classroom. There is some evidence in the 1988 secondary school staffing survey that, in the first year of operation, a significant number of allowances were awarded to teachers for reasons other than the taking on of extra responsibilities.

  PhD Students
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's policy towards the recruitment of PhD students into research; and how the proposed changes in the funding of research departments will support this policy.

  Mr. Jackson
  The main objective of the Department's expenditure on the support of postgraduate research students is to secure an adequate supply of very highly qualified manpower for research in industry and academic institutions. This expenditure is administered by the research councils and the British Academy, which are best placed, in consultation with academic institutions and employers, to assess national needs for PhDs and to maintain the quality of postgraduate education and training.

  The new funding arrangements to be introduced through the Universities Funding Council will help to improve management of resources for both teaching and research in universities. This will benefit all students, including PhD students.

  Primary Schools (Statistics)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to remove the requirement under the Education Reform Act for every primary school to compile comprehensive statistics and replace it with a sampling method.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The recent HMI report "The Implementation of the National Curriculum in Primary Schools" pointed to the need for primary schools to pay more attention to the overall planning of time. The annual curriculum return (schedule 1 to the Education (School Curriculum and Related Information) Regulations 1989) will serve as a useful framework for schools in planning their curriculum provision and will also provide information about schools' use of time for local and national monitoring.

  Magnet Schools (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many visits his officials have made to Bradford during the past year, to date, to discuss magnet schools; and if he will list the names and designation of officials and the dates on which visits were made and the names of Bradford council elected members and officials they met.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the names of Ministers, Bradford council members, Bradford council officers and officials of his Department who met on 28 September to discuss Bradford's proposal for development support funding for magnet schools; where the meeting took place; what documents were passed to Ministers by Bradford council members; and if he will place copies of all such documents in the Library.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I met Councillor Eric Pickles and Councillor Mike Gaunt at the Department's headquarters in London. It is not accepted practice to name officials of 136
  the Department, three of whom were also present. A copy of the document "Magnet Schools: Promoting Quality and Diversity in Bradford" was passed to me, and has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has made to the proposal for development support funding for magnet schools in Bradford outlined in documents passed to his Minister of State by members of Bradford council on 28 September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  At my meeting on 28 September, I noted with interest the plans being developed by Bradford council for a magnet schools initiative. The council subsequently submitted bids for specific grant and capital funding to support the initiative. The Government's response to these bids is set out in the reply that I have given today to a separate question from the hon. Member on the same subject.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what supplementary bid for local authority training grants scheme support in connection with magnet schools he has received for Bradford council; what is the total amount of this bid; when he expects to reach his decision on this bid; what other bids under other programes, linked to magnet schools, he has received from Bradford council; what is the total amount of all such bids; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A supplementary bid amounting to £204,000 in 1990–91 has been received from Bradford for funds to enable the local education authority to carry out further training of its staff in preparation for the introduction of a magnet schools programme. The maxima of expenditure by local education authorities that will be supported by grant under the LEA training grants scheme in 1990–91 will be announced shortly. Bradford has already been informed that there was no prospect of the supplementary funds it was seeking being made available as this could only be done at the expense of another authority.

  Bids under the education support grant programme for 1990–91 totalling about £1·25 million have also been received from Bradford in respect of the magnet schools programme. These are currently being considered: my right hon. Friend expects to announce ESG allocations for 1990–91 around the end of this year. In addition, Bradford's capital expenditure plans for 1990–91 include £1.5 million for school improvements related to a magnet schools programme. The annual capital guidelines for 1990–91 will be announced shortly.

  Earth Sciences Departments
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many jobs are likely to be lost as a result of the rationalisation of earth sciences, departments; where these are expected to occur; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Nationally, the rationalisation exercise will result in the creation of some 45 new posts. Implementation is a matter for the Universities Funding Council, in collaboration with the institutions concerned.

HEALTH

  Child Care
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the brief provided to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for the study of child care needs; and how long he anticipates the research to take before it is completed.

  Mr. Freeman
  The survey being carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is designed to obtain a detailed picture of the arrangements parents make for the care of children under eight. The pattern of attendance at day nurseries, nursery schools and classes, primary schools and playgroups will be covered as will the use of child minders, relatives and friends to look after the children, inside and outside the home. Parents will be asked to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the arrangements and to say whether the arrangements represent their first choice. The survey will also collect information about the stability of arrangements. Questions will also be asked about attendance at clubs, etc. a fter school and arrangements made during school holidays.

  The pilot survey work was carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in October; the main fieldwork stage is planned for October-December 1990, in order to obtain accurate and recent data about the summer holidays. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys expects to have completed the main part of the analysis about a year after the main fieldwork stage.

  I would be happy to give the hon. Member further details, if she considers that would be helpful.

  Food (Radiation)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what checks or monitoring his Department carries out on radiation levels in food imported from eastern European countries, either direct or via other European Community countries, following the accident at Chernobyl; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Port health authorities are continuing to monitor radiation levels in food imports from countries outside the European Community in accordance with the latest European Council regulation (EC 3955/87 of 22 December 1987).

  Opting Out (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the names of the hospitals in south Yorkshire which have shown an interest in opting out.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 29 November at columns 297–300. There is, of course, no question of any hospital "opting-out" of the NHS.

  BSE
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on links between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and meningitis.
  138
  Mr. Freeman
  There are no known links between bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle and meningitis in humans.

  District Health Authorities (Cuts)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of district health authorities that will be cutting beds and operation lists before the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of district health authorities that will be cutting beds and operation lists before the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of district health authorities that will be cutting beds and operating lists before the end of the financial year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not hold the information requested centrally. The provision of local health services is the responsibility of local health authorities subject to local needs and priorities.

  Catheters
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will add catheters to the list of items exempt from prescription charges.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The present exemptions from prescription charges are for particular groups of people. They do not include exemptions for individual drugs or appliances, other than for contraceptive substances and listed contraceptive appliances. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were removed from the child abuse register in London in 1987–88.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information from the survey of child protection registers in the year ending 31 March 1988 is published in "Survey of Children and Young Persons on Child Protection Registers Year ended 31 March 1988". Copies are available in the Library.

  The number of recorded deregistrations in Greater London in 1987–88 (excluding Greenwich and Westminster) was 2,905.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if each area covered by a social services department maintains a central register of children in the area who have been abused or are at risk from abuse.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will break down the £7 million which is used for training of social services staff on child abuse.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The £7 million provided for the training of local authority staff working with children has been allocated as follows: £100,000—to fund the central training group on child sexual abuse, national workshops and other development and review work;
  139
  £2,140,000—flat rate allocation of £20,000 to all local authorities in England, except the City of London and Isles of Scilly, for improvements in their training infrastructure; £4,760,000—allocations to all local authorities in England based on the number of staff working with children. Details of allocations to individual local authorities have been placed in the Library.

  Training programmes submitted by local authorities indicate that £4·6 million will be spent on general training and £2·3 million on training in child protection work including child sexual abuse.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce special assessment teams, composed of local authority health authority and police officials, to deal with the problem of child abuse.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for the local authority, health authority and local police force jointly to consider the introduction of specialist assessment teams. The Department's guidance document "Working Together" (1988), copies of which are available in the Library, commends agencies to consider carefully the conclusions and recommendations of the report of the inquiry on child abuse in Cleveland 1987 on this issue.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet voluntary organisations concerned with children to discuss the setting up of a national register list of aid for children.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department regularly meets voluntary organisations with responsibilities in the child care field. I refer the hon. Member to my previous response to her of 15 November at column 338.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what services are available to a child or family removed from the child abuse register.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Children removed from the child protection register and their families are eligible for the full range of services provided by local authority social services departments and health authorities. Paragraph 5.29 of the Department's guidance document, "Working Together" (1988), copies of which are available in the Library, states:"removal of a child's name from the register should not lead to an automatic withdrawal or reduction in services. The risk of child abuse may have been eliminated or reduced but a variety of services may still be needed by the child and family, and in some cases the child will he in the care of the local authority either on a voluntary or compulsory basis".

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment is being made of the results of the Open university training package for training in recognition of child abuse.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As the training pack has only been on the market since the end of March, it is too early to provide a full assessment of its impact. Sales of the training pack have been very encouraging; from the end of March 1989 to September 1989, 2,319 student packs and 620 tutor packs were sold. The training pack included an assessment module, and 1,000 students have so far registered to take part in the assessment exercise. Early results indicate that students' knowledge of child abuse is increased substantially after having completed the course.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of local 140
  authorities providing day nurseries, play groups, child minding, family aides, family centres and other facilities which can support and advise and aid in the prevention of child abuse within families.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statistical information is collected annually from each local authority about day nurseries, play groups and child minders provided by the local authority. Information is sought about the number of premises/persons, the number of places and, for day nurseries and playgroups, the numbers on the register. Information is also sought about the number of children in voluntary or private play groups or day nurseries or with child minders who are placed and paid for by the local authority. This information is published, together with some details of private and voluntary provision. The most recent publication is "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 1988; England" a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Details of expenditure are also collected for each authority; these details cover expenditure on family centres as well as day nurseries, playgroups and child minders.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many area child protection committees investigating child abuse there were in 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In July 1988, the Department published a guidance document, "Working Together" and an accompanying circular (LAC(88)10/HC(88)38), copies of which are available in the Library, which called for the redesignation of area review committees as area child protection committees covering one local authority area. The process of redesignation continued into 1989, and involved the reorganisation of some larger area review committees into area child protection committees which were conterminous with local authority boundaries. There are currently 108 area child protection committees.

  Bradford DHA
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to visit Bradford to meet the chairman of the district health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no plans at present to visit Bradford to meet the chairman of the health authority. I hope to visit Bradford in the new year.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the rate of increase of costs in the National Health Service in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  Costs in the National Health Service increased by an estimated 7·9 per cent. in 1987–88 and by 10·1 per cent. in 1988–89. An estimate of increased costs in 1989–90 will not be available until after the current financial year has ended.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that before the implementation of section 42 of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, there will have been the full
  141
  implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Consultation, Representation and Services) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have always made it clear that further implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 could take place only if the necessary resources were available without jeopardising high priority social services. We are currently considering action to identify the resources which would be required to implement sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up a statutory committee of voluntary organisations involved in the provision of care services to disabled people, of which disabled people themselves would be members.

  Mr. Freeman
  Although we have no plans to set up such a statutory committee, we will continue to consult the relevant voluntary organisations as and when appropriate.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has visited any ambulance station to talk to ambulance personnel since the beginning of the dispute(a) at West Bridgford ambulance station, (b) in Nottingham and (c) nationally.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Neither I nor my colleagues have visited any ambulant t stations since the beginning of the dispute. I have talked with staff from West Bridgford ambulance station at my constituency office.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the representations on the White Paper from patients and doctors by the Nottingham health authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We cannot identify separately from the information we hold the number of representations received from people living within each individual authority area.

  Commercial Activities
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give an estimate for the income generated by each district health authority from commercial activities following the provisions of section 4 of the Health and Medicines Act.

  Mr. Freeman
  Section 7 of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 gives health authorities the power to generate additional income.

  In the current year, we expect £28 million to be generated by the NHS in England. The average amount generated by each district will be about £140,000.

  Aging
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often meetings are held between Ministers and officials from different Government Departments to co-ordinate Government policy on aging and related issues.
  142
  Mr. Freeman
  Meetings are not held regularly but as and when necessary and in order to consider issues which arise.

  Devon (Inward Migration)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what information the latest statistical forecast of high inward migration to Devon was based.

  Mr. Freeman
  Estimates of population for local and health authorities in England have been extrapolated forward from 1988 to 1989 and 1990. It has been assumed that recent average changes in each area arising from births, deaths, and migration will be maintained, subject to constraints set by the latest (1988-based) national population projections for England made by the Government Actuary's department. Past estimates of migration have been derived from re-registrations on the National Health Service central register as people move from a doctor's list in one family practitioner committee area to a list in another such area (migration within the United Kingdom), and from results of the international passenger survey (international migration). The net inwards migration levels assumed for 1988–89 and 1989–90 on this basis are less than the levels estimated for each of the previous four years.

  Milk
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has received for changing the basis on which welfare milk is paid for; and whether he will make it his policy to ensure that any change does not reduce the incomes of self-employed milkmen.

  Mr. Freeman
  As part of the Government's initiative to secure value for money in all their purchases, negotiations have been held with representatives of all sectors of the dairy trade about the price paid by the Department for the supply of liquid welfare milk. The results are being closely studied and the interests of all the parties involved will be carefully considered before any decisions are made.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to lay before Parliament the code of practice required under section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have today laid the code of practice, and copies have been placed in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Africa
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meeting has been held since September with representatives of the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the United Kingdom on the arrangements for South Africa to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; what other non-proliferation treaty depository states have been involved in such discussions; and what future plans there are for further meetings with South Africa on the non-proliferation treaty.
  143
  Mr. Maude
  There has not been any such meeting since September. However, representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union (which are the depositary states of the non-proliferation treaty) are to meet South African representatives in Vienna on 11 and 12 December to discuss the question of South African accession to the treaty.

  South Korea
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of South Korea to have removed the concrete wall which borders the demilitarised zone.

  Mr. Maude
  North and South Korea are still technically at war. The choice of defensive measures on their side of the demilitarized zone is a matter for the Government of the Republic of Korea.

  Radar Equipment (China)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why permits were issued for the sale of radar equipment in Chinese fighter aircraft in September; whether such permits were excluded by the Madrid European Community summit declaration; and whether Export Credit Guarantees Department help was given to the Chinese Government for the purchase of such equipment.

  Mr. Maude
  In accordance with the Madrid declaration we have banned exports to China of weapons, together with any equipment which could be used for the purposes of internal repression, and postponed the examination of new requests for credit insurance. The avionics equipment to be supplied by GEC Marconi falls outside the embargo. It is subject to ECGD export credit cover, but as this was finalised prior to the events of June, it is not covered by the Madrid declaration.

  Consular Fees
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money has been levied in consular fees as a result of misfortunes happening to British citizens abroad who have had to seek help from embassy staff outside working hours.

  Mr. Maude
  The information requested is not readily available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Eastern and Central Europe
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations she has had with European allies concerning the security implications of recent political developments in eastern and central Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed recent developments in eastern Europe with my EC colleagues in Paris on 18 November, and will have the opportunity to do so again in Strasbourg on 8–9 December. I was also able to discuss these issues with European and other NATO colleagues at the briefing which President Bush gave yesterday in Brussels on his meetings with President Gorbachev.

  Environment
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the proposals in the Gracious Speech relating to the environment.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the proposals in the Gracious Speech relating to the environment.

  The Prime Minister
  Our Environmental Protection Bill is further proof of the Government's firm commitment to protecting and enhancing the domestic and international environment. It will encompass a range of innovative and widely welcomed measures to tackle pollution at source. New and more effective controls will be introduced to regulate pollution and waste disposal. Other provisions include strong measures to crack down on litter and improvements to the structure of our conservation agencies.

  Education Reforms
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on implementation by local authorities of the Government's education reforms.

  The Prime Minister
  Local authorities are making satisfactory progress with implementing the Government's education reforms which will increase parental choice in the schooling for their children and increase the say of parents in the way the schools are run. In England and Wales, preparations for local management of schools and colleges are on target and the implementation of the national curriculum is going well. In Scotland, establishment of school boards for education authority schools is proceeding well, and authorities are participating in all aspects of our initiatives on curriculum and assessment for five to 14-year-olds.

  Berlin
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to visit Berlin.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government to the European Community calling for increased aid and investment in eastern European countries seeking to introduce democracy and a freer market economy; and what progress is being made in that regard.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to supporting economic and political reform in eastern Europe, and have played a leading role in encouraging the very positive response of the EC and its member states to the emerging democracies. Nationally, the United Kingdom was first in the field with a know-how fund for Poland, now valued at £50 million. On 29 November, we announced that we would be contributing £15 million to an agriculture project in Poland and that we would make a contribution of $100 million to the stabilisation fund for Poland. For Hungary, a know-how fund, valued at £25 million, will come into operation early next year.
  145
  Within the Community we have contributed to a comprehensive assistance package for Poland and Hungary comprising:
  some £210 million for aid projects for both Poland and Hungary in 1990;
  GSP status, bringing reductions in tariffs and levies on industrial and certain agricultural products;
  suspension or abolition of quantitative trade restrictions; eligibility for EIB lending.

  In addition, the Community has provided £70 million-worth of free food for Poland. We expect to announce soon a further contribution.

  Moreover, the EC is establishing a pattern of agreements with the countries of eastern Europe which will encourage trade and investment.

  Her Majesty's Government will continue their strong support of the EC's policy of differentiation in favour of those countries which introduce reforms leading to democracy and a free-market economy.

  Easenhall, Rugby
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Easenhall near Rugby.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Inner Cities
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on proposals on the Queen's gracious speech relating to the inner cities.

  The Prime Minister
  Excellent progress is being made in the regeneration of our inner cities under the Government's action for cities programmes. In developing our policies for the future we will seek to develop a genuine partnership between all those involved in the regeneration of their areas. The Government are working with business, local government, the voluntary sector and local people to build on the progress already made and to ensure that the pace of inner-city regeneration is maintained.

  European Free Trade Association
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the proposal by President Mitterrand and others to permit the United Kingdom to rejoin the European Free Trade Association.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no such proposal. The United Kingdom is and will remain an active, committed and influential member of the European Community.

  Engagements
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.
  146
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

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

  South Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she raised the question of human rights in South Korea at her recent meeting with the president;

  (2) what representations she has made concerning human rights in South Korea; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  During my talks with President Roh on 28 November, I encouraged him to continue to make progress with domestic political reform.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she made any representations to the President of South Korea during his recent visit regarding the alleged ill-treatment of dogs and cats prior to their killing for human consumption; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  President Roh is well aware of the strong views of the people of Britain on this issue.

WALES

  Schools
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken to provide quality supply cover in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility of the Government is to ensure that there are sufficient qualified teachers from whom LEAs can recruit. This year, total recruitment to the public sector initial teacher training institutions in Wales exceeded recruitment targets by over 17 per cent.

  Our education support grant programme to assist teacher recruitment urges LEAs to encourage flexible

  147
  working practices, including part-time working. This should stimulate the employment of supply teachers. However, the employment and deployment of teachers is a matter for LEAs and schools. It is for them to decide how many supply teachers to appoint. They also have discretion to pay teachers on short-notice contracts at rates they consider appropriate in order to recruit and retain the teachers they need.

  Schools
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate the date on which he plans to publish rules for implementation of local management schemes for schools in each of the Welsh county councils.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Sections 33 and 34 of the Education Reform Act 1988 require local education authorities to

  Expenditure on books and equipment1

  Expenditure per pupil on books and equipment1

  Nursery/Primary2

  Secondary

  Nursery/Primary2

  Secondary

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Clwyd

  708,931

  1,275,590

  19·8

  44·5

  Dyfed

  728,939

  1,658,103

  24·0

  69·3

  Gwent

  962,194

  1,842,706

  24·1

  60·4

  Gwynedd

  457,647

  1,121,762

  23·6

  65·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,212,483

  2,291,762

  22·8

  58·1

  Powys

  298,725

  482,177

  30·1

  58·7

  South Glamorgan

  811,907

  1,445,203

  23·6

  53·0

  West Glamorgan

  950,516

  1,475,811

  28·7

  61·5

  WALES

  6,131,342

  11,593,114

  23·9

  58·2

  1 Expenditure on books only is not available·

  2 Data in respect of primary schools cannot be separately identified.

  Doctors
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many doctors have resigned from the National Health Service in Wales since 1 January 1980.

  Mr. Grist
  Between 2 October 1979 and 1 October 1987, 188 general medical practitioners left the general medical service for reasons other than death, retirement or to enter hospital service. During the same period, 97 practitioners were readmitted to the service.

  Information on the resignations of consultants and senior registrars in the hospital service will take some time to extract; I will reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Water
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many water supplies in Wales have aluminium in excess of the terms of the European drinking water directive; and how much investment is currently made to water treatment facilities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted undertakings under section 20(5)(b) of the Water Act 1989 and granted relaxations under regulations 4(1)(c) and 4(2) of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 in respect of aluminium standards at 89 of Dwr Cymru's treatment works. The Prospectus on the Water Share offers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, shows Dwr Cymru's current estimates of the expenditure required by the K investment programme in
  148
  prepare and submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for his approval schemes for financing county and voluntary schools maintained by them. Advice on the introduction and implementation of the schemes is contained in Welsh Office circular 36/88, a copy of which is in the library.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state for the latest available financial year for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools (i) expenditure on books in Wales in total and by local education authority and (ii) average expenditure per pupil on books in Wales and by education authority.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The amounts spent by LEAs in respect of books, equipment and materials for 1987–88 are shown in the following table:

  the period to 31 March 2000. The estimated expenditure on water treatment (at November 1989 prices) is £265 million.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many lithotripter machines for kidney patients are installed in Welsh hospitals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many Welsh patients needing lithotripter machine treatment travel to English centres; if he will list those centres; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what plans there are to install lithotripter machines in hospitals in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  There are at present no lithotripter machines in National Health Service hospitals in Wales. Information on the number of Welsh patients referred to centres in England for lithotripter treatment is not held centrally. South Glamorgan health authority has been invited by the Welsh Office to prepare, in association with other health authorities in Wales, a detailed statement of need, appraisal of location options and specification for a lithotripter.

  Gower
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has visited Gower since his appointment to his present post.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 28 November 1989]: I have undertaken two engagements in Gower, and a further 13 engagements in the Swansea area.

DEFENCE

  War Widows' Pensions
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the actuarial basis on which war widows' pensions are calculated; whether they are in any way contributory; and whether they represent a percentage of the husband/service man's salary.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  War widows' pensions are not paid by the Ministry of Defence. Provided, however, that they are eligible, service widows may receive special rates of pension under the terms of the armed forces pension scheme if their husband's death is attributable to his service. The special rates are on scales related to the rank held by the husband at the date his service ended. They approximate to 90 per cent. of the pension which he would have earned had he completed the maximum period of reckonable service required for a full career pension, less an adjustment to reflect the difference between the standard rate of war widow's pension and the normal rate of national insurance widow's pension. No direct contributions are paid to secure the benefits of the armed forces scheme, but an adjustment is made by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, taking into account the value of those benefits as part of the total remuneration package, in determining recommended rates of pay for the armed forces.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will call for a report on the suspension and returning to barracks of the staff sergeant acting on 23 November, as Army liaison officer in the control room of the ambulance headquarters at Welwyn Garden City following a fatal road traffic accident on the A505 between Letchworth and Royston; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The individual concerned has not been suspended. He was required in Colchester to brief other medical personnel before returning for a further period of duty in Hertfordshire.

  Gibraltar Garrison
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on restructuring the Gibraltar garrison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) in his statement on 30 January, we have considered the matter in detail and have decided not to retain a resident infantry battalion in Gibraltar after March 1991, when the current tour of the 3rd battalion Royal Green Jackets ends. Some of the tasks currently undertaken by the resident battalion, including ceremonial duties, will in future be performed by the Gibraltar Regiment, the permanent cadre of which will be more than doubled. The establishment of a part-time company and home service force company will allow the regiment to reorganise into an all-infantry force of three rifle companies with the appropriate command and support elements. The Artillery Battery and Air Defence Troop will no longer be required, although the personnel in these units will be given the opportunity to remain in the restructured regiment. The Gibraltar Regiment Corps of 150
  Drums will be retained, and in addition a military band will be provided for certain important occasions. Separately, we are also reviewing the arrangements in Gibraltar for logistics support, and for command and control with a view to establishing a joint force headquarters.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Austin Rover
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what was the total sum paid by the National Audit Office to outside auditors involved in producing the report on the sale of Austin Rover.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  Under the National Audit Act 1983 the operations of the National Audit Office are entirely a matter for the C. and A. G. The Commission does not have any powers in this respect. However I understand that, for the purposes of its examination of the Rover Group sale, the National Audit Office did not use outside auditors. As indicated in paragraph 1.12 of the C. and A. G.'s report, it obtained specialist advice on taxation matters from chartered accountants (Touche Ross) and on the value of surplus sites from chartered surveyors (G. L. Hearn and Partners). It also sought comments on the draft report from an expert on the motor industry (Professor Garel Rhys of the University of Wales).

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Members take advantage of the payroll giving scheme, either in whole or in part.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  There are currently 49 Members who have authorised deductions from their parliamentary salaries under the charity payroll giving scheme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  West Germany
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects British manufacturing trade to be in balance with(a) West Germany and (b) the rest of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are committed to free trade as being in the best interests of the United Kingdom. We cannot expect this to produce a trade balance with every partner; nevertheless, the Government recognise the importance of continuing to encourage and support exports through, inter alia, the activities of the British Overseas Trade Board and ECGD.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the manufacturing trade deficit with West Germany.

  Mr. Redwood
  In the first nine months of 1989 imports of manufactures into the United Kingdom consigned from the Federal Republic of Germany exceeded United Kingdom exports to that country by £7·4 billion.
  151
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in imports in manufacturing goods from West Germany since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  Imports of manufactured goods from West Germany have risen, at current prices, from £5·3 billion in 1979 to £16·6 billion in 1988, an increase of £11·3 billion.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the countries in the European Community with which the United Kingdom has a trade deficit, giving the amounts in each case.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is given in the table.

  West Germany

  Japan

  United States of America

  Manufactured goods

  Total risible trade

  Manufactured goods

  Total risible trade

  Manufactured goods

  Total visible trade

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1979

  -2,523

  -1,560

  -960

  -882

  -541

  -881

  1980

  -2,002

  -587

  -1,185

  -1,110

  -1,422

  -1,465

  1981

  -2,152

  -425

  -1,657

  -1,586

  -1,107

  210

  1982

  -3,314

  -1,994

  -2,045

  -1,978

  -1,262

  210

  1983

  -4,926

  -3,597

  -2,653

  -2,556

  -950

  989

  1984

  -5,070

  -3,604

  -2,913

  -2,845

  -1,214

  791

  1985

  -5,833

  -3,689

  -3,205

  -3,103

  -310

  1,593

  1986

  -6,713

  -5,589

  -3,918

  -3,743

  1,024

  1,899

  1987

  -7,455

  -6,379

  -4,165

  -3,969

  928

  1,878

  1988

  -8,671

  -8,145

  -5,373

  -4,766

  -518

  -224

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the figures for exports and imports for each of the last five years between the United Kingdom and(a) Poland, (b) East Germany, (c) Czechoslovakia and (d) Hungary.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Export

  Import

  Export

  Import

  Export

  Import

  Export

  Import

  Export

  Import

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Poland

  170

  267

  184

  322

  167

  309

  181

  304

  176

  328

  East Germany

  92

  198

  64

  204

  82

  195

  81

  180

  113

  153

  Czechoslovakia

  78

  117

  100

  120

  109

  126

  114

  141

  130

  148

  Hungary

  101

  76

  107

  84

  102

  78

  101

  83

  131

  98

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Textile and Clothing Imports
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what detailed surveys of the level of imported textile and clothing goods on sale in major high street stores in the United Kingdom he is planning to undertake;

  (2) what is his estimate of the level of imported textile and clothing goods on sale in major high street stores in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  The overall level of imports of textiles and clothing is shown in the trade statistics. I have no plans to survey the level of imported goods in particular stores.
  152

  Manufacturing trade: January to September 1989

  Crude balance

  £ million

  France

  -933

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  -621

  Netherlands

  -1,705

  Federal Republic of Germany

  -7,411

  Italy

  -1,595

  Denmark

  -153

  Portugal

  -53

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the deficit or surplus in(a) manufacturing and trade and (b) invisibles in each of the last 10 years with (i) West Germany, (ii) Japan and (iii) the United States of America.

  Mr. Redwood
  The crude balance of visible trade in manufactured goods and total visible trade for the identified countries is given in the following table. Information on invisible trade is not available.

  Mr. Redwood
  Visible trade between the United Kingdom and the countries concerned is given in the following table:

  Hosiery and Knitwear Industry
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the hosiery and knitwear industry in the east midlands regarding the current state of trade; what reply he has sent; and what action he intends to take in this matter.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department takes a close interest in matters of concern to the knitwear industry and has taken into consideration the many letters and representations received over the past year.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Trade met the Knitting Industries Federation on 11 September and more recently the Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance on 4 October to discuss current issues.
  153
  The Government will continue to act to defend the knitwear and hosiery industry on trade issues where it is in the United Kingdom's overall economic interest and within the constraints of our EC and GATT obligations.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will report on the Internal Market Council held on 23 November.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Council reached agreement on the abolition of the Community transit advice note (TAN), on the reduction of frontier controls for transport (subject to a United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny reserve) on a "new approach" directive on standards for certain weighing machines, and on the third motor liability insurance directive.

  Important progress was also made on the proposed EC merger regulation. The main outstanding issue is a German proposal to allow certain cases to pass to national competition authorities. The Council will discuss the regulation further at the Internal Market Council on 21 December. I refer the hon. Member to the previous answers that I gave on this subject on 24 November 1989 at columns 41–42 and on 29 November at column 291.

  The Council discussed proposed directives on public procurement (excluded sectors), rights of residence, gas appliances and life insurance services and made useful progress. All will be discussed again at the December Internal Market Council. The question of tax exemption for temporarily imported vehicles was also discussed, but was not agreed, following concerns expressed by a number of member states.

  The Commission reported that it would bring forward specific recommendations based on its analysis of barriers to takeovers in member states by the end of March 1990.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what accountancy firm advised his Department on the sale of(a) Rover and (b) Royal Ordnance plc.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: My Department took professional advice on the sale of its shareholdings in the Rover Group from Baring Brothers and Slaughter and May. The privatisation of Royal Ordnance plc is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  European Patent Office
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied that the European Patent Office is in a fully competitive position with the United States of America and other parts of the world.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: The European Patent Office is not in competition with the United States patent and trade mark office and patent offices in other parts of the world. In order to obtain a patent in a state which is a member of the European Patent Organisation (13 European states including the United Kingdom), an application must be made either to the EPO or to the national patent office of the state concerned.
  154
  The EPO is very successful and last year attracted more than 50,000 applications—far more than predicted when the office was established in 1977.

  Korea (Cruelty)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to use trade sanctions in respect of trade in animal products to bring pressure on the Government of Korea to end the inhumane treatment of dogs and cats intended for human consumption in that country.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: I condemn the inhumane treatment of animals wherever it occurs, and I view with concern reports that dogs and cats are being treated inhumanely in Korea. I do not believe, however, that trade sanctions are the proper response.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary drew the attention of the Korean Foreign Minister to the strong concern which many people in this country feel about this matter during the recent visit to Britain of the president of the Republic of Korea.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, by region, the maximum level of fees for private nursing home care, funded by his Department; and if he will indicate which specific regions have the largest and smallest budgets for such care.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that information in the form requested is not available.

  Children
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of bringing up a child to the age of 18 years in Britain at the present time.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no agreed criteria on which such an estimate could be based.

  Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will present the data in the answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 15 November,Official Report, columns 313–15, for single pensioner households and two person pensioner households.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Because the equivalence scale does not distinguish between pensioners and other adults, the information requested is the same as that provided in tables 2 and 3 (for one adult and married couple households respectively) of the answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead on 15 November, columns 313–15. Tables 2 to 6 of that answer illustrate the value that the equivalised average would represent for different households at each level of the income distribution and therefore contain the same information, as fixed multiples of each other, in accordance with the different values assigned to different household sizes by the Department's

  155
  equivalence scale. They do not, of course, contain information about actual income changes for the household types shown.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether ME sufferers are entitled to be awarded attendance allowance by his Department under the terms of page 61 of his Department's handbook to delegated practitioners.

  Mr. Scott
  As the Attendance Allowance Board's "Handbook for Delegated Medical Practitioners" makes clear, entitlement to an attendance allowance depends entirely on the need for frequent attention, continual supervision or watching over arising from severe disability. Anyone whose attendance needs satisfy these criteria will qualify for an allowance, irrespective of the precise nature of their illness or disabling condition.

  Young People (Benefits)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to the oral reply to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) of 27 November,Official Report, column 420, if he will indicate the nature and scale of the difficulties faced by 16 and 17-year-olds in claiming benefit and give the numbers of those affected and refused.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Our monitoring has confirmed that our policy operates without difficulty for the vast majority of 16 and 17-year-olds. Such isolated difficulties as have arisen range from a possible misunderstanding of procedures by local office staff to lack of knowledge of the benefit provisions on the part of some young people. To overcome these, we have introduced the administrative changes which I announced on 27 November.

  Benefit Records
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social security offices have had their benefit records transferred to Glasgow; what is his estimate of the cost/benefit of the transfer; and how mistakes discovered in the records will be rectified.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Two London offices, Ealing and Southall, have so far transferred their income support benefit records to the social security centre in Glasgow. Relocation of the income support work of Acton office commenced on 4 December.

  Overall the current estimate gives a cost benefit of some £16 million over 20 years for the three social security centres. The fundamental reason for relocation, however, is to improve service to the public.

  Benefit records are rigorously examined for accuracy when they are received at the social security centre in preparation for loading onto the income support computer system. Where errors in payment have been made, they will be rectified and arrears due will be paid promptly.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the money advice training budget for social fund officers in the years 1988–89 and 1989–90.
  156
  Mr. Scott
  Guidance on money advice forms an integral part of the internal training provided for social fund officers, and there is no separate budget allocated to that part of the training programme.

  Money advice training occupies two days in the total training period of three weeks and comprises: the role of the social fund officer in helping clients with financial problems; identification of priority debts; giving advice on budgeting and financial expenditure; interviewing skills relevant to money advice interviews.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total value of retirement pensions being paid during the current year, or the most recent year for which figures are available, to people resident overseas who emigrated from the United Kingdom and stopped paying national insurance contributions in the United Kingdom before 1960; and what is the total value of the national insurance contributions which were paid by those people.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that this information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of paying fully uprated state retirement pensions to all British pensioners overseas who are currently not covered by a reciprocal social security agreement to this effect.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 29 November 1989 at column 253.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will increase the cold weather payments for the coming winter in line with the cost of living.

  Mr. Scott
  No. We believe that £5 is a reasonable amount to pay towards the extra expenses for heating incurred in each week of very cold weather.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each social security office the budget surplus or deficit at the end of the winter 1988–89 for cold weather payment provision.

  Mr. Scott
  Local offices do not have budgets for cold weather payments. Such payments are regulated and consequently are not subject to local budgetary constraints.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for the winter of 1988–89, by Department of Social Security office, the amount of cold weather payments that were made.

  Mr. Scott
  In the winter of 1988–89, a total of 502 cold weather payments totalling £2,510 were paid by the Department's local office at Galashiels. No other awards were made, because the weather last winter was so mild.

  Dietary Requirements
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research is undertaken by his Department into dietary requirements of people in receipt of benefit.
  157
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  None. There is no reason to believe that dietary requirements of people in receipt of social security benefits are any different from those of corresponding groups not on benefit.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reply to the letter from Colin Barlow, a war disabled veteran, which was forwarded to his Department by the hon. Member for South Hams on 26 October.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My noble Friend Lord Henley replied to my hon. Friend's letter on 30 November.

  Care Expenditure
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the sum to be transferred to Scottish local authorities in repect of his Department's care expenditure in the years 1991–92 to 2001–2.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government will transfer to local authorities the resources which we would have otherwise provided to finance care through social security payments to people in residential and nursing homes. Final decisions will be taken in next year's public expenditure survey following discussions with the local authority associations. Chapter 8 of the recently published White Paper on community care (Cm. 849), a copy of which is in the Library, gives details of the factors that will be taken into account in the calculation of the sums to be transferred.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will provide a breakdown of board and lodging expenditure for residential care accommodation for Scotland, England and Wales by Department of Social Security region in the years from 1982;

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of board and lodging expenditure for residential care accommodation in Scotland by Department of Social Security local offices during the last financial year;

  (3) if he will provide figures for board and lodging expenditure on nursing homes in Scotland, England and Wales by Department of Social Security region in the years from 1982.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that reliable estimates for regions and local offices are not available.

  Disability
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide estimated figures of disabled people for Scotland by Office of Population Censuses and Surveys disability categories for the years since 1978.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information is not available. Only the OPCS disability surveys themselves provide information at the level of detail requested, based on data collected between 1985 and 1988.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is able to give a firm date for the publication of proposals to alter social security benefits for disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 14 November at column 167.
  158
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to include social security provision for informal carers in his proposals to change the benefits for disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  We have already confirmed our policy to provide extra help for informal carers in the range of measures announced by my right hon. Friend on 25 October. The measures include the introduction of a £10 carers premium in income support and housing benefit for people receiving invalid care allowance; an increase in the earnings rule for invalid care allowance; and the extension of invalid care allowance to those caring for people who will qualify for attendance allowance for the first time as a result of the other measures announced.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a complete list of all the research commissioned by his Department in connection with the proposals to change benefits for disabled people.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  The information is as follows:

  1. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) surveys of disability in Great Britain—six reports published between September 1988 and July 1989.

  2. Department of Social Security study, based on the family expenditure survey, to compare the financial circumstances of households with and without a disabled person.

  3. Social policy research unit (SPRU), university of York study of 12 to 20-year olds' transition to adulthood.

  4. IFF Research Limited market research report on occupational sick pay schemes published in June 1988.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what form his proposals for changes to social security benefits for disabled people will be presented to Parliament.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 28 November at column 217.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions have taken place in connection with proposals to alter social security benefits for disabled people with voluntary organisations of disabled people and their families.

  Mr. Scott
  Discussions have taken place with a number of organisations representing disabled people including the Disability Benefits Consortium which represents over 250 disability organisations. We will be meeting the Consortium again shortly. We have also received a large number of comments from individuals and organisations as a result of the OPCS surveys of disability.

  Interpreters
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to expand the scheme employing interpreters in his Department's local offices in Leeds and Bradford to other offices of his Department serving areas with large non-English speaking populations.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans at present to extend the Leeds and Bradford service to other similar areas. In the meantime, of the Department's local offices where 10 per cent. or more of callers have little or no English, over three quarters maintain lists of staff who are willing and able to act as interpreters for ethnic minority customers.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest available figures for the number of families in receipt of family credit in Wales; and what percentage this constitutes of the total number eligible for family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest information is for September 1989, when the number of families receiving family credit who were living in Wales at the time their award was made was 22,000.

  Information about the total number of families eligible for family credit can be obtained only for Great Britain, and only retrospectively, from family expenditure survey data.

  Income Support
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest available figure of the number of persons in receipt of income support in Wales and the percentage this constitutes of the total number eligible for income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available estimates are that 246,000 claimants were in receipt of income support in Wales at May 1989. Information about the total number of people eligible for income support can be obtained only for Great Britain, and only retrospectively, from family expenditure survey data.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, how many people who have been in receipt of attendance allowance at (i) the higher rate and (ii) the lower rate have had their attendance allowance reduced in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 27 November 1989]: I regret that not all the requested information is available. The available information is in the table.

  Attendance allowance: number of awards reduced and terminated 1984–89

  Year

  Awards1

  Awards2 terminated

  1984

  2,572

  21,774

  1985

  2,705

  22,985

  1986

  2,886

  23,701

  1987

  2,671

  22,717

  1988

  3,107

  25,141

  31989

  2,602

  20,563

  1 Reduced from higher-rate to lower-rate.

  2 Includes higher-rate and lower-rate awards which were terminated other than on expiry of the award or on death of the recipient.

  3 To 30 September 1989.

SCOTLAND

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what checks or monitoring his Department does for radiation level in food imports from eastern European countries since the accident at Chernobyl; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for checking food imports rests under the Imported Food 160
  (Scotland) Regulations 1985 with district and islands councils. EC regulation 3955/87 currently sets down the maximum permissible levels of radioactivity in imported foods. My Department has received no reports of these levels being exceeded.

  Boarding Schools
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many boarding schools in Scotland have school boards.

  Mr. Lang
  The only wholly residential schools under education authority management are six special schools. One of these has a school board following the first round of elections.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants have been attached to his Department in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information in respect of the staff in post in the Scottish Office, Scottish prison service and state hospital at 1 April each year is set out in the table. Part-time staff are counted as half units and casual staff are excluded.

  The figures take account of the following transfers of staff arising from machinery of Government changes:

  Date

  Number

  July 1975

  155

  Staff from Department of Trade and Industry

  April 1978

  501

  Staff from Property Services Agency

  April 1980

  107

  Staff from Property Services Agency

  March 1984

  448·5

  Staff to state hospital

  November 1984

  96

  Staff from Department of Trade and Industry

  April 1985

  51

  Staff from the then Department of Health and Social Security

  October 1985

  162

  Staff to Royal museums of Scotland

  March 1986

  169·5

  staff to Royal botanic garden

  July 1987

  52

  Staff to Scottish legal aid board

  April 1988

  61

  Staff to Crofter's Commission/Red Deer Commission

  Total

  + 17

  staff (net)

  Scottish office

  Prisons

  State hospital

  Grand total

  1 April 1970

  7,029

  1,849

  276

  9,154

  1 April 1971

  7,121

  1,903

  292

  9,316

  1 April 1972

  6,993

  2,130

  312

  9,435

  1 April 1973

  7,132·5

  2,164·5

  301·5

  9,598·5

  1 April 1974

  7,306·5

  2,080·5

  317

  9,704

  1 April 1975

  7,526

  2,174

  339·5

  10,039·5

  1 April 1976

  8,014·5

  2,376

  356·5

  10,747

  1 April 1977

  7,670·5

  2,489·5

  352·5

  10,512·5

  1 April 1978

  7,993·5

  2,558

  348·5

  10,900

  1 April 1979

  8,233

  2,582

  359·5

  11,174

  1 April 1980

  7,941·5

  2,692·5

  369

  11,003

  1 April 1981

  7,659·5

  2,748·5

  393·5

  10,801·5

  1 April 1982

  7,406

  2,728

  407·5

  10,541·5

  1 April 1983

  7,126

  2,721

  438

  10,285

  1 April 1984

  7,035·5

  2,738·5

  1—

  9,774

  1 April 1985

  7,031

  2,880·5

  1—

  9,911·5

  1 April 1986

  6,793·5

  3,204

  1—

  9,817·5

  1 April 1987

  6,683·5

  3,184·5

  1—

  9,832

  1 April 1988

  6,445

  3,392

  1—

  9,837

  1 April 1989

  6,273

  3,803·5

  1—

  10,076·5

  1 With effect from 31 March 1984, staff employed by the state hospital management committee.

  Alcohol
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider instigating a Government-funded campaign to publicise the danger to health of excessive drinking in the light of evidence of increased incidence of alcohol abuse.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government attach high priority to tackling the problem of alcohol misuse and public education on this topic forms one of the Scottish health education group's major programmes. The next stage of the alcohol education media campaign developed by the group will be launched early in 1990.

  The Government also provided financial support for the Scottish Council on Alcohol's "Drinkwise" campaign in February 1989.

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1974(a) the number of prisoners in Scottish penal institutions for fine default, (b) the total number of convicted prisoners and (c) (a) as a percentage of (b).

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.

  Persons with a charge proved for crimes of violence1 in Scotland

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Murder

  52

  41

  35

  26

  27

  42

  37

  37

  26

  29

  26

  Attempted murder

  53

  42

  49

  35

  35

  44

  27

  29

  26

  46

  39

  Culpable homicide (common law)

  30

  30

  30

  38

  43

  36

  45

  31

  50

  27

  46

  Culpable homicide (statutory)2

  44

  44

  30

  34

  25

  27

  26

  20

  29

  26

  28

  Rape

  35

  29

  34

  30

  40

  31

  30

  20

  39

  29

  34

  Other crimes of violence

  2,266

  2,733

  2,429

  2,824

  2,643

  3,865

  4,002

  3,208

  3,188

  3,239

  3,380

  Total

  2,480

  2,919

  2,607

  2,987

  2,813

  4,045

  4,167

  3,345

  3,358

  3,396

  3,553

  1 Comprises group 1 (non-sexual crimes of violence) and the sexual assault category from group 2 (crimes of indecency) of the Scottish Home and Health Department's classification of crimes and offences.

  2 Statutory culpable homicide is the crime of causing death by dangerous or reckless driving.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of supporting the spouses and families of men and women in prison in Scottish penal institutions.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Hypothermia
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of deaths in Scotland where hypothermia is mentioned as the cause of death; and what is his estimate of the total number of deaths where hypothermia is a proximate cause of death.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of deaths in Scotland since 1984 mentioning hypothermia or showing hypothermia as the underlying cause are shown in the table:
  162

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Year

  Average daily population of fine defaulters

  Average daily population of convicted prisoners

  (a) as a percentage of (b)

  1974

  269

  4,212

  6

  1975

  329

  4,405

  7

  1976

  322

  4,324

  7

  1977

  286

  4,367

  7

  1978

  309

  4,507

  7

  1979

  293

  4,016

  7

  1980

  386

  4,303

  9

  1981

  231

  3,951

  6

  1982

  233

  4,237

  5

  1983

  226

  4,406

  5

  1984

  256

  3,983

  6

  1985

  308

  4,349

  7

  1986

  329

  4,791

  7

  1987

  287

  4,692

  6

  11988

  275

  4,538

  6

  1 Provisional.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of convictions in Scotland for murder, attempted murder, culpable homicide, rape and crimes of violence, respectively, in each year from 1977.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Deaths from hypothermia (any mention), Scotland, 1984 to 1989

  Year

  Total all mentions

  Underlying cause

  1984

  176

  52

  1985

  232

  60

  1986

  209

  64

  1987

  153

  34

  1988

  138

  40

  11989

  80

  19

  1 Provisional figures for January to September.

  Care Expenditure
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will produce figures for local authority expenditure on residential care in Scotland from 1979–80 to 1988–89, broken down by social work authority;

  (2) if he will provide figures for local authority expenditure on domiciliary care in Scotland between 1979–80 and 1988–89, broken down by social work authority.
  163
  Mr. Lang
  The information for 1988–89 is not yet available. Figures for the other years are set out in the

  Table 1

  Net expenditure by local authorities on residential care services

  (£000)

  Regions

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Borders

  1,437

  1,625

  1,863

  2,063

  1,948

  2,063

  2,006

  2,094

  1,960

  Central

  2,406

  2,827

  3,263

  3,483

  4,104

  4,021

  4,080

  4,396

  4,499

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,361

  1,522

  1,857

  1,938

  2,377

  2,045

  2,175

  2,303

  2,273

  Fife

  4,282

  5,111

  5,636

  6,465

  7,695

  7,502

  7,428

  6,725

  7.151

  Grampian

  5,137

  6,467

  6,881

  7,527

  8,534

  8,098

  8,174

  8,584

  9,810

  Highland

  2,237

  2,649

  3,121

  3,502

  3,606

  3,459

  3,842

  3,680

  3,674

  Lothian

  11,900

  15,079

  16,281

  16,491

  19,925

  16,999

  16,959

  16,976

  18,106

  Strathclyde

  39,782

  47,251

  50,217

  54,368

  57,002

  59,123

  57,044

  57,477

  59,111

  Tayside

  6,158

  7,531

  7,627

  8,940

  9,960

  9,500

  8,871

  9,011

  9,915

  Orkney

  331

  425

  486

  418

  380

  436

  458

  388

  688

  Shetland

  259

  587

  671

  632

  703

  801

  844

  816

  883

  Western Isles

  679

  698

  878

  1,011

  1,035

  1.065

  1,005

  1,032

  990

  Scotland

  75,969

  91,772

  98,781

  106,838

  117,269

  115,112

  112,886

  113,482

  118,970

  Notes:

  1. The figures up to 1984–85 include unidentified levels of expenditure on wardens in sheltered housing. 1985–86 this is included in Table 2.

  2. Unlike for other years, the 1986–87 figure for Okney does not include residential care for mentally handicapped and physically handicapped Persons.

  Table 2

  Net expenditure by local authorities on Domiciliary Care Services

  £(000)

  Regions

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Borders

  349

  403

  407

  420

  549

  603

  750

  788

  1,003

  Central

  1,681

  1,916

  2,102

  2,323

  2,641

  2,929

  3,631

  3,710

  4,362

  Dumfries and Galloway

  767

  853

  929

  853

  1,062

  1,144

  1,352

  1,500

  1,563

  Fife

  2,185

  2,375

  2,689

  2,894

  3,374

  4,004

  5,051

  6,201

  7,567

  Grampian

  1,909

  2,325

  2,542

  2,934

  3,401

  3,759

  4,617

  5,183

  6,718

  Highland

  697

  872

  1,029

  1,180

  1,536

  1,733

  1,612

  1,816

  2,16

  Lothian

  6,069

  7,126

  6,819

  6,690

  7,796

  7,187

  9,238

  10,374

  12,572

  Strathclyde

  16,263

  18,417

  20,533

  21,740

  24,277

  25,894

  32,661

  34,573

  40,114

  Tayside

  1,856

  2,173

  2,297

  2,538

  3,227

  3,643

  4,618

  5,189

  6,352

  Orkney

  227

  248

  257

  287

  355

  371

  473

  461

  485

  Shetland

  257

  336

  410

  518

  529

  469

  504

  555

  665

  Western Isles

  561

  616

  637

  742

  961

  827

  1,021

  1,049

  1,145

  Scotland

  32,821

  37,660

  40,651

  43,119

  49,708

  52,563

  65,528

  71,399

  84,712

  Note: The figures for 1979–80 to 1981–82 include only expenditure on home helps and meals on wheels; from 1982–83 onwards aids to daily living and home adaptations are added; from 1985–86 onwards expenditure on wardens in sheltered housing is added.

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria procurators fiscal apply when considering reports from the police for alleged drink-drive offences following breath tests administered to motorists stopped at random.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am advised by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that there is no code of practice in this area, but procurators fiscal will take into account the following matters:

  (i) It is lawful for a police officer in uniform acting in the execution of his duty to require the driver of any vehicle on a road to stop.

  (ii) A police officer who stops a vehicle on a road with the purpose of investigating whether its driver has alcohol in his body is acting in the execution of his duty.

  (iii) It is accordingly lawful for a police officer in uniform to stop vehicles at random for that purpose, provided there is no malpractice such as oppression or capricious conduct on the part of the officer.

  (iv) It is lawful for a police officer in uniform to require a driver who has been stopped in such circumstances to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test, provided that the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body.

  164
  tables. A number of changes in accounting practice over the period result in the annual figures not being strictly comparable.

  Procurators fiscal must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to merit prosecution in the public interest before instituting proceedings.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to make any proposals relating to judicial appointments in the supreme courts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have already announced that, in the light of responses to my consultation paper, "The Legal Profession in Scotland", I propose to extend the conditions for appointment to the office of senator to include solicitors who have exercised full rights of audience in the Supreme Courts or who have served as sheriffs principal or sheriffs, in each case for a minimum period of five years. Following the report of the review body chaired by the hon. Lord Maxwell on the use of judicial time in the supreme courts in Scotland I have decided to introduce new provisions relating to the appointment of temporary judges. Following consultation with the Lord President, I propose that the new eligibility criteria for appointment to the office of senator shall apply equally to the office of
  165
  temporary judge: that vacancies in the inner house of the court of session shall be filled by the appointment of a Lord Ordinary nominated by the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk: that when under existing statute the Lord President directs any three judges of the court to sit as an extra division of the inner house, the Lord President shall direct which of them is to preside: and that the appointment of a Lord Ordinary to act as Lord Ordinary in exchequer causes shall be made by the Lord President without the need for it to be recorded in delegated legislation.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates his Department has of the costs(a) to local authorities and (b) to central Government of bringing Scottish water supplies up to European Community standards; what equipment or capital plant is involved; and what sources of funds are available to complete this work.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: Latest estimates from water authorities put the cost of bringing Scottish water supplies fully up to EC standards at approximately £100 million a year on average over a period of up to 15 years. However, authorities will shortly be required to prepare more detailed costed programmes of necessary works. The programmes will involve the construction of new improved water treatement works and the replacement and renovation of much of the distribution system.

  It is largely for authorities to determine the sources of funds used within the capital expenditure rules set by Government. Grants for the improvement of rural water supplies are available to water authorities under the rural water supplies and sewerage Acts 1944–70.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Scottish Homes has any plans to sell off vacant houses to private landlords or other housing agencies and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: One of Scottish Homes objectives is to increase housing choice in Scotland, and more specifically to encourage owner occupation. In pursuing this objective Scottish Homes will consider the opportunities provided by vacant houses in their stock including sale to its own tenants under its portable discount scheme, in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Under the terms of Section 2(3A) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 as introduced by Section 179 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 Scottish Homes power to dispose of land may be exercised only with the consent of the Secretary of State.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to ensure that the bulldozing of woodland for agricultural purposes is avoided.
  166
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission operates a presumption against the conversion of woodland to agriculture and will not normally grant felling permission for this purpose.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Safety
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the estimated capital and revenue costs of establishing and running the food safety directorate.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is not possible to identify separately all the costs of the new Food Safety Directorate in 1989–90 because some parts of the organisation are not subject to decentralised budgetary control. From 1990–91 the directorate's budget will be fully decentralised and the allocation, which is now being finalised, will be published in the Supply Estimates.

  Toxic Farm Chemicals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to arrange for the collection of out-of-date toxic farm chemicals at no cost to the farmer.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. Purchasers of toxic chemicals are responsible for the safe disposal of surpluses and should think about disposal before they buy. Disposal costs can be reduced by co-ordinating collection. In the case of pesticides manufacturers and distributors have provided low-cost disposal arrangements when it has been necessary for Ministers to withdraw statutory approval for use. And I am pleased to note that the National Farmers Union is taking the initiative in making arrangements for the safe disposal of products not covered by industry schemes.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the amount of out-of-date toxic farm chemicals held on farms for which no safe disposal site is available.

  Mr. Maclean
  Safe disposal, off-farm, is available for any toxic chemical which cannot be used. There is no reliable information on the quantity or location of such waste, but the HSE's agricultural inspectorate does from time to time find unapproved pesticides in store. Anyone still holding unapproved pesticides should without delay ensure that it is stored in a safe condition and clearly labelled as not for use and make arrangements for a reputable specialist waste disposal contractor to collect the material for safe disposal.

  Food Safety Bill
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis he has calculated that the additional costs for local authorities arising from the Food Safety Bill will be £30 million; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health have held consultations with interested parties in order to assess the resources local authorities will need in order to enforce
  167
  the Food Safety Bill. The estimate that the additional cost for local authorities is likely to be of the order of £30 million was based on the information supplied.

  Food Committees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to increase representation from(a) consumer groups (b) enforcement agencies on food committees or working parties.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Food Advisory Committee has two members drawn from enforcement backgrounds and three members who have experience in consumer activities. All members of the committee are, however, appointed for their personal expertise and do not represent any particular interest. The new consumer panel will have nine ordinary consumer members nominated by various consumer organisations. I keep the membership of both committees under review and can where appropriate adjust the emphasis of the membership.

  Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what dates within the last 12 months he met representatives of Trusthouse Forte; what matters were discussed; and if he plans any future meetings;

  (2) on what dates within the last 12 months he met representatives of Sainsburys; what matters were discussed; if he plans any future meetings; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) on what dates within the last 12 months he met representatives of Tesco; what matters were discussed; and what future meetings are planned;

  (4) on what dates within the last 12 months he met representatives of Safeway; what matters were discussed; and what future meetings are planned;

  (5) on what dates within the last 12 months he met representatives of Marks and Spencer; what matters were discussed; and what future meetings are planned.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on Tuesday, 28 November 1989 at column 192.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met a representative for Eli Lilly; what was discussed; and if has plans for any future meetings.

  Mr. Maclean
  So far as I am aware, no incumbent Minister has had such a meeting. However, in February 1988 my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State met company representatives to discuss matters relating to the licensing of veterinary medicines. There are no plans for further meetings.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met a representative from Monsanto; what matters were discussed; if he plans any further meetings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  So far as I am aware, neither my right hon. Friend nor his predecessors have had such a meeting. However, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary met company representatives on 15 November to discuss matters relating to the licensing of veterinary medicines. There are no plans for further meetings.

  Microwave Cooking
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risk to consumers of using microwave for primary heating of food products if the manufacturer's instructions are followed.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department's primary concern has been with the performance of microwave ovens in reheating already cooked food. As far as cooking from raw is concerned, the Ministry has not undertaken an assessment of oven performance compared with manufacturers' instructions but users can apply exactly the same tests to ensure that food is fully cooked as they do when using other means of cooking.

  EC Surpluses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current situation concerning distribution of European Community surpluses to the elderly.

  Mr. Curry
  I assume that the question refers to the European Community's surplus food scheme. This requires member states to distribute surplus stocks of certain foods to the most needy in the community (defined in the United Kingdom as those on income support or family credit or people living in welfare hostels or of no fixed abode), not simply to the elderly.

  The United Kingdom has some 3,000 tonnes of butter and 3,000 tonnes of beef available for distribution under the scheme, and all of this produce has been released from intervention stores. Distributions to eligible recipients have been taking place for some time now and I expect that most of the produce will have been distributed before the end of 1989, but the timing of distribution is a matter for the designated organisations to decide according to local needs and their own capacity.

  Veterinary Laboratories
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names and locations of all Government veterinary laboratories closed in the last 10 years, together with their date of closure.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Location

  Date of closure

  Weybridge

  31 December 19801

  Cardiff

  4 April 1986

  Chester

  4 April 1986

  Gloucester

  30 June 19861

  Leeds

  30 June 1986

  Northants

  30 June 1986

  1 Veterinary investigation centre only.

  The laboratories at Lasswade and Liverpool transferred to Roslin and Barton Hall in April 1986 and October 1986 respectively.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of expenditure in 1988–89 and 1989–90 by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and the Agriculture Departments on market regulation under the common agricultural policy.
  169
  Mr. Gummer
  Details are given in the table of the outturn for 1988–89 and the latest forecast of outturn for 1989–90.

  £ million

  1988–89 (Actual Outturn)

  1989–90 (Forecast Outturn)

  (i) Expenditure by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  Cereals

  210·1

  87·9

  Oilseeds

  177·8

  193·8

  Sugar

  118·8

  96·7

  Beef and Veal

  149·5

  59·2

  Sheepmeat

  133·2

  98·1

  Pigmeat

  0·3

  1·4

  Milk products

  48·9

  81·0

  Processed goods

  45·6

  38·1

  Others

  27·2

  49·1

  Total

  911·4

  705·3

  (ii) Expenditure by the Agriculture Departments

  Repayment of cereals levies

  2·2

  46·5

  Suckler cow premium scheme

  37·7

  55·2

  Annual premium on ewes

  130·7

  117·0

  Payments to producers giving up some milk production

  74·1

  64·2

  Beef special premium scheme (Northern Ireland)

  —

  10·1

  Total

  244·6

  292·8

  Grand Total

  1,156·0

  998·1

  Some of the expenditure shown benefits consumers and trade interests rather than United Kingdom producers.

  The figures for the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce are net of various receipts treated as negative expenditure. Receipts from levies on the production and storage of sugar and isoglucose and on third country exports, which are regarded as Community own resources, are excluded.

  Of the estimated outturn for 1989–90, £1,292·8 million is expected to be financed from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF); in 1988–89, £1,506·0 million was thus financed. However, because the United Kingdom is a net contributor to the European Community budget, the whole of this expenditure is attributable to the Exchequer. Receipts from the European Community do not always relate to expenditure in the period.

  The individual figures may not add up to the totals due to roundings.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of expenditure in 1988–89 and 1989–90 by the Agriculture Department on agricultural grants and subsidies excluding market regulation under the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  Details are given in the table of the outturn for 1988–89 and the latest forecast of outturn for 1989–90.

  £ million

  1988–89 (Actual out turn)

  1989–90 (Forecast outturn)

  PRICE GUARANTEES

  Potatoes

  —

  —

  Wool

  0·1

  2·0

  170

  1988–89 (Actual outturn)

  1989–90 (Forecast outturn)

  Assistance to the egg industry

  2·9

  —

  Total

  3·1

  2·0

  SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

  Farm and conservation grant scheme (EC)

  —

  3·0

  Agriculture improvement scheme (EC)

  25·9

  22·8

  Agriculture and horticulture development scheme

  21·6

  15·6

  Farm structures

  0·4

  0·3

  Agriculture and horticulture grant scheme

  1·0

  0·4

  Agriculture improvement scheme (national)

  7·1

  3·6

  Northern Ireland agricultural development programme

  1·1

  3·7

  Farm woodland scheme

  —

  0·6

  Farm and conservation grant scheme (national)

  —

  15·2

  Guidance premiums

  1·0

  0·3

  Farm accounts

  0·4

  0·3

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  6·8

  9·9

  Others

  0·2

  0·3

  Total

  65·6

  75·8

  SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURE IN SPECIAL AREAS

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances

  112·6

  121·4

  Additional benefit under AHDS, NIADP, AHGS, AIS (EC), AIS (national), FCGS (EC) and FCGS (national)

  19·6

  19·4

  Others

  4·9

  10·2

  Total

  137·1

  151·0

  OTHER PAYMENTS

  Set-aside scheme

  —

  10·7

  Milk outgoers scheme

  11·4

  6·4

  Crofting building grants and loans (net)

  3·1

  3·2

  Sheep compensation scheme 1986

  0·9

  0·9

  Storm damage recovery scheme 1987

  0·2

  1·0

  Co-operation grants

  1·2

  1·5

  Farm diversification: Capital grants

  0·5

  3·4

  Marketing and feasibility grants

  —

  0·6

  Others

  0·8

  1·0

  Total

  18·2

  28·5

  Grand total

  224·0

  257·4

  Some of this expenditure attracts contributions from the European Community. These are mainly received in the following year. In 1989–90, £66·3 million is expected to be received from the Fund compared with £44·9 million in 1988–89.

  The individual figures may not add up to the totals shown due to roundings.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Mental Illness)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of inmates of British gaols who were transferred to psychiatric units or mental hospitals in each of the past five years.
  171
  Mr. John Patten
  Sentenced and unsentenced prisoners in England and Wales may be transferred to psychiatric hospitals for treatment under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 respectively. The numbers transferred to hospital under those provisions between 1984 and 1988 were as follows:

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  s. 47

  108

  100

  107

  130

  120

  s. 48

  47

  41

  53

  77

  85

  Total

  155

  141

  160

  207

  205

  Acid House Parties
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes should be taken to deal with the problems caused by illegal acid house parties.

  Mr. Waddington
  The law needs to be strengthened to punish more effectively the organisers of such events. It is already an offence to provide music and dancing as a public entertainment or, if the relevant statutory provision has been adopted by the local authority, at a private entertainment promoted for private gain without a licence obtained in advance from the local authority, or in breach of any terms, conditions or restrictions to which such a licence is subject. But the penalties for these offences are so light in comparison to the profits to be made from acid house parties that the organisers can afford to ignore the law.

  I have therefore concluded that magistrates should in future be empowered to impose fines of up to £20,000 or imprisonment for up to six months, or both, on people convicted of these offences. This will require changes to the London Government Act 1963, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and the Private Places of Entertainment (Licensing) Act 1967. In addition, my right hon. Friend intends to give magistrates power to order the confiscation of profits made by those convicted of organising illegal parties or allowing their land or premises to be used for them.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is today announcing the forthcoming provision of guidance to local authorities to tackle effectively the problem of noise nuisance at such events.

  Skeleton Car Keys
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the sale of skeleton car key sets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received a large number of representations from members of the public and Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member, about a "skeleton car key set" being offered for sale by Westway Locksmiths, formerly MB Locksmiths. As the hon. Member is aware, criminal proceedings against MB Locksmiths are in progress and, in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to comment further.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations from Scottish broadcasting or community organisations about quality measurements of television franchise bidders arising from his most recent proposals for reform of broadcasting.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations from Scottish broadcasting and community organisations about quality measurement of television franchise bidders arising from his most recent proposals for reform of broadcasting.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations from Scottish broadcasting and community organisations about quality measurement of television franchise bidders arising from his most recent proposals for reform of broadcasting.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations from Scottish broadcasting and community organisations about quality measurement of television franchise bidders arising from his most recent proposals for reform of broadcasting.

  Mr. Mellor
  A number of the responses to the broadcasting White Paper made by the Scottish ITV companies and by Scottish local and regional authorities have commented on the safeguards for quality contained in our proposals for allocating Channel 3 licences.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure the continuation of a regional framework for Independent Television; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  As the Broadcasting White Paper made clear, the Government are committed to maintaining a regionally-structured Channel 3 (or ITV). We are proposing that there should be statutory requirements on regional Channel 3 licensees to provide regional programmes, some of which must be produced within the region, and regional news. The precise geographical structure of the Channel 3 regions will be a matter for the Independent Television Commission to determine, but the Government have noted the statement of the chairman designate of the ITC that he would see advantages in retaining the existing regions.

  Ex-prisoners
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were discharged from prison without permanent accommodation in which to live during the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not collected centrally. The prison and probation services promote various initiatives to provide accommodation for homeless discharged prisoners. The Home Office allocates £5 million a year to provide 4,500 bedspaces in some 350 accommodation schemes.

  Pub Bombings
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met Lord Denning to discuss the case of the Birmingham Six.
  173
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met Lord Denning to discuss the case of the Birmingham Six.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have not met Lord Denning to discuss this case.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers of the West Midlands serious crime squad who were recently transferred to non-operation duties were involved in the Birmingham pub bombing investigation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 26 October in response to a question from the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) replied that one member of the serious crime squad, which was disbanded in the summer, was involved in the investigation. I regret that this was incorrect. Further inquiry has established that a total of four officers who were members of the serious crime squad when it was disbanded had been involved in interviewing those convicted of the Birmingham pub bombing.

  Police Manpower
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the proportion of police to public in Essex; and what is the comparable figure for other counties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on population per police officer is as follows:

  Force

  Population per police officer1

  Avon and Somerset

  460

  Bedfordshire

  508

  Cambridgeshire

  544

  Cheshire

  512

  Cleveland

  371

  Cumbria

  423

  Derbyshire

  515

  Devon and Cornwall

  521

  Dorset

  522

  Durham

  434

  Dyfed-Powys

  495

  Essex

  521

  Gloucestershire

  453

  Greater Manchester

  369

  Gwent

  442

  Hampshire

  531

  Hertfordshire

  508

  Humberside

  427

  Kent

  512

  Lancashire

  436

  Leicestershire

  503

  Lincolnshire

  493

  Merseyside

  308

  Norfolk

  546

  Northamptonshire

  508

  Northumbria

  408

  North Wales

  486

  North Yorkshire

  516

  Nottinghamshire

  435

  South Wales

  415

  South Yorkshire

  434

  Staffordshire

  472

  Suffolk

  539

  Surrey

  452

  Sussex

  482

  Thames Valley

  540

  Warwickshire

  489

  West Mercia

  538

  West Midlands

  383

  174

  Force

  Population per police officer1

  West Yorkshire

  391

  Wiltshire

  513

  Average provincial forces (excluding the City of London)

  452

  City of London

  5

  Metropolitan

  253

  Average England and Wales

  404

  1 The figures are calculated on the basis of mid-1988 population figures and authorised establishments of forces at 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on manpower levels in the South Yorkshire police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 31 October there were 2,944 officers on the strength of the South Yorkshire police. This is 384 more than when the Government took office 10 years ago. My right hon. and learned Friend has approved a further 20 police posts for the force establishment, raising it from 2,978 to 2,998, subject to the police authority's confirmation that it is prepared to meet its share of the costs.

  Betting
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had recently with the Horse Race Betting Levy Board on allocation of income.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not the practice for us routinely to discuss with the levy board the allocation of its income in pursuance of its statutory duties. The purposes for any additional levy income featured in the submissions on the 28th levy scheme which my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) discussed with representatives of the Board and the Bookmakers' Committee on 14 February. My right hon. and learned Friend plans to meet the chairman of the board on 6 December, when the general question of the financing of racing is likely to be discussed.

  Litter
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were fined under the Litter Act 1983 in 1988; and what proportion of these received the maximum sentence of £400.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of persons fined under the Litter Act 1983 in 1988 was 1,551. Of these 0·1 per cent. (two defendants) received the maximum sentence of £400.

  Violence
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to curb the increase in crimes of violence and sexual attacks.

  Mr. John Patten
  Measures to prevent these offences include tougher maximum penalties for violent offences (carrying firearms and knives); increases in police manpower; targeting of high crime areas by police; measures to deal with alcohol-related disorder; education, research and crime prevention. Further action, including
  175
  new measures to tackle domestic violence, are being taken forward by the ministerial groups on crime prevention and on women's issues. Some of the recorded increase in violent crime and sexual offences is due to increased reporting by the public and recording by the police.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of violent offences against the person consists of incidents of domestic violence.

  Mr. John Patten
  The results of a recent ad hoc survey of offences of violence recorded by the police indicated that one in eight offences of violence against the person involved domestic violence. Some results from this study are published in Home Office Research Bulletin No. 27, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Drugs
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures police forces are taking in conjunction with local education authorities to warn pupils of the dangers of drug taking.

  Mr. Mellor
  Drugs education in schools is the responsibility of local education authorities and of the schools. We encourage police forces to develop a wide programme of police/schools liaison in consultation with the local education authorities and with individual schools. This may include contributing to education about drugs as part of personal and social education in schools.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the full costs of the drugs raid on Broadwater Farm, including the full time costs of the officers employed, the processing costs of dealing with the prisoners, the opportunity costs and the administrative on-costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As I stated in answer to the hon. Member on 6 November 1989 at column 429, the additional overtime costs were about £42,500. Full costs are not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many seizures of illicit drugs have been made by police and customs in 1989 to date; and what is the estimated value of drugs seized.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the period 1 January to 6 November 1989 Customs report a provisional total of 6,830 seizures of controlled drugs. It is estimated that these would have had an equivalent street value of some £230 million. Comprehensive figures are not yet available for police seizures in 1989; the latest information is for 1988 when police made 32,947 seizures and customs 5,288 seizures of controlled drugs.

  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on plans for the next phase of the national drug misuse prevention campaign.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Health Department's final plans for the next phase of the national drug prevention publicity campaign will be considered at the next meeting of the ministerial group on the misuse of drugs. The campaign is 176
  planned to start early in the new year. In addition my right hon. and learned Friend has announced the setting up of drug prevention teams from April 1990, initially in nine local areas, to stimulate and harness community involvement in the prevention of drug misuse.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug searches in Her Majesty's prisons have resulted in finds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information is not available in the form requested by my hon. Friend. But up to 14 November, some 3,000 finds of substances believed to be drugs had been reported by prison establishments in England and Wales during 1989. Some 92 per cent. of these involved cannabis.

  Safer Cities Initiative
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cities in the north west of England are covered by his Department's safer cities initiative; and what plans he has to extend the programme.

  Mr. John Patten
  Of the 16 projects established in the first two years of the safer cities programme, three are located in the north-west of England—at Rochdale, Salford and Wirral. We plan to set up four more projects in the financial year 1990–91, but the areas have not yet been selected.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. A. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the call of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation for a review of social security provisions to ensure that benefits policy supports criminal justice aims.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government continue to monitor the effects of the recent changes in social security provision. As part of this monitoring the Home Office maintains close liaison with the Department of Social Security. We are also considering carefully the findings of the recent research carried out for the Association of Chief Officers of Probation by the university of Lancaster.

  As a result of the monitoring arrangements my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security recently announced (27 November 1989 at columns 420–21) a number of procedural improvements which are designed to ensure that claims for income support from young people, including young offenders, are dealt with more effectively and sympathetically. These changes demonstrate the Government's willingness to act when areas of genuine difficulty are identified.

  The Home Office has already issued guidance to the probation service on the effects of the Social Security Acts 1988 and 1989. Further guidance is being prepared to explain what benefits are available to offenders and ex-offenders.

  Firearms
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of new controls on gun clubs.
  177
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Consideration is being given by my right hon. and learned Friend to the implementation of the new tighter controls on gun clubs in the light of advice received from the firearms consultative committee.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps are proposed, in the light of recent incidents in Greater Manchester and elsewhere, to impose tighter controls on gun clubs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced recently, he is minded that in future his approval will not be granted to any club operating a "day membership" scheme or offering any form of temporary membership facility. Visiting membership for full members of other approved clubs will be permitted. An applicant for probationary membership will have to be sponsored by two full members of the club, both of whom are themselves firearm certificate holders. Probationary members must be constantly supervised when in possession of a firearm or ammunition, either by the range master or by a full member of the club who personally holds a firearm certificate. Probationary members must be given a course of instruction in the safe and proper use of firearms. The number of probationary members of an approved club must not exceed the number of full members. The police will be able to use their powers under section 15(5) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to enter and inspect club premises to ensure that clubs are complying with the provisions of the Secretary of State's approval. We will continue to make clear to clubs that the exemption under section 15 of the 1988 Act from the requirement to hold a firearm certificate covers only target practice and does not extend to competition. Consideration is being given by my right hon. and learned Friend, to the implementation of these proposals in the light of advice received from the Firearms Consultative Committee.

  Charities
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had about the level of Government support to charities.

  Mr. John Patten
  Ministers and officials have frequent discussions with a range of individuals and groups about Government support to charities and other matters affecting the voluntary sector. On 17 October my right hon. and noble Friend the Earl Ferrers, my noble Friend the Paymaster General and I met members of the Council for Charitable Support to discuss a number of issues relating to charity.

  Adoption
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been allowed into the United Kingdom, for adoption by United Kingdom citizens, from each of the countries which do not have the same laws and procedures on adoption as exist in the United Kingdom, during each of the past five years; and what is the average length of time it takes for inquiries to be carried out into prospective adoptive children from such countries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available in the form requested, as the statistics collected on passenger 178
  admissions do not separately identify children who come to the United Kingdom for adoption. However, the available information is shown in the table. Corresponding information for 1984 and 1985 could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Adoption orders made by the courts in certain designated countries are recognised as valid for the purposes of United Kingdom law. Some 63 countries are designated for this purpose under the Adoption (Designation of Overseas Adoptions) Order 1973. There is no provision in the immigration rules for the admission of children adopted in non-designated countries. However the Secretary of State may exceptionally exercise discretion to allow a child to come here for adoption if he is satisfied that this is appropriate in the particular case.

  Information on the average length of time required for inquiries to be carried out into prospective adoption cases is not available; the time varies according to the circumstances of the particular case.

  Acceptances for settlement in the United Kingdom on grounds of adoption, after initial admission for a limited period, of children from countries not designated in the Adoption (Designation of Overseas Adoptions) Order 19731

  Number of children of each nationality

  Nationality

  1986

  19872

  1988

  India

  7

  7

  8

  Pakistan

  5

  7

  8

  Brazil

  7

  1

  0

  E1 Salvador

  4

  1

  3

  Colombia

  5

  1

  1

  Philippines

  4

  2

  1

  Thailand

  3

  2

  1

  Peru

  2

  1

  1

  Korea

  1

  2

  0

  Poland

  0

  1

  2

  Bolivia

  1

  1

  1

  Sierra Leone

  0

  0

  2

  Sudan

  0

  2

  0

  Burma, Hungary3

  0

  0

  1

  Chile, Egypt, Morocco, Paraguay, Venezuela3

  0

  1

  0

  Ecuador

  1

  0

  1

  Bangladesh, China, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Panama, Yemen Arab Republic3

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  46

  33

  37

  1 This order designates those countries whose adoption orders are recognised as valid for the purposes of United Kingdom law.

  2 1987 figures may not be entirely complete.

  3 Number from each country in these year(s)

  East Germany
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, since the opening of the borders of East Germany, any East German citizens have applied for entry to the United Kingdom as residents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Citizens of the German Democratic Republic require visas to enter the United Kingdom and neither of the British posts in Berlin has received any applications for visas for settlement in this country since the opening of the border between east and west Berlin on 9 November. There have been no reports from any other quarter of any East German citizens seeking entry to reside in the United Kingdom.

  Police Operations (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of civilian employees from the ethnic minority community in the employ of the Greater Manchester police authority.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the police authority that there are 31 civilian staff, including traffic wardens, from the ethnic minorities employed by the Greater Manchester police authority.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of police officers recruited from the ethnic minority community in the Greater Manchester police force; what has been the number of applications from ethnic minorites during each of the past five years; and how many ethnic minority police officers have left the force during the same periods of time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 27 November 1989, 102 members of the ethnic minorities were serving as police officers in the Greater Manchester police. The other information requested is given in the following table:

  Applications for appointment

  Left the force

  1985

  128

  4

  1986

  90

  4

  1987

  142

  2

  1988

  90

  6

  11989

  100

  8

  1 To date.

  Police Operations (Media Presence)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to meet the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss the presence of media personnel on police operations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to meet the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss this matter.

  Political Refugees
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason an identity card was removed by United Kingdom immigration authorities when Navaratnasingham Vathanan was ordered back to Sri Lanka, having applied for entry to the United Kingdom as a political refugee.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that Mr. Vathanan's identity card was taken in order to obtain a travel document for him from the Sri Lanka High Commission. I regret the fact that it was lost. Pages had been removed from the passport on which he had arrived.

  Parole
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners are currently beyond parole eligibility date awaiting a decision; and what has been the number in each of the last 12 months;

  (2) what has been the average delay beyond parole eligibility date for each of the four prison department regions in each of the last six months.
  180
  Mr. Mellor
  Information is not available in the form requested. About three quarters of cases are decided on the basis of local review committee recommendations alone. There are now no general delays in these cases, compared with the position in the summer of this year when one quarter of them were delayed by an average of about one month beyond PED. The delay in parole board cases, which exceeded three months in the summer, has now been reduced to about two-and-a-half months beyond PED. There is no evidence of any significant regional variation in the delays.

  Further and more rapid improvements should follow the administrative changes my right hon. and learned Friend announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on 30 November at column 396. The aim is to eliminate completely the present delays by March next year.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the longest period beyond parole eligibility date that a prisoner is currently waiting.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information in this form is not readily available from central records.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable of the West Midlands; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable of the West Midlands; and what was discussed.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last discussed the pub bombings case with the chief constable of the West Midlands.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have had no meetings with the chief constable of the West Midlands since I took office as Home Secretary.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions in 1989 a member of the Home Office inspectorate has visited the dog toxicology unit at Huntingdon research centre; or how many occasions the conditions in which animals were housed and cared for were found to be satisfactory and in line with the Home Office code of practice for the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures;

  (2) on how many occasions in 1989 a member of the Home Office inspectorate has visited Huntingdon research centre;

  (3) on how many occasions in 1989 a member of the Home Office inspectorate has visited the rodent toxicology unit at Huntingdon research centre; and on how many occasions the conditions in which the animals were housed and cared for were found to be satisfactory and in line with the Home Office code of practice for the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not our practice to disclose this information in relation to individual establishments. For 1988, the last year for which figures are available, inspectors paid 7,354, mainly unannounced, visits to departments within the 375 places designated under the
  181
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Home Office code of practice for the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures (1989; HC 107) was published in February this year. Establishments which were not already complying with it in every detail are expected to do so within a realistic time scale.

  Young Recidivists
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases young recidivists have re-offended in the years 1986–87 to 1988–89.

  Mr. John Patten
  Statistics are not readily available in the form requested. Information on the sentencing of young offenders reconvicted within two years of discharge from prison service establishments in England and Wales is published annually in Prison Statistics (tables 9.7 and 9.10 of the latest volume, for 1988, Cm. 825), copies of which are available in the Library. Of an estimated 28,800 young persons discharged from prison service establishments in 1985, 18,300 were reconvicted within two years of discharge, of whom 10,600 were recommitted to custody.

  Chief Constables (Talks)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what issues were discussed at his Department's last meeting with representatives of chief constables.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: My right hon. and learned Friend last met representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers on 10 November. They discussed a number of matters including police appointments and the organisation of the police service.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who instructed the immigration and nationality department to resolve applications for political asylum from those believed to be members of, or to have links with, the Pakistan People's party, without interview; when the instruction was issued; how many applicants, to date, have had their applications resolved without interview; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 28 November 1989]: In April my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) approved special case-working arrangements for resolving a backlog of about 900 asylum applications from Pakistani nationals. The great majority of the asylum claims were based on links with the Pakistan People's party. Following the death of President Zia in August 1988 the democratic process was reinstated in Pakistan; the Pakistan People's party participated freely in party politics at national and provincial level, and, following the elections in November 1988, became the governing party nationally. In all the circumstances it was decided that applications based solely on Pakistan People's party connections could be refused without interview. Applicants raising other matters continue to be dealt with in the normal way and would be interviewed before a refusal decision was taken. All those who are
  182
  refused without interview have a right of appeal, exercisable in this country, against refusal of leave or deportation.

  Our statistical records do not distinguish between refusals with and without interview. It is known, however, that some 483 asylum applications from Pakistani nationals have been refused so far in 1989.

  Pornography
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to ban all pornographic material dealing specifically with sexual violence towards women and children.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 27 November 1989]: Among other measures, the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981, the Video Recordings Act 1984 and the duties of the broadcasting regulatory bodies (which will be re-affirmed in our Broadcasting Bill) provide controls over pornographic material in its various forms. We have made it plain that we should favour a stronger test of obscenity to replace that in the 1959 Act. We have no other proposals at present.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will convene a meeting between representatives of groups objecting to the sale of pornography and retailers to discuss current retailing practice.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 27 November 1989]: No. We have drawn the strength of feeling represented to us about the availability of certan publications to the attention of major newsagents, and it is open to those who object to the sale of what they regard as pornography to protest directly to the retailers.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department conducted, has commissioned or is aware of concerning the link between pornographic material and sexual violence towards women and children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 27 November 1989]: We have not conducted or commissioned specific studies into any possible link between pornography and sexual violence towards women and children, but we are aware of numerous studies on the impact of pornography. These have not, to our knowledge, shown definitely either that there is or that there is not such a link. We are planning a review of the available evidence.

TRANSPORT

  Ports
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of progress which has been made in British ports since the abolition of the dock labour scheme towards increased competitiveness and the attraction of new business; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The former scheme ports have responded with impressive enthusiasm and energy to the new opportunities opened up by the possibility of
  183
  eliminating overmanning and restrictive practices. Business inquiries are at a high level. The way is now open for new industrial developments in dock areas and for the larger of these ports to win back some of the deep-sea trade that is routed through ports on the continent.

  Leaded Petrol
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of cars that have converted back to leaded fuel in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no statistics on the number of cars converted back to leaded petrol.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of heavy goods vehicle journeys were checked for excessive weights in each of the past six years; and what percentage of(a) British and (b) foreign vehicles were found to be over the weight limits.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is estimated that in 1984–85 about 0·04 per cent. and 1987–88 about 0·05 per cent. of HGV journeys were checked for excessive weight. Figures for other years are not available.

  The percentages of British and foreign vehicles from those checked found to be over the weight limits were as follows:

  Year

  British Per cent.

  Foreign Per cent.

  1984–85

  23·4

  27·6

  1985–86

  25·8

  25·1

  1986–87

  24·2

  27·6

  1987–88

  22·0

  25·0

  1988–89

  18·5

  24·9

  The statistics relate to those vehicles weighed by Department of Transport and local authority trading standards enforcement staff. The police also weigh vehicles but no information on the numbers weighed is available.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has passed to the chairman of British Rail the representations from hon. and right hon. Members to consider all alternative proposals for the high speed rail link to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes. However, as I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on Monday 4 December, I accept that now that BR and Eurorail have announced their preferred route through Kent and terminal in London it will not be practicable for them to devote great efforts to examining other proposals.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to remove the potential danger to road users of the use by cyclists of personal stereos; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  There is no clear evidence that personal stereos are causing accidents. However, all road users—184
  and vulnerable ones in particular—should make sure that they are able to concentrate fully on driving or riding. They should avoid unnecessary sources of distraction. The highway code for young road users, produced by the County Road Safety Officers Association and sponsored by General Accident, advises cyclists not to wear a personal stereo and we are considering adding similar advice to the highway code.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he is taking to reduce vehicle emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Draft amendments to the construction and use regulations were published on 1 December.

  The new regulations will mean that virtually all new cars from 1992 onwards will be fitted with catalysts. They set for the first time in the United Kingdom, specific requirements for the user of a vehicle to keep the engine in tune and any emission control equipment in working order.

  Cars and lorries need to be designed to meet much tighter emission limits. It is equally important for drivers to recognise their responsibility to keep vehicles properly tuned to keep emissions down. These new regulations will make this responsibility clear.

  Road Lighting
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway there were in 1988, 1978 and 1968; and what proportion of each were lit.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is as follows:

  Miles

  Percentage lit

  1968

  493

  5

  1978

  1,261

  20

  1988

  1,577

  27

  These figures relate to motorways in England for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority. The figure for the percentage lit in 1988 is an estimate based on latest available data.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will specify the research known to his Department to have been conducted into driver reaction times in changing from lit to unlit conditions; and if he will place copies of the research in the Library.

  Mr. Atkins
  The research in question is detailed in "The Effect on Vision of Terminations of Isolated Lengths of Fixed Lighting", published by the Australian Road Research Board in 1973. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he uses to determine whether or not a stretch of motorway or trunk road should be lit.

  Mr. Atkins
  The criteria are published in "Appraisal of New and Replacement Lighting on Trunk Roads and Trunk Road Motorways", the Department's highways and traffic advice note TA 49/86. A copy is in the Library.
  185
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has that lighting on motorways can reduce night-time accidents by 30 per cent., and if he will place copies of that evidence in the Library.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's current assessment that the provision of lighting on motorways can lead to a 30 per cent. reduction in night-time accidents is based on international research. That research has been studied by the transport and road research laboratory. It confirmed the Department's assessment. Details of this study are given in "Light on Motorway Accident Rates", an article published by the Institution of Highways and Transportation in 1987. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  A20
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a decision on the route of the eastern section of the A20 extension into Dover.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following public inquiries last year into draft proposals for the Court Wood to Dover section of the A20, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment are announcing their joint decisions tomorrow. I have arranged for my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to receive a copy of the decision which is being sent today to all those who submitted objections and representations to the draft proposals and to those who attended or were represented at the inquiries.

  Freight Railway Lines
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many freight railway lines have been opened to passenger traffic under the Transport Act 1962 (Amendment) Act 1981; and if he will list these with mileages of track, dates of opening and whether they remain open to passenger traffic.

  Mr. Portillo
  Fifteen stretches of freight line have been opened or re-opened by British Rail to passenger traffic under the Transport Act 1962 (Amendment) Act 1981. The details are as folows:

  Line

  Year

  Approximate mileage

  Penistone-Barnsley

  1983

  7·5

  Newbridge Junction-Bathgate

  1986

  10·2

  Kettering-Corby

  1987

  5·5

  Dore Curve (Derbyshire)

  1987

  0·25

  Morecambe-Heysham Harbour

  1987

  4·0

  Oxford-Bicester

  1987

  10·0

  Coventry-Nuneaton

  1987

  10·0

  Coatbridge Central-Motherwell

  1987

  5·0

  Cardiff City

  1987

  4·15

  Abercynon-Aberdare

  1988

  5·75

  Lichfield City-Lichfield Trent Valley

  1988

  1·25

  Bishop Auckland-Stanhope

  1988

  9·6

  Walsall-Hednesford

  1989

  9·75

  Thornton West Junction-Thornton South Junction (Fife)

  1989

  0·25

  Altrincham-Stockport

  1989

  8·0

  Note:

  All these lines remain open to passenger traffic.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve health protection and safety conditions in the workplace.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve health protection and safety conditions in the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission's "Plan of Work for 1989–90 and Beyond" published in May 1989 set out the Commission's priorities for improving health and safety at work. As my right hon. Friend announced, the Health and Safety Commissions' request for additional funding has been met in full for the third year running. This will allow for a real growth in activity.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he plans to extend health and safety protection at work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) earlier today.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in unemployment levels during the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fowler
  In the 12 months to October 1989 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by about 484,000 or 22·4 per cent. The percentage fall in unemployment has been larger, nationally and in the majority of regions, in the past year than in either of the previous two years.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current number of people in employment in the United Kingdom, and in other Overseas Economic Community Development countries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In June 1989 the United Kingdom civilian workforce in employment stood at 26,035,000—12 per cent. higher than in June 1983. The following table shows civilian employment in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, where the information is available, over the same period.

  Civilian Employment in O.E.C.D. Countries

  Thousands

  Country

  1983 Q2

  1989 Q2

  Absolute change

  Percentage change

  Belgium

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Denmark

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Germany

  24,795

  27,075

  2,280

  9·2

  Greece

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Spain

  11,020

  12,208

  1,188

  10·8

  France

  121,229

  121,264

  35

  0·2

  Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Italy

  20,390

  20,674

  284

  1·4

  Luxembourg

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Netherlands

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Portugal

  4,142

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  United States of America

  99,945

  117,290

  17,345

  17·4

  187

  Country

  1983 Q2

  1989 Q2

  Absolute change

  Percentage change

  Canada

  10,699

  12,445

  1,746

  16·3

  Japan

  57,290

  61,181

  3,891

  6·8

  Australia

  6,254

  7,696

  1,442

  23·1

  Austria

  23,146

  23,335

  189

  6·0

  New Zealand

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Finland

  2,368

  2,475

  107

  4·5

  Iceland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Norway

  1,907

  2,018

  111

  5·8

  Sweden

  4,242

  4,463

  221

  5·2

  Switzerland

  3,149

  3,559

  410

  13·0

  Turkey

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  23,291

  26,035

  2,744

  11·8

  Employees and self-employed—Great Britain mates Spring estimates

  Thousands

  1979

  1988

  Employees

  Self-employed

  Employees

  Self-employed

  All Of which:

  22,432

  1,778

  21,422

  3,143

  1. Employed in manual occupations1

  11,934

  747

  9,599

  1,403

  Employed in non-manual occupations1

  10,498

  1,031

  11,824

  1,740

  2. Males

  13,302

  1,442

  11,728

  2,358

  Females

  9,130

  337

  9,694

  785

  3. Aged 16 and 17

  785

  3—

  683

  11

  Aged 18 or over

  21,647

  1,776

  20,739

  3,132

  4. In full-time employment2

  18,409

  n/a

  16,536

  2,627

  In part-time employment2

  4,022

  n/a

  4,886

  516

  1 Using broad occupational groupings based on OPCS Classification of Occupations,1980.

  2 Based on respondent's own assessment, not on the number of hours usually worked. In 1979, the self-employed were not asked if they worked full or part-time.

  3 Sample size too small to provide a reliable estimate.

  n/a=Not available.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the 10 travel-to-work areas where unemployment is lowest.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the 10 travel-to-work areas where unemployment is lowest.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the 10 travel-to-work areas where unemployment is lowest.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the 10 travel-to-work areas where unemployment is lowest.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the 10 travel-to-work areas in which the numbers of unemployed claimants expressed as a percentage of the work force plus the unemployed were the lowest in October 1989.

  Travel-to-work area

  Unemployed claimants Per cent.

  Crawley

  1·1

  Winchester and Eastleigh

  1·3

  Windermere

  1·3

  Tunbridge Wells

  1·4

  Newbury

  1·4

  Bicester

  1·5

  Aylesbury and Wycombe

  1·6

  188

  1 Figures refer to 1982 Q4 and 1988 Q4 as Q2 figures not available.

  2Figures refer to 1983 Ql and 1989 Ql as Q2 figures not available.

  Source: "Quarterly Labour Force Statistics 4/1988 and 3/1989" (OECD) except United Kingdom (ED).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the years 1968, 1978 and 1988 the number of employee and self-employed workers divided into manual and non-manual, male and female, adult and juvenile, and full-time and part-time.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Data for each of the groups requested is only available on a comparable basis from the labour force survey (LFS). Estimates from the 1988 and 1979 LFS (the earliest year for which comparable estimates are available) are shown in the table.

  Travel-to-work area

  Unemployed claimants Per cent.

  Guildford and Aldershot

  1·6

  Cirencester

  1·6

  Blandford

  1·6

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of employed and self-employed people in Britain.

  Mr. Eggar
  In June 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 21,932,000 employees in employment in Great Britain and 3,050,000 self-employed.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of registered unemployment in Bexley and what was the figure for 1988 and 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In October 1989, the number of unemployed claimants in the local authority area of Bexley was 3,661 compared with 4,866 in October 1988 and 6,603 in October 1987. These figures are slightly affected by the change in benefit regulations affecting under-18-year-olds in September 1988.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.
  189
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the unemployment change since June 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In October 1989, the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,674,000, compared with 3,130,200 in June 1986, a fall of 46·5 per cent. Unemployment has now fallen for 39 months running, and is now at its lowest for nine years.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many travel-to-work areas, on the most recent date for which figures are available, in south-east England, have an unemployment rate(a) over 10 per cent., (b) between five per cent. and 10 per cent. and (c) below five per cent.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Of the 39 travel-to-work areas in the south-east, 33 had an unemployment rate of less than 5 per cent. in October 1989 and the remainder had rates of between 5 and 10 per cent.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current unemployment rate in the United Kingdom and in other European Community countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current unemployment rate in the United Kingdom and the average in the European Community.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In September 1989, the latest comparable date, unemployment in the United Kingdom was 6·3 per cent. compared to an EEC average of 9·1 per cent. The following table shows a full comparison. Over the past two years the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom has fallen faster than in any other major European country.

  Unemployment rates for comparison between EEC countries Seasonally adjusted September 1989

  Rate

  Luxembourg

  2·0

  West Germany

  5·6

  Portugal

  5·7

  United Kingdom

  6·3

  Denmark

  7·4

  Greece

  17·4

  Belgium

  9·6

  Netherlands

  10·0

  France

  10·1

  Italy

  11·0

  Spain

  16·4

  Ireland

  17·0

  EEC average

  9·1

  1 April 1987.

  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the United Kingdom in May 1983 and October 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available for the months requested. The work force in employment in the United Kingdom was 23,613,000 in June 1983. It increased by 2,730,000 to stand at 26,343,000, the highest level ever, in June 1989.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of male unemployment in the Bassetlaw constituency.
  190
  Mr. Nicholls
  In October 1989 the number of male unemployed claimants in the Bassetlaw parliamentary constituency was 2,283.

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

  Mr. Nicholls
  In June 1989 the work force in employment in the United Kingdom stood at 26,343,000, the highest level on record. This represents an increase of 479,000 or 1·9 per cent. since June 1988. The rising trend has now continued for six years.

  Mr. Brando-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were unemployed in the United Kingdom in May 1983, September 1983, March 1986 and October 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the levels of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom for May 1983, September 1983, March 1986, and October 1989. The level of unemployment in October 1989 is the lowest for nine years.

  United Kingdom unemployment, seasonally adjusted

  Number of unemployed claimants

  Rate1per cent

  May 1983

  2,785,300

  10·5

  September 1983

  2,815,700

  10·6

  March 1986

  3,126,600

  11·2

  October 1989

  1,674,000

  5·9

  1 Number of unemployed as a percentage of the estimated total workforce·

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were unemployed in June 1987 and October 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In October 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,674,000 compared with 2,857,200 in June 1987, a fall of 41·4 per cent. Unemployment is now at its lowest level for nine years.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the current level of unemployment in the north-west region.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the reduction of unemployment in the north-west since June 1986.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In October 1989 the level of unemployment seasonally adjusted, in the north-west was 245,500 compared with 427,400 in June 1986, a fall of 181,900 or 42·6 per cent.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom and in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In August 1989, the latest comparable date, the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom measured on the agreed international basis was lower than in Canada, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain,
  191
  Denmark, Greece and Ireland. Over the past two years the United Kingdom unemployment rate has fallen faster than the rate in any other major industrialised country.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures last showed an increase in the number of people out of work: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The seasonally adjusted unemployment figures last showed an increase in July 1986. Since that date unemployment has fallen by about 1½ million or 47 per cent. This is the longest and largest sustained fall on record, and unemployment is now at its lowest level for nine years.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people in employment in the United Kingdom and in the other member countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1987, the latest year for which comparable information is available for all European Community countries, there were 24·8 million people in civilian employment in the United Kingdom. This represents a growth of over 6 per cent. since 1983; more than three times greater than the growth rate in the rest of the EC countries combined.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the latest unemployment figures for Sheffield expressed as a percentage; and what is the national average.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In October 1989, in the Sheffield travel-to-work area the number of unemployed claimants expressed as a percentage of the total workforce was 8·6 per cent. This compares to a rate of 5·8 per cent. in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in the Liverpool travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In October 1989, in the Liverpool travel-to-work area there were 64,235 unemployed claimants.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list the towns in England and Wales which now have 3 per cent. or less unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the travel-to-work areas in England and Wales where the number of unemployed claimants expressed as a percentage of the work force was three per cent. or less in October 1989. In the last three years the rate of unemployment has nearly halved in the United Kingdom and this improvement is seen at local level throughout the country.

  Unemployed claimants

  Travel-to-work area

  per cent.

  Crawley

  1·1

  Winchester and Eastleigh

  1·3

  Windermere

  1·3

  Tunbridge Wells

  1·4

  Newbury

  1·4

  Bicester

  1·5

  Aylesbury and Wycombe

  1·6

  192

  Travel-to-work area

  per cent.

  Guildford and Aldershot

  1·6

  Cirencester

  1·6

  Blandford

  1·6

  Basingstoke and Alton

  1·7

  Chichester

  1·7

  Reading

  1·7

  Andover

  1·7

  Cambridge

  1·7

  Bury St. Edmunds

  1·7

  Kendal

  1·8

  Evesham

  1·9

  Oxford

  1·9

  Woodbridge and Leiston

  2·0

  Slough

  2·1

  Clitheroe

  2·1

  Worthing

  2·1

  Penrith

  2·2

  Chelmsford and Braintree

  2·2

  Kettering and Market Harborough

  2·3

  Settle

  2·3

  Malton

  2·3

  Harrogate

  2·4

  Devizes

  2·4

  Bedford

  2·4

  Leek

  2·4

  Skipton

  2·4

  Milton Keynes

  2·4

  Haverhill

  2·4

  Hertford and Harlow

  2·4

  Diss

  2·4

  Northampton

  2·5

  Watford and Luton

  2·5

  Eastbourne

  2·5

  Hitchin and Letchworth

  2·5

  Newtown

  2·5

  Heathrow

  2·5

  Wareham and Swanage

  2·5

  Ripon

  2·5

  Warwick

  2·6

  Swindon

  2·6

  Northallerton

  2·6

  Welshpool

  2·6

  Newmarket

  2·6

  Shaftesbury

  2·6

  Wellingborough and Rushden

  2·6

  Chippenham

  2·6

  Poole

  2·7

  Chard

  2·7

  Huntingdon and St. Neots

  2·7

  Ipswich

  2·7

  Salisbury

  2·7

  Cheltenham

  2·7

  Pickering and Helmsley

  2·7

  Honiton and Axminster

  2·8

  Banbury

  2·8

  Brecon

  2·9

  Spalding and Holbeach

  2·9

  Bridport

  2·9

  Ludlow

  2·9

  Stafford

  2·9

  Macclesfield

  2·9

  Yeovil

  2·9

  Uttoxeter and Ashbourne

  2·9

  South Molton

  2·9

  Beccles and Halesworth

  3·0

  Colchester

  3·0

  Trowbridge and Frome

  3·0

  Melton Mowbray

  3·0

  Stamford

  3·0

  Fakenham

  3·0

  Stroud

  3·0

  Rugby and Daventry

  3·0

  Job Opportunities
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has received on the job opportunities provided through employment training to trainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  A recent pilot survey of employment training (ET) leavers shows that over half of the people (53 per cent.) who completed their training went into jobs or self-employment. These encouraging early results provide further evidence of the programme's continuing success in helping large numbers of unemployed people back into work.

  Older Workers
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the population aged 55 years and over is expected to remain economically active during the course of the next 10 years; and what plans he has to combat discrimination on the grounds of age by employers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department's latest projections which are largely based on past trends, show the proportion of people aged 55 and over who are economically active remaining in the range of 22 per cent. to 24 per cent. over the next 10 years.

  We are constantly emphasising to employers that age discrimination is not in their interests, particularly as numbers of young people decline.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received funding in the east midlands and eastern region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend approved applications for development funding from five employer groups in the east midlands and eastern region.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received development funding in the north-west region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has approved applications for development funding from eight employer groups in the north-west.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received funding in the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has approved applications for development funding from four employer groups in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current progress on setting up training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been very encouraged by the excellent response from employers throughout the country to our invitation to form training and enterprise councils (TECs).
  194
  Over 50 groups of senior employers in England and Wales have applied for development funding; the table lists the areas from which we have had applications and indicate their status.

  List of training and enterprise councils that have applied for development funding

  Status

  South East

  Milton Keynes

  Approved

  Hertfordshire

  Approved

  Essex

  Approved

  Hampshire

  Approved

  Isle of Wight

  Approved

  Thames Valley

  Approved

  Oxfordshire

  Approved

  Kent

  Under Consideration

  London

  Kingston/Merton

  Approved

  London East

  Under Consideration

  South London

  Under Consideration

  South West

  Devon/Cornwall

  Approved

  Dorset

  Approved

  Somerset

  Approved

  Avon

  Under Consideration

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Approved

  Walsall

  Approved

  Staffordshire

  Approved

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  Under Consideration

  Dudley

  Approved

  Wolverhampton

  Approved

  East Midlands and Eastern

  North Nottinghamshire

  Approved

  Norfolk/Waveney

  Approved

  Suffolk

  Approved

  Greater Peterborough

  Approved

  Bedfordshire

  Under Consideration

  Central and South Cambridgeshire

  Under Consideration

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Sheffield

  Approved

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  Approved

  North Yorkshire

  Approved

  Rotherham

  Approved

  Leeds

  Under Consideration

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  Under Consideration

  North West

  Cumbria

  Approved

  East Lancashire

  Approved

  Rochdale

  Approved

  Oldham

  Approved

  South and East Cheshire

  Approved

  Wigan

  Approved

  Manchester

  Under Consideration

  Stockport/High Peak

  Approved

  Bolton/Bury

  Under Consideration

  St. Helens

  Under Consideration

  Northern

  Teesside

  Approved

  Tyneside

  Approved

  Wearside

  Approved

  County Durham

  Approved

  Northumberland

  Approved

  Wales

  Mid Glamorgan

  Approved

  North East Wales

  Approved

  West Wales

  Approved

  North West Wales

  Approved

  South Glamorgan

  Approved

  Gwent

  Under Consideration

  195
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received development funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils he expects will have been established by the end of 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  At present over 40 training and enterprise councils have had development funding approved.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received funding in the south-east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has approved applications for TEC development funding from seven groups of employers in the south-east.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received development funding in the south-west; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has approved applications for development funding from four employer groups in the south-west.

  Child Care
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage the provision of child care facilities in the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government believe that child care is a matter for parental choice and that it is best. left to employers and employees to decide which arrangements for combining work and family responsibilities best suit their individual needs and resources. Workplace child care is not always the most practicable solution.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the youth training scheme.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to promote improved training for young people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fowler
  Since the introduction of the youth training scheme in 1983 well over 2 million young people have benefited from the programme. Over 85 per cent. of young people who complete their training programme now go into jobs, further education or training, and 64 per cent. gain a vocational qualification.

  YTS has been a great success, but we now need to build on that success to meet the higher level skills that the economy will need in the 1990s and to enable training and enterprise councils to make the maximum impact in developing arrangments for youth training which will lift the skills and qualifications of young people in their areas.

  I have therefore decided to introduce new arrangements to promote training for young people to be known as youth training.

  The central aims of the new arrangements will be to move to a situation where all young people are either in
  196
  full time education or a job with training and have the opportunity to develop their potential, qualifications, and skill to the full.

  All young people on YT will be offered training and vocational education leading to qualifications equivalent to, at a minimum, level 2 in the framework established by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. Targets will be set annually for major and progressive increases in the skills to be reached, both generally and at craft and technician levels.

  The Government's guarantee will continue. All young people up to the age of 18 who are in the labour market but without a job will be offered a training place on youth training.

  There will continue to be a strong emphasis on health and safety and on equal opportunities for young people. There will be appropriate arrangements for identifying and providing for young people who are disabled or who have special training needs.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional measures he will introduce to enable disabled persons to participate fully in the workforce.

  Mr. Eggar
  The adequacy of current measures to enable people with disabilities to participate fully in the workforce is being considered in the review of services for people with disabilities which my Department has been undertaking. A consultative document covering the conclusions reached in the review will be published as soon as possible.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to help reduce age discrimination in employment practices by employers in the public and private sectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government believe that older workers are a valuable resource. Unfair age discrimination both hurts individuals and damages businesses. We are putting across that message to employers through various media, particularly in the context of publicity about demographic change. In addition, jobcentre staff have been instructed to query all upper age limits on notified vacancies. I am encouraged that a growing number of public and private employers are adopting positive policies on recruitment and retention of older workers.

  YTS
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest information available to him on the percentage of YTS leavers in the Dacorum borough council area going on to(a) full-time employment, (b) part-time employment and (c) full-time education.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available figures show that 76 per cent. of YTS leavers entered full-time employment, 2·3 per cent. entered part-time employment and 2·6 per cent. entered full-time education in the Dacoram borough council area.
  197
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of YTS trainees secure jobs within six months of completing their training course; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 84 per cent. of young people were in employment shortly after completing their YTS training.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people have participated in YTS since its inception; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Over 21/2 million young people have participated in YTS since its inception in 1983.

  Tourism
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department have to encourage regional tourism for European tourism year in 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The British Tourist Authority is co-ordinating and orchestrating the United Kingdom's plans for European Tourism Year, a major theme of which is to encourage tourists to visit different regions. The plans embrace events throughout the country including the Gateshead garden festival.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action is taken by his Department, in conjunction with local authorities, to ensure that tourist development is not permitted to spoil existing environmental amenity; and what specific action in that regard he is taking relating to the county of Rutland.

  Mr. Nicholls
  One of the aims of the English tourist board (ETB), which receives funding from my Department, is to ensure that tourism activities do not work to the detriment of the environment. In September 1988, the ETB launched in conjunction with the Rural Development Commission a publication "Visitors in the Countryside". This sets out how tourism developments can be undertaken whilst preserving or enhancing the environment in rural areas. The publication emphasises the key role played by local authorities in encouraging the development of tourism projects in keeping with this aim. My Department has not singled out the county of Rutland for any specific action in this regard.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of investment in tourism projects in the south-west following the suspension of section 4 grant aid.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The most up-to-date figures published by the English tourist board show that the value of tourism projects (worth £0·5 million or more) which were completed during the period January to June 1989 in the region covered by the West Country tourist board was £33 million. Further projects to a value of £155 million were still under construction on 30 June.

  Collective Agreements
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to encourage the conclusion of collective agreements for those at work.
  198
  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such proposals.

  Women Workers
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage the participation of women in full time employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government are taking a number of steps to facilitate the re-entry of women to the labour market—through training and through drawing employers' attention to the need to adopt flexible working practices. Childcare initiatives by the ministerial group on women's issues which are aimed at the voluntary and private sectors will also assist, but whether a woman chooses to work full-time or part-time or to stay at home to look after her family must be entirely a matter for her.

  Parental Leave
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce statutory parental leave, available equally for mothers and fathers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average working week in manufacturing industry in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is estimated from the 1988 labour force survey (LFS) that in spring 1988, the average number of hours usually worked (including paid and unpaid overtime but excluding meal-breaks) by persons in employment in the manufacturing industries in Great Britain, was 42·3 hours per week.

  Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to visit Bradford.

  Mr. Fowler
  I have no immediate plans to visit Bradford.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has been able to secure any changes to the draft European Community social charter.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following discussions with all member states, the French Presidency of the Community has submitted a revised version of the European Commission's proposal for a decision on adoption at the European Council in Strasbourg.

  Training
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those people who leave the employment training scheme find jobs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of employment training participants secure jobs after completing their training; and if he will make a statement.
  199
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the pilot survey of the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A recent preliminary survey of employment training leavers shows that 53 per cent. of the people who completed their training went into jobs or self-employment. Of those who did not even complete their training as many as 46 per cent. got jobs or went into self-employment. These encouraging early results provide further evidence of ET's continuing success in helping large numbers of unemployed people back into work.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people for each year since 1975 were on(a) the training opportunities programme, (b) the wider opportunities programme, (c) the job training programme in its original and revised forms and (d) employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the numbers of people who started on each scheme from 1974–1975 to 1988–89. The figures include those who started for a second or subsequent time.

  Thousands

  Year

  Training Opportunities Programme

  Wider Opportunities Training Programme

  Job Training

  Scheme

  Employment Training1

  Old

  New

  1974–75

  45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1975–76

  61

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1976–77

  90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1977–78

  99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1978–79

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1979–80

  91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  71

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  88

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  55

  55

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  92

  69

  2

  —

  1987–88

  —

  88

  49

  99

  —

  1988–89

  —

  44

  24

  51

  239

  1 Employment training started in September 1988. The figure shown is cumulative starts for the period September 1988 to March 1989.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current size of the client group for employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to estimate the total number of people in the employment training client group. However, in October 1989 some 812,000 claimants aged 18 to 60 had been unemployed for more than six months.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take in response to the Confederation of British Industry's proposal for giving every 16-year-old a £1,600 cash credit a year towards training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are many issues to be considered before any decision is reached on the recommendation in CBI's task force report in favour of training credits. The Government are examining the report's recommendations with interest.
  200
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the provision of training places by employers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employers are making a vital contribution to the succcess of both the youth training scheme and employment training through their provision of training places. Employer placements give trainees an opportunity to develop and demonstrate skills in a realistic work environment; ensure that there is a relevant and realistic occupational focus to their training and offer them the best chance of securing a permanent job or self-employment opportunity.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently participating in the employment training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest figures show that over 210,000 people are on employment training.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Employment how many people are currently enrolled in employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest figures show that over 210,000 people are on employment training.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are participating in employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest figures show that over 210,000 people are on employment training. This clearly reflects the programme's outstanding success in attracting unemployed people to take advantage of the help it offers them to get jobs and skills.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of employment training in Cumbria.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training in Cumbria, as nationally, continues to make excellent progress. It is currently helping nearly 1,500 unemployed people to obtain the skills and experience they need to get jobs.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will revise the level of supplementary grant payable for employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no plans to revise the level of supplementary grants payable for employment training (ET).

  The Government believe that the level and number of supplementary grants currently payable is sufficient to provide training of good quality.

  In future training and enterprise councils will be able to vary both the structure and level of payments to ET training managers.

  Training Credits
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce a pilot scheme to provide young people with training credits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are many issues to be considered before any decision is reached on the recommendation in
  201
  CBI's task force report in favour of training credits. The Government are examining the report's recommendations with interest.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have now participated in the enterprise allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have participated in the enterprise allowance scheme since its inception; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been created by the enterprise allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since its inception in 1982, over 480,000 people have started up in business through the enterprise allowance scheme. Survey evidence shows that in addition to those receiving the allowance, for every 100 businesses still operating at the three-year stage 114 additional jobs have been generated.

  Machine Tool Manufacture
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in machine tool manufacture; what was the figure five years and 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is as follows:

  Employees in employment

  Unadjusted, Great Britain

  Metal-working machine tools and engineers tools (Group 322)1

  Number

  September 1979

  110,764

  September 1984

  76,299

  September 1989

  74,796

  1 Standard Industrial Classification 1980

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current youth unemployment rate(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European Community Countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In September 1989, the latest comparable date, the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom amongst under 25-year-olds was under half that of the EEC average. The following table shows a full comparison.

  Unemployment rates for comparison between EEC countries Seasonally adjusted

  Under 25 years—September 1989

  Rates

  Luxembourg

  4·1

  West Germany

  5·0

  United Kingdom

  8·2

  Denmark

  10·7

  Portugal

  10·8

  Netherlands

  15·8

  Belgium

  17·7

  202

  Rates

  France

  20·8

  Ireland

  23·5

  Greece

  124·4

  Spain·

  32·5

  Italy

  33·3

  EEC average

  17·4

  1 April 1987

  EC Institutions
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implications of the social charter with regard to the extension of the power of European Community institutions to initiate and carry through legislation.

  Mr. Eggar
  The social charter would not itself extend the powers of the European Community institutions to initiate and carry through legislation. It might however be seen by those institutions, including the European Court of Justice, as a commitment to the principles embodied in it.

  Minimum Wages
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to increase minimum wage levels.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is undertaking to increase minimum wage levels.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is undertaking to increase minimum wage levels.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Pay generally is a matter for employers and their employees to decide for themselves in the light of all the relevant circumstances. A national minimum wage would destroy jobs.

  Benefit Fraud (Construction Sites)
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will report on progress in tackling benefit fraud on construction sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Construction sites are regularly included in benefit fraud investigations by this Department. Exercises on these sites often prove successful in identifying fraudulent claimants. For example, a recent exercise in the Kent area investigated 592 construction site workers, resulting in 177 claims to benefit being withdrawn with a net benefit saving of £167,000. We will continue to investigate benefit fraud within the industry.

  Private Employment Agencies
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any proposals for laying down basic standards for private employment agencies.

  Mr. Eggar
  Basic standards are already laid down in the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Associated Conduct Regulations (S.I. 1976, No. 715).

  Maternity Rights
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has to improve maternity rights.
  204
  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The Employment protection legislation already gives substantial rights in respect of maternity.

  Employment Rights
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to extend employment rights to all those in work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to extend the employment protection legislation.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the effective liaison and subsequent achievements of his Department, in helping small businesses over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has close ties with the small business sector and since I was appointed Minister for Small Firms last July, I have made it my business to meet a wide range of organisations representing and providing services to small firms.

  To assist with small firms development, my Department operates a number of programmes which includes the small firms service which provides a comprehensive information and advice service, as well as particular measures to help ease access to finance. An indication of how these measures have fared over the past 12 months is as follows:

  In 1988–89, the small firms service answered over 281,000 inquiries (an increase of 6 per cent. on 1987–88), handled over 30,000 new counselling cases (an increase of 12 per cent. on 1987–88), and conducted over 43,000 counselling sessions (an increase of 10 per cent. on 1987–88);

  This year, the number of small businesses to benefit from the loan guarantee scheme which underwrites unsecured loans for small businesses, was 2,292, an increase of 1,058 over the previous year;

  In addition, the number of entrants to the Training Agency's enterprise programmes, the business enterprise programme and the enterprise training element of employment training, increased by 22 per cent. from 43,489 in 1987–88 to 53,003 in 1988–89, The number of entrants to the graduate enterprise programme, which helps graduates take the first steps to setting up businesses on their own, rose from 155 in 1987–88 to 1,150 in 1988–89;

  My Department also provides financial assistance through the enterprise allowance scheme, and makes substantial grants to Business in the Community, local enterprise agencies and the Prince's Youth Business trust, amongst others.

  Self-employed Statistics
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently self-employed in each region of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of self-employed in the United Kingdom is estimated to be higher than ever before. The following table shows self-employment in each region for June 1989:
  206

  Self-employed in the United Kingdom

  Unadjusted

  June 1989

  Thousands

  South East (including London)

  1,106

  East Anglia

  142

  South West

  307

  West Midlands

  254

  East Midlands

  209

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  242

  North West

  298

  North

  117

  Wales

  151

  Scotland

  224

  Northern Ireland

  60

  UNITED KINGDOM

  3,110

  Industry Training Boards
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the successor bodies to the industry training boards will be eligible for funds from the European social fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House during the debate on the Employment Bill on 8 November, we are discussing this matter with the European Commission with a view to allowing the successor bodies to industry training boards the same access to the European social fund as the existing boards. I shall keep the hon. Member informed of the outcome of these discussions.

  Employment Service Staff(Assaults)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of notified incidents of assault on members of employment service staff during 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  Between 1 January and 17 November 1989 there were 126 notified incidents of actual physical assault on members of staff in the employment service. In the same period there were 821 reported cases of threatening behaviour and verbal abuse.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the construction industry training board.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 9 November I wrote to the chairman of CITB informing him of our plans for future training arrangements for the construction industry and detailing the priorities for the new board. I have no current plans to meet the chairman at this time, but Training Agency officials have already met CITB officials to discuss how priority work can be taken forward.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to make the payment of the construction industry training board levy voluntary for small builders and construction firms.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government have asked the board to devise new levy-grant arrangements which exclude more small firms from the levy and have the effect of extinguishing the levy liability of the better training employers.

  Employment Training Agencies (Abuse)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about abuses by employment training agencies in the west of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The operations of training agents and training managers in the west of Scotland, as in the country overall, are regularly monitored. I have no evidence of abuse and robust control is exercised to ensure contractual obligations are met.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage those in work to have an opportunity to continue vocational training throughout their working lives.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This must be primarily the responsibility of individuals and their employers. The training and enterprise councils will help employers to undertake investment in people. They will be closely involved in an action programme on investing in people that I have asked the national training task force to join with the CBI and other business and training organisations in developing.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve industrial relations in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department's aims include promoting a positive environment for work, in which industrial relations continue to improve. We shall continue to promote good practices, such as those connected with employee involvement described in the recently published booklet "People and Companies", and to review and reform industrial relations and trade union legislation as necessary to establish a fair balance under the law. We shall also continue to support the independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which is charged with the general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations.

  Business Growth Training Scheme
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the response to the business growth training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Business growth training was launched in April, to help small businesses improve their competitiveness and profits through training. So far the response to business growth training has been encouraging with over 30,000 firms taking advantage of the options available under the initiative.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to encourage workers to join trade unions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None. As stated in our White Paper "Employment for the 1990's" (Cm 540), the Government believe that people should be free to choose for themselves whether or not they belong to a trade union.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce annual leave for working people as a statutory right.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None. Terms and conditions of employment are a matter for employers and employees to determine.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the protection of part-time workers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department intends to encourage equal opportunities in the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment Department Ministers take every opportunity to emphasise to employers the importance of equal opportunities in the workplace and the need to treat people on their merits regardless of their race, colour, sex, age, disability, etc.

  My Department's jobcentres and the Training Agency make equal opportunities a priority. Jobcentres have an important role both in advising people who feel they have suffered discrimination of their right to complain to an industrial tribunal and in challenging employers who notify potentially discriminatory vacancies to jobcentres.

  The Training Agency's recent publication "Defusing the Demographic Time Bomb" which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched on 24 October will help to promote the need to develop all the work force.

  The Training Agency also provides special training for ethnic minorities and for women to encourage them to enter industries and occupations in which they are under-represented, and part-time and flexible training courses which can be particularly helpful to women returning to work after time at home looking after their families, lone parents and disabled people.

  My Department's race relations employment advisory service provides a free advisory, consultancy and training service to help employers implement effective equal opportunity policies within a multi-racial work force. Priority is advising on the CRE 1984 code of practice's recommendations to employers on the implementation of equal opportunity policies and promoting the use of the positive action provisions of the Race Relations Act.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to tackle the problem of low pay in the east midlands.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Pay in the east midlands, as elsewhere, is generally a matter for employers and employees to decide for themselves in the light of all the relevant circumstances. Any unnecessary intervention by Government could only be harmful to business and to prospects for jobs.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has received from the business community about the establishment of training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been very encouraged by the excellent response from employers throughout the country to our invitation to form training and enterprise councils (TECs).

  More than 50 groups of senior employers in England and Wales have applied for development funding; the table lists the areas from which we have had applications and indicates their status.

  List of training and enterprise councils that have applied for development funding

  South East

  Milton Keynes

  Approved

  Hertfordshire

  Approved

  Essex

  Approved

  Hampshire

  Approved

  Isle of Wight

  Approved

  Thames Valley

  Approved

  Oxfordshire

  Approved

  Kent

  Under consideration

  London

  Kingston/Merton

  Approved

  London East

  Under consideration

  South London

  Under consideration

  South West

  Devon/Cornwall

  Approved

  Dorset

  Approved

  Somerset

  Approved

  Avon

  Under consideration

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Approved

  Walsall

  Approved

  Staffordshire

  Approved

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  Under consideration

  Dudley

  Approved

  Wolverhampton

  Approved

  East Midlands and Eastern

  North Nottinghamshire

  Approved

  Norfolk/Waveney

  Approved

  Suffolk

  Approved

  Greater Peterborough

  Approved

  Bedfordshire

  Under consideration

  Central and South Cambridgeshire

  Under consideration

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Sheffield

  Approved

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  Approved

  North Yorkshire

  Approved

  Rotherham

  Approved

  Leeds

  Under consideration

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  Under consideration

  210

  List of training and enterprise councils that have applied for development funding

  North West

  Cumbria

  Approved

  East Lancashire

  Approved

  Rochdale

  Approved

  Oldham

  Approved

  South and East Cheshire

  Approved

  Wigan

  Approved

  Manchester

  Under consideration

  Stockport/High Peak

  Approved

  Bolton/Bury

  Under consideration

  St. Helens

  Under consideration

  Northern

  Teesside

  Approved

  Tyneside

  Approved

  Wearside

  Approved

  County Durham

  Approved

  Northumberland

  Approved

  Wales

  Mid Glamorgan

  Approved

  North East Wales

  Approved

  West Wales

  Approved

  North West Wales

  Approved

  South Glamorgan

  Approved

  Gwent

  Under consideration

  Claimants
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of the permitted period given to unemployed claimants making a fresh claim for unemployment related benefits; and how many claimants are not given a permitted period, by region.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which areas of Newcastle have been targeted for the job interview guarantee scheme; how many agreements with employers have been made; and how many unemployed people have been assisted.

  Mr. Eggar
  The job interview guarantee pilot in Newcastle is being targeted on long term unemployed residents of the Cruddas Park and Loadman Street estates. Employers who participate can be drawn from any area within reach of jobseekers from these estates. The pilot was formally launched at the start of November. No agreements with employers have yet been signed, although many employers have already indicated their interest in participating.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.
Lord Sandhurst—Took the Oath.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the Dean of the University of Hong Kong to attend a conference to mark the 20th anniversary of full-time legal education in Hong Kong. Accordingly, I trust the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Tuesday 12th, Wednesday 13th, Thursday 14th and Monday 18th December.

Reading Glasses: Prices
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the average cost of reading glasses bought through opticians and how this compares with the cost of such glasses made by Readyspecs, Crown, and similar companies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the sale of reading glasses is a private transaction. It is up to individual opticians who supply these optical appliances to use their commercial judgment and set their prices accordingly. In doing so they will need to take full account of the prices being charged by companies supplying reading glasses. We do not collect details of comparative costs. We have always urged any person needing reading glasses to look around for the supplier offering the most competitive price before deciding a purchase.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the leading optical companies has, since last April when it became legal, sold nearly 1 million pairs of reading spectacles at prices between £3 and £6 per pair? As the price of lenses is now down to £2 and as the public has to pay 10 or 20 times that when buying glasses, is it not time that the Office of Fair Trading took another hard look—its last one was seven years ago—at the arrangement which seems to me to be to the detriment of the public, which pays far more in this country than in any other country in the world?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the example quoted by my noble friend gives us hope that the price of ready-made spectacles is indeed coming down as an average. However, I am informed
734
that the cost of a lens can vary considerably depending on the requirements of a prescription and the need to grind the lens, or otherwise. The basic price quoted by my noble friend is therefore not necessarily the only price. Any question of a reference to the Office of Fair Trading is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. We have no current plans to ask it to undertake such a study, but I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, when she talks about the extra costs of some lenses, those are the rare cases? Is she also aware that the average cost of a pair of lenses for normal presbyopia, which is what most of us suffer as we get older and which requires simple magnification, is between £2 and £4? Is she further aware that the frame usually costs about £10 or £15 from the wholesaler? However, people are not being charged anything near that figure by opticians for such a pair of spectacles. According to the Minister's department last year, they are being charged an average of about £60 a pair. In other words, there is a 300 per cent. or 400 per cent. mark-up on spectacles. Does not this matter merit being referred once again to the Office of Fair Trading, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said? However else shall we make progress against that rip-off?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that presbyopia is recognised as a common condition affecting the eyes from middle age onwards. Regulations were introduced in April this year as a consequence of an amendment to the Health and Medicines Act which allowed the sale of reading glasses to adults without the need for an optical prescription. I believe that the example quoted by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing suggests that sales of ready-made spectacles are increasing and therefore bringing down the average price.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister explain why she is answering the Question at all? Does not the decision taken last year to end free sight tests throw the whole issue into the free market, with profits and prices replacing questions of health for millions of members of our population? Does not the real question concern the information about the heavy fall in eye examinations with the consequent failure to diagnose and treat eye complaints such as glaucoma? Does the Minister now feel able to give information about that survey?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that the reason I am answering the Question is that it is on the Order Paper. I said at the outset that the Government consider that the sale of reading glasses is a private transaction and that, an element of competition having been introduced, we must allow market forces to operate. That is precisely what we are doing.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if I were to put a question about the comparable prices of washing liquid or garden furniture, some Minister would answer it?
Baroness Hooper: It may well be so, my Lords.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, can the noble Baroness state whether it is possible to get by computer a simple refraction test in order to indicate the refraction of each eye, which is not linked to the sale of spectacles or to an unsolicited medical test?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that there are methods of eye testing which do not go so far as our requirements for eye examinations but which can be done by machines. At the moment the Government have no plans to regard those as covering the situation completely.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is better to compare like with like, and that one gets what one pays for?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already indicated that the Government are hoping that the competition that is now possible will enable people to shop around and choose the spectacles they want from the wide variety of prices available to them.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether she considers that the General Optical Council serves any useful purpose, especially as it seems to be comprised almost entirely of opticians and has almost no representation of the interests of consumers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the General Optical Council has undertaken to carry out a review of optical services in the light of the Secretary of State's decision not to proceed with the two-tier sight test. It is still unclear what this review will encompass, but we believe that it will cover educating the public on the benefits of eye care, the financial benefits to the customer of eye care, the effects of recent legislative changes on the National Health Service, the legal effects of these changes and preparing the profession for Europe in 1992. I understand that the General Optical Council intends to report to the Secretary of State by next summer and therefore I feel that this review will serve a useful purpose.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree in those circumstances that a review of the opticians' practices by the General Optical Council might be considered a review of poachers undertaken by poachers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, assessment takes place in a number of areas where the description of poachers against poachers could be used, including within the Civil Service.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, did I understand the noble Baroness to say that references to the Office of Fair Trading were made by the DTI? Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, is it not the case that Sir Gordon Borrie, the director general, has his own powers to intervene as and when he thinks fit and then recommend to the DTI references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Is not that the true state of affairs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I referred to the DTI in the context of the Question put to me as a representative of the Department of Health. Anyone may write to Sir Gordon Borrie and ask him to consider undertaking an investigation of the market activities of a company or group of companies; and, as the noble Lord said, the director general himself can initiate action.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this Question and many of the supplementary questions asked by those who support the anti-optician campaign are more in the interests of the commercial advantage of companies such as those mentioned in the original Question than in the interests of consumers and the people, who have trouble with their eyes? Does she also agree that the present situation provides a measure of competition, and that there is no need to press this matter further by going back to the Office of Fair Trading or any such body? Does she consider that there is probably more harm being done to the eyes of people in this country as a result of this campaign than is reasonable?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend that the different requirements for people's eyes mean that they will need to be satisfied in different ways. In the present situation there is a wide variety of choice available and it is up to the consumer to ensure that he or she gets a good deal.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend take seriously the feeling that the General Optical Council would be respected rather more if it were not made up so obviously of opticians? After 40 years of semi-monopoly, surely the time has come to revise the make-up of that council to include large numbers of consumers who can examine what is needed by the public in this country and such as is enjoyed by members of the public overseas?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I note what my noble friend said; but we are straying a little from the Question on the Order Paper.

R&D: Survey Date
2.49 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to conduct their next survey of the research and development carried out by British industry.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the next survey of scientific research and development performed by UK industry relates to 1989 and will be carried out during 1990.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that that is the normal full survey which is carried out every four years by the Government? If so, will the Government consider publishing a full, separate report on the findings? What action are the Government proposing to take

737
on government-funded R&D and that undertaken by private industry in view of two factors? The first is that the amount of R&D has been falling steadily for a number of years now. The second is that we are so behind in research and development in comparison with our overseas competitors.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm to the House that it will be a fully detailed survey. It will be a benchmark survey covering all enterprises with 200 or more employees. That is one which is carried out every four years. I am not sure where the noble Lord has obtained the figures for the assertion that he has made. But on total expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP, we are in the middle of a group consisting of France, West Germany, Italy, Japan and USA.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are grave doubts about the reliability of the total R&D national figure in particular in relation to the Ministry of Defence? The Select Committee on Science and Technology will shortly be producing a report on R&D and we need to know these figures.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was not aware of the point that the noble Lord has made. However, I hope that from information provided by the Committee, and that which I shall be able to give him once I return to my office, the noble Lord will have all the data that he needs.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, in view of the number of smaller firms employing less than 200 people that have come into existence over the past four years, does the Minister consider that it might be better for the survey to include firms with about 100 rather than 200 employees?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that would entail a considerably bigger survey. As I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, about 80 per cent. of research in industry is done by about the top 50 companies. A great deal of research is undertaken by the bigger companies, therefore.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Government's survey include investigation into the circumstances which prompted the Minister responsible for industry to advise British companies on 5th November last that, in view of the expense incurred in developing inventions in the United Kingdom, British companies would be well advised to seek the development of inventions elsewhere?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not aware of the exact words that the noble Lord was paraphrasing. I should like to look at those before I made any further comment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Earl by referring him to the Daily Telegraph of 6th November last.
The Earl of Caithness: I would rather look at the exact words.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I understand that the Minister wishes to look at the exact figures. Since he asked me a question, perhaps I may tell him where I obtained my information. It comes from the Government review of R&D, which also includes a proportion of the research and development undertaken in private industry.
Will the Minister answer my second question? When the findings are published next year, will he make it a separate, full report so that we can see exactly what is happening in British industry?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have good news for the noble Lord. I know that it is a matter of concern to him. For the first time, the 1990 survey will be asked to provide separate information on R&D performed by industry for civil and defence purposes.

Eastern Europe: Economic Assistance
2.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What initiatives they are taking to encourage the European Community and the Western powers to provide economic assistance to Eastern European countries now undergoing change.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Britain plays a leading part in European Community initiatives to help Poland and Hungary with food aid, project assistance, improved trade access, and investment loans. We are active within the Group of 24 donor countries in promoting and co-ordinating international assistance to these countries. We have just announced increased bilateral assistance for Poland and a contribution to an international stabilisation fund to support Polish reforms.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his reply will give great encouragement to those concerned and involved? I thank him.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it accepted that there are some East European countries which need aid more than others, and deserve it because of their quicker transition to democracy? Since he has mentioned Poland, does he agree that the case for Poland is perhaps the strongest of all?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Our only commitment so far is to Poland and Hungary, where reforms are about to take place. We have not yet taken a decision on other Eastern European countries. That would be premature until we are sure that they are firmly embarked on economic and political reform.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the help that Her Majesty's Government are now giving to Poland and, to a lesser degree, Hungary.

739
Does he agree that the scale of the problem in Poland is so great as to call for a massive combined effort —he referred to such a possibility —by this country and our partners in the Community? Can he say rather more specifically what is being done to provide that assistance, which will secure the freedom in Eastern Europe which we all desire and help to build a safe and secure economy there?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in the last part of that question, the noble Lord has touched on the real issue. That is why we and our partners in the EC, and indeed in the Group of 24 to which I referred in my original Answer, are working towards a number of measures, including the bilateral projects which I mentioned. Perhaps the most important of these is an agreement between Poland and the IMF which may be close. That would unlock considerable flows of funds over a number of years from the World Bank and other international institutions, as will a far reaching re-scheduling in the Paris Club. The UK will play a full and constructive part in these activities.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that the other day at the CBI Lech Walesa said that what Poland wanted was not simply money but general help with the transition of industry into a modern state? Furthermore, the East European trade council and the CBI have been working on management training for some while. Institutions already exist for such training but it needs more support from the Government and more encouragement.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I read the words to which the noble Lord referred in his question. Indeed the United Kingdom Know-how Fund for Poland is a very good vehicle to encourage Polish industry to make itself attractive for investment. Only last week we doubled the size of that fund from £25 million to £50 million over the next five years. In addition to that, we shall be financing an agricultural project to the tune of £15 million. That is designed to get food into the shops quickly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the general desire to give assistance to Poland in particular is very widespread in this country? Has he any details as to what machinery has been set up to bring this about in a practical way?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have referred to the help that the Government are giving bilaterally and also that which the European Community is giving. For private individuals who may wish to help, especially in the area of food and medicines, a number of charities are involved which I am sure would welcome contributions.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, bearing in mind the urgency of the situation, will the Minister inform noble Lords how much of the food aid that this country has promised has arrived in Poland by now? Getting through the coming winter, as the noble
740
Lord will be aware, is a very important aspect of the problem.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously I cannot give a figure of the amount of the food aid that the European Community is giving that has reached its destination yet. I am aware of the problem to which the noble Lord refers. We are concerned about reports of starvation in Poland. I believe that that is caused by recent price rises which are causing hardship and some under-nourishment in the poorer sections of the population. We shall be considering whether the additional deliveries of food being considered by the Community could be targeted on such people. We shall treat the matter with some urgency.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware —
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say how much of the food aid from this country has arrived in Poland?
Noble Lords: Order.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, wished to finish his question and ask another, it is reasonable that he should do so.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked for a specific figure. He asked how much of the 100 million ecu of aid promised by the EC has reached Poland. I must look into the matter and let him know the answer.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that our noble friend Lady Cox is at present in a lorry driving medicines and food to Poland and that we should all like to wish her well?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to echo that sentiment from this Bench. I hope that my noble friend will have returned by Monday because she has tabled a Question on the subject.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be in the interests of this country if the teaching of English were more widespread in Eastern Europe? Is he also aware that the BBC World Service is carrying out valiant work in that direction? Can he say whether the Government are satisfied that sufficient resources are available to make sure that English, rather than German, becomes the second language in that area.?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that the teaching of English is an important part of the process. It is also important that English should be the second language, not solely for our benefit but also for that of others. The British Council is carrying out a programe in that area and I know that the BBC World Service is greatly appreciated. I understand that following the recent public expenditure settlement it is well funded to do so.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, has the Minister observed that whenever there is an interview with a representative of one of the reformed movements in Eastern Europe the person speaks English most fluently? Does that not make us feel ashamed of our performance in the teaching of languages?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that it should make us ashamed of our teaching of languages because all those people speak English so well. It appears that somebody is teaching English rather well.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, has the Minister noted the pledge from the Federal Republic of Germany of 1 billion dollars of bilateral aid? Is he aware of the remarks made last Sunday by Mr. Walesa that 380 West German firms are involved in joint enterprise compared with 12 from the UK which have shown interest? Does that not indicate the need for a greater enthusiasm from Britain, and will the Government undertake to mount a publicity campaign to wake up British industry to the opportunities available?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that the figure of 1.5 billion dollars pledged by the Federal Republic is in export credit guarantees. That is not the same as a straight donation, which is the case with our Know-how Fund. We are alerting industry in the United Kingdom to the opportunities which will arise as a result of the various programmes, and we shall continue to do so.

Cathedrals: Repair Funding
3.3 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to set up a foundation to help finance the repair of cathedrals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, government money for the maintenance of historic buildings is channelled through English Heritage. In line with a view taken by the Church of England that parish churches should take priority over cathedrals, English Heritage does not currently give repair grants to cathedrals. It would be for the Church, with English Heritage, to put a case to the Government if they considered that this policy should be changed.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that aristophrenic reply. Will the Government consider setting up a fund on the lines of the National Heritage Fund which, within its resources, would make matching grants for money raised by appeals in the private sector? Would not the permanent safeguarding of our cathedrals —the most precious jewels in our heritage crown —not only be worth while in itself but also constitute a fitting commemoration of the coming millenium?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government remain willing to consider any justification for a reordering of priorities within the public resources available. I am well aware of my noble friend's views on the matter, particularly that local churches are better supported by local communities than are cathedrals, which he believes are in isolation. I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the proposals which he made in his supplementary question.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that cathedrals are a national treasure and that they have depended too much upon the generosity of the public who visit them? Will the Minister say whether the Government will give full consideration to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment which in 1987 recommended that the major importance of cathedral buildings justifies eligibility for grant from public funds? In view of the present situation will that report now be considered more seriously?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have always responded to the desires of the Church of England, which believed that priorities were better served by the grant aid from English Heritage going to parish churches rather than to cathedrals. That belief was held on the ground that cathedrals were better able to raise money on their own. An example is the recent successful appeal for Ely Cathedral where £4 million was raised within 12 months.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend and the Government bear in mind the sordid but practical fact that cathedrals are a major attraction of our tourist industry?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am always grateful for an intervention from my noble friend. He is right to point out that the cathedrals of England are among the jewels in the crown of our country.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the proposal put forward by my noble friend in his Question were to be accepted there are many local small churches of even greater antiquity and importance to the national interest and they should not be overlooked by the Government in their consideration?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I understand that at no point did my noble friend Lord St. John imply that there should be a reduction in the grant already given by English Heritage to the parish churches.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, at a time when a mere handful of cathedrals are attempting to raise £47 million for their repair bills, will the noble Lord agree that the Care of Cathedrals Measure —which was recently discussed by the General Synod and will shortly come before the Ecclesiastical Committee setting up a cathedral fabric commission to include representatives of English Heritage—represents a better position in which the Government can grant aid to the cathedrals which are in need? Will he also ensure

743
that if money is made available it will be against the background that primarily cathedrals are not museums or tourist attractions but places for the worship of Almighty God?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I entirely endorse the last remark made by the right reverend Prelate. I also confirm the important Measure that he drew to your Lordships' attention; namely, the recent developments with regard to the future approach to the preservation of our cathedrals with the involvement of English Heritage. The department and I are grateful for the progress that has been made.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am greatly indebted to him for his constructive and open-minded reply, which promises well for the future?
Lord Tryon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am chairman of the appeal for Salisbury Cathedral, which has already raised £4 million of the £6 million target that we set? Will he accept from me that the most difficult question which I have had to ask as regards this appeal is: why do not the Government help with this? Will he accept that Continental governments almost invariably help? Will he also accept that there is no doubt whatever that some sort of "match-you" scheme such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, would have made the job infinitely easier and certainly would have preserved the cathedral for the next several hundred years?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, of course I am aware of the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, with the Salisbury Cathedral appeal. However, I must refer him back to my earlier Answer. We have responded to date to the requirements which the Church of England has placed before the department.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can we not enjoy the advantages as well as the disadvantags of that position and get some money from the state?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not believe that I can go any further in answer to the noble Baroness. The department is responding to the request of the Church of England.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time. This timely Bill will, I hope, not only remind your Lordships and the public at large about the controls on food safety which are already in place and the steps we are taking to reinforce and enlarge them but also serve to reassure those who have expressed concern about the safety of our food supplies. Incidentally, I am sure your Lordships will welcome the fact that at the same time as strengthening the statute book we shall be reducing its size by repealing no fewer than seven existing Acts.
I am delighted that this Bill is a joint initiative by my present ministry and my old stamping ground, the Department of Health. I need hardly add that it is a great pleasure for me that my noble friend Lady Hooper will be my partner throughout the passage of this Bill. Food safety is a matter on which our departments keep in daily touch because the safety of food production, processing, distribution and sale cannot be separated from the Government's concern to protect public health.
We also keep in close touch with our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Unlike the legislation it replaces, the Bill will cover Great Britain as a whole, which makes good sense in the run-up to the single European market. Parallel legislation will be made in Northern Ireland by Order in Council.
As your Lordships would expect, we are taking this opportunity to revise our food legislation, thereby ensuring that the Bill both meets today's needs and is sufficiently flexible to keep up with the pace of new developments in technology. To this end the Bill makes considerable use of enabling powers which will allow us to make regulations to cover the details of a broad range of food safety and consumer protection measures. After further consultation with interested parties, the ensuing regulations will be put before Parliament. The powers will also enable us to implement the growing number of European Community obligations in this area.
Throughout the lengthy deliberations which led up to the Bill, we have never lost sight of our prime objective of protecting the interests of consumers. But we have also given due regard to the needs of businesses. We have therefore tried to avoid placing undue burdens upon them. Moreover, when framing the regulations we shall take particular account of the position of small businesses.
I turn now to the detail of the main provisions. I wonder whether it struck your Lordships, as it did me, as droll that the Food Safety Bill's first clause, which starts by defining the meaning of food etc., should begin by including the words "drink" and:
"chewing gum and other products of a like nature and use".
This part of the definition is drawn from the Food Act 1984. However, many of the Bill's provisions will additionally cover water used in food production; "food sources" such as live animals, live

745
poultry or live fish and materials intended to come into contact with food. Clauses 2 and 3 bring in food that might otherwise fall outside the law. I give two examples. Food given as a prize at a fairground will be caught by Clause 2. Clause 3 will entitle enforcement officers to assume that food they find in a restaurant is for sale to the public unless the proprietor can prove otherwise.
Clause 4 specifies the Ministers who have various functions under the Bill, while Clause 5 identifies the enforcement authorities responsible for food law. Clause 6 provides for Ministers to take over the enforcement functions from local authorities in specific cases or particular types of case.
On the surface these provisions look radically different from those in existing food law. However, the intention is to use them to continue broadly the existing split of responsibilities in England and Wales. It is environmental health officers who deal with the law on unfit food and microbiological contamination of food, while trading standards officers handle other contamination, composition and labelling. However, because the division of duties will be set out in an order rather than in the Bill itself, we shall have greater flexibility.
I turn to the main offences in the Bill. Clauses 7 and 8 make it an offence to render food injurious to health or supply food that fails to meet food safety requirements; that is, food that has been made injurious to health, is unfit for human consumption or is so contaminated as to be unsuitable for human consumption. The terms "injurious to health" and "unfit for human consumption" are enshrined in current food law and thus have the advantage of established case law. The offence of supplying food so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption is a new offence which constitutes an additional safeguard for consumers. It makes it quite clear that food can now be considered to be unsuitable for human consumption by reason of serious contamination.
Another crucial feature of the revised offences is that they apply to food in possession for sale. EHOs already enforce the provisions on unfit food in the factory, but it obviously makes sense for enforcement officers to check products throughout the production stage, as well as at the point of retail. This is also necessary to meet our obligations under the EC Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive.
Clause 8 also introduces another important aid to enforcement. It contains a presumption that if any part of any batch of food is shown not to comply with food safety requirements, then the whole of that batch does not comply. The onus is placed on the owner to prove that the remainder of the batch is safe for human consumption.
Clause 9 strengthens existing powers for enforcement officers to inspect, detain and seize food and apply to a justice of the peace for an order that the food be condemned. If food is not condemned, then the enforcement authority will have to pay compensation equal to any consequent loss in the value of the food.
Clauses 10 and 11 provide various new or revised powers to ensure that food businesses operate in
746
accordance with any regulations made concerning manufacturing processes or hygiene. Enforcement officers may issue improvement notices requiring any deficiencies to be put right over a time period, which they will specify. What is more, if a breach of regulations has led to a conviction the court may, if necessary to protect health, issue an order prohibiting the use of all or part of the offending premises. In certain circumstances the prohibition order can also apply to the proprietor.
Clause 12 allows premises to be closed immediately if they pose an imminent risk of danger to health. An enforcement officer can impose an emergency prohibition notice which, provided he applies to take the issue to court within three days, remains in force until the court has considered his action. The court can ratify this action by imposing an emergency prohibition order, or can if it disagrees order compensation to be paid to the owner of the premises.
Clause 13 enables Ministers to make emergency control orders. These are not intended as a way of dealing with each and every food scare. However, from time to time there may be serious incidents which present an imminent threat to health and require a rapid, nationally co-ordinated response. We hope to continue to deal with most contamination incidents under existing voluntary arrangements. Indeed, even if the statutory powers were used the measures to be taken would be of the sort that any conscientious person would seek to take voluntarily; for instance, the withdrawal from sale of adulterated wine.
However, statutory powers need to be available, notably to cover those situations where voluntary co-operation is not forthcoming. The emergency powers will stand alongside those available under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 which enable us to tackle food contamination which occurs in a specific geographical area. The recent problems over lead in cattle food have demonstrated our ability to respond swiftly and effectively to emergencies. The new powers will enhance that ability.
Clauses 14 and 15 set out the offences relating to consumer protection. It will continue to be an offence to sell food which is not of the nature, substance or quality which the purchaser demands. It will continue to be an offence to sell, and will become an offence to possess for sale, food which is falsely described or presented.
Clause 16 gives wide powers to Ministers to regulate in relation to food safety, hygiene and consumer protection. Many of these powers feature in existing legislation, and the body of regulations under our existing powers will continue in force for the present. However, these powers will be clarified and strengthened. We shall be able to control food composition; for example, restricting or prohibiting the use of certain additives. We shall be able to control microbiological standards, food processes and treatments, food hygiene and the commercial import or export of specific foods.
Moreover, as will be apparent if your Lordships turn to Schedule 1, paragraph 5(3), we shall for the

747
first time have powers to regulate the training of those who handle food, and Clause 23 enables local authorities to provide or finance such training. My honourable friend the Member for Kettering, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, is today issuing a consultation paper on this subject. Regulations will also be able to specify labelling requirements. In this connection, your Lordships may wish to note the review of food labelling recently announced by my honourable friend the Member for Penrith and the Border, the food Minister, which is to be carried out by the Food Advisory Committee.
Many of these regulations will also be able to cover food ingredients and food sources, such as live animals. For example, we shall be able to place controls on live animals that have been treated in such a way that there is a risk of veterinary residues occurring in food as a consequence. It will also be possible to regulate in respect of materials intended to come into contact with foods, from cling-film to brewers' vats.
There is also an important provision in the Bill which relates to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Community. Clause 17 enables Ministers to make any new regulations which may be necessary to fulfil Community obligations in this area. In most cases we should be able to act using the powers I have already described. However, Clause 17 will make certain that we can respond to any new Community obligations which may emerge at some future time.
Clause 18 will permit regulations to set appropriate controls on novel foods or food sources. Foods as diverse as new exotic fruits and genetically manipulated yeasts would come under the scope of this power. However, we shall certainly not want to use these powers unless this is necessary since both consumers and the industry benefit greatly from product innovation.
Clause 18 allows regulations to ban the import of a specified class of food, subject to exceptions. We see the need to use this power with respect to imports from the Community diminishing as the single market develops; and in particular as the Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive brings together the controls applied by all member states. But there are some important arrangements for milk which will need to continue. Clause 18 also allows regulations controlling the sales of milk by prescribing special designations. These featured at length in the 1984 Act and the details will now be transferred to regulations.
Clause 19 will enable Ministers to make regulations to require food premises to be registered or additionally to operate in accordance with a licence. We expect to apply registration to the majority of food businesses, including all of a commercial and permanent nature. They will be required to give basic details of the nature of their operation, enabling enforcement officers to build a clear picture of the food and catering industry in their area and hence to help set enforcement priorities.
748
The purpose of licensing is very different. Let me explain it by reference to food irradiation. Food irradiation under strictly controlled conditions has a very useful role to play in enhancing food safety; for example, it can be used to destroy pests and bacteria in produce such as herbs and spices. The scientific case for its carefully controlled use is overwhelming and it is already used in over 20 countries around the world. However, the process is highly technical and requires special expertise to operate properly. We intend therefore to require that the irradiation of food is only carried out in accordance with the terms of a licence. However, consumer choice is the name of the game, and the crucial condition will be a requirement for full, clear labelling of irradiated food.
Clause 20 enables enforcement authorities to bypass an apparent offender whose offence was the fault of another and prosecute instead the real offender. Clause 21 provides a statutory defence for a defendant who can show that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing an offence. The clause also allows defendants to be deemed to have shown due diligence in particular circumstances. The effect of this is to make a due diligence defence easier to establish for those who are buying in food from the manufacturer or importer. These people should be able to rely to some extent on information from the supplier in question, provided of course that they do not introduce contamination themselves.
I hope that your Lordships have found my outline of the Food Safety Bill's main provisions useful. I will discuss the more important aspects of the remaining clauses in rather less detail. Clause 25 enables Ministers by order to require businesses to provide information and to permit the taking of food samples. This will strengthen the Government's food surveillance programme which currently rests upon voluntary arrangements. Clauses 27 to 30 deal with aspects of the administration of enforcement work and the arrangements for obtaining and analysing or examining samples of food, food sources or contact materials.
Clause 32 sets out the powers of entry available to enforcement officers. It sets out an offence of unauthorised disclosure of information obtained when using the powers of entry. Clause 33 also contains an offence, that of intentional obstruction of an enforcement officer. It requires that in some circumstances a person may be obliged to give information to an enforcement officer although no one will be required to incriminate themselves.
Clause 34 lays down the time limits for prosecutions. Clause 35 sets down penalties, some of them at a level very significantly greater than in existing legislation. With the exception of obstruction it will be possible to try all offences in the crown court and the maximum penalties will be two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. If cases are taken in magistrates' courts, the maximum penalties for the main offences will be six months in prison and/or a fine of £20,000. Clauses 37 and 38 lay down the circumstances under which appeals may be made to the magistrates' court or crown court.

749
In Scotland all offences would normally be tried in the sheriff court, but with discretion to refer the most serious offences to a higher court. The penalties for all offences will be the same as in England and Wales.
Codes of recommended practice may be drawn up by Ministers under Clause 39. The codes will guide food authorities in their enforcement work and will be developed in consultation with enforcement interests through an implementation advisory committee. Food authorities will have to take due notice of these codes in carrying out their functions and to comply with any directions issued by Ministers which specify how the codes are to be implemented. The intention is to use guidelines to obtain an even application of the law. The Government have no intention of taking away from local authorities their responsibility to control their own budgets.
The question of resources for local authorities is obviously an important one, and we recognise that the Bill will create additional costs for the local authorities who will need extra staff to carry out their new duties fully and effectively. We estimate that the cost is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year from 1991–92 onwards. This will be taken into account in next year's revenue support grant settlement. This is a very good response by the Government.
Clause 54 allows certain parts of the Bill to bind the Crown with limited exemptions. Your Lordships will be interested to hear that the Houses of Parliament will be caught within the Act as the exemption applies only to national security, to Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in their private capacities. Clause 59 enables Ministers to bring the new legislation into effect on such days as they may choose, apart from a few provisions, notably those related to emergencies, which will have immediate effect. In general, we would hope to have most sections of the legislation, and the main regulations which follow, in place during the 1990–91 Parliamentary Session.
Food and its safety seem to have been the flavour of many months in the media, and certain matters have recently raised special interest. As your Lordships will be aware, my right honourable friend the Minister recently announced the establishment within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of a food safety directorate. The 700 or so people who make up the directorate draw together the scientists and administrators dealing with the whole gamut of food safety, standards and consumer protection issues.
My right honourable friend also announced the setting up of a consumer panel to keep under review the working of food policies. It will enable the food Minister to hear directly and regularly from consumer representatives. The new panel complements the existing expert committees and the contacts the Minister has with all the other organisations interested in food safety. It does not in any way replace them.
We firmly believe that we should base our conclusions concerning food safety on the best
750
scientific advice available. We firmly believe that our reasons for actions should be logical and open. Parliament requires this of us. By submitting this Bill to your Lordships, we believe that we are updating and improving our food safety legislation not just for 1990, but for the foreseeable future. The Government attach considerable importance to this Bill. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down may I ask whether she can arrange for an answer to be given at the end of the debate concerning the problem of private parties which hire a room and take in their own food? If the food does not come up to standard, then who is responsible? Is it the owner of the room, or the suppliers?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should have thought that my noble friend would be aware that my noble friend Lady Hooper will reply to all questions if delivered at the proper time.

Atomic Weapons Establishment: Future
3.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be convenient if I repeat a Statement about the Atomic Weapons Establishment which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to made a Statement on the future organisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment,
"In their Fifth Report 1988–89, the Select Committee on Defence drew attention to the problems that they believed risked delay to the progress of the Trident programme. The Government have been considering the best way to address these issues.
"The present position is that we believe we shall achieve the initial production at Aldermaston and the other AWE sites that will enable the Trident in-service date of the mid-1990s to be met. However, the need for increased production from 1992 for later Trident deliveries, against the background of the very keen demand for skilled labour in the Thames Valley area, does pose an increasing challenge, and one for which a greater production management capability is required.
"The Government consider that the best way to address these problems is by full contractorisation, with the land, facilities, and other assets remaining in the Government's ownership. Legislation will be required to implement this and will be introduced in due course. Under this legislation, provision would be made for the present workforce to be employees of one or more operating companies.

751
"In the meantime, and until the necessary legislation is introduced, the Government intend to appoint a management contractor who will concentrate initially on manufacturing work and site support. The contractor will strengthen the establishment by bringing in during 1990 a small number of experienced managers from the private sector. The contractor will be selected by competition and invitations to tender will be issued as soon as possible.
"There will be no change in the purpose or direction of the establishment's programme. The first objective is to reinforce rather than to replace existing AWE management, and all the existing AWE sites will continue in operation.
"The Government remain fully committed to the Trident programme, together with a strong research base to underwrite nuclear weapon capability for the future. Safety will continue to be the highest priority. A compliance office, led by a senior and suitably experienced government official based at AWE, will monitor contract compliance and observance of safety, quality and security arrangements.
"Under the initial arrangements, I have described, AWE personnel will remain civil servants. The workforce at the establishment's sites are being informed today and consultation is being set in hand with the relevant trade unions. A consultative document which sets out in greater detail the background and the proposals I have outlined will be placed in the Library of the House this afternoon.
"These changes will not affect the Aldermaston new building programme, which has been managed satisfactorily since 1988 by a private contractor operating under a government contract. The British nuclear deterrent is committed to NATO in support of the agreed NATO strategy of deterrence based on an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces. The arrangements that I have announced today seek to address the valid concern of the Select Committee about the need for improvements at AWE and to ensure that the Trident programme is successfully implemented. I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. A number of aspects of the Statement concern us. Perhaps I may briefly set them out and then ask a number of questions.
Paragraph 4 of the Statement says:
"The Government consider that the best way to address these problems is by full contractorisation, with the land, facilities and other assets remaining in the Government's ownership".
Paragraph 6 says:
"There will be no change in the purpose or direction of the establishment's programme".
752
The Statement continues:
"Safety will continue to be the highest priority".
The Statement then goes on to say:
"These changes will not affect the Aldermaston new building programme".
Although the Minister indicated that the proposed contractorisation rests upon a reference by the Select Committee on Defence, it is based on a report by Sir Francis Tombs. How long has that report been in the Government's hands, and when do they intend to publish it? Can he give an assurance that major redundancies will not follow these proposals? If he cannot, can we assume that contractorisation is an opportunity for the Government to evade their responsibilities towards the employees at Aldermaston? Is it the case that the Government will entrust commercial management with issues of national security? For example, is it not the case that the secrets of Britain's nuclear bomb designs are held at Aldermaston? How will those secrets be protected? Has the United States been consulted, in view of the fact that some of her secrets are housed at Aldermaston?
Are the Government aware that the staff at Aldermaston, especially those who are members of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, which represents about 1,600 Aldermaston scientists and engineers, are strongly opposed to the management of Britain's nuclear deterrent being farmed out?
I heard what the noble Earl said about consultation in the future, but before the announcement today did the Government consult with the employees at Aldermaston? Can he tell the House what they have in mind in respect of security at Aldermaston? How will that be affected by the change? Is it not a fact that security at Aldermaston is presently in the hands of the MOD police, who have among other responsibilities the power of arrest and also the right to carry firearms? What changes do the Government envisage in the security arrangements?
The noble Earl will recall that in two glaring instances —at the Royal small arms factories at Enfield and Waltham Abbey —serious questions were raised when security was transferred to private security firms. He will not need reminding of the serious questions that are being asked about the adequacy of security provided by a private security firm at the Royal Marines depot at Deal. Can the Minister assure the House and especially the people wo live around Aldermaston that these changes will not affect those matters? Is the noble Earl satisfied with the Government's experience of contractorisation at Rosyth in Scotland and also at Devonport?
Finally, does the noble Earl appreciate that selling to the private sector this strategic area of the sensitive matters handled at Aldermaston is a new step in the Government's mania for getting out of their responsibilities to the nation and to the national interest?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, on these Benches we also thank the noble Earl for repeating the tatement made in another place. I have one or two questions.

753
Is it not a paradox that in regard to nuclear defence we are moving in the direction of privatisation, whereas with nuclear power we are moving in the other direction, as we found last night? One of the reasons for this move is the pressure on scarce manpower resources and the cost thereof in the Thames Valley area. Does that not mean that there will be higher costs under the new arrangements? If that is the case, will there be an effect on the defence programme? What will be cut to make way for these higher costs?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the issue of security is extremely worrying. We read in paragraph 7 of the Statement that safety will continue to be the highest priority. That means that security will not be the highest priority. The noble Lord touched on various aspects of that subject and asked questions to which we should all like answers.
The Government are contemplating introducing legislation. In paragraph 5 of the Statement they talk of interim arrangements until the necessary legislation is introduced. Those interim arrangements seem to pre-empt the legislation that may need to go through this House.
Finally, in paragraph 3 we read of the need for increased production from 1992 for later Trident deliveries. Can we be assured that the weaponry will be available for the new Trident boats in time for each one of them when it takes to the water?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their questions. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about full contractorisation. A further consultative document is likely to be issued in due course outlining our legislative proposals for the proposed method of contractor operation and the implications for the AWE's existing workforce. It is likely that the workforce will be transferred into contractor's employment under the terms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The workforce will be fully consulted at the appropriate time on the implications of the transfer for their conditions of service and in particular for their superannuation rights.
The noble Lord also mentioned the recently compiled report by Sir Francis Tombs. We have paid great attention to the report but it is not the Government's intention to publish it. The noble Lord asked about redundancies. As the Statement made clear, the AWE is short of manpower, so there is no question of general job losses under the management contract. But the possibility of a very small number of redundancies among senior management cannot entirely be ruled out. As regards long-term redundancies after full contractorisation, that depends on demand for the work of the establishment, which would be the determining factor whatever management arrangements were in place at the AWE, whether it was in the private sector or in the public sector.
The noble Lord also referred to the security aspect. Private contractors already have great status in this area. They have been involved in a range of works on AWE sites for many years. What is most important is
754
that a £1 billion programme of capital construction at Aldermaston is already under private sector project management. Dockyard contractors now refit and service nuclear powered submarine reactors.
The noble Lord made an important point when he talked about ensuring security. Safety and security will continue to be paramount and will be safeguarded. All staff will be vetted in exactly the same way as civil servants. The contract will specify strict environmental, health and safety criteria.
Finally, procedures will be in place to ensure careful monitoring. We shall maintain the Ministry of Defence police at AWE and will continue to set security standards for the establishment. They will be monitored by Ministry of Defence staff at AWE and in MoD headquarters.
The noble Lord made a point about nuclear defence and nuclear power. They have nothing to do with each other in this context, which is to improve management efficiency to see the Trident programme complete.
Costs were mentioned. Costs will obviously depend upon the outcome of the competition. It is not primarily a cost-cutting exercise, but we shall clearly be looking to the contractor to manage his resources efficiently.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but he must have misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that it was a cost-cutting exercise. I suggested that it would cost more because the contractors would have to respond to market forces. I was asking the Minister about the increased costs, not the decreased costs.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, having to respond to market forces does not necessarily mean that the operation will cost more. With the natural efficiency of market forces it is to be hoped that it will not cost any more.
As regards the legislation and when it is likely to take place, legislation will be required for full contractorisation. We hope to put a Bill before Parliament in time for the operation to begin in 1992.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down will he deal with the subject of the contractor and the competitive tender? Is he telling us, as he read out in the Statement, that the contractor will be selected by competition and an invitation to tender? Are we putting out to competitive tender the safeguarding of security of that establishment? What will be the criteria upon which such a tender will be awarded if it is not awarded on the lowest price?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it goes without saying that safety and security will be of paramount importance when the contractor is chosen. It will be made clear that they are of paramount importance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm what I think that he has nearly but not quite said: that the contractors and the staff that

755
they bring in will be subjected to exactly the same degree of security vetting as is the Civil Service staff at present?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right on that point.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one general question and one particular one. On the general question, is the whole operation desirable and is it necessary in present circumstances? Is there not a certain lack of enthusiasm for Trident on the other side of the Atlantic? Are any of the operations intended to step in to see whether the job can be done alone in the event of the United States stepping out? Is that the nature of the problem that the Government face? The particular question I wish to ask relates to trade unions. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the trade unions would be consulted. Is that not a different attitude from the attitude which the Government have taken in relation to GCHQ? If they are going to consult the trade unions in this delicate area perhaps they might reconsider their attitude at GCHQ.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying about GCHQ, but I do not believe that the situation is related to what is proposed. On the question of whether there is a need for the Trident programme, the noble Lord is aware of the joint NATO communiqué of June of this year in which it was agreed that there is no alternative to the alliance deterrence strategy based on an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces. The honourable gentleman the shadow defence spokesman in another place in October of this year said that the next Labour Government would accept the responsibilities, both financial and strategic, of inheriting the Trident programme.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, was not that all before the recent world-shaking events in which Mr. Gorbachev has played so large a part and in which the President of the United States has also participated?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord had better ask his honourable friend.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, when my noble friend told my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that he was quite right, was he saying that each individual workman working for a private contractor will have to give a written undertaking just as civil servants do?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, they will undergo the normal vetting which is standard for civil servants.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on a first hearing of the Statement, I am bound to say, and regret to say, that there is a dangerous element of recklessness about it. Will the Minister be good enough to define the meaning of "contractorisation", a word that I have never heard before? I do not know
756
whether it is in the Oxford Dictionary, but it has never been brought to my attention at any stage. Is it privatisation by another means? The Statement says that the Government:
"consider that the best way to address these problems is by full contractorisation, with the land, facilities, and other assets remaining in the Government's ownership".
Will he be good enough to define what is left? Secondly, on the question of security, which has been raised effectively by other noble Lords, is it possible for those contracts to fall into the hands of foreign firms and contractors? It is important that in the public interest the Minister and his right honourable friend should define this matter carefully.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked about contractorisation and said that he had never heard of the phrase in that context. I must make it clear that we must ensure that scarce manpower resources are managed effectively and that strong production management expertise exists in view of the increased production requirements from 1992. It is the Government's view that that can best be achieved by a full government-owned, contractor-operated management. That requires legislation. In the meantime, as a first step, we are introducing a management contractor who will concentrate initially on manufacturing and supporting activity at AWE sites. The noble Lord also asked whether the operation would be open to foreign firms. The answer is no. We can ensure that through the application of Article 223 of the EC Treaty.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.59 p.m.
Second reading debate resumed.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, first of all, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness for explaining the Food Safety Bill to us in such detail and with considerable clarity. The Bill has been generally welcomed by those people who are most interested in it and likely to be most affected by it. In particular, those who speak for consumers, for the local authorities, including the enforcement officers of those local authorities, for producers and for retailers, have all expressed general support for the Bill. However, naturally they have reservations on a number of counts in respect of their own specific interests and in respect of specific clauses. This support with reservations —if I may so describe it —promises an interesting Committee stage for the Bill in your Lordships' House.
As the noble Baroness said, the Bill was subject to much discussion with interested parties over recent years. Thus it shows signs here and there of compromise. But the important thing, as the Minister said, is that overall the Bill is decisive in a text which is admirably clear.
The need for the Bill is paramount. In spite of our reputation for the quality of our food and its

757
diversity, it would be very difficult not to be concerned about food safety in recent months and years, not only in respect of new products but also of basic foods. The Department of Health has already reported that in the first nine months of 1989, 21,843 cases of food poisoning have been recorded. That was an increase of 13 per cent. over the same period in 1988.
I have already mentioned what I believe to be the clarity of the Bill. Perhaps I may express the hope that the same thing will apply to the important codes of practice which are to be made under it. It is particularly gratifying that the role of environmental health officers and trading standards officers under the Bill has been recognised and will be extended, and that the Government have agreed to fund an additional £30 million for this purpose. That is good so far as it goes. Naturally the only query regarding the figure is whether it will be enough for the many new duties which the Bill imposes on environmental health officers and trading standards officers.
There are considerable recruitment problems, particularly of environmental health officers. There are also training and placement problems, certainly in areas where high housing costs are making staff recruitment well nigh impossible. This naturally leads me to ask the Minister and indeed the Department of Health, which is vitally concerned in this as well, whether they will impress upon the Department of the Environment the vital nature of the extended role which the Bill now places on environmental health officers. I would ask also whether local authorities operating under the supervision of the Department of the Environment will ensure an adequate budget for the enforcement work which the Bill envisages for this important service. Mention of the budget causes me to ask whether or not the way in which local authorities discharge their duties under the Bill will in any sense or way be monitored. If so, how?
The noble Baroness mentioned that Scotland is included in the Bill and gave the reasons for this. She also mentioned that Northern Ireland is in it, together with England and Wales. My query is whether or not in the extended discussions leading to the drafting of the Bill, organisations which were purely Scottish were consulted in the same way as their counterparts here in England. I wonder also whether in the Scottish Office the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and the Department of Health were fully taken into account in relation to the Bill, and whether they are totally in agreement with it.
The scope of the Bill has caused many organisations to indicate their support for it. In particular, the extended provisions for the supervision of food processing have been generally welcomed. I am informed that the main body in this area —the Food and Drink Federation —accepts the provisions of the Bill. That useful organisation speaks mainly for large firms which are already well equipped to deal with the responsibilities which the Bill will place upon them.
There are however queries about certain smaller companies in food processing, especially in new high tech areas, as to whether or not they have the necessary experience and resources to comply with
758
the Bill. Also, in view of that, perhaps some assistance will need to be given to them, particularly in the early stages.
Farmers, I am glad to say, tell me that they also accept the need for the Bill and its scope, although being farmers, they have queries about aspects of the application of the Bill to them. The queries are, in particular, whether enforcement officers will have knowledge of modern farming practice in sufficient measure to understand what the farmer is attempting, and why his compliance with the Bill may be more difficult because he is a farmer than would be the case in other areas.
Nevertheless, I personally welcome the responsibilities which the Bill places on farmers to ensure observance, including the codes and in particular to ensure that the inputs of farmers are safe and that their primary produce is also, so far as humanly possible, a safe product.
The Bill is greatly concerned with the doctrine of due diligence. This is enshrined of course in its totality in Clause 21. I understand that retailers generally regret the repeal of Section 102 of the Food Act 1984 and the defence of warranty which is included in that section. Clause 21 attempts a fair balance between the parties. There is no doubt that further discussion will take place upon it at the Committee stage. I only say here that consumers must have protection without wearisome and costly litigation. That, it seems to me, is what Clause 21 seeks to do.
In connection with prohibition orders, one notes that Clause 11 imposes fairly strenuous and far-reaching powers on the courts with very limited discretion concerning convictions. I agree that these powers are necessary; but, nevertheless, I also agree that they are at the heart of the clause and of the Bill itself. However the strenuous character of Clause 11 is undeniable. This may be a point which we shall come back to at the Committee stage.
The codes of practice envisaged under the Bill have been given a welcome by interested parties, not least because they will ensure even-handed enforcement. This is important for those who are involved in the Bill.
In Clause 39 the subject of enforcement is discussed. Here, as concerns the drafting of codes, I ask how far advanced the work is. Preparation of codes could delay the introduction of the Bill for which the noble Baroness gave a date., and I think that it would be a great pity if, for that reason —important though codes are —we had any unnecessary delays in giving effect to the Bill by reason of a problem with the codes. We had rather an unhappy experience in your Lordshps' House with the drafting of a code concerning bargain offers under the Consumer Protection Act. Subsequent experience with that code —an unhappy experience in its entirety —leads me to think that codes in themselves are not always the answer to every problem.
The noble Baroness dealt in some detail with the registration and licensing of premises. The distinction that she made about which premises will be registered and which will be licensed is exactly

759
the one which I had already decided was the correct distinction. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to ask at this stage what the cost of registration and licensing will be. In deciding what costs will be made for these services, one wonders whether any thought has been given to the difference between a very large establishment and a very small one. Obviously, if a common registration fee were decided upon, this would bear somewhat harshly on smaller shops. Here one dares to suggest that if no decision has already been taken, thought may be given to using the rateable value as an indicator of what the registration fee ought to be.
We welcome Clause 23 on food hygiene training. At the same time I wish to ask the Minister whether food authorities will recognise hygiene training courses arranged by food businesses or groups of such businesses which follow schemes approved by the local authority. There is a problem with the training of staff in food hygiene, particularly in those areas of retailing and food processing where transient staffs are a normal fact of life and therefore the continuity of training may not be as good as it should be.
Hygiene and safety are also important in the home. It is important that continuing publicity should be given to those matters among housewives. The pamphlet recently issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on hygiene in the home was in my view an admirable document. The main factor, as I see it, is to keep those matters constantly before the housewife because there is a tendency to overlook these things and, with the passage of time, perhaps unwittingly to take risks.
Clause 17 is concerned with implementing Community requirements and also in a sense with the irradiation of food. I felt that the noble Baroness skated somewhat lightly over the controversial question of the irradiation of food because there is no doubt that if arguments arise over this Bill they will concern that matter. The Bill has found a facile solution to this problem. Under the Bill powers are taken to permit the irradiation of food, but no general indication is given of how or when the powers will be used. We already know that there is a sizeable volume of opinion in this country against irradiated food in any shape or form. It would be better for the Ministry to recognise that fact and deal with this matter in an open and frank manner.
As I understand the state of play, when the Government first announced their intention to proceed with the irradiation of food they did so for the reasons which the noble Baroness has given. However, they did so on the basis that, even at that stage, they were going rather further than the draft Community directive on irradiated food required. The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me about the matter and I remember suggesting to her that it might be politic, in introducing what I knew even at that stage to be a controversial matter, to limit the proposals to what was in the draft Community directive. Since then, of course, the draft Community directive has had the misfortune to receive the "thumbs down" sign from the European Parliament which only favours the irradiation of
760
herbs and spices. The Government have taken that very much in their stride. In a Written Answer in the Official Report of another place on 28th November the Minister responsible for food commented at col. 190 on the implications for government policy of the recent European Parliamentary vote. He said:
"The vote as such has no implications for Government policy. It is the means by which the Parliament has set out its opinion on the proposals from the Commission. The co-operation procedure provides for the Commission to take a view of the Parliament's opinion and for the Council to seek a common position among the member states".
If I may say so in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who is a former distinguished Member of that European Parliament, those comments put the European Parliament nicely in its place. In spite of all the powers given to it, or the powers it thinks it has, it remains what it originally was, which is a consultative body giving opinions. However, given the rates of pay which its Members enjoy, it is not a bad body to belong to. Where does this leave her Majesty's Government?
I am interested in particular in the position of the House of Lords' Select Committee on Community affairs in this area because I understand it has been working assiduously, as always, on the draft directive and is due to report on it fairly shortly. In my opinion it will be to the advantage of this House, certainly in Committee, if we have the benefit of the informed opinion of the Select Committee on this vital question as there is a sharp conflict of opinion in the country at large. The more information we have to guide us in this area, the better it will be for all concerned.
On the question of irradiated food we also come up against the problem that, although the Government are taking many powers to themselves to make orders under the Bill, they propose as a general theme to use the annulment procedure for the making of these orders. I must tell the noble Baroness that already I have received from diverse sources the unsolicited opinion that the use of the annulment procedure in areas as important and as vital as these across the board is totally unacceptable. That is my own view.
We shall need to look very seriously at the relevant clause when we come to it because the powers are far too sweeping and they are totally inappropriate to the questions which will arise in the making of orders under this Bill. If one may fly a kite in this particular direction, I should say that, in view of the credit which the Government are seeking to take for their new consumer panel, they may care to consider seeking advice from it on whether or not the annulment or the affirmative procedure should be used when the Government are ready to introduce draft regulations to your Lordships' House. At any rate as the procedure stands it goes too far and for that reason we are not very happy with the proposition that the annulment procedure should apply.
In general this is basically a good Bill, but in my view it needs to rekindle public confidence in food throughout the food chain. The White Paper on which the Bill is based failed to impress because for

761
many of us it was a public relations exercise in which the Ministry of Agriculture sought to take too much credit for things it had little to do with. The Bill rectifies that position and we now have an opportunity to deal with a measure which is relevant to the needs of consumers in a fast changing food environment. It is a Bill which, with some improvements, can meet the needs of the times.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I wish to welcome the Bill. It contains many positive features which are clearly stated. However, like the noble Lord I should like to see some modifications which I shall discuss in a moment. I wish to begin by declaring an interest as president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. I am glad to say that in that capacity I had a helpful meeting with the noble Baroness a few weeks ago which led to a clearer understanding of what was in the mind of the Ministry.
Needless to say, as someone connected with the trading standards administration I am glad to note that an additional £30 million a year will be taken into account in next year's revenue support grant settlement for local authorities to enforce this legislation. Noble Lords will no doubt recall our concern when we were discussing the consumer protection legislation in early 1987 that no provision was made for enforcement. That seemed to be a major weakness of that legislation and I am very glad to see that it is rectified on this occasion.
There is one aspect of financial assistance that I wish to return to in a moment and that is an early and preliminary provision for training. I do not think it is sufficient to provide the moneys concerned, starting from 1991–92, without having trained up the personnel beforehand. I shall indicate the relatively small sums which I feel could be involved in providing for that training.
There are two omissions in the Bill which I regret. The first is that there is not to be an independent food safety and standards agency. The second is that there is no provision for product liability. On the first omission, the Minister went some way when he announced on 2nd November the setting up of a food safety directorate within the Ministry. Certainly that is to be welcomed.
We also welcome the establishment of a consumer panel. However, there are many, who are concerned with protecting the consumer in this area, who would have been happier to see an independent directorate, operating in much the same way as the Office of Fair Trading in relation to the DTI. We feel that that degree of independence could give a greater sense of security to the public and could provide a more visible implementation of the provisions and intentions of the Bill than a directorate, however efficiently and well run, which is an integral part of the department. I hope that as we proceed with the consideration of the Bill that aspect, which we brought to the attention of the noble Baroness when we had our meeting with her some weeks ago, can be taken into account once more. I should not have thought it was too great a problem to give greater
762
emphasis to the independence of the new directorate. I assume we can be reassured that the members of the consumer panel will have access to all appropriate food safety and standards information in order to make an informed judgment on behalf of consumers. It would be necessary that the members of the panel should themselves be sufficiently well qualified to discharge their responsibility on behalf of all of us.
Assuming that these points can be met, it seems to me that there is also a need for experienced trading standards officers to be invited to serve as advisers to the consumer panel and also, I believe, as members of the directorate. The Department of Health has for many years had the benefit of two experienced environmental health officers working full-time within that department. Chernobyl and subsequent accidents, which have resulted in contaminated animal feed and human foodstuffs, suggest that the new MAFF directorate would likewise benefit from being able to call immediately on practical and enforcement advice from trading standards officers serving from within the directorate and therefore familiar with the work the directorate is carrying out. I should be happy to write to the noble Baroness with detailed recommendations in that regard if she would like that.
In regard to product liability, noble Lords may recall that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, moved an important amendment during our consideration at Committee stage of the Consumer Protection Bill in early 1987 for the application of the consumer protection provisions in the product liability directive to be incorporated without any exception in the subsequent legislation. However, although this was widely supported by the House, and indeed on Report stage was again brought forward and even more widely supported, it was resisted by the Government. I hope that this Bill will provide an opportunity for repairing that omission. I should like to put that forward in clue time at Committee stage.
I should now like to return to the question of further training for trading standards officers, environmental health officers and public analysts. We are grateful for the £30 million that will be provided, but it will come into operation from 1991–92 onwards. What we need, in order to make the best use of this money, is to ensure that we can from now train up the personnel suitably to take on this new role.
The amount of money involved in this would be relatively small. I have been advised that we are talking about a couple of million pounds or so, bearing in mind that these officers are already well qualified and that what would be needed would be to bring them up to date with factory enforcement methods as opposed to the current law, which mainly prescribes enforcement at the point of retail sales. It is not an arduous training process but it would mean that if an advance payment could be made of that sort of order, these people could be ready to assume these increased responsibilities at the due date.
I may say that the Department of Trade and Industry provides a good example of this sort of

763
assistance being provided. For example, it provided £220,000 in the past for quality training in factories; for quality assurance training; for additional training for trading standards officers, and so on —quite substantial sums which have helped considerably to reinforce the quality of the service. I therefore hope that the Ministry will be able to follow the example of their colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and will be persuaded to make this small additional sum of money available as soon as possible.
These are the general points that I wish to make in relation to this admirable Bill. There are a number of detailed amendments that we should all like to bring forward at the Committee stage. In my case we are perhaps a little concerned about the extent of the Minister's powers of delegation. The noble Baroness, in introducing the Bill, explained why this had been introduced. We accept that. Nevertheless, we feel that there could be some case for introducing an affirmative resolution as a way of dealing with these extended powers, and we shall draw attention to those.
In summary, I should like to say that we welcome this Bill. We think it answers many of the qualms that people now have; and with one or two of the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred, added to those to which I referred, we believe that it could be made into an excellent measure.
4.25 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, while I welcome many of the provisions of this Bill there are some aspects, two of which I shall speak about, which worry me. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has already spoken about irradiation, so I shall not speak about that.
One of the things that worries me is the apparent lack of any power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about feedstuffs and the feeding of livestock in view of the suspicion — I think it is more than a suspicion —that a primary cause of salmonella in poultry may be the feeding of birds on their deceased chums and on antibiotics. This seems a serious omission, if it is an omission. I think that it is unless that power is implicit in Clause 1(1)(a). Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will be able to tell me the answer to that when she comes to wind up.
The other thing I am worried about is this. As worded at present the Bill sounds the death knell of charity fetes, dances, garden openings, sales of work, coffee mornings, wine and cheese parties —you name it; in short, all the multitude of fund-raising events that take place every week all over Britain from Land's End to the northernmost tip of Shetland at which food is provided by voluntary workers either for sale on a stall or as refreshments.
Millions of pounds are raised every year by these social events for innumerable good causes, which would be very hard hit without them. Moreover, they form the backbone of the social life of town, village and countryside, and the social consequences
764
of killing them would be very grave. In view of the fact that I read in some newspaper that the Secretary of State had said that the Bill would not affect church fetes, I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Government to do that; but according to the legal advice that I have received that is precisely what the Bill, as it stands, would do.
Clause 2(1) provides that the supply of food should have the same meaning as the sale of the food. Subsection (2) provides that the,
"Act shall apply Ito] any entertainment"
and that,
"'entertainment' includes any social gathering'.
In my legal adviser's opinion, charitable functions would be subject to the provisions of the Bill as they are within the definition of entertainment and supplying food otherwise than on sale in terms of Clause 2. He suggests that the words "social gathering" should be deleted from this clause, for as the Bill is, I think, to protect consumers and improve the standards of hygiene facilities of commercial businesses there seems no good reason why these regulations are extended to social gatherings. I shall be interested to hear the noble Baroness's comments on this point when she comes to wind up.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the first thing I want to do this afternoon is to congratulate my noble friend the Minister of State for the clear way in which she has introduced this particularly important Bill. I want to pass on my personal congratulations to the Ministry as well as to all departments. I am particularly pleased that my noble friend Lady Hooper will be taking part today and at all stages of the Bill.
I congratulate the departments on this initiative, which I believe is much needed. It is topical and it is relevant to the food industry. What will be of particular relevance to many in your Lordships' House is the great annual exhibition at Smithfield, which is taking place this week. No doubt today, later this week and perhaps even next week, we may have the benefit of many members of the agricultural industry who may be able to come and listen to the deliberations of your Lordships, and perhaps even learn something.
Many of the points that I wish to raise have been raised by my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I have no doubt that many of the points that I have in mind will be raised by later speakers, so I shall desist from many of my more quixotic thoughts and try to be brief. I wish to concentrate on one subject which has already aroused a considerable amount of controversy this afternoon; namely, irradiation.
Noble Lords may know that I had the honour to serve for five and a half years as the Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland. One of the constituent sections of the Department of Agriculture there is the scientific service. Our pride and joy went under the name of the Food Irradiation Unit and was situated in Newforge Lane, a suburb of Belfast. I recall my noble friend the Minister of State paying a visit there with me. She nods assent, so that visit clearly did her no harm.

765
The process of irradiation can engender some terrifying thoughts among us if we remember the results of the dramatic explosion at Chernobyl which caused appalling havoc with the sheep industry, particularly in Great Britain. It also caused some problems in Northern Ireland, but a year later than on the mainland. I am sure that I speak for my noble friend when I say that we were awash with bequerels, Caesium 135 and Caesium 137. My noble friend paid a visit to Northern Ireland and saw some of the effects on the sheep and the lamb industry there of one particularly malignant form of radiation.
Under the cover of the Bill before us today we hope to discuss the question of irradiation. A patent for a process akin to irradiation was granted as far back as 1921. The process is in operation in 21 countries and is permitted in 35 countries. The working party in the United Kingdom, which goes under the name of the Advisory Committee on Irradiated Novel Foods —I enjoy these acronyms; one never knows what to make of them —recommended that irradiation should be permitted, but under certain safeguards. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and all noble Lords including me will be on all-fours on this matter. I had perhaps better not deal at too great length with the overall average dose of 10 kilograys. No doubt my noble friend Lady Hooper will be able to advise us on the matter, if not today at a later stage. We shall no doubt go deeply into the subject.
As noble Lords will know, there was a report in 1986 with further study in 1987, but the one thread which went through all those deliberations and is central to our discussion of the subject this afternoon is the matter of licensing and inspection. I believe that I am right in thinking that Clauses 16 and 19 are particularly germane to the problems of licensing both the process of irradiation and the premises where it may be carried out. Above all, it is important to realise that licensing should be under the direct aegis of a competent national authority. I believe that that is part and parcel of the directive referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. My noble friend Lord Middleton may have more to say about the matter, so I had better move on.
It is important that the facts concerning irradiation should be publicised and that the consumer and the housewife should have confidence in the process. It is particularly important that the destination of the food should be verified and that labels should be precise and well detailed. Above all, we should understand that irradiation will not make food that was originally unfit in any way fit for human consumption, let alone any other consumption. We should also understand that irradiation will not change to any significant extent —if indeed to any measurable extent —the nutritional value, taste and texture of food. If that were to happen, it would nullify the entire process.
I understand that irradiation has some benefits in that it will reduce, if not entirely eliminate, pathogenic organisms such as salmonella, campylobacter —I received some tuition about that earlier, I hope that I have it right —and listeria. However, one virulent virus which it will not cure and which received some publicity and caused a
766
considerable amount of concern to my noble friend Lady Trumpington and me was clostridium botulinum. It is a particularly virulent virus and has particularly unpleasant characteristics in human and bovine species. I understand that irradiation is of great use in herbs as well as in some fruit and potatoes. That will suffice from me on the subject of irradiation. As I do not have an O-level in science, I shall allow my noble friends who have a little more experience to deal with the matter in more detail.
There are one or two points in the Bill on which I seek clarification from my noble friend Lady Hooper. I strongly support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on the subject of the offences in Clause 21. I was not entirely sure about the defence spelt out in Clause 21(3)(c), but I think I am half-way to understanding it. Perhaps I may contact my noble friend later or perhaps write to her.
On the question of food safety and consumer protection, the Bill takes us a substantial way along the path of progress that we seek, especially in the 1990s. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Hooper will confirm the definition of "entertainment" in line 5 on page 3. That is quite interesting. I hope that it is wide enough and covers all the venues that might be relevant to the protection that the Food Safety Bill should give.
I am delighted to see the consumer protection aspects of Clauses 3, 8, 14 and 16. Perhaps my noble friend will write to me to answer one query regarding Clause 5, in which there are frequent references to the Inner and Middle Temples, which I understand are not too far from this House. I wonder why those two institutions have been mentioned. Why has Gray's Inn not been named? There may be cries of partisanship from noble Lords who are members of those institutions. No doubt my noble friend will be able to enlighten me.
We all know that the greatest protection to the consumer and the public is the reputation of the supplier, be he or she the retailer, the wholesaler or the farmer who is the original or primary producer. Once a reputation for wholesomeness and all the other qualities that we look for in our food is lost, it is extremely difficult ever to regain it.
Perhaps my noble friend Lady Hooper will write to me to let me know under which clause the celebrated case of Donoghue v. Stevenson —a 1932 case from Scotland concerning a snail found in a bottle of ginger wine —will be caught. That case runs to 40 pages, but I shall desist from mentioning one of them today. I should be extremely grateful if my noble friend would write to me or even let me know later this evening.
In conclusion, I believe that the Bill will set the pattern for the food industry, for agriculture and for all of us for the next 20, 30 or indeed 50 years. I bid the Bill all good wishes and success. I commend my noble friends for producing it and wish to add my support.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, before the noble Lord takes his seat, perhaps I may put a question to him. In his introductory remarks he appeared to

767
be equating the radiation effects of fall-out from incidents such as that at Chernobyl with the process of irradiation of foodstuffs. Am I correct in believing that he regards the two processes as the same?
Lord Lyell: Not entirely, my Lords. I said to your Lordships that I do not have any major scientific qualifications. I shall look forward to taking a lesson. If I have caused any confusion, I apologise.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I apologise to the House in that a longstanding commitment will prevent me remaining until the conclusion of this debate. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her reply to the debate feels able to deal with any of the questions that are troubling me about the Bill, I shall of course tomorrow read with care in Hansard what she has thought it right to say.
I think it was Florence Nightingale who said that the hospitals should do the sick no harm. Conversely, we should ensure that food does the healthy no harm. In stating that objective it should be recognised that prevention is better than cure. The first question therefore to ask of this Bill must be: how comprehensive is it? That is a difficult question to answer in the absence of detailed regulations. Once again it is necessary to protest that a broad-ranging statutory code cannot properly be scrutinised by Parliament in the absence of regulations which alone can give practical meaning to its general provisions and tell us how it will work in practice. Therefore we must be entitled in this debate to ask some specific questions about what the regulations will contain.
Responsibility for ensuring that food poisoning does not occur at any stage in the production process is by no means confined to the retail end of the chain of food production. On the contrary, food poisoning can result from any activity in the chain of food production and sale from beginning to end. Consumers are surely entitled to be satisfied that effective action in preventing food poisoning is being taken at every stage in the production chain, including the earliest one. At every production stage the goal should be to prevent or block any risk of food contamination from the first stage to the next and every subsequent stage.
In trying to understand this Bill I ask myself whether its emphasis is on the food end product rather than a consideration of the whole continuum of production events from, for example, the broiler house where the chicken is hatched, through every production stage —killing, cleaning, preparation, packaging, storage and transport —until it ends up available for sale at the retail outlet. The consumer at the purchase point surely should have confidence that everything that has been done to produce the food that he is purchasing has been subject to very careful hygienic considerations at every stage of production.
So the basic question that should be asked of the Bill before it is given an unqualified welcome is this: does it apply to every activity that is involved in the
768
production of food for the consumer? I am bound to say that it does not appear to me to highlight activities at each stage of food production: for example, the animal on the farm and the feeding stuffs for animals, birds or fish.
In common with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, I confess that I am very puzzled by Clause 1(2)(b) which excludes from the definition of food "feeding stuffs for animals, birds or fish". In common with the noble Lady therefore my welcome to the Bill is distinctly qualified until I hear an explanation about this matter. Why are we excluding from the new statutory code feeding stuffs for animals which have been highlighted in recent food poisoning incidents: for example, the feeding of chickens with chicken entrails, carcases and debris?
Most food poisoning incidents in recent years have been related to animal sources such as salmonella in eggs. Should it not be recognised that every raw material that contributes to food is capable of being rendered injurious to health? For example, there is bread, which so far as I know includes flour, water, yeast, salt and fat (although I am ready to be corrected on that as on so many other things). Each of those raw materials is capable of causing the final product, the bread, to be injurious to health.
When I look at Clause 1(4) I am puzzled to see that although food includes drink, "drink" does
"not include references to tap water unless it is bottled".
Why is tap water excluded? Is it excluded because it is not politically timely for water to be considered as a cause of food poisoning? Yet we know of recent events in Oxfordshire where water has had to be boiled in order to make it safe for consumption.
It is the intended width of the Bill that I question. Are there to be regulations which will cover the production of primary food sources on the farm? Can we be told clearly that the intent of Clause 1(3) is to include within the definitions, and therefore within the scope of the Bill, all food production on farms and in factory units, or is that not so?
I go to Clause 7(1) and look at the offences listed there. It seems to me that they all relate to positive actions that have been undertaken on food such as adding a substance to it and so rendering it injurious to health. I should welcome an explanation on that point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. I hope I am wrong but as I read that clause it would be an offence to add a toxic substance to milk (which is surely right) but not an offence (which is surely wrong) to fail to pasteurise it at the required temperature and time. Moreover, as I read the clause it would not be an offence to fail to apply a hygienic procedure to avoid contamination of the chicken with salmonella. That should surely be an offence whether or not salmonella is specifically found later in the food.
Food safety regulations should surely be laid down as quality assurance systems from the earliest stage, and they should be enforced. Failure to comply with regulations —the quality assurance system —should itself be an offence. We should not have to wait until a salmonella is grown in the food on sale or in the patient. A reasonable but clear quality assurance system throughout every production stage should

769
minimise the likelihood of food being produced for sale in a state that is injurious to health.
I suggest that what is required is a regulatory framework of control over all the methods and stages of producing food so as to monitor that they are being carried out to an acceptable standard. Thus, quality assurance would be designed to ensure that every production method and procedure was to an acceptable standard.
With reference to Clause 7(2) I suggest that food should be regarded as injurious to health having regard to the probable effect of that food not only on the health of the person consuming it but also on the health of the person handling it. That is perhaps something to which we might return in Committee.
From Clause 8(2) I have the impression —I am ready to be contradicted if I am wrong —that all the emphasis is on waiting until food appears on the market unfit for human consumption. Presumably in order to establish those offences the environmental health officers will have to take large scale random samples for testing or wait until there is an outbreak of food poisoning.
Prevention is always better than cure. Food should fail to comply with food safety requirements, for example, if it is stored under unsuitable environmental conditions, irrespective of whether or not an individual item itself is proved to be injurious to health. That is analogous to sterile medical products. It is the process and not the product that is tested.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, called particular attention to Clause 8(3). The provision presumes that the whole of a batch is affected if part fails to comply with food safety standards. I wonder whether the clause imposes too lax a standard when it provides the defence "until the contrary is proved". I doubt the widsom of that let-out clause. Perhaps the Government might consider it again. Should the whole batch not be deemed to fail to comply? I assume that a batch represents a quantity of food prepared by a process on one occasion.
Statistical laws and the limits of sensitivity of a microbiological assay may well give what are called false negatives. The next negative sample in a batch should not therefore be used to imply that the rest of the batch is safe. The preferred and safer action would be to reject the entire batch once a part of it has been demonstrated to fail to comply with the requirements. In fact that is a basic requirement of an effective quality assurance system: batch testing, batch records and batch rejection.
When I consider Clause 9(1) I become anxious when I see that the authorised officer's powers are confined to the inspection of food. Why are not also the means of production of food —the machinery, the quality of the environment, for example the temperature and the hygienic standards —being applied in the food production premises? I appreciate that I may be told that all will become clear from regulations made under Clause 11. But without the regulations this House simply cannot begin to judge. I would prefer to see a clear quality assurance system, and if the standards are not
770
maintained then the food should be deemed to be unsafe.
For example, Clause 15 provides for an offence of falsely labelling food. The provisions are of course welcome. But let us take a topical example —a claim that food has been irradiated. It is the very example that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, gave when explaining the clause in her speech. It is in practice very difficult to test that the irradiation of food has occurred, unlike, for example, testing food in a refrigerator where the temperature can be measured. The concern for the consumer is that a false claim is made on a label that food has been irradiated. The consequences might be a substantially inflated price, poorer keeping qualities and the possibility of contaminated food persisting. But if the Bill were to bring in regulations for a quality system of food production, such as a kite mark, then the food producer's irradiation plant records could be checked and any of his food could be deemed suspect if failures of compliance were noted.
I then come to what we can divine about regulations which may (not must) come under Clause 16. The regulations will be all important. Without them we cannot scrutinise the system that the Government really intend for food safety. Let me make a few observations.
Clause 16(1)(b) talks of provision being made for securing that food meets,
"such microbiological standards … as may be specified by … regulations".
The regulations should surely not be confined to microbiological standards. The olive oil disaster in Spain was one example of a toxic chemical rendering a food unsafe. Standards should surely be applied to the non-microbiological toxic hazards, for example, chemicals.
Clause 16(1) states that:
"The Ministers may by regulations make —
(c) provision for requiring, prohibiting or regulating the use of any process or treatment in the preparation of food or any class of food;
(d) provision for securing the observance of hygienic conditions and practices in connection with the carrying out of commercial operations with respect to food or food sources; and
(e) provision for imposing requirements as to, and otherwise regulating, the labelling, marking, presenting or advertising of food, and the descriptions which may be applied to food or any class of food".
I am bound to say that this heralds for me a very poor approximation to a proper quality assurance system. There should be regulations to test the performance of a process applied to food and not just to regulate that a particular process is being used or is said to be used. The regulations should include training in all aspects of the food production process, including hygiene.
Clause 23 —under which a food authority may (not must) provide training courses in food hygiene is very weak. Surely what is required is an independent assessment of training requirements for food handlers, laboratory staff, inspectors and the like. There must surely be some inspection to ensure the adequacy of training schemes set up by food businesses.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is probably very rude of me to interrupt the noble Lord. However, when I was speaking originally I said that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health is today issuing a consultation paper on the subject to which the noble Lord is referring. Therefore none of these matters is written in stone until the consultation period is through.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I hope that what will emerge from the consultation process is an independent training authority which will be charged with giving accreditation to laboratories and businesses or local authorities offering in-house training. I hope that, in line with EC directives inspectors will meet the standards set by an independent testing authority. The regulations should include provisions for batch records, traceability of source of food, and additives in the production process. They should also require quality control tests to be undertaken by the food producer and the appointment of quality control staff, distinct from the production line staff, for in-house quality control.
Under Clause 19, registration is to be confined to premises to be used for the purposes of a food business. I shall be very happy to be contradicted and corrected, but it seems that we shall not have a registration scheme also to be applied to the farmer producing meat, animal feeds and the like.
I return to my original point, and end with it. What is the true extent of the monitoring envisaged by this Bill? Will it be a glorified charter for environmental health officers to instigate more food sampling so that there will be some more active policing of food, the end product, suspected of being injurious to health, but nothing much else? On reading Hansard tomorrow —in accordance with the assurance given by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that there will be a full reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to all the questions that are raised in the debate —I shall welcome a clear statement of the extent to which the new regulatory framework will ensure that food contamination in the early stages of production does not occur. Does the noble Baroness accept that the goal ought to be to break the chain of food poisoning very early before the point of sale to the consumer? Of course there will always be some late breaks in the chain. For example, a food handler may be a carrier of a food poisoning organism. But these should be capable of being minimised.
I ask this question. Is it accepted that what is required is a genuine and effective quality assurance system, properly enforced from the earliest stage of production, in particular on the farm? If the noble Baroness accepts that, exactly how will the regulations achieve it?
5.00 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, as the Minister said in introducing the Bill, consultation has been taking place for some time. Therefore, it is not a reaction to the recent food safety scares, although we must accept that there have been a large number of scares
772
about salmonella —even in your Lordships' House —and about listeria and botulism.
The incidents of food poisoning have risen from 12,000 notified cases in 1981 to 41,000 in 1988. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has reminded us, numbers are rising again this year. Not all those affected consult their doctors and, therefore, the figures are lower than the number of cases. A great deal of the increased concern is due to the new salmonella strain. However, a number of other factors have led to the increased number of cases of food poisoning and increased concern about the problem.
As we move into the more environmentally conscious 1990s there is a greater interest in the quality of life. The safety of products is one aspect of that. In part that is due to the food safety problems caused by the vast array of foods on display and available today. In particular, I refer to the ready-made meals and cooked-chilled foods. More people now travel abroad and we have become more adventurous in our eating habits.
We give a general welcome to the provisions of the Bill in promoting the safety of the whole food supply chain and in the strengthening of the powers of enforcement. A satisfactory enforcement system is absolutely necessary if the benefits of the Bill are to be realised.
As a vice-president of the Association of County Councils, I must express its concern about the additional resources. Thirty million pounds is being provided in next year's revenue support grant settlement. However, there are doubts about whether that will be sufficient to meet the additional responsibilities and the proposed level of inspection and enforcement. The ACC believes that there will be a need for a relatively small sum of money to be provided by mid-1990 to bring trading standards officers, environmental health officers and public analysts up to the necessary standard of expertise to implement the Bill and the directive from day one.
Given such a commitment from MAFF, the local authorities and the local authority associations, in conjunction with the various professional institutes, would be able to provide the supplementary training necessary to meet the requirements of the Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive and the Food Safety Bill.
The Association of County Councils also welcomes Clause 5 confirming that the non-metropolitan counties are also food authorities. However, counties and districts will be food authorities for the purpose of this Act and will have enforcement powers. But the Secretary of State will have the power by regulation to decide which class of authority enforces which provision. Clause 5(4) allows the Minister by order to transfer functions between shire counties and shire districts.
Clause 6(3) provides power for the Minister to direct that certain duties imposed on food authorities be transferred to the Minister. The local authorities are worried about that aspect of the Bill. They ask for an assurance concerning the use of those proposed powers which, in the Bill as drafted,

773
significantly reduce democratic control over legislation. The EC directive aims:
"not to interfere with systems of proven worth which are best suited to the particular situation in each member state".
I hope that in his reply the Minister can give that assurance to the local authorities and their association.
As regards the general safety requirements in Clause 8, the offence of selling food that does not comply with food safety requirements is set out. That is food that has been rendered injurious to health and is sold for human consumption, or which is so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption. The National Consumer Council is on record as welcoming that but it would have liked a more positive duty to provide safe food. The Consumers' Association says that it still does not meet the standards of other consumer protection legislation. No doubt we shall return to that matter and look at a general safety requirement for food such as exists in respect of suppliers of other consumer goods.
The new powers in Clause 9 in respect of inspection and seizure of food are generally welcomed, as are the new powers for enforcement officers to make spot checks on food production processes and to withdraw food from sale. The National Consumer Council accepts that owners of safe food wrongfully seized are as entitled to compensation as are the victims of unsafe food. But they believe that compensation order provisions should not act as a disincentive to effective enforcement.
The Food and Drink Federation has argued that a time limit should be specified within which an officer, having given notice of suspect food, must indicate his intention to the person in charge of that food either to confirm or to rescind the notice. It also believes that compensation for the wrongful seizure of food should be not only for the depreciation in the value of the food seized but should also take account of other commercial losses. They appear to be valid points to which we may wish to return.
From the number of lobbying documents that we have received there would appear to be a difference of opinion between consumer organisations about registration and licensing. The National Consumer Council believes that licensing is preferable because it minimises the risk to public health as it is based on a system of prior approval. On the other hand, the Consumers' Association favours the tougher approach of licensing under which every food premise would need a licence before it could open. Rather than being open ended such licences should be reviewed regularly after a fixed period. The Food and Drink _ Federation supports compulsory registration and believes that licensing should apply only to specific processes and practices where prior approval of the premises for such use is deemed essential on the ground of food safety.
I believe that there will be general criticism about the amount of power that Clause 19 gives to the Minister to regulate as he or she thinks fit. The clause would allow a government to introduce whole
774
new tiers of bureaucratic regulation without passing a sentence of new legislation. We must devote some time to the registration/licensing argument. To require licences for all food premises would be to impose a very expensive system of checks which would make life difficult for small businesses. However, I believe that licensing must go further than the restricted list which the producers are putting forward.
I believe that there will also be opposition to the amount of power given to the Minister through regulations. The Government should spell out their intentions in full legislative form, otherwise Parliament is prevented from debating and amending the proposals which are central to the Bill. The Minister and other noble Lords will do well to read the lead article in today's Independent concerning similar powers given to the Minister concerned with education in respect of student loans.
It is not a long Bill and it is not party political but I am sure that there is scope for a great deal of discussion. We shall need to know more about irradiation and the necessary safeguards. There will be arguments about the "due diligence" defence, the offences and the punishment and the codes of practice. The removal of Crown immunity will generally be welcomed, as will better training of food handlers, provided that sufficient funds are available to make the training schemes effective, and also regulations that ensure that such training is comprehensive in all areas.
I return to the question of funding. Extra money to ensure that local authorities have adequate human and financial resources to administer and enforce the regulations is vital to the success of the Bill. I believe that the extra money allocated to food safety administration and inspection should be specifically for those purposes and not part of the general funds of an authority where it may be used for other purposes according to the authority's own priorities.
We wish the Bill well. Like the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, I shall have to leave the Chamber for about an hour in the early part of this evening but I hope to be back in time to hear the winding up speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister and several other noble Lords referred to irradiation, which is a food processing technique at present not allowed in this country except in special cases where a sterile diet is required in hospitals. I understand from what the Minister said, that it is the Government's intention to bring forward regulations allowing food irradiation as soon as this Bill is agreed by Parliament.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, told your Lordships, Sub-Committee D of the Select Committee on the European Community has just finished an inquiry into the irradiation of foodstuffs, although our report to your Lordships is still in draft form. Therefore, anything which I say is my own personal opinion based on the evidence which my committee heard.

775
I propose today to be brief and to say very little about the food process itself. If our report is to be debated in this House, then that will be the time to discuss it more fully. I merely say that I agree with the Government's view, as stated by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, that irradiation has a useful contribution to make to the reduction of food-borne diseases in certain products. As my noble friend Lord Lyell reminded us, it is useful because it can be used to control salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. Those pathogenic organisms are the subject of increasing public concern, not least among your Lordships, some of whom, like myself, have rather painful memories of being poisoned on our own premises.
There are those who say that irradiation should not be allowed until a satisfactory test has been developed that a product has been so treated. I do not agree with them. However, of course it is very important that the research now going on into finding a testing technique should be pursued.
Because of the potential hazard in any process using ionising radiation, it is essential that tight control be exercised at any irradiation plant. Given that safeguard, the Health and Safety Executive has told us that irradiation plants do not present it with any particular difficulties in ensuring that risks are kept under control.
It is claimed that food irradiation is one of the most comprehensively researched of all food processing techniques. That research has been evaluated by expert groups from many countries as well as by the joint FAO/WHO/International Atomic Energy Committee on Food Safety and by our own Government's special advisory committee, which reported in 1986. The general opinion of all those bodies was that food irradiation up to a dose of 10 kilograys is a safe method of food treatment which presents no toxicological hazard and no special nutritional or microbiological problems. The draft European Commission directive, on which my sub-committee has based its inquiry, was published just a year ago. That proposes an initial list of foodstuffs for which irradiation can be permitted in prescribed doses. It also prescribes a regulatory framework for the control of irradiation plants.
Our own Government announced in February 1988 that they accepted in principle that the ban on irradiated foods should be lifted provided that a proper control framework could be established. Yet another working group was set up. Following its report the Minister of Agriculture announced last June that the Government would bring forward legislation to allow the ban to be lifted in the Food Safety Bill. As we have heard, Clause 16 allows Ministers to regulate the use of any food process with particular reference to food safety and for the protection and promotion of the interests of consumers.
The Government's approach differs from that of the Commission and proposes a general authorisation to allow irradiation up to a maximum average dose of 10 kilograys. My noble friend the Minister also reminded us of the licensing procedure which will be brought forward under Clause 18.
776
My own view is that there is a lot to be said, where new techniques are developing all the time, for a fairly flexible regime which would allow the actual take-up of irradiated foods to be determined by consumer demand. However, the Commission's more detailed proposals have yet to be agreed and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, reminded us, already those proposals have run into a certain amount of trouble in the European Parliament, which proposes a very much more restrictive application of the process.
I do not know what view my sub-committee will take, but it seems to me that, while the Government are certainly right to assume enabling powers in this Bill, any domestic regulations will have to await the outcome of a decision in the Council of Ministers on the Commission's proposals. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, also made that point. That is certainly the intention of the Dutch Government, as they told us last month when we visited a working irradiation plant in Holland. They will not legislate until the Community law on irradiation is established.
I believe that irradiation will not figure largely as a means of food processing in the UK for some time to come. The public is not yet prepared for it, although a really serious outbreak of food poisoning may alter that outlook. Producers, retailers and consumers have all signalled their reservations. Except in the case of imported spices, where urgent measures are required, there does not seem to me to be an enormous hurry. It seems to me that any detailed UK regulations in respect of irradiation of food can only be drafted within a framework of Community law. I have no doubt that that is what the Government intend. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm, when she replies to the debate, that that is the case.
5.18 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, we have before us a Bill which has been awaited for a long time. There is no doubt that there are some good measures in it. The registration of premises is a step in the right direction. Whether it is a step far enough will doubtless be debated at a later stage. Measures to make suppliers accountable for the safety of the food which they sell are much to be welcomed. Powers of enforcement are provided for and it is a relief—not to say a turn-up for the books —to find an acknowledgement by the Government that there will be costs falling on local authorities which need to be taken account of. The move towards proper training for the handlers of food can only be good.
However, there are also omissions and disappointments in the Bill. Before I look at those, I should like to say something of a more general nature. There was a time when the intimate link between food and health was well understood. In many medical traditions, it still is. In modern Western medicine, it has largely been lost sight of. This has partly to do with the love affair with high technology. It is also, I suspect, connected with a peculiarly English fear of being thought faddish or hypochondriac. This makes it quite difficult for voices to be heard which proclaim some of the

777
things which diet can achieve; for example, there is evidence to suggest that the introduction of our highly processed Western diet has done much to undermine the health of more primitive societies. There is, too, a growing body of evidence which points to the link between that same diet and mental functioning in terms both of intellectual development and deviant behaviour. There are strong indications that a nutritional approach to preconceptual care —paying attention to vitamins, trace elements, additives, pesticides and toxic metals such as lead and aluminium —can help parents to have normal children.
There is an organisation called Foresight which has documented many hundreds of success stories in this field, casting an interesting light on the claims for embryo research after the event which your Lordships will be discussing in a couple of days' time. There is also the area of food allergy and intolerance, where I have some personal experience, which seems to be a puzzle to many doctors though less so to the man in the street. It is not cancer and heart disease alone among the degenerative scourges of our time which have an association with what we eat.
Acquaintance with these and other facets of the subject has convinced me that there is a lot more to food than the simple avoidance of microbiological hazards. That is why, unlike some others of your Lordships, I find this Bill disappointing. Even its title with the word "Safety" sounds a negative note. There was surely an opportunity here for a wider view to be taken of the nation's diet, with a positive approach to health which might, for example, have included the encouragement of further research into some of the areas I have mentioned. There has never —at any rate since the war —been a co-ordinated food policy and it sadly looks as if the chance to have one now will be missed.
Other disappointments centre on the protection of the consumer. The Bill does quite a lot in this direction on a limited front. It needs, I feel, to do quite a lot more. The public is still grossly under-represented on government committees and working parties, which function, for some reason, under the Official Secrets Act. The Food Advisory Committee, for instance, has eight members from the food industry as against one from consumer bodies. There is no good reason why this situation should continue and there is much to be said in the present climate of distrust for a free-standing agency, independent of government —a food standards agency, call it what you will —to oversee the whole area of safety. I do not believe that anything less will satisfy the public that the Government value the consumer as highly as the larger food groupings.
It would be good if some progress could be made on labelling. The present voluntary system is not resolving the existing confusion. The committee on medical aspects of food policy called for improvement some years ago and it is surely time the consumer had access, as of right, to knowledge about what he or she was eating. For allergy sufferers in particular, this is a matter of crucial importance. It was at least some consolation to hear from
778
the Minister that the Food Advisory Committee is taking this forward.
There could have been some encouragement in the Bill for organic farming. The demand for it is there from a public which has become rightly alarmed at the sheer artificiality of much of the food which appears in our shops. There is a school of thought —a very powerful one in scientific industrial circles —which holds that there is not much danger to health from additives and pesticides. It is largely the newness of environmental medicine as against the well-established discipline of microbiology which results in this perspective at present. It takes a long time for a new voice to be listened to, however right that voice may be.
I want to see something specific in the Bill about tighter controls on food additives. For all the good intentions of Clause 16(4) about restricting substances of no nutritional value, there is likely to be no more action under it than there was under the similar wording of the 1984 Act.
Finally, we have the spectre in the background —irradiation. I was puzzled to find no mention of this in the Bill until my attention was drawn to the subtly enabling provisions of Clause 16(1)(c). What a way to introduce the most contentious item in the whole package! In this I fully agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. What a way, in a Bill ostensibly about cleaning, tightening up and protecting the consumer, to let the industry do what it wants through the back door, because virtually no one else wants it. The Government understandably wish to keep a low profile on the matter and I too shall hold my fire at the present stage. There will be plenty to say later.
I shall close with a quotation from a report in the Independent of 19th September, which baffled me when I read it at the time and which baffles me still. It was about irradiated food, but that is not relevant to my point. It reads:
"The quality of irradiated food will take precedence over its safety and nutritional value, a leading scientist said yesterday".
Well, if quality has nothing to do with safety and nothing to do with nutritional value, what on earth has it to do with? The speaker was a professor, the head of an institute of food research. This says a lot about what is wrong with our food supply and I fear that this Bill, as drafted, does too little to put it right.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill, which is by far the most important measure of consumer protection in relation to food that we have had in this country, and is probably the best in the world. No government have taken such radical, comprehensive and indeed, some would say, draconian steps before. As an ex-chairman of the National Consumer Council I was particularly delighted to note that a number of the NCC proposals had been incorporated into the Bill.
I am not one of those who has taken the view in the past that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food existed only for the benefit of farmers or that it put the interest of farmers first. As a former

779
farmer I have often thought that quite the reverse was true. Clearly we have in my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, someone who is determined to put food safety and the consumer first. That is something he made clear when, immediately upon being appointed, he insisted on seeing consumer representatives before anyone else. He has demonstrated his commitment and that of the Government with this Bill.
The Bill does not represent a panic reaction to the events of the past year. It has been under careful preparation for a good deal of time; building very substantially —as it does —on existing regulations, extending them and reinforcing them in a way that permits flexibility where necessary while maintaining that fine balance which needs to be achieved in regulations to protect consumers without undermining their interests by over-regulation. I believe that the British consumer is probably served by the best food industry in the world, with a wide choice of ever more sophisticated prepared and fresh foods available at a reasonable cost.
Of course the very variety and sophistication of the food available in Britain today brings with it inevitable dangers and penalties. It is quite true —as a number of noble Lords have claimed —that the number of cases of food poisoning has risen considerably and in many ways alarmingly over the past year or so. However, a number of factors must be considered in this context. More cases are being reported because the scares of the past year have resulted in much higher public perception about food poisoning, and that is a good thing. Also, we have a better surveillance system than most other countries so that cases are detected and collated much more quickly, and this continues to improve. That is also a good thing.
Then we have to remember that a number of the reported cases have arisen in food provided by institutions and catering establishments and not in the home. When one thinks of the proliferation of takeaway shops and of delicatessen counters, and of the sheer numbers of meat pies that are heated or half-heated both in the home and outside every day in this country; when one considers the widespread misuse or malfunction of microwave ovens and the sheer volume of food prepared and unprepared that leaves the shops in Britain today, it is not in the least surprising that food poisoning is on the increase.
I believe that there is no substitute for food which is bought fresh, cooked fresh and eaten fresh. But I fully accept that convenience food is here to stay. I am not critical of working mothers or mothers who work in the home with families to feed, who resort to convenience food. In their position I would probably do so myself. Although the figures for food poisoning are not surprising, they present a serious problem. I believe that the Government have fully recognised that with this Bill.
Over the past year there has been a rising crescendo of alarms about food safety. A number of them were very well founded and others were not. Alas, the growing problem has brought in its wake a proliferation of "experts", many of whom appear to
780
have had a vested interest in scaring people. They have sometimes been joined by politicians seeking to make party political capital but not of course in your Lordships' House. This has meant that the issue of food safety has become a political football and that is manifestly not in the consumers' interests. The hysterical reaction that we have witnessed has only served to confuse consumers and to make it more difficult for them to discriminate between what was said by those who genuinely wanted to warn them and those who merely wanted to frighten. In the end consumers have been confused by this cacophony to a point where everybody has lost credibility and nobody is heeded.
This Bill should restore confidence and credibility not just in relation to immediate problems, but for the foreseeable future. It will improve and strengthen the whole of food safety legislation. The duty to provide safe food is comprehensive and, with its greatly strengthened enforcement provisions, the Bill should eliminate or at the very least sound early warnings about possible contamination. Especially in the case of the swingeing fines in Clause 35, the Bill will be a very serious deterrent to the small minority who may have been careless in the past.
I believe that the Government have got the balance right in this provision. Of course people in the industry say that it goes too far and some in the consumer movement say that it does not go far enough. These two opposing views encourage me to think that the Government have probably got the balance just about right. The additional money provided in the Bill for surveillance and enforcement is obviously necessary because of the tough controls. But, like Oliver Twist, a number of noble Lords have asked for more.
When my noble friend winds up I hope that she will tell your Lordships' House that the Government will keep the matter under review and that if more money is necessary for this particular purpose that they will not hesitate to provide it. The best legislation in the world is of no use to consumers if it cannot be enforced. The emergency controls and the codes of practice about hygiene, together with the training for food handlers, are provisions that are all urgently needed and are particularly welcomed in this Bill.
However, consumers will still have to exercise the one attribute which I hope we all have; namely common sense. They will remain the final link in the food chain. The consumers' responsibility starts the moment the food leaves the shelves. They must transport it, store it and cook it sensibly and safely. They are entitled to expect the food that they take off the shelves to have been treated in that manner and that it is safe food. I hope that this Bill will reinforce their confidence regarding this issue.
Concern about irradiation has been expressed by a number of noble Lords. I believe that the alarm is unnecessary. The Bill quite rightly upholds the consumers' right to choose whether to buy irradiated food. This measure is not being brought in by the back door. Consumers should know whether the food has been irradiated and they must know for sure whether it has taken place. My noble friend will be aware that concern has been expressed both in

781
your Lordships' House and elsewhere about detection tests and their availability. It is not much good giving consumers the choice if they cannot be confident that the labelling is correct.
Therefore I hope that the centralised licensing and irradiation facilities, with detailed inspection and supervision, will apply to all food sold and described as irradiated. Meanwhile I hope that a detection method will be urgently sought because I am told that the discovery of such a method is not very far away. I believe that irradiation is of proven benefit. It has been used in other countries for a number of years. I approve of the Government's intention to impose it statutorily where no dangers in food exist.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who said that he would like everything relating to food regulations and consumers to be removed from MAFF and dealt with completely independently. Whereas in the past I had some sympathy with those views, the transformation that has taken place, the change in attitudes, together with the Bill and the new food safety directorate and consumer panel which are to be set up, satisfy my concern.
My only remaining doubt relates to the content of some animal and poultry feedstuffs. But that is something which I hope the consumer panel will be able to take up at an early opportunity. I have spoken at some length but I have not managed to cover even half the number of points that I wanted to make or to refer to in relation to this Bill. However, I shall not detain your Lordships' House much longer. This Bill shows that the Government mean business and have declared war on unsafe food wherever it is in the chain. It is a tribute to all those Ministers responsible that the Bill has been so widely welcomed both by industry and by the reputable consumer organisations. Of course, all have minor reservations and want some amendments. Some, like the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, want some fairly major amendments.
But it would be churlish for anyone to be less than wholehearted in acknowledging the significance of the measure and the severity of the penalities to be imposed. It underlines the determination of the Government to defend the health and safety of consumers. I congratulate the Minister of State on its introduction and I wish the Bill a speedy passage through both Houses.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes who is an expert in this matter. She knows a great deal about the subject. She has made a very encouraging and interesting speech. When I went to collect my newspapers in Scotland yesterday morning I remarked that I was on the way south to take part in the debate regarding the Bill on food safety. The lady in the newsagents said: "Well, just tell them that it does not matter too much what they do as long as they do not put the prices up too much".
Had there been time for discussion I am sure that that lady would appear as concerned for the safety of food and the food for her family as everyone else.
782
But she put her finger on a very important point. In considering this Bill we have to bear in mind all the time as the Government have had to bear in mind in drafting it, who has to pay for whatever Parliament decides. Ultimately it is the lady in the newsagent and all the other consumers. All the extra costs that the Bill may add to ensure that food is safe will ultimately be added to the price of food on the supermarket shelf. I point that out especially to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who wants so much more than is in the Bill. He should bear in mind how much some of what he wants would cost.
In the explanatory section of the White Paper, the Government point out that responsibility for the safety of food has to be shared between government, producers, food manufacturers, retailers and consumers themselves. The Bill makes this very plain. It proposes a framework which will make it necessary and possible in a practical way for all who share responsibility for the safety of the food we eat to operate more conscientiously and more effectively in a manner that can be constantly updated to meet new problems as they arise. It also allows for European Community legislation, as it arises, to be incorporated into our national law. That is a good thing too.
It is good, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said in an interesting speech, that the proposed framework has been widely welcomed in principle and is not controversial to many consumer and retailing bodies. They agree that the framework is right. It is good too that food safety arrangements, which have hitherto been separate in Scotland, should be brought together in United Kingdom legislation. Much of the food produced or manufactured on one side of the Border is sold on the other side and vice versa. Common arrangements are provided for in the Bill. That is highly desirable. I am extremely glad that local authorities will continue to have a major role in the enforcement of the arrangements and that it is intended that their ability to do the job should be considerably strengthened. Local inspections by local officers overseen by local councillors answerable to local consumers is undoubtedly the best way so long as enforcement can be made more even across the country. The Bill goes a long way towards achieving that.
The clear definition of what is required by the defining of a new offence is also particularly welcomed. If one knows what one cannot do, it is easier to know what one can do. It is good that inspectors will have the right to carry out spot checks throughout the system so that food still in the factory and in supermarket warehouses, as well as food for sale on shop shelves, can if necessary be condemned and seized or withdrawn. It is encouraging that those representing the retailers accept the stringent requirements this places upon their members.
It is right too that the penalties for committing an offence should be great enough to be a strong deterrent. The proposed maximum fine in a magistrates' court in England and Wales of £20,000 with a possible six months' imprisonment —the fine is, I believe, 10 times the present maximum —and the possibility on indictment of an unlimited fine

783
and up to two years imprisonment are heavy penalties indeed. It seems only appropriate that the scope for matters which can be included by way of defence if one is accused of an offence should be suitably updated as well. The Bill seeks to do this in its provision on due diligence. This is right, but as several noble Lords have asked, how will people know precisely what "due diligence" involves? There must be a system of codes of practice to assist in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and other noble Lords protested that there is so much scope in the Bill for government regulation. It may be overdone here and there, but I believe it is right that in this Bill central government should be able to bring forward regulations and change and update them from time to time to establish detailed safety measures made necessary, for example, by new technology in manufacturing and storage, by new treatments for farm animals and produce, by new forms of food and by other innovations that may come along. Parliament is wary of governments seeking unnecessary powers of regulation, and rightly so. But in the case of food safety, where constant vigilance, flexibility and swiftness of response are so important, the Bill's way is the best one.
I have set out those aspects of the Bill which I particularly welcome. Perhaps I may now ask my noble friend four questions on matters which concern me. The first two relate to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, questioned the degree of consultation the Government have carried out with organisations in Scotland and with Scottish local authorities. Can my noble friend tell the House precisely what consultation there has been in Scotland? Secondly, page iv of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states:
"The additional cost for local authorities is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year … This will be taken into account in next year's Revenue Support Grant Settlement".
Does this £30 million include the cost to local authorities in Scotland? If so, what proportion of that can they look forward to receiving? If not, what sum will they receive from the Scottish Office in their rate support grant settlement?
My third question relates to the importance of arriving at common practices and fairness across the country in the ways local authorities enforce food safety law. Will there be a system of recommended practice for local authorities to follow in their enforcement? If there is, can we see that system before the Committee stage? If we cannot, it will be difficult to know whether the system is fair and even, which is what people want.
My fourth question concerns the education of the public—of everybody who buys, stores and cooks food. My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes referred to this point. The new arrangements proposed in the Bill will be effective only if food is well bought by the customer, well stored at home and properly cooked. New information is constantly arriving. It is difficult for the public to keep up. Only this morning advice was being given on the radio about correct cooking procedures in microwave ovens. People were told that if the microwave does
784
not heat the food evenly they should move it about while they are cooking it. I had never heard that before. I do not have a microwave, but perhaps I should have known. It is important to know that. Do the Government mean to persist in their campaign to make consumers more aware of what to look for when shopping for food, of how to store it safely and of how to cook it safely? Some excellent information booklets have been produced. Do the Government intend to continue to make such material available?
The Bill as a whole is well thought out and creates a framework for all concerned to work together in partnership for the safety of our food. There are detailed aspects at which we shall want to look. I heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, about the control of quality on the farm. I am sure he knows better than I do that under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 farmers are obliged to supply produce of quality suitable for human consumption. They can be prosecuted if they fail to do so. The Food and Environment Protection Act gives the Government powers to limit the distribution of agricultural produce. We have had recent experience of that.
The idea of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the Consumer Protection Act should cover everyone—and I assume he meant primary producers as well—would have problems, many of which have previously been explored in this House. I was not present in the Chamber when these matters were discussed but I must point out to the noble Lord that if, for example, a load of grain is found to be faulty soon after it has left the farm and while it is still in one batch, it can be returned. But once grain and other farm produce arrive at the manufacturers they are then all mixed together and therefore it becomes most difficult to trace back any faults. Moreover, many products are liable to deteriorate because of the weather; for example, potatoes will deteriorate if there is frost on the road between the farm and their ultimate destination. Such a situation is completely outside the control of the farmer, and, indeed, there are many problems in this respect. However, I am sure that we shall find ourselves discussing such matters in Committee.
As we go through the Bill we must remember all the time that whatever we decide must be paid for by those people like the lady I met in the newsagents yesterday and all the other consumers. I hope that your Lordships will bear that factor in mind. I also hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading this evening.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I should like to join the general welcome given to the Bill by my noble friend Lady Stedman, and I think I can say by all other noble Lords. It is essentially a good and necessary Bill, although as many noble Lords pointed out there is scope for improvement. Many of the proposed improvements have already been dealt with and I hope that I shall not be thought of as being too repetitive if I make further mention of some of them. However, I shall approach the matter in a somewhat different way to that of other noble Lords.

785
I suggest to your Lordships that while food is obviously an essential element of life, there is also an element of enjoyment in it to many if not to all of us. However, sources of danger are present. Those sources can be roughly divided into four sections.
The first source of danger is on the farm. Such farm dangers have for many years been subject to considerable regulation —for example, the inspection of milk at the dairy; the inspection of meat at the slaughterhouse, and so on —and we should not blind ourselves to the very great success which has followed on from the legislation of early days. After all, it is not so many years ago that tuberculosis was a source of grave danger for consumers of milk. However, that danger has now completely disappeared as has the danger from brucellosis. Moreover, many diseases following upon the ingestion of unsuitable meat —such as, those caused by tapeworms, helminth diseases of different kinds and other diseases —have been, to all intents and purposes, abolished. That fact must be put to the credit of our present system which was introduced many years ago of inspection on the farm and at the place of first handling; that is, the slaughterhouse, the creameries, and so on.
However, more recently a new source of danger has arisen mainly, although not solely, from salmonella infection. This is a much more difficult problem to contend with and one which cannot be coped with by inspection. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, slightly exaggerated the responsibility of farmers and primary producers for the spread of disease.
However, because of the presence of salmonella and other similar diseases, I accept that there should be a greater concentration on the care exercised in relation to the ingredients which are put into the production of food on the farm. This process should be subject to very much more control than it has been in the past. Specifically, it is quite clear that feeding stuffs and their ingredients, whether contaminated with metals, with bacteria or with other noxious organisms, must be inspected, controlled and prevented from being used by, I think in all cases, the innocent user of them; namely, the farmer. In my view, the Bill could well be strengthened in that particular respect.
The second source of danger, which takes place during the general division of food in its movement from the producer to the kitchen, is in the processing. There are already some strict controls in the matter. However, over the past decades there has been a great increase in the processing of food. No longer does food move direct from the cow to the churn, to the doorstep and then to the cup of tea; it now goes through creameries and other processes of which your Lordships are aware. Further, no longer is the beast slaughtered in the local slaughterhouse, put on the slab in the butcher's shop, bought by the housewife and then cooked and served as the Sunday joint. Again, the meat goes through a much longer process.
Then there is a whole range of manufactured foods which quite rightly demands a far greater rate of control and inspection than was the case 20, 40 or
786
even 60 years ago. The Bill strengthens the control in that respect, but then the somewhat controversial question of irradiation arises. Quite clearly there is a difference of opinion on all sides of the House in the matter. I have not had the benefit of seeing the evidence given to Sub-Committee D under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. Therefore I speak without the depth of his knowledge. But my instinct is that despite the fact that irradiation has been successfully and safely used, so far as we know, in other countries including some in the Community, there are still question marks hanging over this method. It is all very well to say, "Leave it to the consumer, so long as the consumer knows that the food has been irradiated the choice is there".
In my view in a matter as complex and complicated as irradiation the consumer needs more than a label which says, "This product has been irradiated". We must know more about what, if any, are the potential risks arising from irradiated food products. We do not really need to know about the safety of the product because we can take that for granted —indeed, I am certainly prepared to do so—but we do need to know what the effect will be on the product when all the noxious bacteria have been killed by irradiation should it be reinfected by some extraneous pathogens. Therefore I urge caution in the use of irradiation. I would rather have more knowledge about the matter than appears to be the case at present before advocating its use.
The third area in the food chain about which I wish to speak is the retail outlet. There is a growing risk in this respect largely because of the growing use of convenience foods. These are foods which are already prepared when they reach the retail outlet. They are attractively packaged and exhibited for sale. They can be taken home and either eaten at once, which is relatively safe, or they can be stored in a refrigerator and eaten within a few days or, in certain cases, within a few weeks. There is obviously need for great control because the risk of contaminating healthy, clean, bacteria-free food in retail shops is manifestly considerable. There is risk of contamination from the bacteria which are present in the air and which descend upon the food and from handling by customers or staff whose hands are not sterile. None of us has sterile hands. There is a risk of air contamination merely from people speaking, sneezing and breathing. All those factors add to the risk of food contamination.
It is good to see that the Bill talks about increasing the education of those who handle food. I hope that the accent will be far more on food handlers than food inspectors. I accept that the food inspectors are already sufficiently well trained in their job, although more of them may well be needed. The need for food hygiene must be brought home to those who own, operate and work in retail outlets and who handle food. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is not in his place, but another of his family will speak in due course. We need have no doubts about standards of hygiene in such outlets, but there are many far smaller outlets where it is harder to enforce such high standards. There should be more

787
concentration than at present on training people in such retail outlets in all aspects of hygiene.
The fourth aspect of the food chain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes so rightly pointed out, is in the home itself. Even though the food may, and probably does, come into the kitchen in a healthy and hygienic manner, by the time it has been put on the kitchen table, left out of the refrigerator for a while, put back into it and brought out again, not eaten entirely, put back and consumed a week later, there is a real risk of food poisoning. One cannot obviously inspect private kitchens, but there should be a greater publicity effort to inform the housewife, or the househusband, of the importance of elementary hygiene when looking after convenience foods. It does not matter with the joint of beef which goes into the oven, because any bugs will be killed by cooking that, but pates and other foods which need no cooking are wonderful feeding grounds for pathogenic bacteria and they must be treated, if not with as high a degree of caution as shown in a hospital laboratory, at least with great respect.
I repeat that this is a useful Bill. By the time it has passed through Committee, it will be an extremely good Bill, and I wish it well.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington for outlining and explaining the purposes of the Bill. I welcome the Bill and I am glad that it has been given a place this Session. The main consultative document was issued in 1984. There will no doubt be further technological changes in the fields affected but we should not have to wait any longer before considering primary legislation.
The Government seek in Clauses 16 to 18 powers with which they can meet developments with subordinate legislation. The consumer should benefit from what is proposed. I applaud the provisions for monitoring and enforcing regulations and the £30 million a year which is allocated for the additional resources needed.
This afternoon in what I hope will be a short speech I intend to concentrate on the increasing menace of food poisoning, which others have already mentioned. The number of recorded cases multiplied by three between 1982 and 1986. Other figures were given earlier in the debate but they all come to the same general conclusion of an increase of that order.
We are all aware from press reports and parliamentary Statements of outbreaks of salmonella and listeria. Those and other bacteria have been around for years and yet they have caused much more illness and distress in the 1980s than earlier. That may seem strange at a time when medical science has virtually eliminated the scourges of diphtheria, polio and other such diseases in human beings.
Food poisoning has sometimes been a subject of jokes, usually connected with eating favourite dishes out of season and before the wide distribution of deep freeze equipment. It is no longer a joke. Not
788
only is it acutely incommoding, it can be dangerous. The consumer is entitled to be protected from it. Food poisoning should be forced to retreat rather than to advance at this stage of man's development and knowledge. In that connection I was asking Questions at Question Times which your Lordships will remember in the early part of this year about the irradiation of food. I was not commending one argument or the other but asking for information and knowledge about the Government's attitude.
The irradiartion of food is a process which kills unfriendly bacteria. I asked whether it damaged food and whether it could be misused to preserve the appearance of food beyond its proper shelf life. Since then, my inquiries have brought me to the conclusion that there is little, if any, danger and that it has a considerable advantage by destroying bacteria in certain foodstuffs.
It is sensible to take powers now in the Food Safety Bill to allow irradiation to be introduced, although as I shall indicate I agree with others that this should be done with caution. I gladly noted the Government Statement made on 21st June in another place which said that it was their intention to take those powers. Clearly the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who made a thoughtful speech dealing with that subject, had missed that Statement because it was made clear to us that the Government were going to take powers to allow food irradiation in this country. That was stated in a press release on 21st June.
Irradiation is already legal here for hospital patients who need a sterile diet, for example, after major abdominal surgery, and it does no harm to them. Should not everyone be able to benefit from that service made available by modern science if they wish to? And the wish is the important point which the Government make in their proposals.
I understand that the Government propose to make irradiation legal under powers provided in Clauses 16 to 18, while ensuring that irradiated food must be clearly labelled and need never be bought or consumed by anyone who is opposed to or uncertain about it.
For my part I shall have no hesitation in opting for irradiated food to avoid the horrors of food poisoning. I must admit that up till now I have suffered it only when I have been abroad. But that was because I was fortunate in not eating anything at a certain reception in London some years ago and also in not partaking of certain meals in your Lordships' refreshment department at another period much closer to us. Colleagues and others were inconveniently and in some cases seriously ill with salmonella poisoning on both those occasions.
Some consumers will doubtedless be suspicious of the word "irradiation", anxious about a possible connection with radioactivity or radiation. However, they are both part of ordinary life, for example, in natural surroundings and hospital radiotherapy. I am satisfied that there need be no danger in irradiated food properly controlled. It should be introduced gradually and in time I believe that it will become more widely accepted. With familiarity more people will opt for safety from the incapacitating and painful tummy upsets which they might otherwise have to experience.

789
The World Health Organisation has emphasised the safety of irradiation: 35 countries have permitted it, including the United States and three members of the EC. In about 20 of those countries it is already being practised. I suggest that the introduction, after the enabling power has been taken, should be carefully prepared. For example, there must be a list of specified foods and only those can be irradiated. There should be clear instructions for handling and sorting.
I was not on the sub-committee so I do not know what will be in the report to which my noble friend Lord Middleton referred earlier this evening. But I agree with him that only a few items need to be designated in the introduction and the early years of irradiation, with herbs and spices being the obvious first candidates.
More generally, the Bill gives the Government wide powers to make regulations. I have commented on the irradiation point because it is something in which I have been involved in your Lordships' House during the past months. The Government have already indicated that their intentions are to enable irradiation to be allowed. I have the impression that the food and farming industries are concerned that little is yet known about the Government's intentions in other areas. I hope that the intentions will be announced in plenty of time. My noble friend indicated that there was a consultative document on one subject which was being issued today. However, as the Bill proceeds I trust that it will be announced what subjects will be covered by the regulations and what the Government's intentions are in order to allow enough time for consultation with those most concerned.
The Bill brings together the law in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as United Kingdom legislation. This is sensible from the point of view of clarity and for the convenience and organisation of the industries concerned and the monitoring agencies.
The food which we eat is broadly the same throughout the United Kingdom although there are perhaps the exceptions of haggis and one or two national dishes like that. I say in passing that haggis has been a favourite of mine since I was a small boy. It clearly makes sense not to have boundaries where monitoring, inspection and legislation are concerned.
Clause 4 sets out the functions of the various Ministers. I do not expect an answer today but I draw attention to the fact that this may be complicated. Your Lordships will know the formula that in legislation the term "Secretary of State" appearing in the singular covers any Secretary of State so that any Secretary of State can step in and do what is in the Act of Parliament concerned.
However, historically the Minister of Agriculture remains "Minister". That clearly needed some attention. Then there are the present responsibilities. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for agriculture and fisheries; he is the Minister for them in Scotland. But I do not think he is the Minister for food. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us this when she replies.
790
The Department of Health and the Secretary of State for Health are responsible for health in England. Everything that the Department of Health does in England is done by the Home and Health Department of the Scottish Office in Scotland. Their responsibilities are quite separate. Thus I think that as the Bill proceeds we shall need clarification of whether Ministers will be acting in their own areas of responsibility, geographically and functionally, and whether they will act jointly at other times.
I give the Bill a welcome, as I said at the beginning, and I hope that some of these points will be answered, if not today then at a later stage.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hives: My Lords, I come fairly well down the list of speakers and inevitably some of my points will have been made. I hope that with its usual generosity the House will excuse me if I make the same points again.
Public confidence in the food we eat is of paramount importance. I therefore welcome wholeheartedly the introduction by the Government of the new Food Safety Bill. It will reassure the public for them to see that the Government take the whole food safety issue as seriously as they do. In her comprehensive introduction to this Second Reading debate, my noble friend demonstrated not only the scope of the Bill and the subsequent regulations but also the considerable flexibility which has been built into it. This will allow the Government and the enforcement authorities to protect the public better and to clamp down hard on the few who do not do the job properly and endanger public health.
In the White Paper Food Safety—Protecting the Consumer the Government set out the current arrangements and identified the areas where change was necessary. Now with this Bill they will strengthen and update existing procedures, demonstrating a commitment to the highest possible standards of consumer practice.
The public needs to have confidence in the systems designed to protect them. They need to know that action is taken when justified by the facts, not mere emotion. Of course there is considerable media interest in food safety issues, but if one believed everything written in newspapers none of us would be able to eat any of the things which form part of our normal diet. The reality is very different. Our food is not only safer than it was in days gone by; it is also fresher, of higher quality and in many cases tastier. I wonder how many noble Lords would care to swap their diet today with that of the 1950s and 1960s. It is not the Government's job to tell people what to eat. It is however important that our producers satisfy consumer demand.
In the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I remind noble Lords also that if they went down to Earls Court today to the Royal Smithfield Show they would see the best of all our meat-producing livestock. If we compare them with the animals with which I started, say, 50 years ago, we would see that they are smaller, leaner and entirely different in conformation, all because of the response to

791
consumer demand. Consumer demand has entirely altered the shape of the animals today.
Thanks to our farmers we live in a world of plenty. Shortage has turned to surplus. Where once there was a demand to produce more, now we are accused of producing too much. In these circumstances many people may start to question the contribution of farmers to society. However, to increase production is the easy part; to slow it down or to cease is far more difficult as we are now finding out. The critics of farmers are wholly wrong to suggest that they do not care about food quality and safety. They are now well aware of the need to maintain consumer confidence in their products. Farmers and the rest of the food industry must work together to restore the confidence of shoppers in their products.
This country is one of the world leaders when it comes to the quality and indeed the wholesomeness and safety of food produced on our farms. However more has to be done. As consumers' expectations rise, farmers and the food industry have to take them into their confidence as well as satisfy their demand for healthy, wholesome food. That is why farmers and the food industry will welcome the Food Safety Bill. For those who do the job properly this Bill will help protect them from unfair criticism. But it will increase the controls and, most importantly, the penalties on those who break the rules and in so doing endanger the health of their customers.
Many of the farmers I know are concerned that they are misunderstood by the media and blamed unfairly for food contamination. However, I must urge producers not to fall into the trap of complacency. There are areas where we can do more to protect the consumer and restore confidence in our products. As producers at the start of the food chain, we must be seen to do so.
I am delighted that the Government are taking the steps outlined in the Bill to provide a revised framework for food law in the 1990s. This Bill will enable legislators and enforcement officers to cope with modern production methods and the new techniques being used by the food industry. It will also enable Ministers to respond to changes in European Community food law. But above all it will help restore consumer confidence.
Ministers have to put food safety first. We must not forget how much our industry has changed in recent years. No longer is the food industry made up of the local concerns which were the norm in earlier decades, where individuals served their local communities. It is now in many respects a multinational industry. Many companies, even quite small ones, send their products all over the world. Food law and its enforcement have to encompass this wider horizon and the length of the distribution chain.
I am delighted to see that the Bill takes account of the needs of the food industry in at least three ways. It will enable the Government to ensure that national and local enforcement authorities work closely together to maximise protection for the consumer. It will encourage the setting of uniform standards for food safety enforcement so that every
792
local authority requires the same conditions in similar factories around the country. Further, the Bill will ensure that we do not impose an unnecessary burden on our food industry. We must remember that our food manufacturers need to compete in the 1990s with their counterparts in the Community and elsewhere.
This is a far-reaching and flexible Bill. It deals firmly with the problems faced by the food industry. It enhances consumer protection, but above all it builds on and strengthens a food safety regime which is already among the best in the world.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I welcome certainly the stated intentions of the Bill. However, I think it is worth looking at the underlying reasons why today in an affluent society when so much is understood about man and his environment, we have this problem of an increasing incidence of food-transmitted disease, as many noble Lords have pointed out.
The major epidemic food and water borne diseases of the past such as typhoid, paratyphoid, cholera and dysentery have been largely eliminated. That is because of our effective and plentiful clean water supply and sewerage systems built up carefully within the public sector over the past century. However, because of under-investment the sewerage and water industries are only just holding their own, and I fear that we shall have to pay heavily for their modernisation. Individual consumers will pay for that when the water industry is in the private sector. That is in addition to the gift taxpayers are giving to shareholders in the current sell-off of the water industry. Incidentally, as my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, the Bill does not cover water safety as I feel it should, despite the recent problems of cryptosporidium in Oxford and aluminium in Cornwall.
Our present problems of food poisoning and adulteration of food and drink whether this is accidental or on purpose, arise from the intensification of food production, processing and distribution which are the result of the industrial society in which we live. That society is built on maximising profit and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, pointed out, convenience.
As my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg said, problems arise at every stage from animal rearing to slaughter and in preparation, processing, packaging and storage, both before and after distribution. The British Veterinary Association stated in a paper circulated for discussion by its council:
"Unfortunately the diseases of intensivism are sometimes more difficult to detect and control".
I am sure the Bill is an improvement on its complex predecessors. Like my noble friend, I suggest however that it concentrates too much on the later stages of the food chain and not enough on the early stages, particularly on the farm. I shall repeat a remark which is now famous:
"Most of the egg production in this country is infected with salmonella".
I cannot quite recollect who said that originally. It may not be strictly true. I believe that much debate

793
turns on two words "much" or "most" and "infected" or "affected". I am not sure which words were intended to be used in the remark when it was first made.
Can Clause 20, which enables the enforcement authority to bypass an immediate offender in order to prosecute the real offender be used in the case of salmonella in eggs? Who is the so-called real offender? Is it the retailer, the egg wholesaler, the poultry farmer or the feedstuff producer? The document of the British Veterinary Association to which I have already referred states:
"It is regular practice to recycle slaughterhouse waste back into livestock production via feed, after rendering or other processing. Even chicken house wastes (including droppings) can be incorporated into cattle feed to provide a cheap source of nitrogen. The scientific question is whether the risk of transmission of disease-causing organisms by this route can be eliminated in the feed mill…The recycling of waste food as animal feed must continue to be closely controlled".
I can see no clause in this Bill to cover this recommendation from the British Veterinary Association. I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply can say whether there is other legislation that covers this important area. If so, why is it not incorporated in this Bill? I believe, for instance, that there is an order called the Protein Feedstuffs Processing Order. I do not see it among the list of orders or previous legislation incorporated in the Bill.
With regard to meat inspection, there are apparently two standards, with a higher level —among other things, requiring veterinary supervision —for meat that is for export to the EC. Three is a lower standard for meat that is to be consumed in the United Kingdom. This is surely an unsatisfactory situation. I gather that the Minister himself feels that the higher standard should, and will, apply to all meat plants. Is this so? I cannot see it in the Bill. Clause 17, concerning the enforcement of community provisions, does not really cover the problem.
Other noble Lords have commented on the need for licensing of premises, not merely registration. I hope that the accent on registration rather than licensing is not solely one of economy, or because of a lack of trained staff to inspect licensed premises. The cost of the licence could, at least in part, cover the cost of any additional staff and training that is necessary to upgrade registration to licensing.
I very much welcome the section on the financial effects of the Bill. If £30 million is spent on the salaries of trained inspectors —I am not sure what their salaries are, but let us say that they are £15,000 per annum —that could result in 2,000 extra staff. But new staff will need to be trained, and there are other administrative expenses. I should be grateful for slightly more detail from the noble Baroness as to how this £30 million is going to be spent.
Like many other noble Lords, and a long list of highly-reputable consumer organisations, I am sorry that the Bill contains no specific references to irradiation, and leaves that aspect to subsequent regulation. I do not feel that that gives Parliament adequate control in a matter which is of great public concern. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can
794
say how near we are to developing an easily-applied test to check whether food has been irradiated? The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, mentioned that point; but it would be nice to know how near we are to having a test readily available.
Last but not least, I am sorry that the Bill does not mention the nutritional quality of food at all. Ultimately that is very much a part of safety. There is increasing evidence that chronic diseases, particularly atheroscelerosis and coronary heart disease, depend on diet. It is of vital importance for consumers to know the content of what they are eating.
I know that the question of food labelling for nutritional content has very much a European dimension. However, I feel that this country has an important part to play in achieving a code that is meaningful for heart disease prevention. This is where we could, and should, play a stronger lead role in Europe. To include satisfactory labelling in United Kingdom legislation, which would reduce blood cholesterol and hence coronary heart disease, would help to pull Europe in the right direction. We have a useful framework in this Bill. I am sure with the amendments that I hope will be agreed in this House, the Bill is going to leave this House in even better shape.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I have to declare an interest because I am advised with regard to this Bill by the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance, which I regularly advise myself. I am also advised by the Food and Drink Federation. Before I go on, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that the Food and Drink Federation does not only represent the large companies. Its membership consists of other trade associations like the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance, which has a wide-ranging membership. Indeed on its council it has at least four small companies. Therefore, it is not right to say that the FDF represents only the large companies.
Those representative bodies in the food manufacturing industry entirely support the objectives of the Food Safety Bill, as so ably explained to us by my noble friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On various occasions I have suggested that the title of that Ministry should be changed to the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. Food is obviously so much more important, particularly when we have a Bill such as this. The food manufacturing industry trade associations support the intention to give added powers to enforcement authorities, and to give added resources to local authorities to ensure that, as far as practicable, food eaten by the public is wholly safe. I believe that this Bill goes a long way to achieving those objectives.
There were just two points raised by noble Lords that I should like to mention before I get to the main part of my speech. One is irradiation. My noble friends Lord Middleton and Lord Campbell of Croy explained that matter so well and so fully that I feel that all that needs to be said has been said. However,

795
I hope that the great British public is not conned into thinking that this is some hideous new scientific device that is all about atomic warfare, and not about people. When it comes through I hope that we shall find a rational viewpoint as well.
The other point that I hope that my noble friend who is to reply will be able to pick up is that raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, about whether Clause 2(2) will mean that all charity fund-raising events will have to stop providing small eats at the end of their parties. I often find when I go to such events that it is about the only food that I get. Therefore if that is a problem, I hope that we take strong steps to make it practicable for organisations of that sort to go on feeding people, because in my experience they certainly do not poison one.
There are in fact three aspects of the Bill that give me cause for concern. Some of them have been mentioned by other noble Lords, and I shall endeavour to be quick in raising them. One, which was perhaps not raised is that there is a lack of clarity in certain important clauses. That is the first point. The second point is the extreme use —and many people have talked about this —of order-making powers given to the Minister. The third point has also been mentioned, but not perhaps in this particular way. I have doubts about the speed with which the trading standards officers and environmental health officers can receive the necessary extra training in all aspects of food technology in order to perform their new tasks effectively and fairly under the Bill.
The clarity of clauses is a matter for probing at a later stage of the Bill. However, by way of example, the definition of "injury" in Clause 7(3) gives grounds for concern. I shall be seeking clarification of that as well as, for other reasons, the definition of "food source" in Clause 1(3). Those two points need clarification.
Turning now to order-making powers, I must say at the outset that I accept the fact that, in seeking to ensure safety of a product for which there are many, varied and ever-changing methods of creation and processing, the Government must have many powers to alter legislation quickly to meet changes in any threats to food safety. I also noted that my noble friend the Minister of State undertook to consult in framing the necessary regulations. I welcome that.
However, there are in the Bill order-making powers for a variety of different kinds of regulations, some of which potentially require much greater urgency than others. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, we are told in Clause 48(2) that all orders under the Act should be subject to the negative procedure. If we look at Clause 2(1)(b) we find that the providers of food can be completely sewn up by regulations. As I read Clause 2(1)(b), the Minister could, by regulation, provide for him to sue a consumer for not cooking his or her food properly. The Government might make a great deal of money that way, especially if they took note of what was said by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. However, to be serious, I suggest to noble Lords that
796
catch-all regulation powers such as Clause 2(1)(b) and powers which may have serious financial implications but which do not require urgent introduction, such as those under Clause 19(b), should be handled by the affirmative procedure.
Mentioning possible financial implications reminds me that there are various provisions in the Bill, or possibly regulations introduced under the terms of the Bill, which could cost food producers and/or retailers a great deal of money. Tightening of the licensing provision, which the Consumers' Association favours, is one such possible example. If that happens, it must be understood that the cost of such provisions will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. I should have said to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, if he had stayed to listen to my speech as I think the rules require, that in passing the costs on to the consumer manufacturers are not necessarily maximising profit or even aiming to maximise profit. They are just aiming to make a profit in order to survive and invest in their business. Using emotive phrases such as "maximising profit" reveals a lack of trust of manufacturers or businessmen generally which sadly reflects itself on the Benches opposite.
I know why the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is absent, but I am sorry that he is not here to listen to what I have to say. I was surprised when I heard his speech. I have always been a little surprised that he is on the Benches opposite because I thought that he had too much common sense for that. There are other noble Lords, one of whom I can see, whom I would also categorise as having too much common sense to be on the Benches opposite, but that is another subject. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, forgets that food processors are much disciplined by the need to have an exemplary reputation for safe food production. If they do not have such a reputation, they will not survive in business. They do not require a great number of little men watching them to see whether they are following the processes which this Act of Parliament or any other will impose upon them. When we come to the Committee stage, it will be important for noble Lords on the Benches opposite to forget their past prejudices and move into the modern world.
I turn now to my third matter of concern; namely whether in the short term food authorities will be able to deploy such well trained food technologists to implement the provisions of the Bill effectively and fairly. It is vital that the enforcement officers understand what to look into in inspecting all kinds of premises from large processing factories to small shops or restaurants. Not only is that necesary for ensuring food safety, but also for gaining the confidence of all types of people involved in the food business. Industry itself has had difficulty in recruiting sufficient food technologists over many years. If some jolly good ones are provided in the inspection service, industry may well poach them in order to build up its own strength to meet the Bill's requirements. Suffice it to say, I expect that the Government will have to consider allocating much more than the £30 million referred to in the explanatory memorandum in order to ensure that the Bill is properly effective.

797
Having indicated the areas into which I shall probe at later stages of the Bill, I should like nonetheless to wish it and my noble friend the Minister of State well in the process.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, food is something that is consumed by all of us from the cradle to the grave and this is therefore a Bill of the utmost importance. I shall not go into the protection side of it because, frankly, not being a scientist, I do not understand it.
However, I want to deal with one or two basic issues in the Bill, starting with the definition in Clause 1 which states that:
"'business' includes the undertaking of a canteen, club, school, hospital or institution".
There appears to be no mention of a restaurant or hotel in Clause 1. I do not have to declare an interest because I have no financial involvement in hotels, although members of my family are engaged in the hotel and catering industry, both literally in hotels and in what is known as the pub trade. Presumably all those establishments will be subjected, and quite rightly so, to the provisions of the Bill.
I have suffered from food poisoning, not in this House, but in the Army. During my national service I was poisoned by, of all things, verdigris, and by blown salmon and porridge which had gone off. Suffice it to say, I was on my back for three weeks, so I know what food poisoning is like. That was 43 years ago and it was not then called salmonella or listeria. So far as I know, it was just termed "food poisoning". Much progress with food technology has since been made, but at that time fast foods were not so much in existence as they are now. It is clearly fast foods which are the most dangerous so far as concerns infection.
I am particularly interested in Clause 23, which relates to the training of those who will have to operate the Bill, whether they be environmental health officers or other officials whatever title they may have. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether she is satisfied that there are enough such people and whether their skills are sufficient to cope with the requirements of the Bill. I hope that the answer will be in the affirmative, because the main thrust of the Bill is enforcement, whether at local authority level, in a hospital or canteen or elsewhere.
Much of course comes down to common sense. The Which? report of March 1989 mentions the disturbing increase in the number of recorded cases of food poisoning: in 1987 there were 30,000; in 1988 there were 41,000. It would be interesting to have those figures broken down to find out how many of those poisoning cases took place in the home and whether they were caused by microwaves; or whether they took place in restaurants, or indeed wine bars or cafés.
One area which has always frightened me is that of the delicatessen where there are exposed various types of salad consisting of potatoes and such things. Particularly during the summer —and we had a very hot summer this year —who knows how much listeria
798
or whatever is conveyed in such food? I very much hope that the Bill will take a long, hard look at premises of that kind. I believe that delicatessen food is one of the main sources of food poisoning.
I welcome very much, as I am sure does the whole House, the position on Crown immunity, particularly as regards hospitals. However, there are disturbing implications in some of our very large hospitals because the kitchens may be very old and certain food storage areas may leave much to be desired. Ventilation may be bad. One does not know how the food is stored in the refrigerators and whether guidelines are kept. I hope that, when this Bill becomes law, attention will be devoted in particular to long-stay hospitals, where, unlike general hospitals, there are patients who stay for many years. It is very important that both staff and patients are fed not only properly but safely.
This is a Bill to be welcomed. It has been needed for a very long time. My only concern is whether there are enough environmental health officers and others to enforce it. In the meantime it certainly merits a Second Reading.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: My Lords, first I must apologise for the fact that I was not able to be present for the earlier part of this debate. I was making what I hope has been a contribution to food safety by opening a new supermarket at Whitley Bay and visiting a number of stores in the Newcastle area. I was therefore unable to be present until a short time ago.
I should also declare an interest, in that I am chairman of the country's largest food retailer, J. Sainsbury plc. Having been in the food trade for nearly 40 years I have seen great change and over many years have studied the problems of food distribution and food processing both in this country and overseas. I may add that I visit well over 100 food stores every year. I must therefore assure the House that my belief is that the standards of food safety and overall food hygiene in this country are higher than they have ever been and compare most favourably with the standards to be found abroad, including in the United States, where our company now also trades. I agreed with the Minister of Agriculture when, at a recent conference, he said that Britain's food has never been safer than it is today.
Having said that, I should like to make three points. First, it is right that the Government recognise that there has been a serious increase in the number of cases of food poisoning, which is a phenomenon to be found in all those countries which have meaningful statistics to compare. Secondly, it is a fact that changing consumer tastes and requirements in convenience foods present new hazards if the highest standards of food hygiene are not maintained. Thirdly, it must be right and in the national interest that food standards are further raised and that practical steps are taken which reduce the risks of food poisoning occurring. For those and indeed other reasons I welcome the Bill that is before us today. I believe that it will strengthen existing

799
food law and help ensure the adoption of what is already best practice in the industry. In my view it is a practical measure that is in the interests of the consumer.
As has often been said, the issue of food safety is an emotive one and has caused the media to create unnecessary alarm by exaggerated and inaccurate reports. Those with the most alarmist views are given the greatest coverage. The considered judgment of responsible scientists makes a less good and a less sensational story and their views often go unreported.
If food safety issues are emotive, so too is the subject of food irradiation. I believe that it is right for it to be permitted, subject of course to the most rigorous regulation and control. That is for the simple reason that the great weight of international scientific opinion believes it to be safe. Many governments in the world have been persuaded by that opinion and also believe that it is a technique which, if properly used, can reduce the risk of food contamination for some products more effectively than can alternative means.
I also believe that the consumer rules. The Government may permit food irradiation but whether or not any food is irradiated depends ultimately on the consumer. The consumer should have the right of choice, given current scientific opinion. But no food manufacturer and no retailer will sell irradiated food unless he or she finds that there is consumer demand and consumer advantage. I can very well understand that many people will not wish any food that they buy to be irradiated. It must be right that irradiated food is always clearly labelled. However, I believe that we should not deny that opportunity to those who wish at some time in the future to buy food that they believe is safer because it is irradiated.
A recent survey in Which? magazine was, to my mind, surprising, in that it reported that as many as 13 per cent. of those questioned would today prefer to buy irradiated food to food treated with preservatives. If that is the case, I suggest that the 87 per cent. of consumers who object should not prevent others making that choice. In short, therefore, I suggest that the Government's decision to legalise the irradiation of food is right. Consumers should be given the right to make their own decision on this matter.
I should like to refer briefly to Clause 19. I think that the intention to require registration of all food premises is both practical and the right thing to do. It is also right that the Government should make provision for licensing for what have been described as "sensitive areas". However, while wholly supporting the Government's intentions, I am concerned with the drafting of Clause 19. To my very untutored eye it appears to give the government of the day power to require licensing of any food premises. That is a power which at some future time might be thoroughly misused. I ask why the Goverment's intentions cannot be encapsulated in the legislation so that the power to require licensing applies more specifically and only to what Ministers
800
have described as "sensitive areas". The clause should be so drafted that it can cover both existing and as yet undiscovered technology which, as in the case of irradiation, there are good reasons to regard as sensitive.
I now turn to the fact that the Bill makes each link in the food chain responsible for matters within its sphere. As has been said, it removes the automatic assurance through a warranty. However, in a sense, that change consolidates the best practices of leading retailers. It will place a heavier potential responsibility on all retailers than exists under current legislation. Overall it should make more likely an improvement of standards.
However, the requirement upon retailers and manufacturers of due diligence will be applied consistently only if it is monitored and judged against a code of practice. This should be developed jointly by the Ministry, enforcement officers and the food trade. Without such a code there will be duplication of effort. There will be a waste of time and a waste of resources and there will be unnecessary and additional costs. It is very much in the interests of both the food trade and enforcement officers that an agreed code of practice is developed.
On enforcement, all, I am sure, will agree that there should be the same standards of enforcement throughout the country. Much depends on the abilities of the environmental health officers and trading standards officers, who will face a considerable increase in their responsiblities. A number of noble Lords have spoken about their training. I believe that there is a great deal to be done to improve that training to take account of this increased responsibility.
I should like to make a suggestion which I hope the authorities may consider helpful. It is that environmental health officers and trading standards officers in training —who already have a placement (in the case of environmental health officers, for a year) with a local authority—should also have a period with a food manufacturer or a food retailer. At present they visit commercial food operations and environmental health officers spend a short period at a slaughterhouse. But I question whether, in the light of this Bill, that is enough. A period working with a food manufacturer or a food retailer would give them greater knowledge and insight into some of the problems of the industry. However, the food industry is large and diverse and exposure to one part of it is only a modest step in the right direction with regard to providing adequate training and experience.
I believe also that organisation of enforcement needs to be addressed. There really should be greater co-operation between local authority trading standards departments and local authority environmental health departments. Many of their functions overlap. I trust that the recently announced Audit Commission study of environmental health departments will enable examples of best practice within local authorities to be identified and subsequently adopted by all local authorities.
I should also draw your Lordships' attention to what is known as the home authority arrangement,

801
whereby a company's head office local authority acts on behalf of all other local authorities in handling the major issues of principle relating to trading standards. This system was set up by the local authority co-ordinating body on trading standards. It has played a valuable role in establishing national standards. I suggest that there is a good case for extending it further to cover environmental health matters.
In my experience, the system helps to foster a co-operative working relationship between a company and its enforcement authority. It provides benefits for them both and, more generally, it is an efficient use of scarce resources.
I welcome the provision of Clause 39 for the Minister to issue directives and recommended codes of practice. The Government have been criticised in the past for their lack of an active role in enforcement. This measure will go some way to counter that criticism.
Finally, perhaps I may comment on the scientific advice on food matters that is available to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (in parenthesis, I agree with the noble Lord who suggested that the order of those responsibilities should be reversed). I should like to contrast that with the professional scientific advice available to the Minister on agriculture and available to the Minister of Health on medical matters. On food, I understand that there is one Grade 3 chief scientist, whereas on agriculture, including horticulture and animal health, there are five Grade 3 officers. The department's chief scientific adviser is Grade 2, while at the Department of Health the chief medical adviser is Grade 1 A. I do not claim any expertise on Civil Service grades and I certainly have no reason and no wish to criticise the professional competence of the scientific officers at MAFF. However, I believe at this time of national concern about food safety and at a time of much technical change in the industry, that the Minister should have in his department the best possible scientific advice available, especially on food microbiology.
Should there not be a chief food officer of the same grade as the chief medical officer who not only can ensure the best possible advice for the Minister, but can be seen by the public as a leading expert on food matters and a voice to whom they should listen?
I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that there is much more that I could say on the issue of food safety and the contents of the Food Safety Bill, but not this evening. The Bill gives rise to a number of more technical issues that I believe are more appropriately addressed in Committee.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say again that the Bill is greatly to be welcomed and has my full support.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister of State for a very fine effort. I believe that the Bill will be a huge success. It looks very good. However, there is one point that I make. The Bill starts off very well and there is then a gap. The gap comes after the birth of the animal, its death and its subsequent consumption. That is where we
802
begin to have trouble. On its way to the table the meat goes to the slaughterhouse. In this country I do not think that we take enough care in slaughterhouses. I have seen slaughterhouses the meat from which I would certainly not like to eat. The argument applies abroad, but I have seen such conditions at home. I believe that they bear looking at a little more closely.
I have referred to slaugher, but we need to hang the meat to get decent beef. Since we have stopped hanging beef for 21 days we have had to sharpen our teeth to get into it. It is not so easy now. That should be looked into because we are spoiling very fine beef. It is not hung properly. The result is that one cannot cook it properly and one does not get first-class quality from what has been killed.
That was all that I meant to say. However, I have since heard one or two matters upon which I wish to comment. We have talked a lot about food control. We say that we are the best country in the world on that matter. We may be; I do not know. In about 1910 in Saxony —from where my friends came at that time —the food officers went round the various houses in the villages. They had power to go into any cupboard or larder and to look round and say, "That bottle has been hanging there too long. Do something about it". They had power to control what could be epidemics in the area. We have never had that control. Candidly, I do not think that we want it. I was in Germany for about 10 years. I never saw such control. But the control to which I have referred was in Saxony. I was in Westphalia and other parts of Germany, so perhaps I would not have seen it.
On microwave ovens, I have learnt that they heat from the inside, whereas coal heats from the outside. That is all I know about that.
I do not remember what these hygiene officers were called. I do not remember the name for them. Perhaps they were called Gesundheitspolizei.
I think we are a little more careful than we were in those days. I am all for a separate Abteilung, with properly trained people who can check our food from the various sources, from birth to slaughter. Veterinary people are now inspecting animals from birth to slaughter and that must be kept up. However, we lack inspection between slaughter and consumption where the trouble lies. I am glad to hear that the Bill will cover a great deal of that and I wish it the best of luck.
7.10. p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on much of its contents. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on the clear and concise way in which she presented the main contents of the Bill. I hope that I can be equally concise and clear in bringing your Lordships' attention to some of the weaknesses that we have identified. We do so in a spirit of co-operation rather than in one of carping criticism. The debate has shown that noble Lords on all sides of the House wish to achieve the same result, although we have slightly different ways of approaching it and perhaps

803
a different pace. We wish to achieve safe, wholesome, varied food for all. I believe that only differences in emphasis and certain misgivings will emerge most clearly in Committee.
Dramatic changes have taken place in this country not only as regards food but in general social terms. That applies particularly since the 1950s and the Food and Drug Act 1955 upon which most of the present legislation is based. In her eloquent speech the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, referred to some of the deep changes which have taken place and I agree with most of her comments. Most of today's newspapers contain reports of a food survey, the results of which were released yesterday. It stated that the nutritional value of food taken into the home is 9 per cent. less than that recommended in terms of energy intake.
One can visit an excellent supermarket in Nine Elms —just down the road —which comes under the responsibility of the noble Lord opposite. It is so palatial and well-organised that one can clearly watch what people are doing, as I did in my basic research. Most people put into their basket not basic ingredients but prepared food. The reason is the amount of change that has taken place. We cannot change them but, regrettably, there is less family life; less eating around the table in large numbers. Many women now work, and the pressure on a working husband and wife to prepare family meals from basic ingredients is too great so they tend to buy convenience foods. I agree that by and large such food is of excellent quality and that there is plenty of variety.
Restaurants and fast-food outlets have improved immeasurably during the past 10 years. Also during that time the general affluence of the population has increased. I fear that television may have contributed to the change in eating habits. There has been a tendency to take a tray in front of the television and eat a fast-food meal which may not be of high nutritional value rather than to sit down with the family at the table. Some noble Lords tell me that the trend may be reversed after the forthcoming broadcasting legislation but I remain to be convinced.
Against that background of change is the greater interest in and awareness of diet and health. We heard the most interesting speech by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. A growing number of people are interested in improving their quality of life by looking closer at what they eat and at the way in which their diets should be balanced. That is important and depends on education. To some extent I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. She said that we can have all those things if we want them but that they will cost money and somebody must pay. At the end of the day I agree with her but at present, whether they mean it or not, too many people say, "We do not care about all the fancy things that you educated people are talking about. We care about the cost of our food". I do not believe that that is right but it is an observation which must be investigated. People must be educated and persuaded that the safety of food and its quality must be paid for. I believe that if the
804
issue is tackled sensibly and creatively the cost need not be too burdensome on the consumer. That is what the Bill and our criticisms are about.
We support the new enforcement role for environmental health officers and the £30 million being made available to local authorities. However, what assurances do we have that local authorities will use the money for the purposes for which it is intended? There is no way in which one can read that into the Bill and I have heard no comment about it. Naturally, one is sceptical about the way in which money is syphoned off for other purposes. However, I may be too cynical in my comments.
How will last year's 400-odd unfilled vacancies for environmental officers be filled? What education or further education will be required for the existing officers to carry out their duties under the Bill? There is a great deal of power to legislate through regulation. That was admirably discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. One wonders whether the input which goes into decision-making before legislation comes before Parliament is such that the ability of a food directorate within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and input from the Department of Health will be enough. Is it not now time that we thought seriously about the the setting up of a wholly independent body such as a food standards agency along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Ezra? The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, said that she had also given the idea some credence but had now changed her view. She believes that the present structure is sufficient but I wonder whether there is not a little unease about the situation.
We on these Benches are greatly concerned about pesticides, and that is not covered in the Bill. The whole nation is concerned about pesticides and there is a need for more checks on their effects and perhaps a ban on aerial spraying. We are also concerned about labelling. We start from the premise that as much information as possible should be made available to the consumer. As far as possible he has the right to know exactly what he is buying in the supermarket and in as simple and direct a way as possible. Present standards are well behind those needed properly to inform the public at large. The "use by" date is of more use than the "sell by" date and that change will be most welcome.
As regards explanations, even in excellent retail outlets such as those that come under the responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, confusion arises. When I visited one of his stores I was confused about the foods which are popularly known by the term "cook and chill" or "chill and cook". There was also confusion in the mind of the person I spoke to. I am not clear about whether one can put some products back into the freezer, whether one must eat them within 20 days. On some products there is an explanation and one some there is not. there is an explanation and on some there is not. Products of the label of the noble Lord's organisation are very explicit on that point. I am concerned about other products where the information is not so explicit.
As regards licensing and registration —and I do not know whether I speak entirely on behalf of my

805
colleagues on these Benches on this matter—I prefer registration to licensing because, wherever possible, registration is more flexible and licensing smacks of bureaucracy because it is so cumbersome. Obviously, there are areas where that already exists; for example, in slaughterhouses and so on. With the development of irradiation and so on, licensing may well be necessary. However, I should have thought that in most areas, if the inspectorate is up to the job and on its toes, it should be able to deal with the registration of businesses and do that as quickly as possible to make sure that the proper standards are maintained. Therefore, I believe that registration is very welcome; licensing is welcome where it is absolutely necessary; and one hopes that registration does not have to move to licensing as that will produce unhappy results in cumbersome handling of procedures.
We are very keen on training of all kinds, especially for food handlers in the area of hygiene. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. The question of costs is involved and I am concerned that in the Bill, even with the provision of the £30 million, there will perhaps not be sufficient money. How much money will be needed and where will that money come from? I was very interested in the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, about environmental health officers visiting food processing factories. That is an excellent idea but I wonder who will pay for that. I believe that there should be considerable input into that cost structure by the manufacturers. Of course there would be an enormous advantage in speeding up communications.
We like the fact that the doctrine of due diligence is to replace statutory warranties. However, I agree, as other noble Lords have said, that guidance is needed on that. That matter will probably come before your Lordships' House in due course. Codes of practice are clearly vital in that area.
I turn briefly to irradiation because that is something about which my colleagues feel very strongly, as do I. Like the noble Lord opposite, I do not have an 0-level but I believe that irradiation is known as soft nuclear technology. That sounds very frightening. We believe that it is too early to greet the process with the even guarded enthusiasm which some of your Lordships have shown this evening. Are we not in danger of assuming that this process is safe merely because there has not been evidence to show that it is unsafe? I believe that even scientists are at odds about the effects of irradiation. There was an exchange in your Lordships' House about the fact that the public understandably confuse irradiation with radiation. We know that the process reduces nutritional value by destroying some 30 per cent. of vitamins. Most viruses such as hepatitis, a disease which I have had, and salmonella, from which I have also suffered, so that I have been unlucky in that regard, are resistant to it. Surely in this area we must proceed with some caution and not welcome it too eagerly. I believe, as perhaps does the public, that it is too early to approve. I take the point that in some areas —for example, spices —it is preferable to other forms of additive in order to kill pests and so on.
806
We welcome the Second Reading of this Bill and look forward to lively debates in Committee. I hope that, at the end, we shall produce a better Bill to the benefit of everybody.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in winding up the debate for the official Opposition I am, as noble Lords will be well aware, very much the third choice speaker. However, I assure the House that when we come to Committee stage my place will be taken by my noble friend Lord Carter and, with the help of my noble friend Lord Gallacher, he will bring his expertise to bear on these very serious matters.
Being a lay person I have one great advantage; that is, when I say that the consumer is paramount I actually mean it. When I refer to consumer sovereignty there is no comma and the word "but" and then reference to producers. Perhaps I may say that I am disappointed, although not surprised, that in this debate —and I believe that I have listened to every speech —the majority of noble Lords have represented the producer interest. I am not surprised but I do not believe that that should be the case.
In that connection I say a few words about the department of the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, said that she was no longer convinced that MAFF represents the producer interest. I have been at Whitehall for over 25 years on and off and it is commonplace in Whitehall that if there is one department which is a front organisation for the producers, notably the farmers, it is the department of the noble Baroness.
I am always ready to welcome change and if there has been a conversion on the part of MAFF to consumer protection, nothing would please me or others interested in this matter more. Therefore, I am willing to suspend disbelief but only to place MAFF on probation. It must be subject to continual critical scrutiny when it comes to actual cases of consumer protection, especially when those cases conflict with producer interest.
In that connection I should like reassurance about the independence of the consumer panel and its membership. I do not wish to discover that on all sorts of grounds the producers have dominated the panel.
One other acerbic contribution I must make refers to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in his criticism of my noble friend Lord Rea. It is not for me to give the noble Lord a lesson in elementary economics but he did make a remark on profit maximisation. He should know that the economic theory on which all of his party's economic policies are currently based contains as fundamental propositions, first, that firms maximise profits and, secondly, that it is right that they should do so.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord might accept the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who sadly is still not here although he has been back to the Chamber, used that phrase in a derogatory fashion. He did not say that it is right that it should be so but that it is wrong that it should be so. It was that which I was picking up rather than a technical phrase.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I cannot comment on that. I merely say that if the noble Lord does not like the use of the expression "profit maximisation" he should complain to Professor Walters, to Professor Friedman or to the apparatchiks of the Institute of Economic Affairs and similar bodies or complain to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, because they are the people who believe in it. He should not criticise us for that.
Let us look at the principles on which a Bill of this sort is and should be based. Those principles seem to me to be: first —and again I remind your Lordships that I said it —that the production and distribution of food in this country is and will continue to be the overwhelming responsibility of the private sector. That will be done via the market mechanism. However, the necessity for a Bill of this kind is that one cannot be certain that an unregulated private sector will do the job properly. That is why there is the Bill and the regulations. We have here an example par excellence of the market mechanism but within an appropriate regulatory framework.
If one asks why there is a need for regulation, it seems to me overwhelmingly that that need is to do with information and the fact that the market left to itself will not provide sufficient understandable information to consumers.
The second reason we require as a matter of principle this form of regulation —and indeed why we welcome it —is that competition needs to be fair. The worry here is that the unregulated market left to itself will demonstrate —if your Lordships will forgive the invention of this —the proposition that bad food will drive out good. Essentially the need to have the agencies that the Government quite rightly wish to have in this Bill is in order to give those producers who have higher standards and want to compete on fair terms a level playing field on which to compete.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on reputation were, I believe, important. Reputation does matter, but when one gets what might be regarded as a failure in this area all food producers suffer. It cannot be assumed that one's reputation will act as a total protection. There is an adverse spin-off of what might be called the less than satisfactory producers and distributors. That again is why we need regulation.
I shall say a few final words on consumer protection. I accept that compensation is relevant. The overwhelming majority of consumers would rather not suffer; they would prefer to be protected than to suffer and be compensated. I too was one of those who suffered from the salmonella outbreak in your Lordships' House. I have to say to noble Lords who did not that it is not an experience I would recommend to anybody whatever. It so happens —and I have never raised this before —that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, made no effort to compensate me, or other noble Lords, with a free meal. Even if he had made that offer I should still rather he offered to guarantee that it did not happen again. That is why, although I do not object to compensation as being relevant in this matter, I regard it as much less important than effective protection and regulation.
808
I agree very much with those noble Lords who think that regulation has to apply to the whole food chain. We cannot arbitrarily cut it off at any point. In that connection, when we come to the definition of food businesses, which are mentioned in the Bill, it is not clear to me that as a concept they include farms. I should like an answer as to whether "food businesses" includes farms per se, without further ado. If not, it ought to.
I shall say a few words on irradiation. Like other noble Lords, although I have what used to be called a General School Certificate in various sciences, I make no pretence of being a scientist, but I do have the sense to ask scientists for their views. The point that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made is correct: the scientific community is divided on this. I was surprised that one or two noble Lords appeared to think that the position was clear-cut.
I await with great interest the report of Sub-committee D, of which I used to be a member. We do not fully understand the microbiological consequences of food irradiation. My view echoes what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland said; we should proceed cautiously. In particular, apart from awaiting with interest the report of the committee, I believe movement on this matter is occuring in Brussels and I should have thought Her Majesty's Government would be well advised to wait and see what happens in Brussels before jumping into any final decisions on these matters.
In that connection I have to say —and I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, though that will not affect my propensity to buy in his stores —one cannot simply leave this to consumer choice. If there are scientific doubts —and I underline the word "if" —enterprises with a public responsibility ought at least to think carefully before proceeding down the path of irradiation.
I am trying to be open minded. I am not anti-science; I am not anti anything in this sense, but I believe in being cautious. More generally, however, in this area of food and what is sometimes called technical progress, as someone who likes nutritious, wholesome food, I feel more inclined to refer to it as technical regress. It leads to the paradox that, if it is true that Britain's food has never been safer than it is today, how does one explain the fact that we have never before had outbreaks of food related illnesses on this scale? There may be other explanations, but that certainly needs examining.
On the question of an independent body, I agree with those noble Lords and all the serious consumer organisations who believe that there ought to be an independent regulatory body. It is a pity that the Government did not go along those lines.
I wish to make two remarks concerning training. There clearly must be proper training for the environmental health officers and related people. I am very struck that the Royal Society of Chemistry, for example, is one of the bodies which has pressed on me and other noble Lords the importance of this field. I am also at least as much concerned with training of those who handle food. As I understand the Bill —and I hope I will be contradicted —the

809
training element of food handlers at all stages is not mandatory. There ought to be training but there will be no compulsory training.
I should have thought on general grounds, first, that we ought to move towards mandatory training in this field. Secondly, the relevant body, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, could with the industry start to move in the direction of drawing up appropriate training standards and then proceeding to ensure that they happen in practice. Clearly it would not be possible, given the enormous number of people in the industry at this time, to make training a legal requirement now, but surely a rational government should move in that direction in the longer term.
Wearing my education hat I am a little disappointed —and I am very much with the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland —that not enough is said in this Bill, first, about the importance of good nutrition. Secondly, there are no references in the Bill that I can see about health education. It seems to me —and other noble Lords have made this point —that it is absurd to emphasise hygiene and careful food handling only up to the point that the stuff gets to the household, because a great many problems start in the household. We do not want another debate about the national curriculum, but it would be a great pity if the school curriculum did not include appropriate health nutritional education in an effective form. The dangers of food is not the biggest health hazard —it cannot compete with tobacco in the damage it does to people —but it is not a trivial matter and I hope that that is fully recognised by the Government.
I have one or two other queries before concluding. They concern an area where the Bill really disappointed me. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum "Part I: Preliminary" states: "Clause 1 defines 'food' ". I looked at Clause 1 because I wanted to know how food was defined. I am willing to sit down immediately if noble Lords will point me to the right part but I cannot see any definition of "food" in Clause 1.
I am particularly interested in the fact that "food" appears in inverted commas. I should have thought that the producers would be absolutely furious that food is not allowed to appear as an ordinary word but has to appear in inverted commas as if there is something bizarre about it. However, it is not remotely defined at all. I should have thought a legal definition of food would be of value. It is of particular interest to me because of my health interests to distinguish between what is a food and what is a medicine. There is a need to do that.
At the present time we find a number of spurious operators who, in order to get around the Medicines Act, sell something as a food but then have a great deal of covering literature provided implying that it acts as a medicine. We have some difficulty, when dealing with that appalling behaviour, in defining a medicine because medicines are no longer defined by what they are but by what they do. It would also be a help if the Bill were to be amended —the Government having said that Clause 1 defines "food" —so that the Bill actually does that.
810
A noble Lord has said that the Bill is not party political, and I apologise for not remembering his name. I certainly do not see it as such. However, I have fallen into this trap before on other Bills. The Minister rises to say that all amendments are welcome and that we all have to be constructive. Yet at the moment we try to pass a constructive amendment one of two things happen. For example, the Government will not accept a particular amendment or it is forced on them in the other place.
Nonetheless my noble friends and I will try to amend the Bill in order to improve it. There is one part that is political and it was referred to by my noble friend Lord Gallacher; namely, the difference between the negative procedure and the positive procedure. I believe that to adopt the negative procedure for regulations is unsatisfactory. Perhaps it is not a political point because I have often heard noble Lords say from the other side of the House that they do not like the procedure, and one or two of them today have said so.
We shall certainly press on the Government the need to look again at the procedure. 1: have done the best I can as a lay person. However, I believe I omitted to say that in broad terms we welcome the Bill. In saying that, there are matters that could be improved. My noble friends and I and, I am sure, noble Lords opposite, will do all we can to make quite a good Bill into a very good one.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Trumpington said in opening this Second Reading debate, this Bill is a joint initiative between MAFF and the Department of Health. Therefore, in winding up I shall make every effort to respond to the many and varied questions and issues that have been raised concerning both my noble friend's Ministry and the Department of Health. I shall also deal with matters relating to the territorial departments.
Perhaps I may begin by clarifying to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, the fact that Northern Ireland is not covered by the Bill. In opening, my noble friend said that the Bill would cover Great Britain, that parallel legislation would be made in Northern Ireland by Order in Council, and that in Scotland —and I can reassure the noble Lord on this point —wide consultation took place.
To my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour I can say that, in moving to Great Britain legislation, extensive consultation was carried out in Scotland. A wide variety of Scottish organisations was consulted from within the food industry, enforcement authorities and consumer interests. Responses largely reflected those we received in England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Scotland will still be able to act in his own right where warranted, and to make regulations. Enforcement will remain the responsibility of local authority, island and district councils. Both food and agriculture and health officials of the Scottish Office conducted the consultation exercise in Scotland and participated fully in preparations for the Bill.

811
It is gratifying that there has been a general welcome for the Bill from all sides of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that the Bill was non-party political. That is welcome. There was the seal of approval from my noble friend, the former chairman of the National Consumer Council, and that is also welcome. I was therefore rather disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggested that the consumers' point of view had not been adequately covered in the course of this debate. However, I am glad that he did not criticise the provisions of the Bill in that respect.
While on the question of consumer interests, the noble Lord raised the matter of the independence of the consumer panel: consumer interests will be entirely independently served. There will be nine consumer members nominated by consumer organisations. They will be nominated because they are ordinary consumers who can discuss the issues meaningfully. Agriculture departments and Department of Health officials will be in attendance. The chairman will of course be my honourable friend the Minister for Food.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. There is a point that I meant to raise which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also mentioned. Will this body have all the information that it wants in doing its job?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord on that point. It is certainly our intention and that was the objective in setting up this body.
I shall perhaps not be criticised for having come to the conclusion, as a result of this debate, that the subject exercising the minds of most of your Lordships is irradiation. A large number of your Lordships starting with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, raised various particular issues. The noble Lord suggested that the problems should be frankly recognised. They are. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Middleton for illuminating this perhaps complex subject from his specialised knowledge.
The regulations that we propose will provide a full and detailed control mechanism, but the detail is appropriate to specific regulations and not to this general Bill. There will be full consultation on all aspects of the introduction of food irradiation at the appropriate time. But that time is not today. At the moment I shall simply say that whatever confusion there may be among the lay public about irradiation, the safety and wholesomeness of the process has been confirmed by one independent scientific committee after another.
In taking steps to introduce irradiation the Government are following a recommendation from the World Health Organisation, which is concerned about the increasing incidence of food-borne disease and wishes to see food irradiation introduced to combat it. In addition to the World Health Organisation we have the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Institute of Food Science and Technology, the British Nutrition Foundation and all the independent scientific committees, all of
812
which have reviewed the four decades of research on the subject and support irradiation.
My noble friend Lord Lyell referred to fears about radioactivity. We should be quite clear about that. All food is slightly radioactive. It contains naturally occurring radionuclides. The infinitesimal extra radioactivity induced by this process is too small even to be measured. Scientists have calculated that it is a hundred thousand-fold smaller than the amount found naturally in food.
With respect to the EC directive, the Government's proposals on irradiation are being brought forward against the background of the proposed directive, but we do not necessarily have to wait for it to be adopted before implementing legislation in the United Kingdom. However, we are playing a full part in the current discussions on the proposed directive with the aim of ensuring that what is ultimately agreed is a harmonised regime that provides the additional safety assurance that consumers require within a tight control system.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked how close we are to an easily applied test for irradiation. That is difficult to forecast. How soon a test is devised depends on several methods that show promise. But we need to be satisfied that the results are reproducible in all circumstances and that the methods themselves can be applied by all laboratories. We are funding continued research because we accept that a test would be a useful supplement to the licensing controls that we are proposing.
In summary, we believe that irradiation is here to stay but that it must be properly controlled. The Food Safety Bill will therefore be used to bring in a full licensing system for irradiation facilities, which will be under central government control. There will be detailed inspection by specialists before plants can operate and licences will impose precise conditions. But, most importantly, we support the consumer's right to choose whether or not to buy irradiated food. I wish to emphasise that there will therefore be a requirement for full and clear labelling of irradiated food.
Several noble Lords expressed concern about registration under the Bill. It may be useful if I explain that we propose a simple registration scheme. Food businesses will be asked to supply only a few brief details, such as their address, the proprietor's name and the number of staff employed. We envisage prescribing the registration form in the regulations. There will be no charge for registration, and with the simple kinds of procedure we have in mind, we would envisage covering all commercial and permanent food businesses.
As noble Lords will know, the aim of registration is to enable local authorities to target their resources more effectively. In some areas, the turnover of food businesses is very high indeed. Once we have a registration scheme in place, local authorities will know which businesses have changed hands and which new ones have opened. They will be able to inspect any that seem to them to constitute a high risk. I should like to reassure noble Lords who are anxious on this score that the registration scheme

813
will be a simple, free-standing requirement. As with all the regulations made under food legislation, we shall be consulting interested parties in full on the details of the regulations before they are finalised. This will give interested parties plenty of time to let us know their views on the scope and purpose of the registration scheme. We believe that the costs to business will be minimal. However, there may be charges for licensing. An example might be the irradiation plants to which I referred. Our detailed proposals will be set out in regulations. These will be preceded by consultation.
There will of course be enforcement procedures. The Bill contains sufficient powers to achieve the prompt closure of premises which put public health at risk. If a business is found to be insanitary, enforcement officers will have strong powers to serve improvement and prohibition notices on the proprietor. They will be able to close the premises down on the spot if they present a grave danger to health, and they will be able to apply to a court to have the proprietor prohibited from carrying on a good business elsewhere.
As my noble friend has said, the Bill contains powers which will enable us to require food businesses to be licensed. The licensing powers in the Bill would be used where a category of food business posed a particular risk to health which meant that tighter controls were necesssary. We intend to use this enabling power to license businesses producing irradiated food. However, the power will enable us to extend the licensing requirement to other types of business if this becomes necessary in the future.
On the question of enforcement, I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that we intend to keep broadly the same division of responsibilities between local authorities as exist now. However, the flexibility in the Bill will allow us to make changes if that seems necessary in the future. There have been some cases where we would have liked more flexibility under the present Act. For example, environmental health officers cannot use Section 1 of the present Act. This might have been helpful to them in dealing with the recent botulism outbreak.
Several noble Lords were concerned about the financial aspects of the Bill. We have recognised that local authorities will need extra staff to carry out their new duties effectively. We believe that this is likely to cost about £30 million from 1991–92 onwards. This will be taken into account in next year's revenue support grant settlement. It represents a good response on behalf of the Government. There will also be a cost in terms of Civil Service manpower, but we do not believe that any overall increase will be necessary. The intention is to reflect in the revenue support grant settlement the additional costs arising from new tasks and duties to be created by the Bill, including setting up the register of food premises and carrying out more frequent inspections. The details will be set out in regulations. However, we have noted the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, concerning the training of enforcement officers.
814
The £30 million cost has been calculated, after consultation, on the best information available. There is therefore no reason to think that it is in any way an underestimate. I have been asked whether there is any way of ensuring that the £30 million is not used for other purposes. Clause 6(2) imposes a duty on local authorities to enforce the provisions of the Bill. To do this, they will have to make appropriate financial provision. Furthermore, our powers in Clause 39 to issue and if necessary to enforce codes of practice will ensure that local authorities carry out enforcement work to the required standard.
I can tell my noble friend Lady Carnegy that Scottish local authorities are accounted for in the £30 million estimate. After consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, estimates suggest that a figure of £3 million may be needed in Scotland. This will be taken into account next year when the revenue support grant is negotiated by the Scottish Office.
Most, if not all, noble Lords referred to training—in particular, hygiene training for food handlers. One of the main aims of the Bill is to ensure that good hygiene standards are maintained, thus reducing the risk of unsafe food being put on sale for public consumption. We believe that ensuring that those who handle food receive proper training in food hygiene is an important step on the way to achieving that aim. However, our proposals raise a number of complex issues. We feel it is essential to seek the views of the food industry, enforcement agencies, consumer organisations and other interested parties before deciding on the details of the requirements. That is why my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health today published a consultation document which discusses the issues involved.
As we said in the White Paper earlier this year, many of those who handle food already receive hygiene training through courses organised by the food industry, local authorities and other bodies. One of our main aims will be to produce regulations which take account of the excellent training provision which already exists in many parts of the industry. The Bill also enables local authorities to run food hygiene courses and to charge for them in order to supplement the training provision in their areas. This is not intended to allow local authorities to monopolise training, but to give statutory backing to the existing practice and to increase the options available to employers. We believe that businesses should be able to choose from a wide range of options the type of training which is best for them.
The regulations on training will be enforced by environmental health officers who, when they are inspecting the premises, will be able to check that staff in a business have been trained. The regulations may therefore require a business to show some documentary evidence that staff have been trained. This evidence might take a number of forms, such as certificates or other records of training. They are discussed in the consultation document. We hope that all those consulted will give our proposals their fullest consideration. The closing date for replies is

815
30th June 1990. This allows more than six months for consultation. We look forward to a full and constructive response.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about compulsory training for food handlers. The Government's firm intention is to make some kind of training compulsory for most food handlers, especially those working in high risk areas. The consultation paper deals with that. I agree with the noble Lord that training will have to be phased in.
My noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Sainsbury mentioned the training of enforcement officers. The training for environmental health officers gives them a thorough grounding in matters of health and hygiene. Most of the inspections they carry out are in retail premises, restaurants and other catering establishments. I am confident that their existing training equips them well for this work. However, in some areas they need more specialised knowledge, especially when dealing with high technology processes. In Schedule 1, paragraph 4, the Bill provides enabling powers to give such officers access to the opinion of experts on such processes. Those experts will give a view on the safety of the process being used.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that a trading standards officer should be seconded to MAFF's safety directorate. MAFF officials already have frequent and helpful contact with TSOs, but the idea of a secondment is interesting and one which I know my noble friend, Lady Trumpington, will wish to consider further. Therefore the detailed letter which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, promised will be most welcome.
I also welcome the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury that EHOs might usefully spend a period of training within the food industry. If he is pledging the participation of his company in this respect, we shall certainly take up the matter with the EHOs' training board.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, echoed I think by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, called for a good agency to be set up along the lines of the Office of Fair Trading. There have been suggestions in this respect and we have therefore considered this type of agency. However, the parallel is not in fact all that clear. We believe that it is right and necessary for action to protect consumers to be taken by Ministers who are answerable in Parliament, especially in this important area of food safety. Therefore, like my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, I find myself at something of a loss to see exactly what such a body would do which is not already covered by the responsibilities of Ministers or by the activities of local authority enforcement under the provisions of the Bill.
Many noble Lords raised the question of practices on farms in relation to feedingstuffs. The reason the Bill specifically excludes feedingstuffs is that they are already covered by the Agriculture Act 1970 and by an extensive body of European Community regulations. Therefore, I should like to clarify the position to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. For the above reason the expression "food businesses" in
816
the Bill does not cover farms —except, of course, farm shops.
I turn now to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in relation to slaughterhouses. This is not primarily a matter for the Bill because we have the powers we need elsewhere. However, my right honourable friend the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that we must move towards a system under which all our plants are subject to the same conditions and supervision arrangements. Not only will this reassure consumers; it will also ensure that we are able to take full advantage of the opportunities which will arise in the single market after 1992. Therefore we shall be moving to a single set of rules for all meat plants in the United Kingdom. The European Commission has not yet made formal proposals for red meat or meat products, but it is clear in its view that a single standard in those areas is necessary. As regards poultry meat, European Community standards apply to all licensed poultry plants whether or not they produce meat for export.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the question of exemption of primary agricultural products from product liability. He asked why we do not end the present exemption in this respect. The exemption is specifically permitted under the European Community directive on product liability and has been taken up by most member states. Therefore there would be distortion of competition to the prejudice of the United Kingdom if we were to change our stance. It should also be understood that the exemption applies only to agricultural produce in its raw state and not to that which has been processed in any way. Moreover, it will be difficult to enforce product liability in a way which is fair and effective. Food is very prone to defects which can develop when it is quite beyond the control of the original producer.
As regards compensation for consumers made ill by unsafe food, I am all in favour of this proposal. However, it is not necessary to change the law in order to achieve that aim. In fact there are many avenues of possible redress already available.
It has been suggested that the Bill is full of enabling powers but that it contains little detail. Our aim is to be worked out in regulations: in other words, a flexible approach which allows the law to be adapted flexible approach which allows the law to be adapted as circumstances change. That approach has stood the test of time well and I believe that it is in the best interests of consumers. In this respect the codes of recommended practice for local authorities will be drawn up by an implementation advisory committee involving the main government departments concerned and local authority representatives. We intend that codes could eventually be drawn up to cover such matters as the frequency of inspection appropriate for different types of food premises and the rates of sampling per head of population.
The codes of practice are intended for the guidance of food authorities to help bring about more even enforcement standards, rather than for the courts or for the industry as some noble Lords may have assumed. Of course we do not intend to allow work on the codes of practice to delay the introduction of

817
the Bill's provisions; but we also need to take account of the Audit Commission's study on the enforcement of food law.
On the vexed question of annulment procedure for regulations, which is a matter that is frequently raised in our discussions on legislation in this House, I should say that the procedure is already the norm in existing food legislation. It is also our normal practice to undertake public consultation on the regulations before presenting them to Parliament. This is provided for in Clause 26(1) of the Bill. Moreover, on deciding upon this approach we have had regard to the first special report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in relation to the affirmative resolution procedure. The report which was published in 1973 dealt with the possibility of rationalising the numerous kinds of parliamentary control for statutory instruments currently in existence and outlined where the affirmative resolution procedure was normally appropriate. The report also said that the most sensible approach is that the negative procedure should generally be selected unless the power is of a type which would normally require the affirmative procedure, or unless it is of the type over which Parliament has generally been content to relinquish any further control.
In this connection perhaps I may turn once again to Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland exercises responsibility for food safety and milk matters in Scotland as he does for agriculture and health. Regulations will normally be made jointly with other Ministers under the Bill, but provision exists for the Secretary of State to make regulations or orders when necessary specifically for Scotland, although we anticipate that this will be the exception.
Many interesting points were raised this evening but I feel that time is running out. However, I wish to refer specifically to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Lyell in relation to the famous case of Donaghue v. Stevenson. I can reassure him that Clause 8 will cover the sale of food not complying with food safety requirements. It will deal with cases of extraneous matter in food making the food unsafe, or otherwise unacceptable. This was of course the subject at issue in the stated case.
That leads me to the point raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, on a matter of considerable importance to numerous charities. If food is sold, and causes food poisoning, it is covered by the law now. We shall not be changing the position of charities in that respect. It is, and will remain, an offence for anyone to sell unfit food, but under the Bill we say the registration, for example, will cover commercial and permanent food businesses. That will not apply to most charities or voluntary organisations.
It was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that the Bill is too narrow and covers only food safety and not nutrition and other important matters. The Government are keenly aware of the need for the public to have sound dietary advice and information. The Chief Medical Officer's Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy provides scientific advice on nutrition, diet and health. We are committed to translating that advice into nutrition
818
education for health professionals and the public, but we believe that that is a matter for advice and not legislation.
As my noble friend Lord Hives said, it is not the Government's business to tell people what to eat but to ensure that a good supply of safe food is available. On that note I conclude by asking 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.

Cambodia
8.11 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will use all available means to draw the attention of the United Nations and other international bodies to the plight of the people of Cambodia.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the plight of the people of Cambodia over the past one and a half decades has been gruesomely appalling. It is no mean undertaking merely to read through the large amount of documentation about Cambodia. It leaves one with a feeling of shock, horror and shame. I should like to pay my respects to Mr. John Pilger and Mr. David Monro, who did so much practical research and related their experiences of what had gone on in Cambodia. I should also like to thank the Foundation for International Security for its Cambodia Briefing and its detailed research.
A renowned British journalist, John Pilger is a world traveller who specialises in visiting places of uncertainty and upheaval. He has declared that he has seen nothing to compare with what he saw in Cambodia in the aftermath of Pol Pot's Communist terror. A correspondent of The Times at the liberation of the Nazi death camp at Belsen described what he witnessed as something beyond the imagination of mankind to describe. Pilger felt that what he saw in Cambodia following the Pol Pot terror in 1979 was the same, and in some respects worse.
Many of us who saw the bestiality of Nazi terror can understand the revulsion of people like Pilger who were in Cambodia over a decade ago and who saw so much. The shameful agony is that it is still going on. We are doing nothing. Nay, perhaps because of inaction, we are shutting our eyes to a south east Asian holocaust. We might have had the excuse that we did not know what the Nazis were doing, but we cannot say we do not know what the Pol Pot Communists are doing in the most revolting manner imaginable.
Pilger explains how on 17th April 1975 he saw the devastation at the international airport at Phnom Penh—beaconless runways, deserted control tower, and pyramids of rusting cars, ambulances, fire engines, police cars, refrigerators, washing-machines, television sets, telephones, and hair-dryers, all abandoned. What is most terrible is the condition of the rice paddies and fields which were overgrown by tall grass, forest and mangrove.
At the edge of towns, grass grows in straight lines, having been fertilised by human compost —the remains of thousands upon thousands of Cambodian men, women and children. Those lines marked common graves in a nation where it is acknowledged that 2 million people are "missing". They are the victims of the victory of the Khmer Rouge —the Pol Pot Communist killers —which planned all that deliberately.
From 1979, anyone who owned cars or similar luxuries in city or town, or had a basic education, or a modern skill, such as nurses, teachers, engineers, tradespeople or students, or those who worked for foreigners —clerks, travel agents and journalists—were in danger, many under a sentence of death. Thousands were slain.
In this country of ours it is difficult for us to try to imagine that in Cambodia a Royal Ballet company of 500 dancers was attacked by Pol Pot's killers and only a few dozen survived.
The evil ideology of the Khmer Rouge was based on the so-called revolution unleashed by Mao Tse-tung and the savagery of the Pol Pot regime was based on the return of a docile peasantry; in other words, total slavery. That meant no families, no sentiment, no love or grief, no medicine, no hospitals, no schools, no learning, no books, no holidays, no music, no post, only work and death. It was a literal hell on earth.
The current situation in Cambodia underlines the uselessness of the United Nations, and is a condemnation of the United Nations. The Western world seems hardly interested despite the United States action which started the genocide long before Pol Pot. One must face those facts so that they are not repeated. For example, in six months during 1973 more American bombs were dropped on Cambodia than were dropped by the Americans in Japan in World War Two. They were the equivalent of five Hiroshimas. All that horror and terror preceded Pol Pot. There seems little doubt —this is the wonderful thing about the great democracies; when they do evil they disclose it —that the documents which have been released recently by the United States Government under their Freedom of Information Act reveal that President Nixon and Mr. Henry Kissinger ordered the illegal bombing of a neutral country and provided the inferno and catalyst which gave rise to Pol Pot who then brought about, as I have said, the South East Asian holocaust. However, at that time, as the Americans have now revealed, the American people knew nothing of what had been going on.
The British Government have shown the correct attitude, although there are some faults which I shall explain later. Our Government's policy is the right one. They want a soveriegn and independent Cambodia. However, it was disappointing that the Paris Conference failed. The Government acknowledge that the Khmer Rouge is the source of all atrocities in Cambodia, and it will continue to be unless we consult our friends. I understand that the Government intend to do that to try to put an end to all that horror. What is disturbing, and what I
820
cannot understand—perhaps the Minister will explain —is why the Government voted in the United Nations to legitimise the present Cambodian regime which is as murderous as Hitler and Stalin were and is under the close control of Pol Pot. I hope that the Minister will explain that. The United Nations vote for Pol Pot denied Cambodia any assistance from the great international bodies. We have to face the fact that Prince Sihanouk is equally useless and is a bit of a sham. At the World Health Assembly the British delegate voted for Pol Pot's man to take over the Cambodian Seat. That meant that the resources of the world Health Organisation were denied to Cambodia.
Quite recently a letter was sent to our Prime Minister, to President Bush and to President Mitterrand protesting loudly at the appalling behaviour of the Western world. It was signed by some Members of this House, by many Members of the House of Commons and by people with very well-known names like Leonard Cheshire, VC, OM, the right honourable Neil Kinnock, Sir Yehudi Menuhin and Peter Ustinov. I believe that that must mean that people of all professions, as well as ordinary folk, are greatly disturbed as to what is going on.
This terrible story of the agony of Cambodia is made worse by the apparent international muddle. I hope that the Government will acknowledge this. I do not believe that they are entirely to blame; I think that they might have done their best in the circumstances. But they too have had to face international muddle. They must not contribute to it.
I felt very proud that it was Australia which demanded that the United Nations should run a transitional government in Cambodia until free elections were held. The Australians are not backward in coming forward and condemning the United Nations. They are now demanding that the United Nations, with the support of everyone, both military and otherwise, should see that a government is established in Cambodia and that Pol Pot and his hangers-on should be turfed out.
I hope that our Government, everybody in this House and the other place and, I am sure, the people of our country will support the Australians in their demand to the United Nations. I also hope that our Government will officially support the Australian proposal. It is meant to bring relief to the people of Cambodia, to help them on the road to freedom and relief from murder.
I conclude with these words. I find it remarkable that people can suffer so much who never had a chance from the moment they were born to enjoy freedom. They have always been terrified of possible murder; they have never been totally free from hunger. I believe that the civilised people of our world should demand that this must stop. The civilised nations of the world must now stand together, firm and determined to rid Cambodia of the bestial people who exist there under all kinds of pretences. They are still there; there are still the evil people used by Pol Pot. The Cambodian people have been the victims of one of the most horrible regimes in the history of mankind.
I hope that our Government will take a lead and join with the Australians and the British Commonwealth to command the United Nations to see that this is brought to an end. Then the Cambodian people can be given an opportunity to rule themselves, to build their nation and to come to love their nation as we in this House love ours.
8.24 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for what he said. I endorse every word of it and perhaps I might just as well sit down and have done with it. However I shall add one or two points because I have been to Cambodia on several occasions.
The first thing to remember is that this is a very old civilisation. There were 600 years of high civilisation before the renaissance in Europe even started. There were buildings which were held in great admiration by the Chinese and which are still visited by many people. They were of a high degree of art and quality which nobody should underestimate. There was a very well developed religion which was drawn from India: the people were mostly Buddhists but some were Hindus. The Hindus are very well suited to ceremonial occasions.
The country extended over the whole of Laos, Vietnam and probably most of Thailand. It was a civilisation of the utmost importance, of which we know little in this country. It is the descendants of those people whom we see today. It is interesting that if we ask them, they will say that they were always there. Probably they were not, but still they go back a very long way. They are not descended either from the Chinese, as are the Vietnamese, or from the Thais. They are a separate breed whose origin is surrounded in the utmost obscurity.
As I said, I agree with what the noble Lord said but wish to add one point. I take these words—because it amuses me to do so —from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It says that Pol Pot was the cruellest man in the history of the world. Let there be no illusion about it.
Perhaps I may go a little into his crimes. The noble Lord said that Pol Pot took things from Mao Tse Tung; he may have done, but it was a pretty original thought under communism—the extirpation of everybody who was educated. What is "educated"? Who is "educated"? I am told that things had gone so far that if a person had a pencil in his pocket it showed that possibly he could write. Accordingly he was due to be executed. What was the execution? I shall now tell you quite frankly what I was told. They buried the body up to the neck and then they stuck a dagger in its neck and the blood shot up to two or three feet. I repeat that as a story which has been told to me. Those are the kinds of ghastly events which happended on many occasions all over the country.
We must ask this question: what is the use of the United Nations? What is the use of any of these organisations if they cannot do something to help? Where are we to stand in the world? If people do this in one place, they will do it in another. We must make it clear that we as a country stand for
822
something which makes this utterly intolerable. We cannot expect civilisation to thrive in Europe and see it destroyed in Asia. We are one organisation of people and I ask the Government particularly to see what they can do to stop anything comparable ever happening again in that country.
The Cambodians have suffered, as the noble Lord said, from bombing from the Americans and from the invasion of the Vietnamese. Now it looks possible that after a conference in Paris at which nobody could agree. Pol Pot will walk back into power. Is this going to happen? How can we stand back and let it happen to these people with whom we had the friendliest relations and who have done absolutely nothing to deserve this treatment?
I ask this, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for raising it. Please tell us what the Government can do? I know it is difficult. I do not pretend that the Minister has an easy answer to give. He has not. But if civilisation is to last in this world we must put our minds to seeing how we can prevent such a thing happening. These are not aborigines, wild men. They are peaceful, quiet people. I must admit that in my contact with them I have found them charming and peaceful people. They have been exposed in this manner to utter brutality.
I do not know and I do not think anybody knows what the figures are. But it looks as if almost one-third of the whole population have been brutally murdered. I cannot speak to that and nobody else can, but those are the figures which have been made public. The Government should see that that is understood by the United Nations and that we are prepared to take action to prevent anything like this happening again.
I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord for his remarks. I have tried to express my views and I hope that the Government will try hard to put some worthwhile policy before us today.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, both the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, criticised the United Nations. But the United Nations after all is only the sum total of its members. It is up to us as members of the United Nations to move in the UN for changes in the policy of that organisation, and in particular the policy of recognition of the coalition, which is completely inconsistent with the policy that we follow everywhere else in the world. We did not stop recognising Czechoslovakia when Soviet tanks rolled into Prague. We did not cease to recognise Uganda when the troops of Tanzania liberated that country. We did not suddenly lose sight of Grenada when the Americans invaded it. However, I remember that on that occasion the Prime Minister said that one could not just walk into someone else's country. That is one of the few remarks she has ever made that I agree with. However, that invasion did not mean that we refused to recognise Grenada.
On the other hand, no one could deny that the people of Cambodia were much happier under the Vietnamese occupation than they would have been if Pol Pot had continued. Whatever the motives of the Vietnamese for that invasion, it brought the

823
killings to an end. I believe that we should thank the Vietnamese for having saved the people of Cambodia from an even worse fate than the one they suffered. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, described that fate.
The Vietnamese have now withdrawn. That is universally agreed. The Foreign Secretary and the State Department agree on that. I have no doubt that that can be confirmed without on-site verification by the United States satellite observations. So what is the argument for continuing to withhold recognition from the proper government in Phnom Penh? The Minister for Overseas Development said in another place on 13th November that we supported the resolution drafted by ASEAN on representation in the General Assembly because we believed it right to do so. That was the only explanation the Minister gave. However, she continued by saying that this did not imply that we regarded the coalition government of democratic Kampuchea as the rightful government of Cambodia, as a press notice issued by the UK delegation to the UN on 16th November had stated.
I hope that the Minister who is to reply will explain how an entity can have its credentials recognised as a member of the General Assembly when it is not a state. What kinds of entity in the Government's view are qualified to belong to the United Nations other than states? Can the Minister also tell the House why he thinks that approving the credentials of a person whose hands are stained with the blood of his fellow countrymen, for the representative is a well known associate of the mass murderer, Pol Pot —the noble Lord is aware of that —is likely to help the cause of peace in Cambodia?
Since 1980 United Kingdom policy is said to be that we recognise states and not governments. But the relationship which stems from that recognition is bound to be between governments. Cambodia is a state and we have to decide who governs that state, not whether we approve of them or not. It is not true to say, as the Minister did in the debate on Cambodia the other day in another place, that by reason of this policy we do not have to judge between competing claimants in circumstances of civil war or conflict. We are doing it all the time. There are civil wars in Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and in El Salvador. In every one of these cases we pick the obvious side —that is the side which occupies the capital, or at least most of it in the case of El Salvador, and the side which controls the broadcasting facilities, which administers the larger slice of territory and which controls the national armed forces. Only in the case of Cambodia have we violated those rules for reasons of geopolitics.
Our policy is dangerous because it destabilises the situation in Cambodia and throughout the whole region and helps to create the anarchy which might, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, explained, enable the infamous Pol Pot to return to power. I certainly hope we shall not be given any lectures about following the lead of ASEAN in this matter. One does not think of Indonesia, Singapore or Brunei as being among the world's foremost exponents of democracy. I wish that the mighty force of popular
824
will which is now being manifested in the German Democratic Republic, the Baltic republics, Moldavia and Czechoslovakia had also prevailed in those autocracies. But in the meanwhile let us use some common sense.
The CCDK is dominated by the Khmer Rouge and if the civil war ended in a victory for the rebels they would no doubt eradicate Prince Sihanouk on whom naive Westerners such as Mr. Waldegrave pin their hopes. If there are further peace talks, however, the Prince will continue to act as a ventriloquist's dummy for the Chinese, and their policy has so far always been to back the Khmer Rouge up to the hilt. Either way then support for the coalition means support for the murderers and torturers who massacred as many as 2 million of their fellow countrymen according to some estimates.
The Government claim that they share the universal horror felt about the evil Pol Pot regime. I am sure that is true. But the Prime Minister has said that some parts of the Khmer Rouge constitute a "much, much more reasonable grouping" than Pol Pot's supporters, and that they "would have a part to play in a future government". It is as if one had said after the last war that some factions in the Nazi party were much more reasonable than the hard core followers of Mr. Hitler and if they had only been accomplices and not actual participants in the extermination of 5 million Jews we should now welcome their active role in the government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The Government have been challenged on several occasions to give the names of these reasonable persons and have failed to identify a single one of them. Once again I ask the Minister this evening to say who they are if he can. In particular I would like to know whether they include Mr. Thioun Prasith as one of those whom the Prime Minister envisages as being part of a future Cambodian government. He is the person whose seating at the UN we voted for. He was also, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has reminded us, a top official under Pol Pot, one of whose jobs was to lure exiled intellectuals back to Cambodia so that they could be murdered there.
The Government must also realise that aid for any of the so-called non-communist groups means aid for the Khmer Rouge. The aid we give is for the assistance of refugees in the frontier areas who are under the control of the forces in rebellion against the Phnom Penh government. The Khmer Rouge is the largest and most powerful of the groups in military terms. Any help given to other members of the coalition frees resources which are used to bolster the Khmer Rouge itself. As Evans and Rowley said in their Red Brotherhood at War.
"although food aid across the border undoubtedly saved thousands of lives, one of its major consequences was the political revitalisation of the Pol Pot forces".
But it appears that the Government have also been giving military aid to the anti-government forces. Personally I believe the allegations which have been made by Mr. Robert Karniol in Jane's Defence Weekly and which are not denied by the Government that we had been training guerrillas at secret bases in Thailand and helping to create a 250-man sabotage battalion. Mr. Waldegrave shelters behind the rule

825
that governments do not comment on the special forces. So we promote terrorism secretly abroad while condemning it at home. The effect of this immoral policy again is to increase the chances that Pol Pot's reign of terror will be resumed.
First, we need a new policy on Cambodia to match the changes which are taking place everywhere else in the world. That country has been the victim of cold warriors in Beijing and Washington who saw the Vietnamese occupation as an extension of the Soviet sphere of influence in South-East Asia. But now Mr. Gorbachev is reducing the Soviet Union's external commitments in Europe, Africa and Asia and as one of the consequences of that process the Vietnamese have withdrawn from Cambodia. This has removed the excuse the world might have had for boycotting the Hen Sun regime and the first step should be recognition. I know that the noble Lord who is to reply has no power to agree to this but will he at least tell the House whether the British envoy whom we were going to send to Phnom Penh has left yet or, if not, when he will leave? Will he also consider whether we should not make his stay there permanent in the role of a British interests section in one of the foreign embassies in Phnom Penh such as the Indian Embassy so that we can at least have a permanent presence there as we do even in countries such as Iran and Libya where there are British interest sections in other embassies?
Secondly, we should take the lead in raising the blockade of Cambodia which has caused immense suffering to the people of that country and helped the forces of Pol Pot politically. Why is it, I wonder, that in the context of South Africa the Tories assert vehemently that sanctions never work yet in the case of Cambodia they have continued to use this means of promoting a political settlement?
Thirdly, we must ask the Americans and Chinese to stop arming the rebels. There cannot be free and fair elections so long as the civil war continues and the flames of conflict are being fanned by foreign intervention. We hypocritically condemn the Vietnamese while at the same time we are accomplices in the violation of Cambodia's territorial integrity by our own allies.
Fourthly, we should help to achieve a ceasefire, accompanied by liberalisation of the constitution, so as to allow opposition groups the political space in which they can function properly. As has been said, it was indeed a courageous decision of the French to convene an international conference in an attempt to reach a political solution, including an international control mechanism. But that meeting gave the Khmer Rouge undeserved legitimacy by treating them as equal to the other groups which have not included mass murder in their programmes.
I suggest that another attempt be made, this time under the auspices of the Secretary General of the United Nations, to bring together the Hun Sen government and the two other factions. I would further propose that if an interim administration can be formed to include those opposition groups —the non-mass murdering opposition groups —the international community should then give Cambodia military assistance to eliminate the Khmer Rouge. This would surely be more consistent
826
than the Government's policy of saying they are not supporting the Khmer Rouge, yet at the same time that moderate murderers should be let into the government.
Finally, we have to consider the position of some 300,000 refugees living in so-called civilian camps along the border with Thailand and another 50,000 in the so-called "hidden border", the name given to the explicitly militarised camps. The Khmer Rouge are said to control something like 50,000 of those, plus four civilian camps with another 50,000 inhabitants, although the number of combatants is much smaller than that, perhaps no more that 20,000. Frank Judd and Tony Jackson of Oxfam were in Site 8, one of the Khmer Rouge camps, at the beginning of last month, and they reported military activity there as well as the diversion of UN food aid to the Khmer Rouge terrorists. Then there are two camps, including the biggest, Site 2, with 160,000 inhabitants under the control of Son Sann's Kampuchean National Liberation Front, and one under Prince Sihanouk.
The Chinese and the Americans have been pouring arms into the Khmer Rouge as well as food and medicines, and that is how they manage to dominate the coalition and threaten the people of Cambodia with another genocide. Son Sann and Prince Sihanouk are pathetic marionettes, though perhaps they could be brought to life if the outside world gave a firm commitment to the eradication of the Khmer Rouge mass murderers.
In the past the Thai Government turned a blind eye to Chinese military intervention in Cambodia as their half of a bargain. The return for that was that the Chinese refrained from supporting communist subversion in Thailand itself. Thailand had traditionally seen Cambodia as a potential enemy.
But now there is a new situation because the Prime Minister of Thailand has been moving towards an accommodation with Pnomh Penh. Mr. Chatichai was to have visited Washington in November and he has signalled that he would propose a concilatory approach to Vietnam. He suggests that Son Sann and Prince Sihanouk be invited to open peace talks with Hun Sen, thus isolating the Khmer Rouge. That was said to be opposed by the Thai Foreign Minister and elements of the Thai military, who have been doing extremely well by facilitating the transfer of armaments through Thai territory to the Khmer Rouge.
However, Mr. Chatichai also stales that the Chinese endorse the step-by-step approach to peace. If this is really so it transforms the situation since it could open the way towards severing the arteries of subversion which flow down through Thailand to Cambodia. With co-operation between Thailand and China, UN observers could be stationed on the border and the camps totally demilitarised. There could even be the substantial UN peacekeeping force which Prince Sihanouk predicated as an essential condition for him to abandon his alliance with the Khmer Rouge. I recognise that we are unlikely to aim at that result, caught as we are in this country in the time warp of US cold war policies aimed at containing Soviet expansionism and gaining revenge

827
on Vietnam for the defeat it inflicted on the United States.
Unless there is a radical change of policy in Britain and the rest of Europe, however, there is a real danger of a return by Pol Pot and his psychopathic killers. They have already occupied the important town of Pailin and are approaching Battambang, the second largest city in Cambodia. The fear they engender may trigger off new waves of refugees crossing the border into Vietnam and thus stimulating even larger numbers of Vietnamese into leaving for Hong Kong. By refusing a single penny of aid to the de facto government, by giving, on the contrary, both civil and military aid to the coalition and by continuing to insist on a comprehensive solution to the Cambodian problem, we have helped to bring this situation about, and if we do not change our policy now the blood of the people of Cambodia will be on our hands.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I feel in somewhat of a difficulty because he has expressed so well nearly all the points that I had meant to make. I should like to emphasise one of the last points that he made. If the Khmer Rouge make further progress, there will be a flow of refugees into Vietnam and the economic situation there will become worse. There are at the moment something in the region of 50,000 so-called economic refugees in Hong Kong, and we appear in the eyes of the world to be extremely unpopular in suggesting that they be forcibly repatriated. The problem will be a lot worse if the Khmer Rouge step up their activities inside Cambodia.
One point I should like to make to the noble Lord is that this cause is one that is felt by the whole of the British people. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain was able to say about Czechoslovakia, "Oh, it is a far away country about which we know little", with the disastrous consequences that that had because he gave that as the reason for our failure to go to its aid. However the world has shrunk, and nearly every living-room in this country knows about Cambodia. Those who go to the movies have seen David Puttnam's magnificent film "The Killing Fields", so they know what it is all about.
Yesterday we had a most moving and eloquent debate about the fate of Nazi war criminals in this country who were involved in the holocaust of 1939–45. The major culprits of that holocaust were dealt with at Nuremberg and other show trials. Hitler himself, we think, met his end in the bunker in Berlin. But in Cambodia 1 million people —possibly 2 million people —were killed out of a population of 10 million or so. The proportion of the population thought to have died varies because there are no figures about the numbers of deaths. It is the equivalent of something like from 8 million to 10 million Britons, or from 10 million to 12 million Germans, or from 30 million to 40 million Russians in proportion to their populations.
The perpetrator of those deaths, Pol Pot, is not only unpunished but lives in comfort in Peking or
828
Thailand, where he has had operations for stones in his kidney, I believe, or other problems that he might have. At the moment I believe that he is actually inside Cambodia, having organised the capture of Pailin. His cronies —I cannot think of a better word for them —form the dominant part of the coalition government that represents Cambodia at the United Nations. As John Pilger has asked: how would we feel if Hitler had not been killed and, while being driven out of Germany, was still representing Germany at the United Nations?
I have not been inside Cambodia, but I have talked at length with others who have. I have twice visited refugee camps just inside Thailand on the Cambodian border. Those camps are supported by either the United Nations High Commission for Refugees or by the United Nations Border Relief Organisation at little or no cost to the Thais; in fact, they are supported at our cost.
The public face which visitors such as myself are shown is very different from the reality. As well as the open camps which can be visited, which are not all that wonderful but some of which are rather well organised and contain a majority of women and children, there are military camps containing irregular troops, the Khmer Rouge being the most numerous, but also the other two factions, one of which I believe we have aided in military training. They all receive arms by a secret route, mainly from China. Nobody denies that. They have made incursions into Cambodia from the camps and are doing so in an increasingly daring way now that the Vietnamese have left.
In John Pilger's film we saw how the Khmer Rouge irregulars raided a village and stole its one, much needed, tractor. Inside Cambodia, in the past 10 years since Pol Pot was driven out by Vietnam, the Hun Sen Government has slowly tried to pick up the pieces. Considering the almost total lack of aid, certainly of official United Nations development aid, they have done remarkably well; but poverty and backwardness are immense, as the John Pilger film showed us. While not elected by ballot, the government have general support and have grown in popularity. They comprise representatives from a wide section of society, including conservatives and members of the former aristocracy. Most families in Cambodia have lost a number of relatives. Even Prince Sihanouk himself has said that he has lost 30 in the Pol Pot era from 1975 to 1979. So Pol Pot and his group are very much feared, and the Hun Sen Government will not agree to any possible interim solution which allows the Khmer Rouge to form part of the holding operation.
As an instance of how humane the government are, Jim Lester, the Conservative Member for Broxtowe, who has spent several weeks on a number of occasions in Cambodia, said:
"Pagodas are being rebuilt and pagoda education is beginning again —hardly the action of a Stalinist Communist government".
This is a de facto government with which we should do business. Certainly, we should at least begin to bring in technical aid. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, Prime Minister Chatichai of Thailand has begun a dialogue with Hun Sen stating

829
that his aim is to turn battlefields into market places as part of his "small steps" policy.
We must ask whether the senior Foreign Office official who, with an ODA staff member, is about to visit Phnom Penh will go. I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, here. There was a rumour last week that the mission had been stopped by influence from Washington. What is it, now that the Vietnamese army has withdrawn, that stops us opening up aid and trade, if not yet perhaps conferring diplomatic recognition, with the present government of Cambodia? I suggest that at least to date —and things are changing every week —it is because we do not dare act in defiance of an unwritten edict from an unholy alliance of China and the United States that Vietnam must be punished. China resents their hegemony over South-East Asia being intruded upon by Vietnam. As the noble Lord said, the United States is still smarting from its defeat in Vietnam in 1975.
Until now, China has supported all the members of the so-called coalition, but particularly the Khmer Rouge, which has shown no sign at all that its beliefs have changed in the past 10 years. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that that is the case. I hope that he can perhaps provide some evidence that they have changed, but I have not seen any. As my noble friend said, the Pol Pot regime was a macabre version of the cultural revolution in China.
The Minister will probably deny that our actions are in any way influenced either by China or the position in Hong Kong, 1997, or secret undertakings with the United States. However, many will agree with the 18 distinguished Oxford academics who wrote a joint letter to the Guardian on 30th November which stated:
"As one member of the UN Security Council untainted by historical or colonial ties with Cambodia, Britain is in a unique position to effect a catalytic change in current Western policy…it is still possible to chart a new course in British policy towards Cambodia. At the very least, we should press Britain to emulate Sweden's recent move at the UN and disassociate herself entirely from support for the opposition 'Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea' (CGDK), nominally led by Prince Sihanouk which is, in fact, a cloak for Khmer Rouge".
Prince Sihanouk is a prisoner of the Khmer Rouge and has written an autobiography with that title. The academics went on to say:
"Whatever little we can do as individuals must be done. Time is running out for the Cambodian people. We must act now to prevent a return to the insanity of year Zero and the Killing Fields".
A similar sentiment was expressed in the open letter to the Independent of the the same day from 60 distinguished people, some of whose names have been read out. Their letter was addressed to our Prime Minister, the President of the United States and President Mitterrand of France. Its final paragraph states:
"Our countries, all three linked with Southeast Asia by the weight of history, and how heavy that is, have the duty to give Cambodia the urgent assistance that alone can safeguard it".
8.58 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on his initiative in raising the debate tonight. Although
830
few of us on both sides of the House have been involved, all those who have spoken so far have shown their deep interest in the subject. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the skilful and emotive way in which he spelled out to us the appalling actions of the Khmer Rouge over such a long period of time and the dangers involved in allowing them to come back to govern Cambodia again, whether on their own or as part of another government.
I know Cambodia quite well. I have known it for over 25 years. Like my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I had the privilege and the luck to see some of the ancient civilisation in Cambodia in that I visited and spent some time in the ruins of Angkor back in the 1960s and visited the country on many occasions. I knew Prince Sihanouk and saw Cambodia when it was governed by him and a very happy, contented place it was in spite of the fighting that went on in the surrounding countries. I also knew Lon Nol after the fall of Prince Sihanouk. I was with Lon Nol in Phnom Penh when the city was surrounded by Khmer Rouge, carrying out the same task as my noble friend who will reply to the debate as Minister in the Foreign Office responsible for our relations with Cambodia. Such was the battle that was going on at the time in Phnom Penh that we could not move outside the boundaries of the city. While I was there my wife spent most of her time visiting the wounded in hospital. So I know a little about the background of the Cambodian fighting.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken this evening I share the horror and shock at the massacres which have taken place at the hands of the Khmer Rouge murderers led by Pol Pot. There is nothing further that I wish to add this evening. We have had quite a long debate and wish to hear the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and to my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I agree with many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I agree not with everything but a great deal of what he said.
I think all noble Lords were affected, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, commented, by the debate in this Chamber on the subject of war crimes which took place during the last world war, a debate that most of us attended. The horrors in Cambodia quite outweigh those which took place in Western Europe 45 years ago. I was in Europe at the end of the war. I saw Belsen. I saw the camp which I visited just after the war finished. I saw what Hitler and the Nazis had done. But the record of what Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge have done in Cambodia is as bad if not worse than that of the Nazi regime 45 to 50 years ago.
There is no quick solution. I believe that most noble Lords recognise that a coalition led by Prince Sihanouk and a mixed bag of people who have particular interests, none of them in line with the Khmer Rouge, cannot solve the problem. We tried it with the support of ASEAN and with negotiations in Paris but it has failed.
As was indicated by other noble Lords this afternoon, the time has come for my noble friend the Minister of State and the Government to think again very carefully. We cannot continue to be

831
perceived to be supporting a Pol Pot-led Khmer Rouge operation in Cambodia. Rightly or wrongly that is how we are perceived at the moment. I realise that Her Majesty's Government, to their great credit, have already signalled a move away from the policies that we have conducted over the past couple of years. The Government appear to have stressed the need for aid to Cambodians in Cambodia as well as to refugees on the border. That is a great step forward.
Secondly, they are now at last putting a question mark over the issue of UN accreditation of the Khmer Rouge, although I share the views of other noble Lords who are bewildered as to why Her Majesty's Government voted as they did at the United Nations earlier this autumn. Thirdly, we appear to be the first Western country to have undertaken to dispatch a diplomat and an ODA official, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others earlier in the debate. I also should like to hear that that mission is now going ahead.
At the end of October 1989 in a leading article The Times said:
"There is a case for short-circuiting the niceties of diplomacy, and recognising the Phnom Penh regime without waiting for a comprehensive political solution. Mr. Hun Sen's government is not a pleasant one. It holds political prisoners and has little time for free speech and multi-party politics. But it has begun religious and economic reforms, encouraging private businesses and allowing farmers to own their land. It has adopted a policy of non-alignment, and it would no longer be accurate to dismiss Mr. Hun Sen as Hanoi's puppet".
By giving careful consideration and thought to recognising and supporting the present regime which is now in Phnom Pen, it seems to me that there is now a case for us to start putting in aid to stimulate the economy of Cambodia and to deprive the Khmer Rouge of the ability to murder the population of Cambodia for a second time. I hope that my noble friend the Minister of State who is responsible under the Secretary of State for our policy toward Cambodia will indeed think again.
9.5 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, as all previous speakers have said, I too am very grateful to my noble friend for having introduced this extremely important subject and for having done so in his usual very robust fashion. There is no doubt that it is an unusually opportune moment to choose, as Britain's policy over Cambodia has for some time been questionable and lately has even been seen as indefensible. My noble friend and other noble Lords have described the situation. There is very little that I can add. They have highlighted the fear of a return to power of the Khmer Rouge and have stressed the need for Britain and other countries to challenge the right of the so-called coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea to a seat in the United Nations. That is of the most urgent importance.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I believe that the fact that Hun Sen's Phnom Penh government was previously backed by Vietnam should not disqualify it from being judged objectively at the present time. It is important to understand the full extent of the Khmer Rouge
832
strength, lodged as it is in the legal, political, diplomatic and military framework of the country.
For instance, from a legal point of view, since 1975 the Khmer Rouge have held legal title to the United Nations' seat as Democratic Kampuchea, which is the name given to the country by the Khmer Rouge. But, from a political point of view, the key coalition activity is foreign affairs. The coalition's foreign minister is the Khmer Rouge leader who, as head of state of Democratic Kampuchea from 1976–1978, presided over the mass killings. The Khmer Rouge control coalition foreign policy. From a diplomatic point of view, all top coalition ambassadors are Khmer Rouge appointees. The coalition ambassador to the UN was a top Khmer Rouge official during the killing fields years. So the Khmer Rouge control coalition diplomacy.
Finally, from a military point of view, the Khmer Rouge have by far the strongest armed forces in the coalition. Those are tangible facts. They should be kept very much in mind when considering our attitude to the situation in Cambodia. Allowing this coalition to sit at the UN adds a macabre twist to the tragedy of Cambodia. The occupation of that seat enables the killers, the Khmer Rouge, to represent their victims and to give themselves a direct say in the future of the country that they themselves have devastated. It also prevents the United Nations from undertaking a peace-keeping role and places the UN in the invidious role of supporting Khmer Rouge forces in the border camps —a situation that has been confirmed by aid organisations such as Oxfam.
Incredibly, bodies such as the UN seem either ignorant or indifferent to the Khmer Rouge hegemony within the coalition. That was reflected in the resolution debated on 16th and 17th November, which talked of the "continued and effective struggle" of the forces under the "leadership" of Prince Sihanouk and endorsed the so-called "coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea" by 124 votes to 17 with 12 abstentions. The British ambassador abstained and presumably was ordered not to speak. It is amazing to think that the opportunity was not taken by the British Government to press a position.
A press release was issued later stating that Her Majesty's Government had never given support to the Khmer Rouge and would do all in their power to prevent the Khmer Rouge returning. But surely that is contradicted by the Government's support for the Khmer Rouge dominated coalition.
It is right to point out that the European Parliament has raised its voice and has urged the 12 EC members and the United States to isolate the Khmer Rouge and to recognise the Cambodian Government. It has said that EC policy must be to re-establish the independence of the country and to remove Pol Pot. That was reported in the Guardian on 24th November. A strongly worded joint resolution included a statement deploring the fact the Western governments have refused to support the expulsion of Khmer Rouge representatives from the UN. The economic reforms and the political relaxation developed by those in power in Phnom

833
Penh in recent months are welcomed. There are many other very strongly worded resolutions in the paper.
Obviously the concern of the European Parliament is a major factor in persuading China to move away from its previous policy of unqualified support for the Khmer Rouge. This has been manifested in China's emerging support for the peace proposals put forward by the Prime Minister of Thailand. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, those involve a step by step solution to the conflict, an international body to monitor the ceasefire, renewed peace talks and a cessation of military aid to all parties. It would be useful to know whether the British Government will be backing these proposals.
As President of UNICEF, I should like to say a word about the human background to this cruel and intractable situation. First, the result of America's total embargo on Cambodia has been absolutely catastrophic. American pressure led to the Cambodian Government being excluded from the UN and its development fund, from the World Health Organisation and indeed from a host of other international bodies. Now British aid to Cambodia stands at £402,000 for the year 1988–89. This comprises £100,000 to FAO/World Food programmes and £250,000 to UNICEF programmes. Obviously, UNICEF is very pleased that the Government have given this modest sum. It has worked in Cambodia since the emergency in 1979. Of course we stress that the policy of Cambodia is one of universal free health care. But, as it has no money, no equipment, no medicine and no doctors, it cannot bring this policy into effect.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships two of the most horrifying statistics. UNICEF works mainly with women and children. During Pol Pot's regime, 190,000 children were orphaned or abandoned. Only 2 per cent. of rural populations have access to clean water. It is the poorest provision anywhere in the world. In 1980 the figures for child mortality were 330 per 1,000 live births. That again was the highest child mortality rate in the world. That is what Pol Pot left behind him. Happily, the figure is now down to 199 per 1,000 live births. Therefore the position has improved. But what a terrible thought that it might slip back if the situation reverted to what it was.
I conclude with some questions. I reiterate the question that all noble Lords have put to the Minister. It is to ask him to confirm that a diplomatic mission will take place. Can the Minister also say whether we shall be encouraging our European partners to send a similar delegation? Indeed, it is important to know whether our delegation will attend, because rumours indicate that it may not.
With reference to the concern expressed by aid agencies such as Oxfam about UN food aid being used to support Khmer Rouge troops, can the Minister say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to bring an immediate end to the practice? Can he say whether the Government will demand the establishment of neutral refugee camps, given the emerging evidence that many refugees are being held in Khmer Rouge camps against their will?
834
In view of Cambodia's urgent need for development aid, will the Government press the United Nations to send a development mission to Cambodia? Finally, given the fact that the Government now accept that Vietnam has withdrawn its troops, will they urge the United States and our European partners to remove all sanctions on Cambodia and Vietnam and to provide development aid to those countries? Does the Minister agree that a Khmer Rouge victory will result in a massive escalation in the number of refugees entering Hong Kong? That situation is already extremely precarious and could become even more grave.
There is unequivocal evidence to show that events are moving towards a repetition of the atrocities in Cambodia and have added new words to the world's political dictionary. The West, including this country, is missing important opportunities to isolate the Khmer Rouge, to avert the repetition of such a disaster and to do everything possible to bring about free elections in Cambodia. Surely we must not shirk such an important humanitarian issue. We look forward to hearing the Minister say that we will not do so.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the tragic situation in Cambodia, and the efforts of the international community to promote peace and stability there in order at long last to bring to an end the sufferings of the Cambodian people have rightly been a focus of concern in recent weeks. I am therefore also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for providing this opportunity for the House to debate this important question today. I am also grateful to him for agreeing to carry over the debate from the last Session. As he noted during our debate on the humble Address, the time is now right for us to take stock.
Before I turn to the current situation and the way ahead for Cambodia, noble Lords may find it helpful if I give a brief account of recent developments. Noble Lords may know that in July and August of this year my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary and I attended the International Peace Conference on Cambodia in Paris. The purpose of this conference was to put in place a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Cambodian problem. The conference made a good start and there were encouraging signs that a political settlement might be possible. All the nations participating in the conference accepted a framework for agreeing a ceasefire, the operation of an international control mechanism, an end to the supply of arms and foreign intervention in Cambodia, the return of displaced persons and refugees and the implementation of national reconciliation with the setting up of a quadripartite interim authority under the leadership of Prince Norodom Sihanouk.
Ultimately, however, the conference failed on the key issue of power sharing among the four Cambodian factions during the interim period between internationally supervised Vietnamese troop withdrawal and free and fair elections. It is,

835
of course, regrettable that those countries directly concerned —notably China, Vietnam and the USSR—failed to persuade the factions to compromise. But it is important to remember that the conference stands only suspended and can be reconvened when conditions are right. Meanwhile the French and Indonesian co-chairmen of the conference have undertaken to pursue consultations with participants in the conference.
Since the conference, the Vietnamese Government have claimed that it withdrew all its forces from Cambodia by its self-imposed deadline of 26th September. As I indicated in my written reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on 8th November, we accept that Vietnam has withdrawn its combat units from Cambodia. Withdrawal is an important and welcome step in the right direction. But the Vietnamese withdrawal remains unverified, and verification can take place only as part of a comprehensive political settlement, under UN supervision and control. Nor does our acceptance of the withdrawal of Vietnam's combat units absolve Vietnam of its duty to contribute to a political settlement.
We have no conclusive reports of the current military situation in Cambodia. But it is clear that the factions are engaged along the Thai border and that the resistance has taken up positions inside Cambodia. This makes it all the more important to bring the factions back to the negotiating table as soon as possible to prevent further suffering and bloodshed.
Our commitment to Cambodia has been strong and consistent. Our first priority has always been the restoration of peace and stability to a country torn apart by years of war. These are the only circumstances in which the people of Cambodia will be free to elect a government of their own choosing. Just as we made it clear that an end to Vietnam's military occupation of Cambodia was an essential step towards a neogitated settlement, so we still believe that there can be no solution to Cambodia's problems while interfactional war prolongs the country's misery. There can be no military answer to the country's difficulties.
The horror and disgust we all feel at the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge during the horrific rule of Pol Pot from 1975 to 1979 have come through fully in the passion with which noble Lords have spoken this evening. The Government share this outrage and passion. Our abhorrence of the murderous Pol Pot and his associates is clearly on record, as is our determination that there should be no place for these men in Cambodia's future. I am glad to re-affirm that now. We have no wish to see the Khmer Rouge return to power in Cambodia, and have never given, and will never give, support or assistance of any kind to the Khmer Rouge.
A comprehensive political settlement offers the most realistic route towards allowing the Cambodian people to decide their own future. But it requires compromise by all those directly involved. Above all, the Cambodian factions themselves must be brought to understand that they can never achieve
836
their aims on the battlefield, but only through negotiation. The supply of arms to the factions must cease, from whatever quarter they come. Vietnam must meet its responsibilities by helping to clear up the mess to which it has made so infamous a contribution. Those of us not directly involved in the conflict must continue to do what we can to encourage and support efforts towards peace, contributing ideas and practical help.
It is clear that the vast majority of the international community share this view. This year's UN General Assembly resolution on Cambodia attracted more support than ever before: we were among 79 co-sponsors; the resolution was adopted with a record majority of 124 countries in favour. It was a good resolution. It took account of the announced withdrawal of Vietnamese troops but did not ignore the fact that the former Vietnamese occupation was a major cause of the current situation in Cambodia. It made clear that a return to the abhorrent practices of the Khmer Rouge would be totally unacceptable. It gave wholehearted support to the principle of a comprehensive negotiated settlement over a military solution. And it paid tribute to the value of recent diplomatic efforts to achieve a breakthrough.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to our ambassador at the United Nations. He was not instructed to abstain in the General Assembly debate on Cambodia. On the contrary, we not only voted for the resolution but, as I have just mentioned, we were among its co-sponsors. Although we did not speak in the debate, we stood fully behind the EC president's statement which was made by France on behalf of all 12 member states. We endorsed that with a press statement following the debate. I shall be very happy to show the noble Baroness a copy of that statement, should she wish to see it.
Baroness Ewart Biggs: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can tell me on what date the debate and the statement were made?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the resolution was the United Nations resolution. The statement was made on 16th November.
There has been much discussion about the matter of Cambodia's seat at the United Nations. Noble Lords will know that for this year the issue was settled on 17th October when the General Assembly adopted, without a vote, the report of the UN's credentials committee for the forthcoming year. However, as my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development stated in another place on 13th November, we shall have to return to the question of who occupies Cambodia's seat at a future session of the United Nations.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred particularly to the occupation of the UN seat, and raised a number of legal and technical points of UN procedure. It is because of the complexities that there is the credentials committee of the UN on which we do not sit. Its recommendations are put before the UN membership each year. Since 1982 there has been no formal challenge; that is to say, no vote on this issue by the United Nations. I say

837
to my noble friend Lord Fanshawe that this is quite a separate issue to that of the resolution to which I have just referred.
However, our longstanding position on this legal and technical matter in no way implies readiness to deal with the coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea as a government, much less support the Khmer Rouge. Our UN representative makes our position clear each year when the General Assembly discusses the credentials committee's report. I should add —and say to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, particularly —that the occupation of Cambodia's UN seat by the CGDK does not prevent United Nations agencies from operating inside Cambodia and contributing to humanitarian relief there. UNICEF, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred, the world food programme and the UNHCR are all active inside Cambodia. A team from the UNDP has also produced a needs assessment study for Cambodia and hopes in due course to examine the situation inside Cambodia in more detail.
Now that the General Assembly debate has taken place, and with the authority conferred by the resolution, the international community must continue to look ahead for ways of restoring peace in Cambodia and of bringing relief to the suffering of a war torn people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Experienced people who have been there to try to witness what is happening think we are getting the worst of both worlds. There is help being provided for Cambodia, but it is being stolen by Pol Pot's lieutenants. That must be the worst of all possible worlds. Aid to the ordinary people is not reaching them. It is being used by their murderers.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the aid given to the camps on the border, to which I was about to refer. As I indicated in my Written Answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, we are making a practical commitment to Cambodia. We have already provided large amounts of humanitarian relief: £13.7 million since 1979 for the displaced Cambodians in camps along the Thai-Cambodian border. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that we have stipulated to the United Nations Border Relief Operation (UNBRO) that none of the funds we contribute for humanitarian relief to the civilian population of the camps along the border should go to the Khmer Rouge. UNBRO has assured us that this condition is observed. Of course the only failsafe way for us to guarantee that nothing we provide reaches the Khmer Rouge in any form would be to cut off our humanitarian relief altogether. I am sure that that is a move which would be advocated by very few people.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the letter addressed by Mr. Frank Judd and his colleagues from Oxfam to the Prime Minister in which he says that he actually saw food aid which was given by the United Nations in the possession of the Khmer Rouge in one of their camps?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I only hope —and I am assured by the United Nations —that it is not aid provided by the United Kingdom Government. That is the reassurance we have sought and received from the United Nations. As I say, the only way to guarantee that 100 per cent. would be to stop giving any aid on the border at all.
We also gave £750,000 last year for humanitarian assistance inside Cambodia. In addition, we are now committing a further £250,000 to UNICEF and we have invited the non-governmental organisations to submit proposals for further humanitarian projects in Cambodia under the joint funding scheme. As noble Lords said, we are backing this up with a visit to Cambodia by two British officials, one from our embassy in Bangkok and the other an ODA expert, who will see for themselves what scope there may be for a further expansion of our humanitarian aid programme and discuss the situation with aid workers there. I can assure noble Lords that those officials will be going inside Cambodia before the end of the year. I hope that that answers a number of the concerns expressed by noble Lords on that point.
As for a political settlement in Cambodia, ultimately it must be for the Cambodian people themselves to decide the form of their future government. There is clearly a role for an interim authority enjoying wide confidence, both in Cambodia and internationally, to bridge the gap between the end of military activity and the holding of fair and free elections. A number of suggestions for the composition of the authority have been made, including Prince Sihanouk's proposal for a quadripartite interim administration involving those Khmer Rouge figures which the other factions can accept but clearly not Pol Pot and his associates.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked who were these people. It is not for us or any other outsiders to draw up a list of which Khmer Rouge individuals the other factions might be able to work with. That is fundamentally for the Cambodians themselves to reach agreement on. That was the plan that was part of the Paris conference.
Great controversy surrounds the issue of what, if any, role the Khmer Rouge should play during the interim period. Let me state once again, if any doubts still persist, that we hold no brief for the Khmer Rouge. If the transition from war to peace and democratic elections can, in the judgment of those directly involved, be made without Khmer Rouge participation, we shall be the last to object. But it will not help Cambodia if some temporary solution is cobbled together which leaves the Khmer Rouge on the loose, with its arms supplies from China, its odious leadership intact and its hostility to the country and her people unabated.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and other noble Lords called eloquently for more international action to help Cambodia. I am glad to report that there are encouraging signs of renewed diplomatic activity and fresh ideas pointing towards reconciliation and compromise. The Thai Prime Minister, General Chatichai, has been pursuing helpful contacts with the Cambodian factions in an attempt to find

839
common ground as a basis for a return to the negotiating table.
Two other recent proposals are particularly promising. The Indonesian Foreign Minister has suggested an informal meeting within the framework of the Paris conference. We hope that any such meeting might make sufficient progress to justify reconvening the full Paris conference, which remains the most likely forum for agreement of a settlement in Cambodia. The second proposal, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, referred, for an interim administration in Cambodia controlled by the United Nations, has come from the Australian Foreign Minister. This is an ambitious idea, as the Australians themselves admit. But it is an attractive suggestion which we and others concerned for the restoration of peace in Cambodia have welcomed and believe is worth pursuing.
Britain will continue to play its full part in encouraging reconciliation and agreement between
840
the Cambodian factions. With our friends and partners we are convinced that a return to the negotiating table is becoming more urgent, both to bring the warfare inside Cambodia to an end and to secure long-term peace and stability. We are already pursuing this objective with our fellow permanent members of the Security Council and in the European Community, as well as in our bilateral contacts with those concerned.
The Cambodian people, like all others, have the right to determine their own future, and to be free from foreign domination and from fears of a return to the carnage and madness of the Pol Pot years. We shall continue to do all we can, and to support all efforts by others more closely involved, to bring those freedoms to the people of Cambodia.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before ten o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND STATUTORY RULES
  NORTHERN IRELAND STATUTORY RULES
  COMMONHOLD
  COMMONHOLD
  SPECTACLE SALES: MMC REFERENCE PROPOSAL
  SPECTACLE SALES: MMC REFERENCE PROPOSAL
  PRESBYOPIA
  PRESBYOPIA
  VAT: CIVIL PENALTY REGIME
  VAT: CIVIL PENALTY REGIME
  ACID HOUSE PARTIES: PENALTIES
  ACID HOUSE PARTIES: PENALTIES
  SPEED LIMITS: ENFORCEMENT
  SPEED LIMITS: ENFORCEMENT
  SECOND MURDERS
  SECOND MURDERS
  KOREA: DOG AND CAT WELFARE
  KOREA: DOG AND CAT WELFARE
  SILKWORM AND JERICHO MISSILES: CONTROL
  SILKWORM AND JERICHO MISSILES: CONTROL
  BOPHUTHATSWANA
  BOPHUTHATSWANA
  LIVE BIRTHS AND SURVIVAL AT LOW GESTATIONAL AGE, SCOTLAND
  LIVE BIRTHS AND SURVIVAL AT LOW GESTATIONAL AGE, SCOTLAND
  ANNEX H LIVE BIRTHS AND SURVIVAL AT LOW GESTATIONAL AGE
  ANNEX H LIVE BIRTHS AND SURVIVAL AT LOW GESTATIONAL AGE
  MINERAL FIBRE PRODUCTS: USE FOR INSULATION
  MINERAL FIBRE PRODUCTS: USE FOR INSULATION
  NOISE POLLUTION: CONTROL
  NOISE POLLUTION: CONTROL