Sitting of 21 July 1989

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

    Roads (Streatham)
    9.34 am
    Sir William Shelton: It is with great pleasure that I present a petition with more than 15,000 signatures collected in not many weeks in my constituency by an organisation called Streatham Against the Roads, which is also known as STAR. I congratulate that organisation and the people who signed the petition. It demonstrates a vast revulsion against road building. It is a movement by people to protect their homes and environment. As the petition shows, there are better ways of solving the traffic problem.
    The petition states:
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will reject any proposals from the Travers Morgan and Mott, Hay and Anderson Stage 26 Road Assessment Study Reports which will involve road-building or road-widening, and consider instead alternative solutions to the traffic problem, with particular emphasis on measures to deal with illegal parking, traffic management schemes and schemes to improve public transport.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Pensioners
  9.36 am
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have the pleasure to present two petitions from Grimsby relating to pensioners and the plight of pensioners. Society owes a fair deal to those who brought us through the hard times. They
  646
  should be rewarded in the better times, but the contrary has happened. The tie between pensions and earnings was cut in 1979, and pensioners have been left behind. Single pensioners are losing £ 11 a week and a couple are losing £17·50 a week because pensions were not uplifted.
  The petitions deal with the other problem under the new social security system that those with quite pathetically small occupational pensions are losing disproportionate amounts of benefit, which makes life a continuous struggle againt debt, something that they are experiencing for the first time and with great dismay. I have a small pile of letters testifying to that.
  The first petition was organised by Mrs. Dryden of Grimsby, and it states:
  The Humble Petition of the residents of Great Grimsby and District showeth that we the undersigned are concerned about the misery and deprivation forced on pensioners by the alterations in the benefit system which claw back any increase in their income from small occupational pensions.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House relax these rules to give pensioners a fair standard of living and that pensions should also be increased to the same end.
  That petition has 1,000 signatures.
  The second petition states:
  The Humble Petition of the undersigned Retirement Pensioners and others in Great Britain showeth that sections of the community in receipt of the state retirement pension are suffering hardship on account of the increase in the cost of living.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that the link between pensions and average earnings be restored, thus giving pensioners a standard of living sufficient to enable them to meet the full necessities of life.
  That petition has 100 signatures.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Pensioners
    BILL PRESENTED
      POLL TAX (ILLEGAL FORMS)
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Calum Macdonald, Mr. Frank Doran and Mrs. Maria Fyfe, presented a Bill to remove the requirement for community charge registration officers to collect the date of birth of adults registered for the community charge: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 24 July and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  9.39 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): It is unusual to be able to begin a debate with a statement that I believe every hon. Member will support: educating our young people to be alert to the dangers of drugs and alcohol, and to be able to resist them, is a necessary and important aspect of what our schools do today. But before addressing myself to the work schools are doing, and the way the Government are supporting them, I should like to take a moment to examine some of the reasons why good health education is so necessary.
  That I can do so in no more than a few moments is because the facts speak for themselves. Here are just a few. It has been estimated that three quarters of a million people in the United Kingdom may have a serious drink problem. In 1987, there were more than 40,000 convictions for drunkenness; nearly a quarter of all road accidents in 1987 involved people whose blood alcohol level was above the legal limit; it is estimated that more than 100,000 people die each year as a result of smoking tobacco, and that between 75,000 and 150,000 people misused notifiable drugs in 1986—probably as many again were misusing other drugs—and in 1987, it was estimated that up to 10,000 injecting drug users were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.
  That information relates to people of all ages. Let us look for a moment at some facts about young people. A survey of more than 18,000 young people in 1987 indicated that around 70 per cent. of fifth-year pupils had drunk at least one alcoholic drink during the previous week. The same survey showed that around 13 per cent. of young people reported that they had been offered cannabis or other drugs during their teens.
  I do not think that I need go on. That, in outline, is why we need good, effective health education, and why it is important that it should start in schools.
  But first, we must be clear on one point—health education alone cannot solve the problem. Schools cannot be expected to put right the ills of society all by themselves. Schools are, after all, a part of society as a whole; they do not function in isolation. Our young people are sharp enough to spot any conflicts between what they are being taught explicitly in schools and the messages that are tacitly conveyed by the way in which we behave and the actions we condone or admire in others. I am saying clearly that the schools cannot do it all. They have a key role, but it is incumbent on all of us to support them. We are all involved—parents and communities.
  Sir William Shelton: My hon. Friend mentioned the role of parents. Does he have plans to instruct parents on how they may best identify youngsters who are drinking or taking drugs?
  Mr. Butcher: In a few moments I shall be talking about a 10-point plan, which I have put together with the help of officials and advisers from various groups. In the middle of that plan, there is a statement about getting more information to parents. I believe entirely—if I am understanding my hon. Friend correctly—that, when getting awareness of the problem to parents, we have to be
  648
  very subtle and perceptive in how that is done. Getting information to parents is important and I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged by the fact that that is incorporated in the 10-point plan.
  I make no apology for prefacing my account of what the Department, and the schools, are doing to equip children with the knowledge, skills and attitudes that they will need to lead healthy lives with a plea to parents and others in positions of influence. They have a responsibility, too. If that means exercising some self-discipline, they should remember that that is no more than they are expecting of our young people.
  How can education help? Education can do a very great deal. Good, positive health education in schools can lay a firm foundation of knowledge, skills and attitudes which can help young people to lead healthier lives. I must stress that all three of those elements are crucial. Of course, young people need to know what the effects of drinking or taking drugs will be. But that is not enough. They also need the skills to enable them to act on that knowledge.
  However much young people know about the way drinking or drug taking muddles their thinking and slows down their reactions, and the long-term damage that it will do, they can still find it very hard to resist a skilful sales pitch, or a free offer from someone who may pose as a "friend". They need to know how to stand up to that sort of pressure without losing face among their friends. Of course, they need, too, to see good health in a positive way, not simply as an aggregation of "thou shalt nots". If they understand that staying healthy is something to enjoy, something that can unlock doors to other enjoyable activities, they are much more likely to go for it than if it seems to be nothing more than a series of prohibitions.
  So the emphasis in good health education is on the promotion of good health. Experience shows that it is very much more productive to stress activities that are beneficial and enjoyable than to issue doom-laden or scary warnings about forbidden ones. Indeed, that sort of approach in the classroom is a pretty effective way of making them that much more attractive.
  That, then, put very briefly, is what schools are aiming to do in their programmes of health education. The Government have given, and continue to give, very high priority to providing support and encouragement of good-quality, effective health education.
  I shall be looking in some detail at the role of the drug education co-ordinators, but I should also like to pay tribute to the many bodies throughout the country which are involved in that campaign. There are such organisations as the Life education centres, which have impressed many of us, and TACADE, which has given immense help to the co-ordinators and to those who are charged with making policy. I hope that, my having made contacts with those two organisations and, indeed, others, such as Re-Solv, they will continue to meet myself and others in the hope that we can continue with what I believe is a strongly developing consensus on the way in which we tackle the drug and alcohol abuse problem.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Those voluntary organisations are, of course, most useful, and there is an organisation funded by the Government called Alcohol Concern, which has also done enormously good work. However, is my hon. Friend aware that, at the end of July, it is still waiting to know what money it will get for this financial year?
  Mr. Butcher: I thank my hon. Friend for putting forward a timely reminder. I can reassure him that Alcohol Concern will have a response shortly.
  I shall turn now to the drug education co-ordinators and my Department's support for in-service training. We have, since 1986, provided through the education support grant arrangements funding for local education authorities' activities in relation to education about drugs. That has enabled local education authorities to put in place drugs education co-ordinators—usually seconded teachers—whose task it is to stimulate education about drugs in their areas, to help co-ordinate activities by the various local agencies involved, and to provide advice, training and updating for teachers and youth workers. To support that last activity, the Department has also given priority to providing grant support for in-service training about drugs.
  Since 1986, my Department has given grant on expenditure of more than £11·6 million under those schemes. We estimate that during that time training will have been provided for approaching 100,000 teachers, advisers and youth workers. An evaluation of the drugs education co-ordinators' work, which was undertaken for the Department by Southampton university, attests to their success in stimulating and supporting local activities and establishing effective local networks.
  We are now ready to build on that success. We recognised some time ago that it is unrealistic to limit the drugs education co-ordinators' work to illicit drugs and solvents alone. I have already made it clear that effective health education has, as its starting point, the promotion of generally positive attitudes towards health. The message is the same, whether we are talking about drugs, alcohol, AIDS or whatever. What it boils down to is, "Stay healthy, stay in control."
  We have therefore, decided that from next year we shall extend the coverage of both the education support grant and the LEA training grant scheme funding. In future, all aspects of health promotion activities within schools, colleges and the youth service will be eligible for grant. At the same time, we are increasing very substantially the amount of expenditure that can be supported. In 1990–91, we shall pay education support grant on £4 million of expenditure by LEAs, and a further £3 million of expenditure on in-service training can be supported by grant. That total of £7 million is fully £3·2 million higher—in cash terms—than the figure for the current year.
  Mr. John Bowis: Will some of the funds be directed at teachers to help to wean them off their drug dependency, particularly in terms of smoking? If not, it will be difficult for them to act as role models for children in schools and to get the message across.
  Mr. Butcher: I would not want to create the impression that the money is simply for supporting the activities of the co-ordinators, their salaries and associated costs or simply just for training. We have stated clearly that we must give more resources for the training of teachers. I shall not barge into the area into which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) invites me about the job of teachers as role models. I do not believe that they need any lecturing about that. We should be extremely satisfied that 99·9 per cent. of our teachers take that part of their job
  650
  seriously. I assure my hon. Friend that within the £7 million there will be room for spending on materials and on other support activities undertaken by the LEAs.
  As we receive the bids from the LEAs in the coming months they may well want to do more than simply have a more intensive programme for the training of teachers and support from the ESG. They may want to adopt their own policy regarding the problems in their localities and they may have their own opinions about how their local programmes should proceed. Flexibility is therefore built in. I know that that is not the main point raised by my hon. Friend, but I believe that it meets the central issue behind his question.
  I pay tribute to the drug education co-ordinators. I first came in contact with them just before Christmas and I immediately decided—I hope with their positive help and contentment—to chair workshops in which, together, we could examine the database and produce policy. I hope that the co-ordinators have been encouraged by the fact that the implementers of the measures outside are involved in the policy formation process. It is important that those who implement the measures and who seek to achieve the objectives day in, day out should feel that they can come to Whitehall and say directly to a Minister what they see going on outside and what they would like to see by way of policy initiatives.
  I met those co-ordinators yesterday, but, unfortunately, I was unable to chair the full meeting because I had to be in the House in the afternoon. They made a number of suggestions, including the need to update some of the curriculum material with reference to particular substances. I readily accepted that suggestion. My officials will brief me at the end of this debate on the further outcomes of that meeting and, if need be, I can report back to the House on them.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that a report from the cross-curricula working party on health education will be published in the summer and will cover the matters that we are discussing. When is the report likely to be published and what is its relationship to this debate? The Minister may intend to mention that report and I apologise if that is the case.
  Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating, and rightly so, another major aspect of this debate, which is what we say within the overt and hidden curriculum and across those curricula covering personal and social education. I shall deal with that point in a few moments.
  The work of the drug education co-ordinators with schools, and of course the work of the teachers themselves, is at the heart of our strategy on health education, but we are underpinning their activities in a number of ways—the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Right at the beginning of the Education Reform Act 1988—in section 1 of chapter 1 of part I—we have made it clear that the curriculum offered by schools must fulfil two basic requirements: it must promote
  "the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils"
  and it must prepare those pupils
  "for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
  That means that all schools must make sure that, either through the foundation subjects of the national curriculum or, if they so choose, by other means, young

  651
  people are given the knowledge, attitudes and skills they will need to lead healthy lives. The importance that we attach to this was reflected in my right hon. Friend's request to the National Curriculum Council to offer advice on the place of personal and social education, including health education, in the curriculum. In due course, the NCC will offer schools guidance on this. I shall try to answer the question from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about the timing of that proces later.
  Of course, many of the requirements relating to the foundation subjects will also contribute towards those broad objectives. For example, under the science curriculum, which all schools will start to teach this autumn, young people will learn, as appropriate for their age and level of understanding, about the effects of drugs on their bodies and their minds.
  The Department has also provided information and help for the schools in relation to particular topics. The booklet, "Drug Misuse and the Young", produced in 1985 as a guide to teachers and youth workers, has proved a valuable source of information and advice and we intend to update it shortly to take account of recent developments.
  The resource pack, "Your Choice for Life",—I have an example available—which incorporated a video and handbook for schools to use in teaching 14 to 16-year-olds about AIDS, was distributed to all schools with students in that age range in December 1987. Its use in schools is currently being evaluated by Bristol polytechnic for the Department. In the light of that evaluation, we shall be considering whether there is further support and help that the Department might provide to help schools get across the important messages that everyone needs to understand about HIV and AIDS.
  The Department has also supported the development of curriculum materials where a need has been identified. The substantial package tabled today of curriculum materials, entitled "Drugwise", was produced by TACADE and the Health Education Authority with funding from the Department and from the Scottish Health Education Group.
  The pack provides help for teachers in teaching about drugs, alcohol and other mood-altering substances. It includes learning materials, from which teachers can choose the most suitable approach for their pupils, and suggestions about tackling various issues connected with drugs; a curriculum guide to help those responsible for co-ordinating and organising curriculum content; and a training manual which can be used either in a workshop setting or by individuals. I am glad to be able to report that, since its publication at the end of 1986, more than 5,000 of these packs have been issued to secondary schools.
  The Department has also taken other opportunities to raise the awareness of schools, and of young people themselves, to issues relating to drug and alcohol abuse. As an example, a conference in February, organised by the Department with the support of the Scotch Whisky Association, brought together students, parents and teachers from 29 secondary schools to examine some of the reasons for alcohol abuse by young people, and to consider what might be done to counteract it. I was very impressed by the thoughtfulness with which the young
  652
  people who were there approached the topic; we took careful note of what they had to say, and we are lookinsz carefully at some of their suggestions.
  So far, I have spoken generally about drug and alcohol misuse; and I have explained that we believe that the most effective line that schools can take is to approach these issues within the context of an overall programme of health education, emphasising the positive benefits of a healthy lifestyle. Drug-specific, shock-horror approaches in the classroom really do not seem to work. But I do not believe that it is possible to address this general topic at the moment without mentioning one specific drug in particular. As hon. Members may surmise, that drug is, of course, crack.
  I do not need to tell this House how much of a problem crack is in the United States. We know all too well that it has spread in less than five years from being a little-used and little-known drug to one which is at the root of major problems in a substantial number of American cities. That must not happen here. We must learn all the lessons we can from the American experience and make sure, as much as we can, that it does not happen here.
  The all-party committee on drug misuse has, I understand, received a copy of a paper which has become known as the "Stutman lecture". I understand that in his capacity as chairman of that all-party committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) may wish to make a few observations on that. I emphasise that the lecture was candid and probably off the cuff. It was delivered in London in a positive and helpful frame of mind, which seems typically American in wanting to help the United Kingdom to share the American knowledge of this matter.
  Bearing in mind that it is not an academic paper—it is very much about the American experience—and that it is not an official document I feel that while others outside the House are discussing the document, we in the House should at least be able to refer to some of the observations made in it. Obviously, we have to stay close to our own advisers and produce our own policies. However, if only a fraction of what Mr. Stutman has said is applicable to this country, we should at least take the document seriously, as a part of the input to our policy formation process. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen the document, but if not, under the clear caveat I have given about it, I am perfectly happy to place a copy in the Library, if hon. Members feel that advisable.
  I turn now to some of the points made in the Stutman lecture of which we should be aware. Some may not have had much publicity in the context of crack, but, bearing in mind what I said earlier, that what we say and do in the classroom must be non-drug specific, we as legislators, opinion—formers and policy—makers must have a clear perception of what we are dealing with if we are to help those in the classroom in the best way possible and if we are to help the co-ordinators and the voluntary bodies and to act on the advice that they are giving us about the English approach to the American experience.
  Among other things, Mr. Stutman stated:
  "Crack … is a drug that affects females as much as males. In the United States of America about 80 per cent. of our heroin addicts are males and it has traditionally been that way. We are now finding in the United States that of all the crack addicts we have seen, about 50 per cent. of them are female. Now what does that mean if you live in a big city. It means very simply the following—that at least in the United States most inner cities families are matriarchal in nature—

  653
  they are run by women. These are the same women who here, before, had been fairly oblivious, not touched by the heroin epidemic. They are today becoming crack addicts. And, therefore, the last vestiges of family life in the inner city, certainly in New York and in most other major cities in the United States are beginning to disappear."
  Mr. Stutman then deals with child abuse and states:
  "child abuse cases in New York City have gone in 1986 from 2,200 reported cases to 1988, 8,000 reported cases. It has almost gone up by 400 per cent., almost all of them are the children of cocaine-crack-using parents … in New York City all of the children who died because of battering, child abuse, where parents literally beat their kids to death … 73 per cent. were the children of cocaine-crack-using parents. It is a drug that produces violence … In a survey of 17,000 crack users in the United States the 'Cocaine Hotline' is going to point out that:—47 per cent. of those crack users had actually been involved, this is all under the influence of crack, in a physical fight: 35 per cent. had been involved in assaults with weapons, 12 per cent. had been involved in child abuse and 1 per cent. had actually been involved in murders. That is a drug that, unlike any other drug that we have ever seen, produces those kind of numbers."
  There is a considerable debate in the United States and in this country about the methodology of addiction to that substance. I appreciate that the debate is intense and I offer no view of my own at this stage about who is correct. I should simply like to report the view of Mr. Stutman, who is a drug enforcement agency officer. He stated:
  "of all those people who try crack three times or more, 75 per cent. will become physically addicted at the end of the third time. It is pointed out now that in most treatment centres in New York City the average crack addict is addicted within five weeks of first use."
  More chillingly, the drug enforcement agency officer continues:
  "Right now in the United States of America every major treatment centre will agree with the following statement and, in fact, the New York Times recently did a survey in which they talked to the head of every major treatment centre in the United States. Right now in the United States crack is considered a virtually incurable addiction. Statistically, there are no treatment centres that will show any long-term remission of any statistically significant number of crack addicts … So it is considered an incurable addiction in our country and yet it is a drug that of those people who try it three times, 75 per cent. become addicted. You don't have to be a mathematician to figure out you've a hell of a problem when you've got a drug like that."
  I now come to the point about the lessons for us. Mr. Stutman states:
  "The New York City Police Department has 29,000 police officers, about the same as the Metropolitan Police of London. When crack first started, they had about 600 officers working full time on drugs. The New York City Police Department now has 2,700 full time drug officers, just in New York City. Last year the New York Police Department and DEA, in New York City … made 90,000 drug arrests. Last year in New York City our office, just the Drug Enforcement Administration in New York City seized 9,000 kilos of cocaine. … Now the next question is, did all of those seizures and all of those arrests make one bit of difference, and the answer is absolutely not. There is not one single corner in New York where you can't purchase crack or cocaine. Our mistake, in New York, was very simply the following. We didn't see the problem early enough and we didn't get a jump on it."
  So, with the generosity and candour that I referred to earlier, Mr. Stutman said to a British audience:
  "The only thing I would ask you is the following: learn from our mistakes. We have screwed up enough times to write 10,000 books, but I would hope all of you don't have to go through the same thing that we went through. Don't be like the people in Kansas, in Texas and california who said, 'It can't happen here.' I will make a prediction and as you all know about predictions in this business, you have got to be crazy to make them. I will personally guarantee you that two
  654
  years from now you will have a serious crack problem, because as the gentleman before me said, we are so saturated in the United States with cocaine, there ain't enough noses left to use the cocaine that's coming in … I repeat, the only thing I would ask you is the following, learn from our mistakes."
  I hope that we will do so. I look forward to hearing the remarks of my hon. Friends, and I believe that we still have an opportunity that the New Yorkers no longer have—an opportunity that may also have been lost in other parts of the United States that felt that they would never have a problem.
  I hope that this debate will join with the growing national consensus on our methods of ensuring that our young people do not go through misery.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: I thank my hon. Friend for reporting so fully on first-hand experience, but his remarks perhaps do not sufficiently illuminate one important aspect. Much of America's crack problem originated in New York's black community, from the West Indies, and so on. We should acknowledge that not all communities are from the start equally vulnerable. Perhaps people in Kansas and Texas, and in other states, were lulled into the belief that crack was a problem of the inner cities only. Therefore, we must ensure that the most vulnerable of our communities are those best prepared to deal with the problem at the earliest possible moment. That will involve us all in difficult work. We must ensure that it is not thought that because the crack problem is tackled in black communities, they are the cause of it.
  Mr. Butcher: Earlier, I remarked that we must be cautious in interpreting and examining the American experience. Almost any generalisation is dangerous, and we should not debate the question in terms of particular sections of the community. As the Americans so openly comment, one may start with the belief that it is an inner-city problem, but in truth it rapidly affects the whole cross-section of society. I shall refer shortly to the means by which we shall stay true to our approach in the schools—the non-drug specific, stay healthy, stay in control approach. However, for the past three weeks I have been talking about the intensification of messages that we know work as the kind of defence mechanisms that our young people need.
  The work already under way in our schools will provide a firm foundation for the further efforts we must make to keep crack at bay. We shall build on that foundation to ensure that schools are fully aware of the threat and are fully prepared to equip young people with the skills that they need to resist the lure of crack.
  I stress that I am not advocating a different approach to crack. I am convinced that if one were to launch a specific anti-crack campaign in the classroom, one could simply be doing the pushers' job for them. Rather, we must intensify all our existing messages in the areas where young people are at risk, and ensure that schools play their part in the efforts of the community as a whole to stop crack gaining a foothold in this country.
  Having briefly summarised the Government's action so far in stimulating, encouraging and supporting the development of effective drug and alcohol education in our schools, I turn to the future.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to intervene before he leaves that point. It may have been just his delivery, but I detected in his remarks an accent on the word "classroom", in relation to

  655
  there not being crack-specific campaigns. I hope that he accepts that there should not be crack-specific campaigns of any sort in the classroom or elsewhere.
  Mr. Butcher: Yes, I do accept that. My hon. Friend was right to interpret my remarks as emphasising the work done in the classroom in particular, but when dealing with the attitudes of young people, one must bear in mind also the youth and community service—which is, in my view, a very underestimated resource. Many of our advisers and others dealing with drug policy acknowledge that one cannot reach some people through the classroom or even through the youth and community service. Those who are not visible in that way may be members of the groups most at risk. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we are talking about a non-drug specific message, whatever the nature of the young or youngish group of people involved.
  There is reason for us to be proud of our achievements. Of course there will always be exceptions, and they hit the headlines. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that the majority of young people take a sensible and responsible attitude to alcohol and drugs. In my preliminary remarks to outline the scale of the problem, I quoted figures suggesting that perhaps 13 per cent. of young people are offered illicit drugs at some time during their teens. The good news is that the majority of that 13 per cent. are able to turn down that offer. I am convinced that that encouraging fact owes greatly to the work that is now under way in our schools.
  I repeat that 100,000 practitioners of one form or another have received awareness or training programmes and know more or less what they are doing. However, we must not be complacent. They need more assistance, and we must learn from new data as they arrive. But that is not a bad record for a western European country to have achieved.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister give an assurance that data will be kept up to date? Earlier this week, in our debate on teacher shortages it was accepted by his Department that until very recently, data on that issue were lagging considerably behind. Given the frequently changing pattern of drug use and abuse, it is vital that up-to-date data are available to make social policy judgments. How can other Departments help to ensure that such information is kept as up to date as possible?
  Mr. Butcher: We have various sources of information. My colleagues at the Department of Health sponsor a major survey of the attitudes of school children that is undertaken through the Health Education Authority and Mr. John Balding in Exeter, covering about 17,000 young people a year. It monitors their changing attitudes on an annual basis, and therefore represents a very large and useful database for spotting trends and developments. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the situation can change very rapidly.
  The hon. Gentleman implies that we should make available as much information as possible to the House. We all have our own sources of information, but, given that we are all united in the objective and that the only question remaining is how it can be achieved, the availability of that up-to-date database to right hon. and
  656
  hon. Members is also important. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I shall do my best to ensure that it is made available.
  As many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, I shall briefly report to the House the existence of a 10-point plan that the Department devised. I commented that we must maintain the momentum and do everything we can to equip our young people with a mature understanding of the importance of taking a responsible approach to their own health and well-being. Therefore, our future work will be just as important as the action that we have already taken. Our 10-point plan will serve as the framework for the Department's activities over the coming year.
  We shall examine, with a number of interested organisations, the possibility of providing information for parents, with the aim of engaging their interest in and support for the work undertaken by schools.
  We want to look closely at the effectiveness of health education, to see whether the right messages are getting across.
  We shall ensure that appropriate health education messages are integrated into the national curriculum.
  We shall look closely at what has happened in other countries and see what lessons we can learn from others' successes and, indeed, their failures.
  We shall look into the possibility of mobilising the private sector in support of our efforts.
  We shall consider means of incorporating health education issues in courses of initial teacher training.
  We shall consider whether teachers need further curriculum materials.
  We shall consider how to get better information on the health-related behaviour of young people.
  We shall consider, with the Department of Health, whether we can define clearer messages for young people, taking account of their varying levels of risk. For example, a different approach may be necessary for those who are known already to drink alcohol to excess.
  The final point is the one on which I would like to end, although I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We owe it to our young people to make sure that they understand both the why and the how of a positive, healthy outlook on life. We must all do everything that we can and take every opportunity to get across to young people the vital message that if they are to get the most out of life, they must stay healthy and stay in control.
  10.21 am
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I thank the Government for providing time for this important debate on an issue that clearly unites the House. We have had two education debates this week and we have sharp ideological differences on several issues. There has been substantial criticism of the way in which the Government have handled a range of problems, but, as the Minister rightly said, on this issue we have a common objective. There are limited differences between us about the means of achieving that objective, but we all want to see the problems dealt with effectively.
  As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the Minister have acknowledged, there are serious difficulties in collecting and interpreting statistics in this area. Some of them are raw, sharp and unpleasant, and others are more difficult to interpret.

  657
  The Minister referred to the work of Mr. John Balding of Exeter university today, anti in an Adjournment debate on 4 May. It may be worthwhile quoting his speech to show the extent of the problem. The 1987 figures, based on a survey of more than 18,000 youngsters, revealed that
  "over 74 per cent. of fifth-year boys and 65 per cent. of fifth-year girls had consumed alcohol in the past week, with over 10 per cent. of the boys consuming the equivalent of more than 10 pints of beer. The same surveys revealed that up to 12 per cent. of fifth-year boys and 14 per cent. of girls had been offered cannabis or other more harmful drugs at some time during their teens."—[Official Report, 4 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 453.]
  The Minister picked up the important point that the figures show the extent to which youngsters are offered drugs, but not the substantial extent to which they have the courage and common sense to turn down the offer.
  It is difficult to interpret the figures on alcohol. Last Christmas I had the rare experience of taking part in a Radio 1 programme called "Rhythm and Booze". It was a serious attempt to discuss alcohol problems among young people, but it was a classic piece of BBC misorganisation. Perhaps I should not have said that because I might never again be invited to take part in a BBC programme. The programme was to be recorded one Friday night in a night club in Manchester. We arrived about one and a half hours before the disc jockey who was to chair the discussion. One of the wonderful features of disc jockeys is that they have a Peter Pan youth which makes us all appear younger. He arrived late and the BBC provided free drinks for our young audience. By the time that the programme was recorded, I suspect that one or two people may have taken advantage of the BBC's generosity, and some of the comments were made out of bravado. The programme showed clearly some of the risks involved.
  What was encouraging in the discussion and is shown in the data is that many youngsters are now more likely to drink non-alcholic drinks and to be responsible about consuming alcohol and driving. There is a difference between generations here. Youngsters are much more likely to be sensible and socially mature than many older people.
  The Minister concentrated mainly on drugs. He made a powerful contribution about the American experience with crack. However, it is worth reminding ourselves that alcohol abuse counts for 10 times as many deaths among young people as drug abuse. That is not to say that one is not a problem, but simply that there is a difference of scale. Both are serious.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of data, does he agree that one of the more alarming pieces of information revealed by the survey was that about 20 per cent. of 13-year-olds have experienced a hangover?
  Mr. Fatchett: To go a stage further, another fact which should worry all of us who are parents and which shows us our responsibilities is that the major initial source of alcohol for youngsters is the parents. While the initial source of drugs is usually somebody whose is motivated by profit, youngsters are usually introduced to alcohol by parents, who are not maliciously motivated. That is a lesson for us all.
  I shall concentrate on alcohol abuse, which illustrates a broad point about the role of schools in fighting drug and alcohol abuse. The Minister rightly said that schools are a
  658
  reflection of society. We cannot expect schools to heal the problems of society, nor do we blame schools for causing them.
  For many years I have been worried about the image of alcohol that is portrayed and the problems that that causes for young people. The positive image creates expectations in and temptations for young people. One has only to turn on the television or look at the newspapers to see that advertising projects a positive image of the use of alcohol and suggests certain social attributes. It often creates the impression that young men who drink are more likely to be successful with young women and that alcohol increases sexual activity. It is suggested that people need to drink to score and achieve. That damaging and dangerous image tempts many youngsters to drink alcohol.
  The working group on young people and alcohol has said that advertising is undoubtedly influential in shaping attitudes, and made serious recommendations about the need to change the images and restrict the breadth of advertising.
  A report in The Guardian at the end of last year showed that young people can recognise alcohol advertising at an early age. They know the brands, and can identify with the images that are created. All that creates potential difficulties.
  We are told that the Brewers Society does not consider the extent of alcohol advertising a serious problem, viewing advertising as being aimed at product differentiation rather than at increasing overall alcohol consumption. In its evidence to the working group, the society said:
  "there is no evidence that alcohol advertising increases the consumption of alcohol".
  As an outsider in the advertising world, I regard that statement with scepticism and with some contempt. If the brewers are prepared to spend so much on advertising, they must want to sell more of their product and hence increase consumption. At some stage the House and the Government must recognise the need to control alcohol advertising, as it is clear that the voluntary code for brewers and advertisers does not work. The harmful images remain the same.
  Mr. Rathbone: This may be going off at a tangent, but, having spent most of my working life in advertising, I feel that I cannot let what the hon. Gentleman has said go unchallenged. The statement that he quoted is absolutely correct. Alcohol consumption cannot be tied to the amount of advertising, for advertising is not tuned to increased consumption: it is a battle between the brands. That is true of almost any well-branded, well-established market. It is just as true of alcohol as it is of cigarettes, cars and cereals.
  Mr. Fatchett: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. May I put an alternative hypothesis to him? I appreciate his interest in such issues, and I am not making a personal criticism. Is it not possible, however, that alcohol advertising, while it may not increase the level of consumption, makes it difficult to lower that level, as it runs counter to the other messages to which the Minister has referred—the "keep healthy" messages? I think that it would be better for our television screens to show that well-known young international athletes, for instance, do not use alcohol as part of the preparation for their feats, for obvious reasons. If some of the time used by the

  659
  brewers to sell their products were used to get that message across, the positive image of health would be much more effective.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This is, I think, an important part of our debate. I speak as the son and grandson of a brewer, but also as a former youth worker. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a problem with the simple analysis that alcohol advertising is a battle of the brands? The reality is that it produces a greater cumulative effect which marks up alcohol as desirable. The amount of investment in alcohol consumption is in no way comparable.
  The Government's legislation on broadcasting poses the danger that we shall have a much freer market next year, with more and more competition on radio and television as well as in the press. None of the competitors will want to make their products less socially desirable. There is no guarantee that the Government—for it will have to be the Government—will put up equal amounts to transmit the alternative message, which the hon. Gentleman and others may regard as the most effective solution. Unless that alternative message is broadcast—that people do not need to drink or smoke to be healthy—the competition is not fair and advertising is harmful rather than beneficial.
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. I, too, have a confession: my parents were pub landlords, so I have seen the business from the other side of the counter. I will not say that my almost first-hand experience turned me against alcohol, but it confirmed my view that the images presented by the brewers are positive and are deeply ingrained in the minds of young people, who retain them throughout adolescence and into adult life.
  Living in a public house, I saw young people who had been badly affected by alcohol. The images that they in turn create are not very positive, and in their more sober moments they would not necessarily wish to convey them to their peers. The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not decry for a moment the £7 million that the Minister has said will be made available in education support grant for 1990 and 1991, but the difference between the scale of expenditure on alcohol advertising and the amount spent on health promotion is such that it is hard to get the positive, healthy images across. I hope that the Minister will talk to the brewers and the advertisers about the persuasive impact of advertising.
  Mr. Butcher: General promotion of health images is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and I talk regularly about the need to ensure that any programmes that the Department launches in the future will be dovetailed with the health education programmes for schools. We shall aim for consistency in advertising directed at both the general public and the classroom.
  Mr. Fatchett: I welcome what the Minister has said, and hope that he will refer to his colleagues some of the comments made today about alcohol advertising. I have
  660
  laboured the point somewhat to show that the role of society in general is crucial to the way in which schools perform their task of education.
  I welcome the Minister's comments about involving the drug education co-ordinators in policy making. Perhaps that involves a broader principle that Ministers could apply in other contexts. Without wishing to make any criticism, I nevertheless consider it essential that those with first-hand knowledge are brought into the policy-making process, and I was glad that the Minister mentioned that.
  There is always an opportunity for Oppositions to say that they would like more money to be spent, but I think that it would be foolish and premature to say that in response to the news that £7 million is to be spent in 1990–91. There is a danger of money being wasted because we do not yet fully understand the scale and the nature of the problems, and how best to tackle them. I see the £7 million, and the previous expenditure, very much as a pump-priming mechanism, and I have no doubt that the Government will make more money available if research and experience show directly that it is needed. I am sure that the Minister will not hesitate to give that commitment.
  There is also a danger, if we talk about substantial amounts of money being spent, that we shall become alarmist about the statistic and the problems. I think that the Minister stressed that it would be foolish and counterproductive to be alarmist. There are serious problems that have to be tackled, but if one tackles them in an alarmist fashion it becomes difficult to define the targets and to deal effectively with them. The Government's approach has so far allowed a cool appraisal of the difficulties.
  The Minister emphasised that to tackle the problem we must not use the shock horror approach and images that were used in the early days. We must use images that present a positive message about health and say no to certain forms of temptation. I think that that is the correct approach.
  I was pleased that the Minister said that there would not be a specific anti-crack campaign in schools or more broadly but that the message is to be about the ability to say no, and promoting a positive, healthy image. Health education has to get that message across to young people.
  From our experience, as the Minister quite rightly said, we know that the alarmist message is likely to attract youngsters towards particular drugs and practices rather than to deter them. There is always a great temptation to go for an alarmist message. It seems to be a quick way to frighten people off, but it does not work. It is better to have a slow, sure process which will have long-lasting effects. That is the best method and the one that the Minister underlined in his speech.
  The Minister also said that we have to give young people hope for the future. Defining hope is always difficult. It does not always depend on material things, although housing in the inner cities and the availability of leisure facilities and of decent employment and education are clearly material. One thinks about young people who are homeless and sleeping rough in our inner cities. The Government's policies must be directed towards such matters. They are extremely relevant when dealing with the problems of drug and alcohol abuse, although the Minister did not mention them. We have to create hope and the

  661
  expectation that life has something worthwhile to offer young people. Then drugs and alcohol are less of a temptation.
  The problem is not always material. Drug and alcohol abuse are not limited to one class or to one income bracket. We need to offer hope in personal terms. We must create a positive image. It would have been helpful to the debate if the Minister had talked about some of these broader issues because they have a bearing upon the way in which society helps young people to achieve their full potential and to develop.
  The Minister referred to the development of personal and social education, to the role of sthe drug education co-ordinators and to the impact on the national curriculum. He is right to remind us that the Education Reform Act 1988 imposes certain duties and defines the national curriculum, but he must know that there is concern among drug education co-ordinators, in schools and at local authority level, that the development of the national curriculum will squeeze out the important work that has started in these areas. That is not an argument against the national curriculum, but I think that there must be a balance that allows personal and social education work and the work of the drug education co-ordinators to develop as part of the curriculum in schools.
  In his response to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the Minister referred to the working party. He said that later in the debate he would update us on its timetable. I emphasise to the Minister that we are dealing with important cross-curricula themes, and it is crucial that they are not lost from the national curriculum. There is no reason why that should happen. All we need from Ministers is a commitment to ensure that cross-curricula themes do not disappear from the timetable. If that happens, the money that has been spent on them so far will have been wasted. The Minister will understand our fears about this.
  In the Southampton university report on the work of the drug eduation co-ordinators, the theory is expressed that, because of falling rolls, competition may force heads to drop drug education programmes as they may be perceived to be an admission that the school has a drug problem. I hope that the developments in the Education Reform Act 1988, some of which we opposed, do not work in that way. It is important that the Minister should stress that the work of the drug education co-ordinators and the broader work of personal and social education should be an activity in all schools and that it is not an indication of a drug problem but shows that the school wants to present its youngsters with a positive health image. That is a natural part of the curriculum for any school.
  There are one or two more items that should have been on the agenda and in the Minister's opening speech. I was disappointed that he made no reference to tobacco and cigarette smoking. All the evidence shows that that is still a significant cause of death, of poor health and of people being unable to perform physically and mentally to their full capacity. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that later, but I hope that the work of the drug education units and that personal and social education in schools will place some emphasis on the detrimental effect of tobacco. We know that tobacco is an addictive drug and its cost to the National Health Service and to many thousands of people throughout the country. I hope that the Minister will make some reference to that in his winding-up speech.
  662
  The Minister did not refer—I am not surprised—to a problem that is beginning to develop and may well be an opportunity for alcohol abuse and drug peddling and trafficking. In the Adjournment debate on 4 May, when the Minister replied to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), there was a reference to the development of amusement and gaming arcades. I have held the view for some time—there is evidence to support it—that the proliferation of arcades in inner cities has enticed many youngsters into truancy, drinking and drug taking. It does not happen to all youngsters, but it happens to a percentage of them. The Home Office has dismissed the evidence. I think that the case that has been presented in a fairly systematic way by several newspapers and brought together by other researchers shows that there is a real problem and a risk associated with arcades.
  Mr. David Lightbown (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Not those that are properly run.
  Mr. Fatchett: There is a problem, and I will come back to it later. It is unfair to allow Government Whips to open their mouths. Usually they have a much more sophisticated job which involves the use of silence and pressure. Perhaps the intellectual demands are such that it becomes difficult to open one's mouth after such a long period of silence.
  Local authorities do not necessarily have the ability to stop the proliferation of gaming and amusement arcades. The regulations in terms of licensing are such that local authorities have little power and their planning controls are limited. It is possible that a local authority, with a wide range of community support, will feel that additional gaming and amusement arcades are not necessary, but it would have little or no power to stop their development.
  The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) said that there is no difficulty if such places are well managed. The industry has said that it would support self-management and self-regulation. I find that unconvincing in practice. The evidence shows that even if there is a code of self-management and self-regulation and the management says that youngsters under the age of 16 will not be admitted, one can usually find such youngsters in virtually all the large amusement arcades.
  The House has a clear responsibility not to leave control to the industry. We have not left the control of alcohol, drugs or betting to their respective industries. We must protect our young people. If we do not, they will be exposed to truancy, alcohol and drugs. That may involve only a small number of young people but their lives are being wasted.
  I realise that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, so I shall conclude. It is important to recognise the scale of the problem. We should not over-estimate it, but we must not become complacent. If we understand the scale of the problem, we can have a cool analysis that will lead towards effective action. We share a common concern and objective to reduce the level of alcohol and drug abuse and to reduce the dependence on tobacco.
  The Minister talked about the evil of crack. It would be a foolish person in the House or any other part of the community who did not recognise the problems and the evil they create. We have to stop youngsters wasting their lives and opportunities because of drugs and alcohol. The Government have started to deal with the problem and we will give them our support, as these issues transcend party

  663
  politics and go deep into the lives and well-being of individuals. From time to time we shall encourage the Government to do more, but so far the approach is right and the expenditure is in the right direction.
  The message of a healthy positive image is one that we support and the Government have got it right. On this occasion I can tell the Minister that we wish the Government well and hope that they are successful. That success is one in which our society will share.
  10.53 am
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I understand that there is a private notice question at 11 o'clock and that I shall have to sit down then and resume my speech afterwards.
  It is good that there is a degree of unanimity between both sides of the House on this problem. It is a worrying problem and all hon. Members agree that there is a desperate need for action. Statistics have been quoted by my hon. Friend the Minister and by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). I find it worrying to read a survey that suggests that 70 per cent. of 15 and 16-year-olds have at least one alcoholic drink every week. On 20 June 1989 The Guardian stated that one person in two starts on alcohol before the age of 18. Another survey said that one in seven 15 and 16-year-olds has been offered cannabis or another drug at some time. In 1986 a survey showed that one in 10 secondary school children smoked regularly and another showed that one in 20 smoked occasionally.
  I have to admit that when I was at school I also smoked because it was regarded as rather daring. Some other people in the class smoked and I smoked along with them as I wanted to be one of the boys. It shows how old I am that in those days one could buy five Woodbine cigarettes for two old pence. Having invested that money we sat in an air raid shelter and puffed away contentedly feeling grown up and sophisticated. However, when I was in the sixth form I was caught smoking by my mother. She said that if I wanted to smoke, I should do so in the house and not sneak round corners. At that time I made 20 cigarettes last for a full week. Because I persevered I gradually increased my intake until I was smoking 20 cigarettes a day. However, I have good news for my hon. Friend the Minister. In 1978 I saw the warning signals and stopped smoking. The withdrawal symptoms were hard to endure and one of the terrible consequences of giving up smoking was that I piled on weight. Instead of having a cigarette I started to eat all sorts of things which may not have done much for my figure but at least I had stopped using nicotine, which must have improved my health.
  It is important that in our schools there should be an emphasis on the maintenance of good health promotion. The curriculum can be used to emphasise the dangers of drug use. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has beside him the great package which contains the valuable "Drugwise" curriculum guide. The pack contains certain drug themes that could be used in the curriculum. It is
  664
  suggested that in English lessons pupils should be asked to read and comprehend various pieces of information on organisations concerned with tobacco, drug and alcohol misuse. They would then be asked to write an appeal letter saying which of the organisations should be the beneficiary of fund-raising events and why. That would satisfy the requirements of an English lesson in terms of comprehension and writing and it would provide information about the help available for drug users. By the pupils' choice of organisation, questions whould be raised about attitudes to drug users.
  The same theme could be applied to a history lesson. Pupils could discuss drug use in times of stress and lives and conditions in the trenches during the two world wars. In geography lessons pupils could learn of the way in which drugs affect the economy and of the international trade in legal and illegal drugs. For some Third world countries exports of plant-derived drugs to the West are one of the main ways of generating foreign exchange. Similarly, the West exports alcohol and cigarettes to Third world countries. By using those themes teachers could provide interesting lessons and put across the message of how important it is that children at school do not get hooked on drugs.
  I realise the importance of the drugs education co-ordinators referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister. I am glad to say that they are now to be found in every English local education authority. I agree with my hon. Friend that they are doing an excellent job in persuading young people to reject drugs. There is a clear relationship between drugs, alcohol and AIDS and that can be used in a co-ordinated health education programme.
  As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said, my hon. Friend the Minister announced in an Adjournment debate on 4 May a £7 million programme for the years 1990–91. A total of £4 million will be used to support a new broadened remit for drugs education co-ordinators who will be responsible for giving information and advice to schools on alcoholism, AIDS and drugs. The other £3 million will go to the local education authority training grants scheme to fund in-service training of teachers. It will cover the same key areas of health education. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister talked about further expansion along those lines. I believe that that is a positive step in the right direction. It is all praiseworthy work and I pay tribute to it, but we could do a little more.
  For the past four years I have campaigned for the money confiscated from drug barons to be given over entirely to the fight against drugs. When I raised the subject in an Adjournment debate a few months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) supported me in that aim. He is one of the most knowledgeable people in the House on the issue. My suggestion is carried out with great effect in the United States. Surely it is justice that the money that has been made from that foul trade should be used in the fight against it. If we confiscate the funds——
  It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 ( Friday sittings).

  Water Supply (South London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the operational problems in the water industry which have left 500,000 homes in south and south-east London without water; and what steps his Department is taking to avert the impending crisis.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): This is an operational matter for Thames Water. We have been in touch with Thames Water which is doing all it can to maintain and restore water supplies and to improve the provision of emergency supplies to those who have been cut off. Priority is being given to hospitals and to other special cases.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the direct cause of the problem appears to be the infestation of the Hampton plant in Middlesex, which affects seven London boroughs, Dartford and Sevenoaks—a quarter of the capital's water supply? The infestation of larvae has been common in previous years and could have been dealt with by adequate research and development and investment, but this year Thames Water has reduced research and development by 10 per cent., and it reduced infrastructure investment in the previous full financial year by 25 per cent. Is she aware that people are concerned that after privatisation the consequence of cutting costs and cutting investment will put at risk the water supply in times of crisis? Can she explain why, on every occasion when the temperature goes up, the ability to supply water goes down?
  Why is it that cumulatively, over the years, we have left our water supply industry in such a bad state that it cannot deliver the goods? Will the hon. Lady tell the House what on earth is the argument for her and her right hon. and hon. Friends planning to sell off the water industry so that in future, when such problems arise, affecting huge numbers of people, nobody will be accountable in the House to answer questions at times of extreme urgency in the capital city?
  Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have had a period of very hot weather and very high demand. He referred to the difficulties at the Hampton treatment works where remedial maintenance work is taking place. The larvae concerned are quite unacceptable, although they are not in themselves a health hazard.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the vital importance of investing in the water industry. In the particular circumstances in south-east London, I shall not labour the point that under the last Labour Government investment was cut by 30 per cent., and under this Government investment has increased by 50 per cent. The key point is that under privatisation all the water companies will have to draw up long-term investment plans. They will be free to raise capital and borrow appropriately to ensure that, properly and rightly, they can meet customers' demands.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: Is it not astonishing that Thames Water did not launch a public relations campaign two or three days ago, when it was clear that the crisis was looming, to tell the inhabitants of south-east London that it was critically important to save every bit of
  666
  water that they could? Is it not astonishing that Thames Water did not inform my local council about the problem until almost midday yesterday, when it must have known 48 hours before that the crisis was looming?
  Mrs. Bottomley: It is important for consumers to act with restraint. A hosepipe ban will be imposed from midnight tonight. We hope that people will take all possible action in the meantime. Thames Water has set up an emergency response centre on 833 6564. Twenty people are manning the service, and consumers who are worried would be well advised to ring the service. Thames Water is taking a great deal of action and is bringing in static tanks, bowsers and stand pipies. Of course, the situation is serious for those concerned and Thames Water is considering what further steps to take.
  Mr. John Fraser: We know that the Secretary of State is very doctrinal, but will the Under-Secretary remind him that the diet of worms was a meeting, not a drink? Will she please divert money intended to be spent by Thames Water on floating Thames shares on the watery stock exchange at very great cost to providing a better supply of water in London? Will she confirm that after privatisation there will be no accountability to Members of Parliament if such problems recur?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The key point is that, under the privatised arrangements, water companies will be required to have long-term investment plans. Thames Water is already investing heavily in the London ring main. That is well advanced and will lead to a long-term improvement in such difficulties.
  Mr. John Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of London want water, not political posturing from the Opposition? Does she further agree that something is lacking in the publicity and information being given out by Thames Water? For some time there has been a great deal of confusion in London about where people should be holding back and not using hoses and so on. Is the problem likely to spread to other areas, particularly in south London?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I understand that the difficulties may well be largely resolved by the end of the weekend, although some may extend into next week. I am advised that consumers throughout London are required to act with restraint, although the hosepipe ban will apply specifically to south-east London. I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's remarks about the need for greater clarification in the information that is provided to customers generally, but I remind him that the emergency response centre, which is well manned, can give immediate advice to anybody with a query.
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: Does the Minister accept that what she has said this morning is of no comfort whatsoever to my constituents, who are absolutely fed up with the fact that they have been drinking below-standard water for some time and that there have been pollution incidents which, frankly, are extremely worrying? This is the last straw for people who live in a somewhat inadequate environment.
  Will the hon. Lady answer the question about accountability, and will she acknowledge that the events of

  667
  the past few days have made a farce of the £30 million advertising campaign by the water companies on the merits of their system?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I would not seek to deny that all those years of under-investment by the Opposition have long-term consequences. Inevitably, when water is in public ownership, it is one of the easiest places to cut back on investment in times of difficulty. Privatisation will ensure that there are proper plans for long-term investment in the water industry. That is the crucial point.
  However, I would not seek to minimise the difficulty for people in the hon. Lady's constituency, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). I make it clear that Thames Water is taking all steps possible to ensure that supplies are brought in by tanker, static tanks, bowsers and stand pipes. The hon. Lady will be reassured to know that hospitals are being given priority.
  Mr. David Wilshire: I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) what is becoming the dubious privilege of having treatment work's in our constituencies that supply much of London's water: he has the Hampton works, and I have the Ashford works. Will my hon. Friend confirm that larvae's enthusiasm for breeding has everything to do with the hot weather and nothing to do with the Water Act 1989? Will she confirm that, far from doing what Opposition Members suggest, the Water Act 1989 will require the implementation of higher standards and more investment in the future?
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. The key point about the privatisation of the water industry is that in future it will be independently and effectively regulated and information will be made widely available to the public. The difficulty at the Hampton treatment works is unacceptable, but it is not a health risk. It is important to reassure people about that, following the alarmist fears that have been expressed about larvae. Action is being taken and I understand that remedial and maintenance work will be completed before long.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: Is the Minister aware that the problem has spread to north London? At nine o'clock this morning, numerous instances in the Sudbury hill area of my constituency were reported to me by telephone and in person of the supply being cut off.
  Is the Minister aware that the reason why Thames Water is in such a state of complete confusion, without contingency plans or the means to set the minds of the public at rest, is that its senior management and management have spent all their time recently preparing for privatisation? They have been so busy ordering helicopters, executive jets and all the other paraphernalia of big-business management that they have forgotten the consumer. Is the Minister satisfied that those people are fit to manage a privatised industry? The consumers of London think differently. Will she call in the chairman of Thames Water and give him a dressing-down about his failure to meet the water needs of London? Does she recognise the enormous harm and damage being done to communities affected by this disastrous situation?
  Mrs. Bottomley: If the present situation is so bad, why cannot the Labour party understand why we are so anxious to change? We are quite convinced that the future regime will make substantial improvements. The water industry will be free to invest and will be required to make long-term investment plans. It will improve investment, regulation and the availability of information. Those are the crucial advantages of privatisation.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: May I invite my hon. Friend to send a message of comfort to those who fear for the future? While not being complacent, may I say that most of my constituents have had no problems with their water supply or its condition because they are supplied by Rickmansworth water company, which has always been a private——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The private notice question is about Thames Water and south London.
  Mr. Greenway: I represent a small part of Sudbury and must express my concern about possible damage to its supply from Thames Water. Perhaps the supply will be better when it is run in the same way as Rickmansworth water company.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the long-standing existence of many private water companies. About 25 per cent. of the water supplied in this country is supplied by private statutory water companies. Although my hon. Friend's constituents have not been affected so far, I remind him and others that in one hour a hosepipe uses the same amount of water as a family of four uses in a week. With this hot weather, many people would be well advised to be cautious about their use of water. The current difficulties are long standing; in times of high demand and hot weather, difficulties of supply are not unprecedented. I recognise that the problem is quite worrying for hon. Members' constituents in south London. Thames Water is taking all possible steps to remedy it at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that the water supply in some parts of London is so polluted that it can be chewed rather than drunk? I am surprised that the Secretary of State has not told Thames Water to charge for the extra rations that are being delivered.
  Will the Minister explain why, when we have a heavy downpour in London, the sewers break, but that when we have a bit of sun we have a drought on our hands? Is that not an indictment of the Government's 10 years of under-investment in the water industry in London and the rest of the country? Would it not be better if Thames Water diverted the money that it is wasting on its ridiculous advertising campaign on behalf of the Tory party to the infrastructure of the industry, which is what the people of London want and deserve?
  Mrs. Bottomley: Only the hon. Gentleman, with his quaint attitude to figures, could regard an increase of 50 per cent. in investment as a cut. We have an answer to the problem—the Water Act 1989.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: I shall call the two hon. Members who have been rising to speak, the Front-Bench spokesman for

  669
  the Labour party and the Minister. I remind hon. Members that we are discussing a problem in south London, not a general matter.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Has not the Labour party completely missed the point about Thames Water, the present difficulties and the Water Act 1989? Under the Water Act, because standards of service matter, there will be a consumers' charter. The consumer will be offered a discount on his bill every time the water companies fail in their responsibility to connect services to the consumer. That will give the water companies every incentive to get their act together and provide the consumer with a comprehensive service. Far from the Water Act and privatisation making matters more difficult, it will be very much to the advantage of the consumer if it is implemented as quickly as possible.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend puts it far more effectively than I can.
  Mr. James Wallace: Will the Minister answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), which she has so far avoided? Will she confirm that, once the water industry is in private hands, Ministers will not be accountable to hon. Members when a crisis such as this arises? Will she confirm that the Government are running away from accountability?
  Mrs. Bottomley: Ministers will not be responsible for the day-to-day management of the water industry. Rightly and properly, that will be a matter for the water companies. Local authorities will have power to check on drinking water quality. A drinking water inspectorate will be created, the findings of which will be publicly available. We think that that is the proper and most appropriate way of supplying water.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Minister realise that the only consolation in her statement for water consumers in south London is that it was not made by the Secretary of State? Does she recognise that the problems facing consumers in south London stem from an operational failure by the management of Thames Water? Whatever she says, it is clear from the information that she has provided that Thames Water's management has failed the consumers of south London. How in future can those consumers have any confidence in water when it is privatised because it will have exactly the same management and there will be no accountability to the
  670
  House? Ministers will be unable to answer about problems such as those that consumers are facing in south London this morning.
  The Minister tried to obfuscate about investment figures, but the reality is that Thames Water has had a lower level of investment over the past few years. Consumers in south London are now suffering as a result of that lack of investment. Surely there is no confidence in the management of Thames Water or the stewardship of Ministers. Water consumers in south London and the rest of the country have made it abundantly clear that privatisation will only make the problems worse.
  Mrs. Bottomley: On the contrary, it is clear that the difficulties have occurred while the water supply is in the public sector. The long-term investment plan and the ability to raise money independently are fundamental to the proposals in the Water Act 1989. We believe strongly that the consumer will benefit greatly from having a separate provision of water services and water regulation.
  I regret that Opposition Members must exploit the present very hot weather and high demand in addition to acknowledged maintenance and remedial difficulties at Hampton to make petty party political points. It is clear that the consumers in south-east London are most affected. They need to know that an emergency line is available and that Thames Water is doing all it can to restore supplies and to provide interim supplies. We are confident that moving the water industry into the private sector will be for the long-term benefit of the users of water. That move will ensure high standards, long-term investment and regular supplies.

  Royal Assent
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Parking Act 1989

  Control of Smoke Pollution Act 1989

  Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Act 1989

  International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Act 1989

  Licensing (Amendment) Act 1989

  Antarctic Minerals Act 1989

  Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989

  Transport (Scotland) Act 1989

  Social Security Act 1989

  London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Act 1989

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse
  Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
  11.22 am
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) in replying to the private notice question said that she felt very sorry for the people who had been cut off. I know exactly how they must feel. I was almost at the end of my speech. If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) had not interrupted the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on the pretext of making an intervention, when he actually made quite a long speech, I would have been finished by 11 am. Then I discovered that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey had tabled the private notice question, so he will understand why I am not particularly keen on him this morning.
  Before I was interrupted, I was referring to the fact that in America money that is confiscated from drug barons is used in the fight against drugs. Why can we not follow the same line in this country? I have raised the question on many occasions, although I am not sure how much success I have had. However, I promise to persevere. If that can be done in the United States of America, why can it not be done here?
  Last year the United States Drug Enforcement Agency urged the Metropolitan police in this country to apply for £32·5 million of drug assets that had been seized with the help of the Metropolitan police's special task force which had been investigating the Brink's-Mat bullion robbery. However, the United States authorities ruled against us. They said that there was no mutual assistance agreement with Britain. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took prompt action at the time and agreement has now been reached. Did that £32·5 million go straight to the Treasury or was it used in the fight against drugs?
  Earlier this year two drug barons went to prison and assets worth £4,300,000 were seized. If that money could be used in the fight against drugs—as I believe it should be—we could do a great deal to provide extra resources to bring home to school children the folly of drug taking. Drug education is a vital programme. All hon. Members would agree that any young person who succumbs to the drug pusher is on a very slippery slope. It is essential that we back the teachers in their fight against the evils of drug and alcohol abuse. I am very glad that there is such agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House on this very important issue today.
  11.24 am
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Alcohol and drug misuse are major social problems which place a massive burden on the Health Service and cause accidents, ill health and death. They are also major contributors to problems of law and order, family breakdown and industrial inefficiency.
  If we are considering education in connection with those problems we must consider alcohol and drug abuse as separate problems. There has been little research into the effects of alcohol education, but what research there has been suggests that, although education programmes may have had some success in increasing knowledge about
  672
  alcohol and harmful drinking, there is little evidence that education has altered attitudes or behaviour. That does not mean that we should not continue a programme of alcohol education in schools.
  It is necessary to cause young people to reflect on their attitudes towards drink. We should maintain a long-term campaign as part of the usual broad school curriculum. We should use English lessons to show the effects of drink on people's lives as described in novels. We should use health lessons to show the damage that alcohol does to the body. We should use modern studies to show alcohol's influence on the costs to industry, on advertising, the break-up of families, drink-related crime and violence. I strongly believe that we should use films of drunks to show how stupidly they behave and how foolish they look to other people. We should also target different messages in clear and simple language pointing out that it is not necessary to drink excessively to have fun.
  We would be naive to expect too great short-term results from alcohol education in schools. The young are always adventurous and they experiment and seize on any oportunity to try something new and to imitate adults. The image that is often presented to young people by television and through their everyday living is that it is grown-up to drink.
  Adults are part of children's education. Their image of society reflects strongly what they are taught in schools. If adults cannot maintain a higher standard of responsible drinking, the children's attitude will be that it is another case of, "Do as I say, not as I do." That message will be completely rejected.
  I will not deal at length with other issues such as the need to educate adults and I will not explore too far the devastation caused by people drinking or the need to increase the price of drink. Some people believe that it is necessary to label bottles with units per measure so that people understand what they are drinking. There are also issues related to the lack of Government money for education. For example, according to the figures that I have seen, there was a tax yield of £200 a second from alcohol, but only 10p of that was spent on alcohol education.
  I want to enter a plea for more and better facilities for 16 and 18-year-olds. That age group is most at risk from excessive and irresponsible drinking. If we provide more facilities for them, we would be better able to keep them out of pubs.
  Some time ago I visited part of my constituency and met some young girls sitting on the pavement so I sat down with them. During our conversation I asked them why they were sitting there and they told me that they had nothing better to do. I said, "Yes, but why are you sitting here?" I was told that if they sat there the policeman would come and move them along. They would go to the other end of the village and sit by the health centre and remain there until the policeman came and moved them again. I said, "But you have a very good centre for young people in the village." They said, "We are over 16. We do not want to associate with kid's stuff. We want somewhere of our own." I said, "What would you like?" They said, " All we want is somewhere to go where we can talk to people and where we are not interfered with, pushed around or told to do this, that or the other. We want a place where we can just talk among ourselves, have some coffee or soft drinks, listen to music and just be on our own." I went to the youth centre and asked whether such a place could be

  673
  provided. It agreed to look into the problem.
  A month later, I went to another part of my constituency and met a gang of boys standing outside a shop which had an off-licence. They had been buying some drinks. Those boys had often caused a nuisance to the local people living nearby. I asked the boys why there were there. Their reply was the same: "We have nowhere else to go." I said, "Do you go into pubs?" they replied, "Oh, yes, but we are under 18 and have been thrown out of every pub in the area." I said, "What do you want?" They said, "We want somewhere to be on our own, a coffee bar, where we can talk with our friends in the warm and where no one will interfere with us." I asked the county authorities whether such a place could be provided under a new scheme that was being set up in my constituency. They replied, "We are making ample provision. There are football grounds and trampolining and flower arranging" and other such things. I thought that there was no way that I could see those lads arranging flowers. They consider themselves young adults, but we do not treat them as such. When we do not treat them in that way, we cause them to go into pubs, cause trouble and drink irresponsibly. I make a strong plea that we consider young people as young adults, not people to he slotted into categories in youth centres.
  I turn to the difficulty of educating young people against the problem of drug abuse. Alcohol is a bigger problem than drugs because it is more easily acceptable and accessible. Education against drugs needs to strike a fine balance between warning and exciting young people's curiosity. It needs to consider what kinds of drugs are available in each part of the country. It is not possible to carry out a blanket campaign on drugs, as can be done with alcohol, because different parts of the country have different problems with different drugs.
  A shock-horror campaign in the schools could turn away from drugs young people who were unlikely to have experimented with them anyway, but it could excite the interest of those young people who are most at risk and who have already experimented with drugs—those who, as they would say, "mess around" with drugs or solvents once or twice a month but do not see it as a problem. It is something they do out of curiosity and a sense of adventure.
  Like many other people, I think that the answer must be a low-key approach, presenting facts, answering questions and saying, "This is what it does. This is how it affects your health and your family." Perhaps that could he done through an educational film that does not preach, by getting young people to talk about it as they watch and consider the problems for themselves in a quiet, responsible way—education by accepting, by saying, "Yes, drugs exist", but also by pointing out reasonably and calmly the dangers and destructive nature of drugs.
  The evidence of the national anti-heroin campaign shows that it was unsuccessful in that the people on the posters looked so horrible that young people said, "My friends do not look like that", and could not relate to the warning. I am told that the posters have become collectors' items for young people. There is a need for young people to have someone in their school to whom they can talk, who would help without preaching and tell them about the local drug line and the national needle schemes, such as the one that we run in north Staffordshire. The health authorities there have pinpointed six pharmacies where a pack of five needles, syringes and three condoms can be
  674
  given out together with advice leaflets. The object is to prevent infection and prevent the spread of AIDS. The youngsters are not asked to give their names but are issued a number on a card and are urged to return all the needles to the chemist for replacement. The campaign costs £15,000 a year—money that is exceedingly well spent. There is no evidence to show that making syringes and needles freely available increases drug use.
  The "no names, no questions asked" policy ensures that the idea works because people feel free to make the exchange in safety. A logo in a chemist's window identifies where the scheme operates and prevents young people hanging around outside pharmacies afraid of being picked up by the police. The scheme will provide vital information on how many people use drugs while encouraging them to ring the druglink line for help and advice.
  Above all, young people on drugs need help, and so do their families. I have heard of a family with five children one of whom started taking drugs about five years ago. He started with glue sniffing, went on to petrol sniffing and is now on lighter fuel. A few years ago, when glue sniffing was at its height, I went into a major store in my constituency and discovered a large display of glue and I also found a small shop that was selling glue and plastic bags to go with it. That was very irresponsible.
  We as adults have much to answer for. The youngster who started in that way has caused his family great heartache. He is the quietest of the five children and is a very nice lad, but he gets a terrible urge to sniff those products. He takes money, buys lighter fuel, goes out into a field, where he will sleep rough for a number of days to be away from his family, and then returns to his home looking devastated. His mother is at her wits' end. She does not know how she can help him. If more young people realised what can happen so easily as a result of starting to sniff glue, fewer young people would be encouraged to experiment just once or twice a month.
  There should be a national evaluation scheme that considers reports from all education agencies. We should devote much more time, effort and money to the well-being of our children. We should educate them in school for life, for the problems that they will face in the outside grown-up world and for the temptations that will face them. Above all, we should give them the strength of character and the knowledge to make the right choices.
  11.37 am
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome the debate. I do not believe that any other hon. Members have as yet said so specifically. This debate on an extremely important subject is taking place in Government time. No subject bearing on any aspect of life is more important than the prevention of alcohol and drug misuse.
  I commend the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on his support for the Government's activities and on his commendable restraint in not falling into the trap, into which we all fall from time to time, of asking indiscriminately for more Government cash. The hon. Gentleman made an important point when he said that alcohol misuse might now be less threatening among the young. I hope that he is right, but I feel from personal observation—which is not like a statistical base—that he may be over-optimistic.
  It is certainly true that smoking is growing among the young. If we have a few contemporaries in for a few drinks

  675
  or dinner at our home, there is hardly a stub in an ash tray, but if we have young people in for drinks and dinner, there is not an ash tray that is not chock-a-block.
  Among the young, there is also the growing threat of drug misuse, which seems to be growing every day.
  Mr. Fatchett: I hope that I am not being over-optimistic. I realise that the figures are short term and may be contradicted as time goes on, but there is some evidence of an increase in the consumption of non-alcoholic drinks and good evidence that young people do not feel that it is wrong to consume non-alcoholic drinks in pubs. That is positive. On the down side—and the hon. Gentleman may refer to this later—there is a practice building up, in contradistinction, that young people go out to consume a great amount of beer and get drunk, and they may also get drunk on odd combinations of drink. That is worrying.
  Mr. Rathbone: We are in accord on that. The consumption of non-alcoholic drinks is, thank goodness, so often tied to a better appreciation of the dangers of mixing any sort of drinking with driving.
  The scale of the threat of the problem of drug misuse cannot be over-emphasised. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the speech given recently by a member of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency at a meeting of the Association of Chief Police Oficers and he extracted some worrying comments and statistics from that speech. I want to refer to it, too, and make two additional comments to illustrate the extent of the threat from that horrible new cocaine derivative, crack. The Drug Enforcement Agency officer said that in the past three and a half years, crack has grown from a drug which was virtually unheard of to the main drug of abuse in the largest cities of the United States. However, it is not confined to the large cities, but affects all kinds of people—black, white, Hispanic, rich and poor. It has moved out of the ghetto and now affects suburban America. Those are the characteristics of the drug which could so easily be found here.
  My hon. Friend the Minister quoted part of the speech and it was interesting that he stopped his quotation after making the emphatic point about the threat from cocaine. However, I want to pick up the speech from the end of my hon. Friend's quotation. He ended at the point where the officer said:
  "Our mistake, in New York, was very simply the following. We didn't see the problem early enough and we didn't get a jump on it."
  The officer went on:
  "That leads to a very reasonable example of the difference between two cities near New York, Washington DC and Boston Massachusetts, they are both equal distance from New York, 200 miles, they both have large inner city populations, they both have big cocaine users. Three years ago, the Mayor of Boston came to my office. He said "I'm worried about crack." We talked about it, we went up, we trained their police officers, he increased the size of his drug unit, he set up task forces from which information came from the street to the top immediately. They did away with parochialism, they started drug education in school systems and they started community education across the city and today Boston has a very minor crack problem. They have a problem sure, but a very minor one. At the same time we talked to the people in Washington DC and there the answer was—`Don't bother us…we can't worry about this crack stuff.'"
  676
  We see illustrated vividly how if one takes steps and appreciates the threat early enough, one can intervene in the growth of the use that awful drug. That is a message we must take to heart. Another point to note from that short extract is that of all the actions that the officer identified in Boston, he did not mention any propaganda campaign. The city did not make a self-satisfied, self-gratifying public example of what it was doing. It was precise and targeted its efforts, and tackled the drug menace in that way.
  However, we are not talking only about the problems of crack, although drug pushers who traditionally dealt only in marijuana are switching to coke and crack and, of course are still pushing heroin. There was an example in Wembley only yesterday. The drug ecstasy is a home-produced drug. The drugs squad raided a flat in Wembley and found a factory in the kitchen which had created 10,000 pills worth £300,000. In the Manchester Evening News earlier this week, there was a report of a young girl of 16 who died after taking ecstasy. The same threat comes from amphetamines, which have not been mentioned in the debate so far. There is not only a growing threat from crack, but an existing threat of hard drugs such as heroin, ecstasy and amphetamines.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) was the first in this debate to mention glue and the sniffing of solvents. I was talking to a nursery school teacher only last week and she explained that she had noticed that a half-dozen or so children in her nursery class had great blisters on their noses. She talked to the children and obtained their co-operation so that she could go home with them and talk to their parents. Believe it or not, not only could she not get co-operation from the parents, but she could not get them to admit that their children were sniffing glue. She was faced with the visible evidence of what was going on and, she went on to explain, it was peculiar to find half a dozen children in a nursery class zonked out because they had been sniffing glue. In 1987, the latest year for which we have statistics, 111 children died from solvent-related abuse. It is a widespread problem.
  Drug abuse is an international problem. The last time we discussed the problem, I drew the House's attention to one aspect of its internationality, which is the job being done in the Council of Europe and in particular, through the Pompidou Group of Ministers. I remind the House and the Minister that the Social, Health and Family Affairs committee of the Council of Europe, of which I am pleased to be a member, requested the Committee of Ministers on 4 October 1988:
  "to step up co-operation in prevention efforts between the Council of Europe, WHO and the European Community, in the framework of pilot projects aimed at health education in schools and the community, while keeping the Assembly duly informed on the progress of these projects".
  The Committee of Ministers adopted its reaction to the report in December 1988 and reported back to the Assembly on 3 April 1989. It said:
  "The Committee of Ministers wishes to inform the Assembly … that an interim evaluation report has been established on the education for health pilot projects aimed at preventing dependence, which will continue in 1989. The interim report, which is very positive, shows that the model education for health project prepared by the European Health Committee … in 1984 is workable and is welcomed by schools and local authorities."
  The Committee is to be informed of the Assembly's interest in these projects and in the follow-up to them. I

  677
  hope that, in drawing up his 10-point plan as an extension of what is already happening in this country the Minister has drawn on whatever wisdom there may be in that report from the Council of Europe.
  Although drug and alcohol misuse are international problems, local activity is needed to come to grips with them. I propose to outline the way in which my local county council has tackled the problem. I shall do so with pride and because, having studied the matter extensively, I believe that its approach provides a good example of how to go about things in the right way. It may, therefore, help other hon. Members in discussing their own worries with their county councils.
  In 1985, the East Sussex drugs advisory council was founded. It brought together representatives of health, education, social services, the Churches, the police and key voluntary agencies, and it provided a forum for the agreement on the education principles that should be adopted. That was an immensely important step.
  The three principles are as follows:
  "(i) substance abuse education should not stand alone but form an integral part of personal, social and health educational programmes"—
  that was a thread that ran through the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—
  "(ii) long-term effectiveness can only come from an encouragement—through this and other educational processes—of self-esteem, respect for self and others, responsible decision making;
  (iii)educational programmes must therefore be frank and factual, recognising the counter pressures in society and individuals"
  Following the establishment of the ESDAC, in 1986 East Sussex was one of the first authorities to seek and obtain education support grant assistance for the post of a drugs education co-ordinator. It is always invidious to mention individuals by name when it is so much a group effort, but I must mention Jan Masters, who has been our drugs education co-ordinator for a considerable time and has done the most marvellous job. I am sure that in his meeting with drugs education co-ordinators, my hon. Friend the Minister will have been struck by her character and leadership, as all those in East Sussex have been struck by her qualities.
  Following that appointment, the county council agreed a year later to appoint an advisory teacher to work in primary schools, and a third person to work in further education and youth matters. The three staff have worked closely together as a team and have delivered extensive programmes of in-service education for teachers across the whole education spectrum. The programmes have been followed up in schools and colleges by the advisory teacher.
  The team has recognised that training programmes and methods need to be tailored to individual schools and colleges, but the consistent message remains that successful personal, social, health and substance abuse education can cross traditional subject boundaries and can enhance the quality of subject teaching. That highlights the need to continue to encourage the crossing of traditional subject boundaries. Some 120 primary schools in the county have enthusiastically revised their teaching programmes on health to incorporate consideration of substance abuse, and the demand from teachers to take part in training workshops cannot even be met. Those
  678
  schools represent approximately 50 per cent. of primary schools in the county and I believe that that compares pretty well with performance elsewhere in the country.
  A development that was welcomed by many secondary schools was the introduction into the early years of the secondary curriculum of the skills for adolescents programme of personal education with an emphasis on self-esteem and responsible decision-making. Every secondary school has taken part, with the financial assistance of Lions Club International—an extremely good example of the valuable interest of the voluntary sector in such activities.
  All the county's further education colleges have now established health education programmes and are moving steadily towards making health education, including substance abuse education, part of the curriculum of every student. The team has welcomed its inevitable involvement in personal, social and health education generally rather than attempting to deal with substance abuse in isolation. Concern over AIDS and its links with drugs and the place of alcohol in irresponsible behaviour have also been included. Everyone wholeheartedly welcomes the emphasis that is now being given to personal, social and health education in the planning of the national curriculum.
  It is interesting to note—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of it—that education has contributed to, as well as benefited from, the function. As one might expect, there was a key educational input into the development of the unique multidisciplinary training package on drugs. More than 300 East Sussex people—youth workers, GPs, nurses, social workers, teachers, probation officers, solicitors, midwives, police officers and many others—have already undertaken the two-day course. The education service has been able to integrate its approach to substance abuse to include alcohol. The pump-priming in relation to drugs, especially in health education, has been invaluable and a parallel agency is now being established to deal with alcohol. There has been wide support from the probation service, the police, the health authority and the county, borough and district councils, although the participants cannot bring the pump-priming spur to joint activity that was available when ESDAC was first set up. The need for new impetus in the training of teachers is ever-present. That is why I was delighted to hear the Minister's announcement of his 10-point plan and of the additional funds that are to be made available.
  In my remarks about ESDAC I mentioned some voluntary organisations. I must also mention two other groups of people who have made a contribution. The first is the wine and spirits business. I am sure that I am not alone in having received earlier this week an announcement from International Distillers and Vintners Ltd. of a major initiative by British drink companies to promote the concept of responsible drinking and to help to prevent alcohol misuse. That sounds like a worthwhile initiative. A formal body is to be set up this autumn. Dr. John Rae a former headmaster of Westminster school, has been appointed its director and is taking up his position later this year. The aim of the new body will be:
  "to work closely with the Government, local authorities, the police, and voluntary bodies to research the complex reasons behind alcohol abuse and to advise on practical measures to encourage sensible and responsible drinking."
  That is a worthwhile enterprise. The letter continues:

  679
  "As a precursor to the formal launch of the new body, we are also announcing a special training initiative for pub licensees and their staff aimed at helping them prevent irresponsible and inappropriate drinking and the problems associated with it, such as rowdy and violent behaviour, under age drinking and drink driving."
  That is a worthy initiative and a good illustration of how an industry can make a contribution.
  Is the pharmaceutical industry making a suitable contribution? It is an open-ended question, and I do not know the answer. If it is making a contribution, I should like to know more about it. If it is not, perhaps this debate will be a spur to it to do so.
  Other organisations such as the Churches are playing a part and are co-operating in organising and operating drug advisory services through boards of social responsibility. I refer to the Jewish Social Workers Association and the Jewish and Christian youth movements. There is a special responsibility to instil traditional values in parents and children in such a way that young people do not feel alienated from society and seek satisfaction in the misuse of legal drugs such as alcohol or illegal drugs across the spectrum from crack to solvents. The Churches are playing a welcome part.
  When hon. Members last applied themselves to the subject of drug abuse, I mentioned Life education centres. For the interest of hon. Members, the first Life education centre was established in Australia in 1979. They have more recently come to this country. Life education centres are operating throughout the small area of the Isle of Man, extensively in Essex, and in pilot projects elsewhere in the country. Life education centres offer preventive drug abuse programmes for children from the ages of five to 15. Life education is essentially prevention, not intervention. It is intended to complement existing health educaton in schools. The programme is aimed to educate children in the positive aspects of being alive. Effective drug education cannot be left until adolescence, as children's attitudes are formed long before then.
  The programmes relate to all forms of drugs, legal and illegal, and provide children with an awareness of themselves through getting to know the incredible function of the human body, particularly how and why its delicate equilibrium is affected by substances and can quickly be put completely off the rails by them. Life education is a positive approach. Life education centres and others have found that horror tactics are unsuccessful and counterproductive. The Life education philosophy focuses on creating a sensitivity to values and behavour, which leads to an understanding and appreciation of human life. The programmes develop children's decision-making skills, build self-esteem, assist with values clarification, and develop a variety of skills necessary to the promotion of health education and the prevention of drug abuse.
  Life education centres provide a progressively graded series of programmes for children from five to 15. Each programme deals with a different theme, the idea being that a trip to the Life education centre is an integral part of each school year, and the programmes work together as a structured series following a child's mental and social development. Life education involves pupils, teachers and parents in a positive approach to drug education at primary and secondary level. Most important and,
  680
  perhaps, reassuringly for everybody is that the programmes are continually professionally evaluated, and each evaluation has shown exciting and positive results. The evaluations are available for hon. Members who are interested to see them. I will ask the Library staff whether they will store information on Life education centres so that hon. Members can use them as a point of reference.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister appreciates, Life education centres can make a dramatic contribution to drug education programmes in this country and most particularly to the carefully targeted programmes that the Government are now planning to meet and counter the threat of crack.
  I commend the Government's commitment to the fight against drug misuse, production and trafficking, and their efforts in encouraging prevention and improving treatment. I also commend the Minister's vigorous contribution to that fight in the important battlefield of the health education of our young. I welcome his 10-point plan and the extra moneys that he has announced today. I hope that he will take back to the interdepartmental ministerial meetings that he will attend—I believe that there is to be another meeting next week—the comments that have been made in this debate and the importance that the House attaches to education. Unless we win the battle and reduce and, eventually, eliminate demand for illicit drugs, the fabric of our society, our values, our relationships and even our freedoms will remain at risk. That is the true importance of the debate.
  12.6 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: My comments will directly follow those of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). I will talk mainly about crack and other illicit drugs, drawing heavily upon the experience of the Home Affairs Select Committee which recently visited Washington and El Paso to see the American experience, and highlighting the threat that we face.
  There is no doubt that the battle against drugs can be won only through education. I am sure that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will also refer to this matter. Our visit to the Mexican border vividly illustrated to us what is happening in America. A strange tourist attraction is to see illegal immigrants crossing the border. It is an admission that there can be no containment. The Americans and the Mexicans have come to an informal agreement that a certain number of holes will be left in the border fence. If the Americans continue to seal the fence where the wire cutters have been, the maintenance costs would become too great. Whatever was in the illegal immigrants' lunch boxes was nothing compared with the container lorry loads parked just across the border. There is no mechanism for adequately checking what is in the containers.
  The problem in America was illustrated to us also by the head of the United States coast guard which, to my amazement, is the twelfth largest navy in the world. We were told, "All we have is two four-hour planes. When those planes come down, the illicit planes fly in or drop boats. There is nothing that we can do. All we are about is containment-plus. We cannot stop the supply." Nothing adequate can be done in countries such as Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Colombia. People talk about getting rid of the coca plant, but there are considerable problems in

  681
  doing that. Many drug-growing areas are not under the control of Governments. We are talking about valleys the size of Wales producing coca.
  There are enormous environmental problems about a herbicide war on the coca plant. Some economies learnt to depend on illicit drugs, and one simply cannot abolish those economies by diktat of the CIA. One must face up to the fact also that, even if the will is there, the law enforcement agencies do not have the techniques to get rid of the product of the coca plant. We saw a body which was trying to train the Colombians and the Peruvians in a criminal justice system. One section of the course was entitled "Creating alternatives to confession". There is no tradition of collecting evidence to bring people to trial.
  In the United States a huge amount of the steam has gone out of supply-side solutions. The Americans, especially the police forces, are saying that the answer is not to have more police, but must be in demand reduction. They know that they are losing the battle. No matter what they do, the potential is there for the people controlling drugs to ensure that as much of a drug gets into the country as is demanded. We are deluding ourselves if we think that the situation is any different in this country. If the decision is made by those controlling the drugs that this country will receive drugs, this country will receive them. That can be stopped only if our people are educated enough and sensible enough in the widest sense not to create a demand and a price for the drugs.
  The extent of the horror of the situation in the United States has been referred to by other hon. Members. The statistic that most appalled me was the fact that in the United States last year 375,000 babies were born addicted to drugs. It was difficult to get people to be specific about what that meant, but it basically meant that 375,000 children that year were born with long-term physical and mental defects. The cost of that to the state, apart from the humanitarian issues, is colossal.
  Mr. Baldry: One can go to children's wards in hospitals in the United States, as the Select Committee did, and can find a whole ward that is full of children who have been born to drug-addicted parents and who have serious drug problems from birth.
  Mr. Worthington: Absolutely, because the horrifying significance of crack is the extent to which a small majority of the users are women. While they are addicted to crack, as they will probably continue to be, there is no way in which they can look after their babies. So there is the phenomenon of what they call boarder babies—those who will have to be maintained by the state or private agencies for the foreseeable future.
  There are changing attitudes in the United States about how to deal with that enormous problem. One of the major changes is that they used to be much softer on the user as against the pusher of drugs. The emphasis is now changing, because they are saying that the user is the motor of the system; the user is the one who creates the demand. Also, the ludicrous idea that drug-taking is a victimless crime has been abandoned. What one did with one's own body was a matter of civil liberties and one should not, for the sake of civil liberties, intervene in that. It is certainly not a victimless crime, and I shall return to that subject later.
  All over the United States we were warned that a second front was to be opened up in Europe, because of
  682
  the soft entry points into Europe, such as through Spain, Italy and Holland. The sums of money that can be used to promote the market are astronomical. United States customs officers talked in terms of literally hundreds of millions of dollars being moved around in Britain. We must defend our physical borders as well as possible, however many drugs the traffickers want-not just crack, but other drugs.
  A striking menu of drugs is now available. One should not forget that other events are occurring. The conflicting events of peace in Afghanistan and war in Burma have increased the amount of opium being produced in the world. We should not, therefore, get obsessed with crack.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is a long haul from the coca-producing valleys in the central American republics to the Clyde. Is it not the case that, while all forms of drug abuse are serious, crack is not a serious problem in our constituencies and that a much more serious problem is that of alcohol abuse?
  Mr. Worthington: I am sure that my hon. Friend will make that point at greater length later. I am not denying that an infinitely greater problem than crack in the areas that we both represent is alcohol abuse. One reason for my concern is that we are coping so appallingly at present with our current addictions that the last thing that we want is another major addiction in this country. We are rightly being warned to bear in mind that the capacity for crack to get into the country is almost limitless. We will not be able to stop it if there is a demand for it.
  Of course, the problem is that drugs, such as alcohol, tobacco and especially cannabis, are gateway drugs. When people use mood-altering drugs of any kind, their receptiveness to other drugs is much greater. It is relatively rare for drug takers to be non-smokers or non-drinkers. There are boundaries there that have been broken down in terms of mood alteration, of which we should be aware.
  I should mention our response to those people who become addicted. Here I would want to break the cross-party friendliness, which has so far characterised t he debate, because I believe that the Government are in danger of going down the wrong road in terms of their emphasis on punishment within the community. Reference has been made to the sheer difficulty of dealing with people who are addicted, whether it be to crack, to cocaine, or to alcohol. However, it is absolutely certain that the answer is not punishment. All research has shown that punishment for users is counter-productive. It intensifies their lack of self-esteem and even their self-woe.
  One of the few encouraging signs in Washington was the second Genesis project, which has survived now for 20 years. We saw there some element of success in its work, which was essentially on the basis of trying to help people to realise that they were not victims of the world—they were not people who simply had things happen to them—and to help them to become favourable change agents. It helps them to realise that their lives and their actions can be worthwhile. We are not even at first base in the provision of such facilities. If the emphasis in our criminal justice system is simply on punishment, we are deluding ourselves if we think that that will deal with the victims of drugs.
  Because of the failure of the supply-side mechanisms, we need to put the emphasis on education in the widest sense. It is not good enough for the Government to lock

  683
  themselves into bureaucratic departmental categories when they say that they are doing something in the schools. Many of our schools, particularly large secondary schools, are not part of communities. The catchment areas for such schools are large and students go home to a completely different area. We must ensure that our education work continues in those areas rather than just in the schools.
  As other hon. Members have said, education must not only be directed at particular drugs in our society, but must recognise that our society is drug-ridden. Many people are dependent upon sleeping pills, amphetamines and other means to obtain the illusion of contented life. Those drugs, as well as the more dramatic drugs, are part of the same phenomenon.
  We must face up to the illusion that drug-taking is a victimless crime. The user, or abuser, through his demand for the drug, is the motor and the cause of a drug trafficking system. The demand for drugs acts as a stimulant for organised crime on a scale that we simply cannot comprehend. The Select Committee on Home Affairs is extremely worried about the extent to which drug money has got into the orthodox banking system and has not been stopped.
  The cost of enforcing the drug laws is considerable. The link between drugs and AIDS is becoming ever more clear. We have already heard about the cost of the health care of children born addicted to drugs. There is evidence to suggest that when drugs get into a community child abuse escalates. We must appreciate the scale of the problem, and we must appreciate that the attitude of the user is the cause of that problem. If people are taking drugs, we must avoid simple punitive measures, and we must encourage methods by which they can recover.
  Much more emphasis must be put on long-term, community development work. I have no doubt that the areas in which drugs become entrenched are those where the people feel rootless and do not feel accountable for each other's actions. My hon Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has already referred to ineffective youth work. She spoke of the basic demand to provide simple accommodation where young people could rest and meet rather than being treated as nuisances and asked to move on. In recent years there has been far too little emphasis on the need for good community development and good youth work. In Strathclyde areas have managed to pull themselves up by their boot straps because of such community work. The work was not described as "anti-drug"; to highlight the issue in such a way is often counter-productive. A byproduct of stimulating the tenants' organisations, good youth work and ensuring that support is given to single parents is that the people in those areas feel valued and involved rather than distanced from mainstream life. Those areas, therefore, have been able to defend themselves against the incursion of drugs.
  I accept that the work done in schools is valued and valuable, but I appeal to the Minister to stress the importance of long-term, intensive community development work in his dealings with the interdepartmental unit on drugs, chaired, I believe, by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Such work should not be headlined as "anti-drug". It should be about accepting
  684
  that many of our communities and their people have become rootless. In such areas people feel that they do not have a contribution to make.
  In Washington one appreciated that for many of the young blacks the choice was between working for $3 an hour as a burger boy or becoming a small-scale pusher. The material rewards of such work dwarf what is available in the orthodox system. In too many areas of Britain it is difficult to convince young people that there is an orthodox, legal, licit way to obtain satisfaction from life. They do not believe that because of their poor living conditions and lack of job opportunities. We must, therefore, put the emphasis not just on school-based work, but on community-based work. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
  12.26 pm
  Mr. John Bowis: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), but I will not follow him in his study of the American scene.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who opened for the Opposition, spoke about tobacco—the one area of drugs that has been missed out of this debate and the one on which I wish to dwell. I agree with the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that that drug abuse should not result in punishment. Often tobacco is not spoken of as a drug and all too often health education separates drugs and alcohol from smoking. Smoking should be considered part of the mainstream of drugs, because only then shall we take the problem seriously.
  In some ways, the English language does not help. A discussion of drugs may be promising as some drug prescriptions can do one good. The drugs that we are talking about in this debate—and certainly tobacco—are not prescriptions to do anyone any good. Perhaps we need some new form of English to cover tobacco and such drugs.
  Reference has been made to young people who get into trouble. We often refer to young offenders in terms of drink-related and drug-related offences. When talking to and meeting young offenders I have found it interesting to discover how many of them also smoke. I wonder whether there is a connection that we have not yet identified. perhaps a symptom of their cries for assistance is their becoming dependent on the tobacco drug. Perhaps if we notice that connection earlier, we may be able to help them to overcome their problems and thus avoid a life of crime. I do not know the statistics on that—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister does—but from my observations at least, I believe that there is a connection.
  I must confess that I am a reformed smoker. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) confessed to having given up smoking, but to be eating more as an alternative. I have to confess, as many of my family and former colleagues will bear witness to, that I went through a much more painful process—to their discomfort as well as to my own. I went on a diet at the same time as giving up smoking, on the theory that the pain of one took away the pain of the other. The smoking bit worked because I have not taken up smoking again, but I cannot say that the three stones that I dropped have stayed off. However, that is perhaps a matter for another day.

  685
  My children played a part in my giving up smoking. They put pressure on me because they did not like it. Perhaps their involvement in the process of giving up was beneficial to them in some way because none of them has shown any sign of taking up smoking.
  I do not raise this issue to gain any plaudits for having given up; I raise it because I want to look back to see why I took it up in the first place. One looks first to one's family and then to one's peers at school, and so on. One of my early family memories is of presenting my grandfather with some spills for his pipe. I can also remember watching my father smoking his pipe and seeing strings of tobacco leaves drying in the garage. My mother also smoked, although she, too, gave up. One took up smoking at school because other people did so. It seemed an adult thing to do. It was an emulation of what seemed smart, chic and stylish. So often, that is why people start to smoke.
  We must begin by looking at the toddler, who picks up a packet of cigarettes. When the toddler gets a little older and progresses from playing with the packet, he or she will often take the cigarettes out of the packet and crush a fistful. A little bit older still, and the young infant might put one in his mouth because he has seen adults do it. I am concerned about role models, hence my intervention earlier. Role models are important in children's lives and we must ask parents and teachers to set an example.
  My hon. Friends will be pleased to know that I am not seeking to pillory adult smokers. They have free choice and smoking is their decision, provided that they are genuinely adult smokers. Perhaps we could persuade them to stop their habit through tax and other means. However, I am not concerned about that today. I am concerned about young people, young minds and young habit formers, for whom we in this House have a responsibility. We are in loco parentis in terms of education and in helping young people to avoid taking up wrong habits.
  We have heard many statistics and I shall provide one or two more. Half the adults who smoke started before the age of 16; only 10 per cent. started after the age of 21. I very much welcome the Minister's statement about what he is doing about drugs. I welcome what the Government are doing to discourage smoking. I also welcome the law that, in theory at least, forbids the sale of tobacco products to those under 16. I hope that the House will forgive me if the only figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that I have are for 1986. I do not know whether we have any later figures, but we should. Those figures show some encouragement in the numbers of young people smoking. Up to 1986, there was clearly a marked fall in the number of boys smoking cigarettes, decreasing from 13 per cent. in England and Wales, to 7 per cent. However among girls the figure was not anything like as good, decreasing only from 13 per cent. to 12 per cent. Nevertheless, those figures are encouraging and there is an encouraging rise in the proportion of pupils in all the countries of the United Kingdom who have never smoked at all. That is good news. Many of those who smoke once never do so again because they feel ill the first time. Being made ill is also a factor in stopping young people from smoking.
  Statistics show that where while only 82 per cent. of girls in their first year at secondary school have never smoked, that figure has fallen to only 29 per cent. by the time they leave. Although that is an improvement on the past, there is still a steady decline in the health of our schoolchildren and an increase in the number who are
  686
  taking up smoking. The worst news is that 23 per cent. of schoolchildren aged under 16 smoke 10 cigarettes a day. That means that 880 million cigarettes a day are being smoked by children aged 11 to 15, at a cost of £66 million, which those children somehow find to pay for their habit. As those aged below 16 cannot legally purchase tobacco, it is incredible that 89 per cent. of young smokers obtain their cigarettes from shops, and 19 per cent. obtain cigarettes from vending machines outside shops.
  We need to remind ourselves of the reasons for interfering in people's freedom of choice from an early age. We do so for the sake of our children's futures and their health. We want children leaving school to look forward to a healthy, enjoyable and active life, and not to one of ill health. That is what we shall condemn them to if we do not get it right when they are still at school. We want to encourage children to leave school without the burden of the cost to themselves and to their families of being hooked on tobacco, particularly as many of them can ill afford the luxury of smoking.
  We must consider also the cost to the economy of working days lost as a result of smoking-related diseases, which is a burden on smokers and non-smokers alike. There is also the cost to those of us who must pay it, of £500 million per year required for health-related care, part of which must be borne in future by young people when they leave school and start contributing to the cost of the Health Service. We must be aware also of the cost to our environment and of the importance of ensuring the cleanliness of the air that our children breathe in school and everywhere else. Our children should learn not only the old adage, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins", but, "Your exhalation of secondhand smoke ends when my nostrils start to twitch."
  I do not know the latest statistics for deaths from drags, but those for deaths from smoke-related diseases show that 35,000 people per year die from lung cancer and that 11,000 of them are aged below 65. It is known also that 100,000 people die per year from smoking-related diseases. That is equal to 300 people dying every day—the equivalent of half the membership of the House. That is the size of the problem.
  We must encourage the good health message, as we do in respect of drink driving. The good news is that young people are better than their adult relatives at not drinking and driving, which has come about from young people's fear of driving with alcohol in their blood. We must emphasise that fear and deter children from smoking, as well as educating them about it.
  My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the national curriculum, which will play a major part in health education. Many teachers would like to set an example, but they, too, need help to kick the habit. Not only are the teaching and non-teaching professions setting the wrong example to young minds, but they are polluting the air that young children breathe, causing all the problems associated with passive smoking. Teacher unions, teacher trainers and schools education services must be brought in to tackle the problem.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is interested in youth affairs. In addition to schools, youth services outside schools must be involved. As a president of the British Youth Council, I believe that the youth movement and youth organisations must also play a part in backing my hon. Friend the Minister in his campaign for a healthier society.

  687
  Education can go so far, but my hon. Friend must seek the support of his right hon. and hon. Friends on tobacco advertising. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) intervened in the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central on advertising. My hon. Friend said that most advertising aimed to make people switch brands. That may be true for adult smokers but it is not true for non-smokers who are often young people. They are not brand switchers, but they can be influenced to take up smoking by advertising.
  We must consider carefully where we permit tobacco to be advertised. It should not be permitted in areas frequented by young people, such as sports and arts venues, on public transport, in newspapers or on shop fronts. We must also be careful about allowing tobacco companies to sponsor sports events and other activities.
  My hon. Friend the Minister should talk to his right hon. and hon. Friends about the price of tobacco. We should take tobacco out of the retail prices index so that keeping down the price of tobacco is not part of the Government's counter-inflation policies. I believe that that would be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  There is evidence to suggest that a 1 per cent. increase in the price of tobacco leads to a reduction of about 1 per cent. in consumption. That may not last, but if it is a national impact, the impact on the young person's purse or wallet will be much greater. If my hon. Friend wants to help young people not to take up smoking he should price tobacco out of their range. He will then be supporting the Government's education policy in schools and in the youth world, which I support. My message to him is to keep at it and to keep on at the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  12.43 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend the Minister made a valuable point when he said that schools had a leading, perhaps a central, part to play in educating future adults against drug taking, smoking and alcohol abuse. I have 23 years' experience of schools, including 12 as deputy headmaster of a boys' comprehensive at King's Cross and seven at a mixed school of 2,200 on the Bellingham estate in south-east London, and I know that it is amazingly difficult to do what hon. Members have suggested today. Everyone says that such matters as road safety and the dangers of drugs should be taught in schools, but many problems are involved.
  Any school that does its job knows that every lesson is, in a sense, a lesson in English, as so much depends on the way in which the teacher presents the information and on the pupils' ability to respond. In another sense, every lesson could be regarded as a lesson in health education, in that everything that a teacher says or does can imply an awareness of the problem of drugs, particularly crack. When the teacher sees an opportunity to put across such information, it should be possible. I think that, in the long term, that will be more effective than what could be seen as a rather heavy health education programme.
  Fundamental to all education, and particularly to the future of society and that of any individual within it, must be the ability to exercise self-control. Present and future self-discipline will provide the best possible protection
  688
  against serious excesses of the kind that we have been discussing. How can schools achieve that for children? Teachers can influence children through good, sound personal relationships, and also through good counselling; they should be able to pick up any difficulties relating to drugs or anything else which children may be experiencing, and do something about them at an early stage.
  Basic to human nature is the fact that—as Shakespeare pointed out—forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, to tell children that something is to be shunned is to inspire a great interest. That approach must therefore be relaxed, but it must be done subtly.
  Nothing is achieved without money, and part of the problem is the amount that schoolchildren have at present. According to a YMCA survey of 400 London children—quite an efficient survey, covering four or five typical schools—teenage boys have more money to spend than girls, but girls go to the pub much more often. Teenage boys receive an average of £10·25 a week in pocket money, while girls receive an average of £8·61. That is quite a lot of money; many pensioners cannot regard such sums as pocket money to be spent on extras and luxuries. For children of 17 or 18, the average sum is £16·66—and clearly they will start looking for ways of spending such an amount.
  The same survey showed that, by the age of 15, more than half the 400 pupils had been to a pub, but girls are more regular pub drinkers. Three quarters of sixth-form girls go to a pub once a week, usually with an older male, and 54 per cent. of the sixth-form boys go to a pub at least once a week.
  The survey shows that children start drinking early. It is the main way that many of them spend their money. They like going to the pub. They feel adult. They see other people drink and they want to join in. Gradually, some move on to heavier drinking, with serious results, and some become hard drinkers at an early age.
  I shall mention some other facts discovered by the survey, as they are central to our debate. Girls, who tended not to be interested in pool or snooker, suddenly listed it as one of their main hobbies after the age of 15. However, I do not think that pool and snooker are always their central interests. Often, strong drink is available in pool and snooker clubs, and that may be what draws some girls into them. On the other hand, many girls go there quite innocently to look for a partner, and that is reasonable and normal.
  The survey also found that 60 per cent. of young people go out on Friday night, compared with 82 per cent. on Saturday night. Boys listed sports as their favourite activity but girls listed dance classes as tops. Girls preferred to go to discos once a month, rather than once a week. Young people said they were more likely to go to mum than dad with a problem, but that they would turn to their father if they had trouble with money.
  I spoke of the need to improve counselling in schools, but we tend to forget the central role of parents, particularly of mothers, in counselling children. Children go to their mums when they are in difficulty. That underlines the importance of backing up parents in their difficult task of bringing up children.
  Dr. Godman: I thank the hon. Member for recounting to us the findings of this very interesting survey. Were the respondents asked whether they preferred to visit cafes

  689
  rather than pubs? In the west of Scotland there has recently been a proliferation in the number of cafes and many young people prefer to visit them instead of our rather grim pubs.
  Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that informative point. There are not many cafes of the kind he describes in London, and those that exist are not as much fun or as comfortable. They do not have the same atmosphere as pubs. I understand why this survey applies mainly to pubs because that is where children most like to go.
  When children go to their dads for cash, fathers have a responsibility to talk over with them what they will spend it on. They have to do that without being too heavy or they will lose their influence. A reasonable and proper control over children's pocket money must have a tremendous effect on how they spend it. When young children get into drugs such as crack a lot of money is involved. Therefore, it behoves parents in particular to keep a close eye on how much money school children are spending, and where it is going, but they need to be as subtle as they can.
  The survey showed that 30 per cent. of youngsters under 14 attended places of worship. That figure dropped to only 10 per cent. after the age of 14. That underlines the failure of Churches—I am not castigating them, as they have a difficult task—to hold and secure a Christian, moral or religious education among young people.
  I mentioned the need for young people to be taught self-discipline. That can be done by teachers and parents, and above all religious and moral education can play an important part. It is imperative that, as a nation, we do something about religious education in Britain. Six years ago, the Religious Education Council revealed that in 66 per cent. of all primary schools religious education is confused and teachers do not know what they are seeking to teach. The same report pointed out that there is no religious or moral education whatever for three quarters of our children after the age of 14. We are throwing children into a dangerous vacuum with all the drugs and drink about. It is an extremely serious problem and we would do everyone a favour if we tackled the basic way in which children and adults think about their lives and what they seek to do in living them.
  Youth clubs are not generally attractive to the young. They are simply not interested in playing ping-pong in a hall. Youth clubs have never had less influence. The survey discovered that 88 per cent. of sixth-form girls are likely to confide in a friend outside school or a youth club, or perhaps in their mum or dad. However, only 32 per cent. of boys are likely to do so. It is much more difficult to secure the deep confidence of boys than girls.
  The effect of alcohol in schools can be extremely serious. I have seen girls at the age of 13 or 14 going off to pubs and coming back to schools. The effect of heavy drinking, much more on girls than on boys, has been to get them fighting viciously between themselves. I have seen nasty, horrid fisticuffs and scratching—really beastly behaviour. If the House has any doubt about the effects of alcohol on young people—we know that it affects many people, but we are discussing young people—it is clear in Iceland where there is a serious alcohol problem among eight, nine, 10 and 11-year olds who are often rolling round the streets drunk or fighting as early as 8 or 9 o'clock at night. That country has been worried about it for some time.
  690
  How should we influence pupils? We should do so through personal relationships between parents and children, teachers and children and others interested in them. Sport is a particular way in which to influence children. Teachers working and training school teams have an unparalleled opportunity to get to know children. Tragically, teachers' strikes over recent years have meant that fewer teachers take teams out for matches. That valuable influence has been lost, and has led to pupils being less fit. Any doctor knows that the child who starts to look for drugs is not the healthy, fit child but the unfit and seedy child, who does not experience the physical and mental restlessness of physical fitness.
  If physical education is not taught in schools, children become less competitive. We are all competitive, particularly as children. If children do not have healthy bodies, they do not have healthy minds.
  If I may make a political point, the Bristol headmistress who banned the egg-and-spoon race two or three years ago to please her Socialist masters because it induced undue competitiveness in children did those children a grave disservice. That stupidity has been repeated throughout the country. Competitive team games have been eliminated in many schools run by Labour-controlled authorities. Cricket is thought to be too middle class and competitive and has been eliminated in many schools. In some places, only one in eight primary schools teach cricket to boys, and sometimes to girls. That is one reason why, in future, we shall not win Test matches. We are losing what cricket and other team games bring to children's development of self-control and working in a controlled but competitive environment, which is fundamental to their saying no to drugs and alcohol.
  Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is speaking of the discouragement of sporting activities. Will he state plainly whether he means schools in London or England, because his remarks bear no resemblance to what happens in Scottish schools?
  Mr. Greenway: I do not speak for Scotland. I can only speak from my experience of teaching in London for 23 years, but my remarks are true in other parts of the country.
  If we do not do something to restore physical education and the teaching of games in schools, teachers will lose an opportunity to influence pupils for the good. Teachers should be paid extra for taking teams out on a Saturday morning. If they give up their time on a Saturday, it is only right that they should be paid for doing so. When I was a professional, I took children out every Saturday morning, but I was never paid for it. I was delighted to do so because I received such feedback from the pupils.
  Health education in schools is in a mess. Too often, in the sixth form it is a subject alternative to an A-level. In the sixth form, health education covers everything from contraception to healthy child rearing. Like English language or English literature, health education should be part of the curriculum.
  I support what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) said in her admirable speech. Glue sniffing is a very serious problem and we must not ignore it when we consider the whole issue of drug abuse. In some schools 20 per cent. of children sniff glue, with children as young as five involved. I met a 19-year-old young man in prison the other day. His mind has been completely blown

  691
  as a result of sniffing glue. One person every day dies as a result of sniffing glue. Sometimes people take their own lives, but often they die unintentionally from the effects of glue sniffing. We must be aware of the size of the problem and we must do more than we have been doing so far.
  1.5 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). He referred to sporting problems, but we have different problems with sporting activities in Scotland as was witnessed plainly in the reactions to the transfer recently of Mo Johnston to Glasgow Rangers instead of to Glasgow Celtic.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North also referred to the Churches. I am not sure that his comments would hold up in relation to Scotland. In my constituency, the Catholic Church, The Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church still have large attendances at their masses and services. Their youth clubs are also well attended.
  However, I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing, North that there is an urgent need for teachers and others concerned with education to be aware of the serious problems associated with drug and alcohol misuse and abuse. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said about that most pernicious form of drug taking—cigarette smoking.
  In my constituency we have problems of drug and alcohol abuse, but the latter is by far the more serious. In Greenock we have a drug line funded by the urban aid programme. In addition to her other duties, Annette Webb, the drug line worker, works closely with teachers in local schools. Part of her work is to educate children about drug and alcohol abuse, but she is also involved in training teachers. I listened very closely to the hon. Member for Ealing, North because I know that he has vast experience in that regard. Just as with problems of child abuse, teachers are in the front line and it is essential that they are briefed and educated in the need to detect signs of drug and alcohol misuse. Similarly, they need to be aware of some of the signs of child abuse and other forms of abuse.
  Youngsters must receive guidance and encouragement and I would include necessary guidance about the dangers of cigarette smoking in addition to other forms of drug misuse. I am relieved to be able to say that crack is not a very serious problem in the west of Scotland at the moment. Many youngsters in some of the more impoverished districts of Glasgow are addicted to or misusing opiates rather than crack or heroin.
  Alcohol abuse is a very serious problem in Inverclyde. We have a much higher incidence of alcohol-related crime there than in any other comparable area in Strathclyde. I know that this is a matter of considerable concern to Sheriff Sir Stephen Young and Sheriff Irvine Smith and to Chief Superintendent George Douglas, divisional commander of X division of the Strathclyde police and his officers and all those who are worried about alcohol abuse and its relationship to crime. A particularly worrying form of this crime is that which involves domestic violence and robbery with violence. In terms of alcohol-related criminal acts, a local legal dignitary recently said:
  "Glasgow is a paradise compared with Inverclyde".
  692
  I suspect that he was indulging in a touch of hyperbole, but his comment signifies the worries created by drug abuse.
  The Inverclyde council on alcoholism plays an important educational and training role, in addition to the admirable work performed elewhere by its director and members. Much of that work takes place in local schools and colleges. We need a designated place in Inverclyde to assist not only youngsters but all those who suffer from alcohol abuse and misuse. I sincerely hope that the Scottish Office will respond sensibly and favourably to the application for financial support to set up such a designated place. It is desperately needed.
  Similarly, the Scottish Office must give all the support possible to the expansion of the drug line service and the work of the Inverclyde council of alcoholism, especially in relation to its work in colleges and schools. I have argued before in the House that alcohol abuse in the west of Scotland and, I suspect, elsewhere in the United Kingdom is a much greater problem than drug abuse and misuse. It is essential that the Government, especially the Scottish Office, show much closer regard for the need to tackle the problems attendant upon alcohol abuse and misuse in addition to drug abuse and misuse.
  1.12 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: We are discussing the future of our children, which means that we are discussing the future of our nation, and we are discussing matters of life and death—three dreadful clichés in a row, and all of them true. Most of us are parents and, in that context, are also members of the public. I hope that I speak for every Back Bencher when I say how grateful I am as a parent for the attitude taken by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), for the level of agreement that has been reached and for the tremendous non-partisan approach that they have taken to a subject which matters a great deal to all of us.
  The Home Affairs Select Committee, to which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) referred and of which he is a member, as I am, is working on a report on drug trafficking and related serious crime. On Thursday next week, we shall publish an interim report on the crack menace that faces the United States and Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), the Committee's Chairman, will at that time make a series of what I hope will be found to be extremely helpful recommendations. I do not propose to pre-empt those, so I will not refer to them.
  The ministerial steering group, chaired by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Department and of which my hon. Friend the Minister here today is a member, will be meeting on Wednesday. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North will allow me therefore, to draw on some of the experiences that I, in common with others on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, had when we were conducting part of our drug inquiry in America.
  That means, inevitably, that I will refer to the crack menace, as others have done today. We went first to Washington DC and we were well briefed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency. As part of our inquiry, we were invited to take part in a drugs bust. We went out with the Drug Enforcement Agency into an area where drug sellers were

  693
  known to be operating and we watched three arrests take place. We rode in the police cars and we saw armed policemen and women leap from the cars and arrest some fairly socially inadequate people at the bottom of the pile.
  The youngest of them, thrown into the back of the police car with his hands handcuffed behind his back, was 12 years old. He already had two adults working for him. He was one of those who now give the drug away free in schools in the certain knowledge that after one, two or definitely three smokes, they will have yet another customer. While this young man was selling his wares on the streets of an uptown ghetto, two miles away in a hospital, a 14-year-old girl was giving birth to her first child. That child was addicted to cocaine at birth and was one of the 375,000 such babies born in America last year. Not only was that child an addict at birth, like the other 375,000; he was also brain damaged. The effect of drug taking generally, and cocaine and crack in particular, on a pregnant woman is to cause contractions which strangle the foetus in the womb and choke the air supply to the unborn child. That is one illustration of the scale of the problem we face.
  Crack is so dangerous because it is effective instantly. It takes roughly 10 seconds for the effects of the drug to travel from the mouth to the brain. The effects are often instantly irreversible. Unlike other drugs, crack dries out the brain cells that produce certain essential substances for the body. Once destroyed, those cells cannot be replaced and the person is semi-dependent on some form of additional stimulus for as long as he may be able to carry on living. The drug is incredibly cheap; in America it sells at about $5 a shot.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) referred to a child's curiosity and sense of adventure. I know that she was not promoting that sense of adventure in this context and I would not wish to suggest that she was. However, anyone who believes that it is possible to have a sense of adventure or curiosity about crack is living in a dangerous world. However great one's sense of adventure and curiosity, one does not try crack once because once is once too often. The Americans are now having to mount a dramatic campaign on television because the drug has travelled from the ghettos into white, middle-class America. Suddenly, it is no longer a problem that "won't happen here"; it is a problem that the Americans have to live with day by day.
  From Washington, the members of the Select Committee travelled to El Paso, on the border between Mexico and Texas. As the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, we watched the illegal immigrants walking across the Rio Grande. Not only that, we stopped our police car, got out, spoke to them and photographed them. They froze—like ostriches with their heads in the sand—and waited until the police car had driven away before carrying on their journey across the border taking with them whatever drugs they had. They literally sprinted to work in the United States, and they commute in that fashion daily.
  The amount of drugs that the illegal immigrants carry is tiny compared with the quantities coming in by the container-load across the border, by light aircraft across the border from Mexico and in small craft from the West Indies.
  For the most part, the drugs are grown in the Andes, the mountains of Peru and Bolivia. The valleys in which they are grown are out of Government control and the
  694
  prospect of reducing the size of the crops is virtually nil. The drugs travel to Colombia where the coca plant is purified into pure cocaine, which is then smuggled into north America. We were told somewhat cynically by a member of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency that the crop is part of the economy of Peru and Bolivia and that the Colombians
  "have the best police force that money can buy."
  The United States market for the drug appears to be virtually saturated and the Colombian drug dealers are therefore turning their attention seriously towards Europe. They are looking for routes, via the West Indies, into Spain and Italy, and inevitably, therefore, into the United Kingdom. We are told that they are ruthless and determined and that they
  "make the Mafia look like choirboys."
  A favourite technique for dealing with traitors is to murder their wife or child first as a warning to others before finally murdering them.
  The belief has been expressed that it could not happen here. My hon. Friend the Minister told us earlier of marijuana on offer to schoolchildren. I have personal experience of children in my constituency leaving school during the lunch hour and travelling to a known drug pedlar's house to buy their daily drugs.
  In Kent, we face the problems that any frontier county faces. We have a number of ports and we know that drugs come through them fairly regularly. In recent months, we have also discovered a number of amphetamine factories. It would be wrong to believe that the only threat comes from imported drugs. From the drug addict's point of view, we make some perfectly acceptable substances at home. The Kent police have done a tremendous job in recent months—and I pay tribute to them—in finding and busting amphetamine factories, but they believe, and I believe, that it is still only the tip of the iceberg. Add to that the other problems about which we have heard—solvent abuse, the abuse of adhesives and so on—and one realises that school children are under real threat.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) referred to the increasing threat that is posed by cigarette smoking. It is through cigarettes that both marijuana and crack are consumed. Again, we were told in America that the reason for the startling growth in female addiction is because, in the past, young ladies in particular, found it unacceptable to inject heroin. Because they already smoke, they find it easy to smoke substances other than tobacco.
  I have a known and declared interest in a brewing company. I make that absolutely clear as a preface to what I am about to say about alcohol abuse. I am also a trained counsellor. I trained with ACCEPT in dealing with alcohol-related problems. In what time I have at home, I deal on a day-by-day basis with some of the problems that affect alcoholics. I have had personal experience of having to search hedgerows, lavatory cisterns and the stuffing of chairs to find concealed alcohol. I am aware of the problems that have been referred to, and I would not wish to make light of them.
  The House should pay tribute to the responsible attitude that is being taken by major brewing companies and to the contribution that is being made by the Brewers Society to the provision of education packs and advertising to try to ensure that people, particularly young people, use and do not abuse alcohol. There is no mileage and no brownie points for brewers, landlords or tenants in

  695
  creating social problems. They continue to invest heavily in seeking to ensure that public houses are more sociable and more family-orientated places and that a good supply of non-alcoholic beers and wines are available. It is not a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister today—he might like to take it to his meeting on Wednesday—but landlords could help to control under-age drinking, especially by schoolchildren, if, at least on a voluntary basis, we introduced a national identity card. Such a card would be of more national value—I include north of the border of course—than a football identity card.
  I shall add one solution to the problems that we have been discussing. I hope that you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for mentioning quasi-religious cults. They, too, have a pervasive influence in and through schools, and some of them are drug-regulated. My noble Friend Lord Rodney, the chairman of the all-party group on cults, has a file of misery that has been caused by, and because of, young people becoming involved in organisations and matters that they do not understand until it is too late. There is an overall solution to those problems.
  I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister announce the increased funding that he intends to make available. I hope that my county of Kent will take advantage of that funding and note the lessons that we have learnt from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, as it appears that Sussex has taken a lead in the matter. The solution cannot be an over-dramatic, knee-jerk, television campaign reaction.
  Every hon. Member who has spoken appears to agree that a shock-horror campaign would be much more likely to stimulate demand than to begin to solve the problem. The solution must be through a sustained long-term campaign of education through schools, youth clubs and every other available organisation. I ask my hon. Friend to pay attention to the work that is now being done by the Schools Outreach organisation in some schools and also by ACET, the AIDS care education and training organisation. I am not suggesting that either of those bodies is necessarily a suitable avenue for the funding that has been made available, but I believe that it is essential that we provide ourselves not only with a network of drug or health education co-ordinators, but with a network of trained counsellors serving literally every secondary school and, through them, every primary school in the country. That will cost money, and it will cost more money.
  It was explained to us in America that, if the epidemic that it faces were to take hold here, so much of the money that is currently being spent on the National Health Service would have to be diverted into the treatment of drug-related illnesses that arguments about the future of the Health Service would become academic.
  I welcome the Minister's programme and the funding that he has won for what I hope and believe will only be the start of a sustained programme. In an ideal world, much of the work and education about which we have been talking would be carried out by parents and by families. However, we do not live in an ideal world. We in the House must deal with the real world, which knows that far too many children have parents and families who do not provide the support that they need and, therefore, the
  696
  only support will be through the institutions that they attend, and, for most, those institutions will be their schools.
  I hope that we will be able to deliver a threefold message to young people—first, every action has a reaction and a consequence; secondly, to take any drug once is once too many; and, thirdly—I believe that this is the message that will most appeal to the young—the moment one becomes involved in drug taking, one is allowing someone else to tell one what to do. Young people do not like to be told what to do, so the message must be, "You decide what you are going to do; you stay in control."
  1.32 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Like others, I welcome the debate. Some clear messages are being repeated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which will allow the debate to fulfil two of the three functions that the Minister made plain are the functions of the Government and of hon. Members when we address such issues. The Minister made clear that our three functions are as legislators, opinion formers and policy makers. On this occasion we are not legislating, but we are seeking to develop policy and to form opinion. The debate is welcome because it helps to set those two objectives. It may be that legislation will follow later, but it does not appear at present that specific pieces of legislation are planned or necessarily contemplated.
  I am happy to say that I believe that the implication of the key message, which the Minister, on advice, announced in the debate in May of "stay healthy, stay in control", is the right one. I want to divide what I say into a recapitulation of how urgent it is for us to address the subject, the justification for the approach that we have adopted and to ask a few questions about the Minister's responsibilities and the way in which education will address the specific agenda about how to deal with alcohol and drug abuse.
  The statistics—we can all quote many—are frightening for two reasons and the personal experience of hon. Members justifies the concern. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that educating people about alcohol, and in particular about drugs starts with advertising. I intervened to make a similar point. Evidence shows that, at the age of six, two out of five children can identify at least one alcoholic drink. By the age of 10, they are familiar with the names of many alcoholic drinks. It is after that age that they begin to drink. Between the ages of 10 and 14, only 2 per cent. of children have not tasted alcohol. By that age the vast majority of boys and girls will have begun to drink, often regularly. According to the Strathclyde university survey, the majority of boys and nearly the majority of girls will have had illegal drinks in pubs by the age of 14. By the age of 15 twice as many boys as girls will have begun to drink. It is generally accepted that girls are more addicted to tobacco than boys and that boys are more addicted to alcohol. By that age, drunkenness is also experienced by many children, normally outside the home. By the age of 16 only 12 per cent. of young people will not have tasted alcohol.
  The important thing to recognise in the statistics is the underlying trend, which shows that the age at which people begin to smoke and to drink is becoming younger.

  697
  Although alcoholic consumption is at its heaviest in mid-teenage boys, the amount drunk by younger boys on a regular basis is increasing.
  The latest figures from the official survey on young drinkers' trends shows that 37·5 per cent. of 11 and 12-year-old boys have some alcohol on one day of the week. The percentage rises as the boys get nearer the age of 16.
  In April this year, at the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association conference in Torquay, there was a debate on young drinking. Many experts gave evidence to show the horrendous consequences in the school room of such drinking. A teacher from Borehamwood said that there was plenty of evidence to show that teenagers were now drinking alcohol to the detriment of their health, and he asked:
  "How do you cope with 1l-year-olds who have experimented with alcohol at home over lunch?"
  Another teacher said that children were often absent or, if they were present, they were befuddled by drink.
  There is an inter-relationship between drink, drugs and worse. Young people who later become involved in drug abuse have often earlier drunk alcohol. Often early drinking of alcohol increases early sexual activity and early sexual activity means casual sex, unwanted pregnancies and sometimes AIDS. Alcohol can lead to the severe harm of children.
  In some cases the problem is horrendous. I was a youth worker before I came to this House. In our youth club in south London there were 14 and 15-year-old boys who would drink 15 pints a night regularly. At the end of such drinking they would not even be on the floor. One cannot drink 15 pints a night unless one has had a drinking habit for a considerable time. When that becomes acceptable behaviour for 15-year-olds, something is clearly wrong.
  I agree with many hon. Members that education, especially of schoolchildren, is the single most important thing that we need to do to reduce drug abuse. Education gives young people and children the wherewithal to make their own decisions about drugs instead of simply following the strictures of others. We all know that the strictures of others appear as irrational to young children. If one says to a youngster, "Just say no to drugs", the obvious question will be, "Why?" Once a naturally inquisitive child asks why, that child will want to explore for himself why he has been told that he cannot do this or that. As my other hon. Members have said, being told not to do something is often the best excuse for trying it out at the first available opportunity. I guess that many of us did exactly that in our own youth. Therefore, one simply cannot say things like that.
  Later, and separately, in the education process, one can indeed say no, but at the beginning one must do something else. One has to persuade children that they should not abuse drugs. I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that one does so by showing young people as clearly, factually, and accurately as possible the physiological, physical and mental effects of drugs on people—or possibly all three.
  If, from the beginning at their time at school, children are taught that they are unique and special and that the health of their minds and bodies is essential to ensure that anything and everything that they do in their lives will happen as it should and that their bodies will be affected by taking in any drug, they will begin to understand the effect of the substances that become abused. They can then
  698
  begin to understand visually, not only what not to d o to their bodies, but what they should do. Education about the foods that they should or should not eat and about the things that they should or should not drink is part and parcel of the same teaching which explains how fat leads to heart disease, how alcohol affects the bloodstream and brain, and the meaning of advertising agents' slogans such as, "Heroin screws you up".
  I endorse entirely the comment of the hon. Member for Lewes that one of the most effective methods of doing that is the one pioneered in Australia by Rev. Ted Noffs, and which is now well-recognised in this country and is receiving funding. We know that the Prince of Wales has given his support to it and that certain parts of the country have endorsed it. The Life Education Programme is clearly effective in communicating those simple messages. The human body is presented visually to young people. Responses to certain addictions and intakes are described and the young people are allowed to see for themselves the effects of drug or alcohol abuse. In Australia the project has been successful with the most lost and hopeless of cases. Indeed, it started in Sydney and in other areas where the problem was at its worst.
  I hope that such projects can be supported and endorsed here. The Minister was satisfied that it had been extremely helpful in formulating Government policy and that it had received their support. However, that type of project needs to be continually upheld as the way in which one should educate from an early age. Children should he allowed to know the reasons for their choice. We should underscore their ability to make such choices against the pressures of their peer group and of their friends, or sometimes of those who are not their friends, but who are seeking to make money out of the deal.
  One of the political arguments revolves around whether such topics should be the subject of compulsory education and how they should pass into the national curriculum. The general argument is that personal, social and health education is being considered by the inter-curricula working group, on whose timetable I trust the Minister will comment briefly when he winds up, which will recommend how such education can be embodied in a cross-core of foundation subjects, particularly science.
  There is considerable discontent and uncertainty about whether the division of such teaching among several subjects is a responsible approach. We know of the existence of the drug education co-ordinators, who will be funded until next year, but there are doubts as to whether the provision for the teaching of separate subjects is the right way forward. Is the Minister and his advisers in a position to allow their working party, and the Department to allow itself, to consider whether there may be grounds for co-ordinated teaching rather than separating it under different departmental heads? There are strong arguments for putting such education together and for ensuring that every school provides it.
  The Minister announced his Department's 10-point plan and the money available on 10 May—not today, as some of his hon. Friends seem to think. Concern has been expressed as to the extent to which private sector organisations with an interest in certain topics should become involved in schools promotions. Point five of the plan concerns the greater involvement of the private sector in the sponsorship of drugs and alcohol abuse programmes. It is right to ask whether the Scotch Whisky Association is being totally selfless when it seeks to become

  699
  involved in the education of young people and to support the drug and alcohol abuse programme when the association's ultimate key objective, not surprisingly, is to promote whisky sales in this country and abroad. I choose that association as but one example.
  A matter of common concern not covered by the 10-point plan but which has been mentioned in the debate is solvent abuse. I am aware that Ministers both in the Department of Health and in the Department of Education and Science share that concern and are responding to it. I am not critical of them, but I hope that they will continue to flag up that many youngsters abuse solvents. It is more difficult to control sales outlets of solvents than it is to control those who are selling alcohol or prescribed drugs, because solvents are generally available without restriction in many ordinary shops.
  The former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), brought to that Department a high profile on health provision. I have no idea of her likely fate in the coming days, but I am concerned that whoever is in post at the Department of Health and at the Department of Education and Science should develop policy together, as they have done in the past, and give an extremely high profile to the argument that health promotion and education is the way to counter drug and alcohol abuse—best starting with the young.
  The postscript is this. Health and Education Ministers and their officials must persuade their colleagues in other Departments to play the same game. As long as massive amounts of money are spent on tobacco and alcohol advertising—and there are no Government warnings required for the latter, although there are for the former—and as long as there is no general ban on such advertising, the Government's health education programme will compete with market pressures that make it difficult for any health campaigns to succeed. The Treasury must be persuaded that bad things should be taxed more than they have been. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office, for example, which deal with broadcasting, the media, and the private corporate sector, must be taken on board. It is not sufficient for the Department of Health and the DES to argue for health promotion if other Departments do not assist them.
  I welcome what the Minister has said and the action that he has taken. I am pleased that the Government have given us the opportunity to have this debate. We are all agreed that we must promote good health and encourage young people, as the Minister put it, to "Stay healthy, stay in control." I hope that that message will be twice as loud in the year ahead.
  1.50 pm
  Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to have the leave of the House to respond to the many powerful points made during the debate. It is almost customary for Ministers to begin their reply with the words "We have had an interesting and informative debate." Those words would not properly describe this debate because—I choose my words advisedly—it has been remarkable and possibly historic.
  700
  We began by agreeing on our objectives. I listened carefully to every contribution. I set out in the hope that there would be broad agreement about our tactical position and I believe that we have agreed on the tactics to fulfil our objectives. The House has endorsed the framework of the 10-point plan. There is all-party agreement that the plan is the correct way to bring about a reduction in demand and to take forward the education programmes in our schools, youth services and community services.
  I speak about consensus carefully because some hon. Members raised their fears about alcohol companies being involved in marketing campaigns against abuse, and I shall take that into consideration. Some hon. Members rightly emphasised the problems of alcohol and of smoking. Few of the matters that they raised could not be accommodated in the framework of the 10-point plan.
  I warmly thank the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for his comments. Incidentally, I, too, was involved in the "Rhythm and Booze" campaign. My experience was slightly different from his. I found it a powerful combination of broadcasting and "narrow-casting". The responses to the broadcasts were dealt with on a one-to-one basis, using workshops and phone-ins where individual inquiries could be dealt with. I commend that effective methodology which has also been used in other programmes.
  Some hon. Members raised the question of money. The £7 million now available is, to use a jargon of the City, highly leveraged. It can buy the awareness of hundreds of thousands of people, if it is used correctly. We shall be training the trainers, they will be training more trainers and trained people will be going into the classrooms. Already some 100,000 are aware of part, if not all, of the story. We have more than 400,000 teachers and tens of thousands of youth workers. I believe that we can get the message to nearly everyone if we spend the money appropriately, and bring in the organisations—some of them voluntary—that have been mentioned today.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central rightly said that we should distinguish between campaigning with a capital C—which can occasionally be counter-productive—and delivering the message in a localised, personalised, specific, sophisticated and subtle way. The necessary judgments and assessments must be made by the workers in the community: if we laid down what they should be saying and in what circumstances, it could not work.
  I am delighted that the House has endorsed the umbrella message—many others underlie it—which can be expressed as, "Stay healthy, stay in control." Having analysed all the comments made to me over the past few months, I squeezed the message into as few words as possible.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central hoped that personal and social education, and health education generally, would not be squeezed out of the curriculum by the coming reforms, and others have expressed the same hope. The hon. Gentleman will know that the science curriculum already contains health messages: we accept the idea of cross-curricular messages.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made some telling points about the hidden curriculum. A certain ethos will emerge from any lesson: that hidden curriculum is part of teachers' daily professional lives. We need not tell teachers that they should be serious about health education; all that they

  701
  need are the necessary skills and materials. Many are already delivering the necessary messages in different ways, and my hon. Friend is right to commend their professionalism in that regard.
  Let me reassure the hon. Member for Leeds, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that nicotine and tobacco are very much part of the work of the drug education co-ordinators. In the not-too-distant future, they are to become known as health education co-ordinators. About three months ago I broadened their remit to include AIDS, alcohol, tobacco and solvent abuse. After all, a chain of activities can start with an experiment with soft drugs at a party and then—in a small proportion of cases—proceed to hard drugs and intravenous injection, and thence to AIDS. I wanted to reflect the interrelationship of a variety of health and substance abuse problems.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The change of title will be helpful. Will the Minister tell us two things? For how long is that funding guaranteed? Originally, it was until 1990. Will it be seci.red beyond that? Secondly, is thought being given to the fact that, as prevention of drug and alcohol abuse is not a part of the national curriculum, its importance may be reduced in the eyes of pupils? We may need to put it back into the curriculum to give it that importance.
  Mr. Butcher: There is no danger of the importance of this message not being put across in schools, and that is what matters. How formally we include it in the curriculum is less important than commitment to it, and we are close to getting an agreement that the message must be got through. It can be got across within existing subjects, such as science, that are formally written into the curriculum. There could be separate lessons, but I am not entirely sure that that is the best way, although that already happens in personal and social education. There is room outside the core curriculum if schools want to use that time, but I think that this combination of options will give the teaching profession the flexibility it requires and, more important, the tools to get the message across. I have here on the Table a box of information on drug abuse such as is available to teachers.
  This is not a crash programme, but a long, drawn-out operation. It is almost an underground, continuous guerrilla war as opposed to a frontal war. For that reason, I have secured funding for three years, starting in 1990. That is my signal to the co-ordinators that they are in a long-term effort. I hope that that has encouraged them to think that there is no danger of their contracts being terminated by local education authorities after one year. I am now telling local education authorities that we are giving support for three years. Funding will obviously be reviewed on a rolling basis, but our signal to the world at large is, "This is not a short-term campaign"—it is much more than that.
  Mr. Fatchett: I go along with the notion that the issue should be discussed on a cross-curricula basis. that is the most positive and effective way in which to deal with it. If the issues are taken separately, there is a danger of glamorising them and of the message not getting across.
  I was not objecting to the cross-curricula approach. I wanted to make sure that it was embedded in the development of the national curriculum. That is important and is the most effective way of dealing with the problems.
  Mr. Butcher: There is no difference between us on that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) was not able to stay for the winding-up speech for reasons I entirely understand, so I record my intention to write to him about the confiscation of drug barons' money. I am sure that my colleagues at the Home Office will be advised of his comments. Drug pushers and drug barons are vermin, in the strict meaning of the word. They are the lowest of the low. I do not think that anyone in the country would stand in the way of a Government who came down heavily on those people and used the panoply of measures available to the state and to this Chamber to deal with them. Certainly no teacher would disagree with that statement.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) is absolutely right that alcohol is a greater danger as a substance of abuse, by a factor of 10 to 1. During the past few years, we have all looked at the problem of what was dubbed the lager lout and the yob mentality. I agree with the hon. Lady—I, too, am worried about the way in which excessive drinking seems to exacerbate the yob mentality. The statistics on convictions for drunkenness are frightening. In 1987, more than 35,000 people were convicted of aggravated drunkenness, which essentially means being drunk and disorderly, and 6,500 were convicted of drunkenness. In addition some 40,000 people were much the worse for drink and received cautions. That comes to over 80,000 cases of public intoxication. What sort of example does that set our young people? Schools try, through personal and social education to inculcate into young people important values about respect for others and responsibility for one's own actions. They are not helped by that sort of behaviour from so-called adults or media coverage of such behaviour. Schools cannot do it all. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that we need localised campaigns and a personal approach with experts on the spot. They should be given the freedom to pursue the problems with the appropriate backing from the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) made a broad variety of perceptive points. As he is the chairman of the all-party group, we would expect no less from him. He has helped many of us by bringing forward ideas for the future.
  Now that we have had this debate and have agreed on our objectives and the tactics to be used, we are legitimately entitled to take the initiative in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes mentioned various European bodies with which we can deal. In terms of demand reduction we have a number of ideas that we could fruitfully share with our European colleagues through the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. I am happy to initiate that process by making our paperwork available to the European network and inviting fellow Ministers within the European Community who are dealing with similar programmes to send their policy documents back to me. My hon. Friend has hit on an important point. If he is looking for a powerful response to what he said, I can tell him that I will take that initiative. Let us hope that it bears fruit.
  I pay tribute yet again to the drug education co-ordinators who are soon to be known as health education co-ordinators. I should also like to pay tribute to the Life education centres. They have impressed many hon. Members and I welcomed the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes about the work of those

  703
  centres. I met representatives from the organisation recently and I am sure that they have an important part to play in promoting healthy attitudes among young people. I know that they work closely with schools and the drug education co-ordinators. They have been successful in persuading the private sector to devote resources to their work. Local education authorities will, if they choose, be able to spend part of the £7 million that they will be receiving next year to make use of the centres in their schools.
  I shall look carefully at the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) about Schools Outreach and ACET. His account of his experiences in the United States was fascinating and terrifying. We should be constructively terrified—if that is the correct use of the term—about what could happen under worse circumstances if we do nothing. We should use that constructive tension in the House and in Whitehall to positive good effect. I detect the correct atmosphere in which to release that tension in positive, helpful and perceptive policies.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also endorsed the Life education centres. I hope that I have satisfied him on the question of the curriculum. I shall write to him about the timetable. He kept asking me about that and all I can say is that it will be dealt with as soon as possible.
  I thank all hon. Members for their observations. The use of the word "historic" may in this case not be an exaggeration.
  Mr. Tom Sackville: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Monday 24th July, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business; and shall lapse three hours after it has been made, if not previously disposed of.
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 26th July, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motions relating to Social Security not more than three hours after the first such Motion has been entered upon.
    That, in respect of the Extradition Bill [Lords] and the Continental Shelf Bill [Lords], notices of amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time.—[Mr. Sackville.]

  Nature Conservation and Wildlife
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Sackville]
  2.9 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I listened with interest to the previous debate, and I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who has arrived hot-foot from her Department. There is no greater contrast between the issues in the previous debate, which dealt with the agonies caused to humankind, and the subject we are about to debate—wildlife and nature conservation in Great Britain. It is the first time that the hon. Lady has had the opportunity to debate the matter in the House and to put forward the Government's view, so I am grateful for the opportunity of the debate, albeit it late on a Friday afternoon.
  It offers us the chance to take stock of wildlife conservation in Britain and to examine the impact of a sustained period of Conservative government on Britain's record. It is a matter of great public issue, and the huge membership of organisations such as the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds shows the extent to which people's interest is easily translated into positive commitment.
  As someone with a lifelong interest in the natural world and the natural history of these islands, I had become used to the bipartisan approach which characterised British policy on wildlife conservation in the pre-Thatcher era. While personally I would always put more emphasis on wildlife conservation, that would not have signified a political difference between our respective parties.
  I regret that the battle to protect the fraction of remaining wildlife habitat is a cause for political differences between the Government and the Opposition. The Government have signalled their departure from the historical bipartisanship, and in administering their new treatment the patient will also be the victim. The economic dogma that has been forced on so many other parts of British life is now threatening even what remains of our indigenous wildlife. Natural history is a particularly sensitive guinea pig, for damage inflicted on ecosystems often can never be rectified.
  I shall say a few words about why the issue is important. We could legitimately talk about the right of species other than homo sapiens to continued existence on this planet, and I am sure that the Minister would have a valid contribution to that debate. However, a more accessible case for nature conservation involves the benefit that homo sapiens can derive from nature. I am delighted that my own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Battersea, (Mr. Bowis), is here, listening intently, but in case I sound like a Thatcherite I should make it clear that I mean the benefit derived from observation rather than exploitation of the natural world.
  The value of a varied and rich natural environment is impossible to quantify, but anyone who has walked the moors above Llanbrynmair, watched bearded reedlings on the Norfolk Broads or seen a peregrine stoop on to its prey will have experienced the value and delight of the natural world. It enriches and humbles those who observe it, and, as with any asset, its value increases with scarcity. We have reached a point where the remaining natural habitat in most of Britain is, by virtue of that scarcity, worthy of protection in all but the most exceptional cases.

  705
  I shall not feel able to explain the actions of my generation to those yet to come if we do not cease the onslaught we have unleashed on most species and habitats in this country. The importance of the study of nature rests not only with its inherent interest but with the effect that an understanding of nature can have on the tolerance and maturity of young people. That study requires the raw material to be widely available.
  I should like to put on record particular victims of that onslaught that have been denied protection by the Government. This will necessarily be highly selective because the litany of important sites and habitats that have been destroyed with the connivance, or at least through the inaction, of the Government would more than fill the time available in this debate.
  An obvious place to start is the Flow country of Caithness and Sutherland. No one with an interest in conservation in Britain can be unfamiliar with the battles between conservationists and accountants over this area. On what side have the Government come down in that test case? A recent report by the Highland regional council on the potential for further afforestation of the Flow country reached conclusions entirely at odds with the Government's specialist advisory agency, the Nature Conservancy Council. The Secretary of State for Scotland acknowledged that divergence of view when responding to the Highland regional council's report by saying,
  "It is proper to record that the proposed strategy does not totally remove the potential for conflict between conservation and forestry."
  That was the understatement of the year. The report of the Highland regional council recommends further planting of 40,000 hectares, much of which is on land of incomparable value for landscape and wildlife purposes. The Nature Conservancy Council wants no further planting. In this thorny dispute, the Government acted by accepting the Highland regional council's recommendation that
  "consultation with the NCC should in future take place only where tree planting is proposed on existing or potential SSSIs."
  In other words, landscape of the value of Caithness and Sutherland, with its aesthetic beauty and value as a wildlife habitat, is to be denied any protection unless it has been categorised as a site of special scientific interest.
  The Government reacted to that potential for conflict, which they recognised, by capitulating to the commercial forestry interests and overruling the concerns of their conservation advisers. The result will be afforestation approval such as that announced on 19 January, under which a further 1,400 acres will be planted, and the most recent announcement on 12 July that another 800 acres will be destroyed for ever.
  Another highly sensitive area is what little remains of Dorset heathland, which is home to the marsh gentian, smooth snake, sand lizard, hobby and Dartford warbler. A little over 20 years ago, 100,000 acres of that wildlife-rich habitat remained. Today, 14,000 acres of scattered fragments remain. That total will be further reduced by the Department of the Environment's recent decision on the crucial planning decision at Canford heath. The inadequate measures under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 mean that what is left, even after the Secretary of State's depradations, is being devalued by deliberate mismanagement.
  A further site of major importance is the lowland raised peat bog on the Shropshire-Clwyd border. The majority of that area is under threat from peat extraction. Fens,
  706
  whixall and bettesfield mosses support the large heath butterfly, raft spider and bog bush cricket. But because of planning consent for exploitation of the vital feature of this area, it may not support those or any other important species for very long.
  In my native Wales, the Cardiff bay barrage threatens the vital feeding grounds of thousands of wading birds, in a site of special scientific interest unique for its accessibility for the general public—all because developers desire a view over water, however polluted, rather than the rich estuarine mud that is so valuable to wildlife.
  Other important sites threatened by the inadequate protection offered by the Government are Oxleas wood in Greenwich, the Cambrian mountains, mid-Kent's area of outstanding natural beauty and West Mersea meadow in Essex. Species as well as sites are under pressure. In the Somerset levels, snipe populations have declined by 68 per cent. over the past 10 years. Nationally, hen harriers are down to 450 breeding pairs; the corncrake population has declined to 750 calling birds; stone curlews have declined from 1,000 pairs in the 1930s to 160 pairs today. In respect of all those species, Britain has national and international responsibilities.
  It is against this background that we must view the direction in which the Government have signalled they intend to go. That is not a background of maintaining the status quo or even of a gradual decline. It involves a wholesale onslaught unleashed at a time when there is less than ever to protect.
  It is most unfortunate that I am obliged to refer to the record of the present Secretary of State for the Environment. The right hon. Gentleman has recently been referred to by distinguished observers as "an ecological hooligan" whose record is "nothing short of a disaster". Those references are unnecessarily restrained. The appointment of this environmental Genghis Khan to oversee the management of our remaining natural assets was a kick in the teeth to all who care about the environment and those with an interest in the countryside and wildlife in particular.
  The natural world can breath a sigh of relief that the staggering double standards of the originator of the NIMBY syndrome are to be directed elsewhere in the very near future. However, we will still have the legacy of his period in office to contend with. I fear that we must consider the steps that the Government have taken to combat the threats that I outlined earlier.
  As well as directly damaging the environment, the Government have a long record of opposing initiatives that would protect it. The most obvious cases are their opposition to the flora, fauna and habitats directive and their minimalist interpretation of the environmental impact assessment directive. The Government have altered the planning regulations and they scuppered the Hedgerows Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
  In a recent parliamentary answer, the Minister said that the draft directive on flora, fauna and habitat was unacceptable to all EC member states. However, she did not say that Britain was uniquely hostile to that conservation measure at all the meetings in which it was discussed. To hide behind the minor reservations of others is deliberately misleading. Why does not the Minister have the courage to say that she ordered Britain's total opposition, and explain why? Why did Britain scupper that directive?

  707
  The environmental impact assessment directive is a similar case. Britain was not successful in denying all member states European action to safeguard the environment in relation to that directive. However, the interpretation of the directive at home has been as mean-spirited as it is legally possible for it to be.
  Inaction has also spelt doom for thousands of miles of British hedgerows. The Government estimate that 500 miles of hedgerows are lost per year. Authoritative independent estimates put the loss at 4,000 miles per annum—an increase from a loss of 2,900 miles a few years ago. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, planning decisions
  "have all too often given procedence to the developers' interests over environmental considerations even when sites of national or international importance are involved."
  Perhaps it is appropriate that I should conclude my remarks by referring to the Nature Conservancy Council, the fragmentation of which is the Secretary of State's valedictory two-fingered gesture to the conservation movement in Britain. A word that is frequently used when discussing that piece of vandalism is "capitulation". It refers to the well-known hostility of vested and landed interests and of certain individuals and organisations representing them to the Nature Conservancy Council. They disliked the council because it prevented them from doing what they wanted to do—to damage the environment. Those voices were particularly heard in Scotland, and the Secretary of State has capitulated to them, making the NCC a victim of its own success, as one of its senior employees put it yesterday.
  By breaking up the one body which could take the national overview of particular conservation issues, the Government are damaging the cause of conservation in two main ways. It is well known that in certain environmental battles local interests have frequently been in the anti-conservationist corner. In holding the ring, the NCC, as a national body, was able to assess the significance of the environmental sacrifices from a national or international perspective. For instance, a particular wildlife habitat may be very little valued by those who live nearby, but be of enormous national significance and attract naturalists from far afield because of its importance as a reserve for an internationally threatened rare species. In such cases, a national organisation can weigh the local and national interest. A regional structure cannot do that. That is why the NCC is being fragmented.
  A regional organisation is also unable to speak for the whole country, both in the kind of international forums and conventions which are increasingly important in wildlife conservation, and to the Government at home. Clearly, the Government do not want to hear what the Nature Conservancy Council has to say. Their ears have been closed for the past few years, but just because they are determined not to listen does not mean that there are not others who are glad of Britain's voice in international gatherings. That will now be extinguished.
  According to its chairman, who was not consulted on its dismemberment, the Nature Conservancy Council decision makes little sense in respect of wildlife—presumably, one of the NCC's main concerns—in national, international or economic terms. He has pointed out:
  708
  "wildlife issues are no respecter of geographical or political boundaries and I am greatly concerned that complete separation will undermine the scientific capability of the NCC and prevent effective policy advice being provided to the Government."
  The Government do not care. The director general of the Nature Conservancy Council has complained:
  "This reorganisation throws the baby out with the bathwater".
  I can only echo the words of both men.
  I hope that the proposal to privatise national nature reserves will be dropped at the same time as the madman who conceived it. A more naked piece of partisan dogma is hard to imagine. On top of a 5 per cent. cut in the NCC's budget this year, which has prevented it from buying several reserves of outstanding value, it has been ordered to prepare for sale 62 of the jewels in this country's wildlife crown, four of them imminently. Can the Minister give a commitment that this madcap idea will be ditched, or is it the intention to starve the NCC of funds, dismember it and force it to sell its priceless reserves, in line with the Government's doctrinaire approach to so many valuable public assets?
  This is an opportunity for the Minister to tell the House and the country what the Government intend. I hope that she will take it in answering these questions frankly, honestly and fully and that she will give us more warning as a country than she and the Secretary of State for the Environment gave the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council of his organisation's fate. I am afraid that I can only suspect the worst. I have become used to that in observing the Government's record on conservation, wildlife and the natural world.
  2.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). As he said modestly in his opening remarks, he has had a long-standing interest in our country's natural habitat. We are privileged to live in a country with such splendid flora and fauna. I endorse his remarks about the importance of that natural heritage to our young people. Many people do excellent work in opening the eyes of youngsters and in explaining and demonstrating all that is around us in the natural environment. We live in a country in which about 30 per cent. of our countryside is designated in one way or another—as an area of outstanding natural beauty, as a site of special scientific interest, as part of one of our splendid 10 national parks or as part of the green belt, which has doubled since the Conservative party came to power.
  Before talking more generally about some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, I should like to respond to his point about the Nature Conservancy Council. This is an opportune moment to explain some of the thinking on this matter and perhaps to reassure the hon. Gentleman and others who may have misunderstood the purpose behind the proposals.
  Many of the hon. Gentleman's points reflect the remarkable increase in public interest and involvement in environmental issues. This is illustrated by the growth in the membership of voluntary bodies right across the spectrum, from Greenpeace to the National Trust. The Government welcome these developments, which are channelling so much energy into improving the

  709
  environment. They are increasingly being complemented by the greening of our major industries, and the new emphasis on conservation in agriculture.
  The Government are also intervening firmly and decisively on the side of conservation—contrary to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is worth recalling briefly how radically the legislative framework, and the role of bodies like the Nature Conservancy Council, have changed over the past two decades. The watershed was the Wildlife and Countryside Act passed in 1981. The Act created a protected network of habitats sites of special scientific interest—designated by the NCC which now cover 7 per cent. of the land surface of Great Britain. It protects most species of wild birds, and over 200 other animals and plants, again with the active involvement and expertise of the NCC. It introduced marine nature reserves, widened the definition of national nature reserves and accelerated the trend towards management agreements with farmers and landowners to protect many of our key sites. The Countryside Commission for England and Wales, too, was given important new responsibilities by the Act, as well as a separate status as a grant-in-aid body.
  The Government have enabled——
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Mrs. Bottomley: The Government have enabled both the NCC and the Countryside Commission to implement the provisions by substantially increasing their resources. Taken together, the grants for the two organisations now total £62·28 million, compared with £13·4 million in 1979–80, a rise in real terms of 134 per cent. That shows clearly the Government's commitment to our natural habitat.
  The NCC, in particular, has been transformed by its expanded duties and resources. When the council was established in 1949 covering the whole of Great Britain, it was designed to be a small body, compared primarily with research. It had relatively few staff or executive responsibilities. In 1960, it had only about 200 staff spread across the whole of Great Britain. It would not have made sense then to establish separate bodies, or even under the Nature Conservancy Act 1973 which divided the NCC from the Natural Environment Research Council.
  Today, the NCC has grown more than fivefold, and has more than 1,100 staff. More important still, many of those staff have to carry out their duties—designating and monitoring SSSIs, negotiating management agreements and co-operating with other bodies, both statutory and voluntary—in areas of the country that have very different circumstances and needs. These are not simply academic or scientific tasks. SSSIs for example, can affect the livelihood both of individual owners and of the community of which they are part. Great sensitivity is required in applying such designations in a way that will obtain grassroots support, whether from farmers, foresters or conservationists. The Government firmly believe that it is only through the voluntary support of the whole community that successful conservation can be achieved. The right way to proceed is to work with the grain of those who live and work in the countryside and not to try to antagonise or alienate them unduly.
  The NCC has grappled with the problems brought by its expanded role and it has many achievements to its
  710
  name, not least the establishment of the current SSSI network. I have visited the NCC in Peterborough and I have been most impressed with much of the excellent and high quality work it is undertaking. However, its three-tier structure is inevitably over-centralised and remote from those areas where the nature conservation effort takes place on the ground. Our proposals to create separate agencies in England, Scotland and Wales will remove one of the tiers and establish much clearer lines of accountability and responsibility. This in turn should improve the efficiency and sensitivity with which conservation functions are carried out and provide better opportunities to carry forward the cause of conservation in ways that command the support of the whole community.
  I feel sure that the House will also agree that it is an anachronism for the Department of the Environment to be responsible for the appointment and funding of the NCC in Scotland and Wales. The Secretaries of State for those countries already exercise many responsibilities for conservation, including several new ones, such as the declaration of marine nature reserves and the making of nature conservation orders, bestowed on them by the 1981 Act.
  It is only logical that they should be able to exercise those powers in partnership with agencies specifically attuned to the needs of Scotland and Wales. After all, that is how we organise other aspects of Government work involving the delegation of executive responsibilities to separate statutory bodies, such as the conservation of the built heritage. English Heritage does its job extremely effectively in England and separate, equally competent professional bodies offer similar advice and undertake a similar task in Wales and Scotland. I do not think that the hon. Member for Caerphilly or anyone else should regard the new arrangements for nature conservancy with suspicion or mistrust.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have already made plain, they look forward to the opportunity to take a clearer responsibility for the conservation of those countries' precious and unique natural heritage. And it is not just the Secretaries of State. I note that the Western Mail carried a leader responding to the announcement that the Government proposed to merge the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission in Wales, and welcoming the fact that the decisions would not be placed fairly and squarely with the Secretary of State for Wales, to be ma de on the basis of advice given to him.
  I should emphasise that the new bodies will have a similar constitution to those of the existing NCC and the Countryside Commission—that is to say, they will be separate grant-in-aid bodies with specific statutory functions. They will not, of course, be voluntary bodies like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or Friends of the Earth. But they will not be Government Departments either, and they will be expected to carry out their work under the supervision of their own chairmen and boards.
  In Scotland and Wales, our proposals are also designed to secure integrated agencies, covering both wildlife and landscape conservation as well as informal recreation and access to the countryside. In adopting this approach in Scotland and Wales but not in England, we have taken account of several factors. First, there is a much higher density of population in England, and consequently even

  711
  greater pressure on land from many legitimate but often conflicting interests. The hon. Gentleman referred to some. It therefore makes sense to retain separate bodies—one to protect wildlife for its own sake, and the other to cover landscape, recreation and access issues.
  Secondly, a much higher proportion of the land area of both Scotland and Wales is composed of natural, or semi-natural habitat, much of it already covered by formal designations and more appropriate to a strategic approach embracing all relevant interests. As the consultation document published by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland points out, there is a complex interaction between flora, fauna, scenery and human activity. In both Scotland and Wales this can best be covered by single agencies providing a one-door service to Government, farmers, conservationists and the wider public.
  Mention has been made in respect of the Nature Conservancy Council and others of the need to preserve the scientific base of the NCC. Only yesterday I met representatives of Wildlife Link, an association of well-regarded organisations of high standard operating in the field, and one of their main concerns was the maintenance of the scientific base of the NCC.
  The Government fully accept that the work of the three successor bodies must be underpinned by rigorous science, using the data and expertise that the council has built up over the past 40 years. We shall, therefore, ensure that provision is made for the Government to maintain a Great Britain overview an that each body has access to adequate scientific advice on a Great Britain basis where this is desirable.
  We are ready to discuss how best this might be done. Options include in-house provisions or actions by outside bodies such as universities and research councils, arrangements for the pooling of data and expertise among the agencies and the use of common protocols and data protection techniques. It is important to recognise however that the science base is only one aspect of the NCC's activities and now takes proportionately less of its resources following the increase in the council's executive responsibilities, especially those for SSSIs. The NEC is not a research council and already commissions the majority of its original scientific work from other bodies such as the Natural Environment Research Council and universities.
  It is perfectly proper for the Government to take account of matters other than the interests of the science directorate of the NCC in deciding the appropriate organisational model for the functions of nature conservation in this country. We are confident that the concerns expressed by the chairman of the NCC, to whom I pay tribute for his distinguished contribution over the years, and others can be readily accommodated within the organisational arrangements that we intend to make. We believe that, when stripped of emotion and political hyperbole, these concerns boil down to a fairly narrow compass which, although important in themselves, do not undermine the Government's case for the reorganisation of these bodies.
  It is certainly not a concern about costs and the formulation of policy at national and international level. On costs, the Government would wholly reject any suggestion that the real motive of the proposals is
  712
  somehow to cut spending on conservation. Our aim is to improve the delivery of conservation services in all three countries, while maintaining the scientific integrity that underpins many of the NCC's activities. We will also take account of short-term costs, such as those incurred by staff relocation, in deciding what level of resources to recommend to the House in the next public expenditure White Paper.
  On national and international policy, there seems to be a widespread but mistaken belief that, because wildlife crosses political boundaries, the machinery of Government must do likewise. It is of greater importance to ensure that the agencies are effectively protecting wildlife at grassroots level in local communities and in co-operation with voluntary bodies such as the country trusts. When advice is needed at the national and international level, we shall make arrangements to ensure that the new agencies are able to provide it, and that the Government are able to act on it, whether in Brussels or in the various international wildlife conventions to which the United Kingdom is party, whether the Ramsar or Berne conventions. It is important to remember that the Government, not individual Departments, decide whether to ratify international conventions and agreements on behalf of the entire United Kingdom. Consistency will also be maintained between the criteria used for designating sites of national or international importance in each of the three countries.
  It is understandable that the Great Britain headquarters of the NCC finds it difficult at the moment to accept that there is a better way to organise the council's work. However, there is clearly a strong current of favourable opinion in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, it was noticeable that the chairman of the Scottish Wildlife Trust Ltd. and the convener of the Scottish Landowners Federation wrote in considered and positive terms to The Scotsman last week. The chairman of the trust believes that the measures
  "could turn out to be the most effective and imaginative in our generation".
  The Government intend to prove him right.
  The hon. Gentleman referred also to concern about habitat damage and other issues.
  Mr. Ron Davies: An Adjournment debate is an opportunity to pursue a matter, but I will be brief. Does the Minister understand that the Government's direct refusal to consult with the bodies that are involved—the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, regional interests, or Wildlife Link and the constituent parts of that body—was bound to cause a great deal of anger and suspicion? There is precious little use in her complimenting individuals when she withheld from the opportunity for prior consultation. If she values them, why on earth did she not consult them before she took the decision?
  I recognise that there is some merit in merging the NCC and the Countryside Commission in Scotland and Wales, but there are two major concerns. The Minister has not spelt out how she intends to ensure that national and international value is given to parochial arguments. For example, in the case of SSSIs in Cardiff bay, how can we ensure that the international perspective is maintained? Will she please make it clear that, when Britain speaks in

  713
  international forums, there will be a unified voice and that we will not have a fragmented approach to matters of international importance?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am pleased to respond to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. For some time, there have been discussions with the NCC about the right way of proceeding and the appropriate form that its structure should take. It is also the case that my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside, has written to Wildlife Link in response to correspondence, making it clear that concerns and views about the way to proceed would be welcomed.
  The decision has been taken about the structure. Many of the hon. Gentleman's points are concerned with the manner in which the work will be undertaken and the importance of conserving an ability to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is clear that on many occasions, when the United Kingdom Government must take a view, they are working with a co-ordinated view between Departments. We do not anticipate that that will cause difficulties, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are properly taken into account when we finalise the arrangements. Discussions are going on with those who work at the NCC and elsewhere about the most appropriate way to respond.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to habitat damage. It is important that our system of SSSIs, which is now approaching 5,500, and the other designations in the countryside, are given value. I would like to do justice in
  714
  longer detail to many of the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I am not sure that that would be welcome now. I shall write to him about them in more detail, as I will on birds and the situation in Scotland.
  The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the Government's position on the habitat directive. Everything that I have said today makes it abundantly clear that we take great pride in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We believe that we have introduced a model for the preservation of wildlife and species of natural habitats. It is an example that many others could well follow. He will appreciate that we are not convinced that the mechanisms being promoted by the Commission were the most appropriate way of ensuring that our excellent record in this country would be matched by others. We are hopeful that progress will be made and we have made it clear that we welcome discussions on the subject.
  I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have every confidence that the Nature Conservancy Council will continue, albeit in its new form, to give its high-standing and reputable advice to the Government. We are strongly committed to preserving, protecting and enhancing our natural heritage. I welcome the opportunity offered by the hon. Gentleman to put that absolutely clearly.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Three o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the management buy out of Harland and Wolff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: Over the last few weeks progress has continued on the drafting of legal documents to enable completion of the sale of the business to a new company being set up by the MEBO/Olsen team. I was encouraged that the trade unions have endorsed new terms and conditions included in offers of employment sent to members of the work force on behalf of the new company on 6 July. Subject to EC approval (expected by the beginning of August) and the satisfactory conclusion of other pre-contract conditions, the sale of the business should be complete in September.

  Civil Servants (Statistics)
  Mr William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each grade in the Northern Ireland civil service the number and percentages of: (a) Roman Catholics, (b) Protestants and (c) others, showing the number and percentages of males and females in each category: and if he will indicate the percentage of each of those groupings of working age in Northern Ireland.

  Mr Cope
  The information requested by the hon. Gentleman is contained within the second report of the equal opportunities unit of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The second report was published in December 1987 and shows the make-up of the Northern Ireland Civil Service by sex, religion and disability as at 1 January 1987.

  Expenditure on lawyer agents by the Crown Prosecution Service

  Region and area

  21986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1 April to 30 June 1989

  £

  £

  £

  £

  London and South East

  12 Inner London1

  871,409

  2,042,664

  2,076,722

  582,052

  14 North London

  608,543

  1,084,313

  1,249,981

  377,907

  16 South London

  332,188

  753,574

  1,001,331

  174,136

  22 Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire

  191,973

  531,293

  510,139

  102,068

  42 Essex

  62,950

  290,970

  291,529

  89,815

  52 Kent

  92,363

  320,268

  323,332

  83,470

  Total

  2,159,425

  5,023,082

  5,453,033

  1,409,448

  South and West

  20 Avon/Somerset

  99,406

  343,084

  381,728

  84,291

  34 Devon/Cornwall

  74,821

  182,834

  160,449

  44,937

  36 Dorset/Hampshire

  186,105

  600,904

  538,483

  153,527

  44 Gloucestershire/Wiltshire

  67,516

  218,738

  196,144

  33,147

  48 South Wales

  146,684

  256,341

  96,878

  8,232

  66 Sussex

  123,943

  298,478

  346,318

  93,595

  68 Thames Valley

  91,779

  295,599

  292,773

  66,520

  70 West Mercia

  160,783

  525,082

  237,780

  41,084

  Total

  951,037

  2,721,360

  2,250,551

  525,333

  358
  Copies of the second report were placed in the Library on 17 December 1987.

  The following table shows estimated aggregated figures (1985–87) of the religious affiliation of persons of working age in Northern Ireland, derived from the continuous household survey.

  Males

  Females

  All

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Catholic

  37·9

  39·6

  38·9

  Protestant

  57·8

  57·8

  57·8

  Other or not stated

  4·3

  2·6

  3·3

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases have been dismissed by the courts for the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to(a) attend at court and (b) have the case file at court; and how many adjournments have been given because of (a) and (b).

  The Attorney-General
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many lawyers have ceased to be employed by the Crown Prosecution Service during its lifetime; and of these how many(a) resigned, (b) retired and (c) were dismissed.

  The Attorney-General
  Since the Crown Prosecution Service was established 334 lawyers have left its employment. Of these 304 resigned, seven retired, four were dismissed, 16 have transferred to other Government Departments and three have died.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the branch areas of the Crown Prosecution Service and state how much money has been paid by each branch to agents to carry out the work of the Crown Prosecution Service for(a) 1989 to date, (b) 1988–89, (c) 1987–88 and (d) 1986–87.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  359

  Region and area

  21986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1 April to 30 June 1989

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Northern

  26 Cheshire

  42,710

  171,719

  123,944

  46,520

  28 Cleveland/North Yorkshire

  165,575

  282,594

  235,368

  41,943

  30 Cumbria/Lancashire

  214,238

  547,841

  752,081

  172,133

  38 Durham/Northumbria

  420,771

  548,413

  547,208

  172,412

  40 North Wales

  126,080

  251,626

  228,545

  57,123

  46 Greater Manchester

  440,514

  630,580

  597,031

  136,740

  56 Merseyside

  261,918

  395,883

  356,736

  69,003

  62 South Yorkshire

  155,071

  254,933

  349,046

  95,317

  74 West Yorkshire

  389,686

  595,128

  668,169

  169,894

  Total

  2,216,563

  3,589,816

  3,858,127

  952,085

  Midlands

  24 Cambridgeshire/Lincolnshire

  93,811

  305,722

  339,352

  66,013

  32 Derbyshire

  59,681

  256,853

  249,403

  38,458

  50 Humberside

  47,249

  90,454

  126,204

  26,166

  54 Leicestershire/Northamptonshire

  251,362

  702,516

  623,090

  103,409

  58 Norfolk/Suffolk

  159,618

  384,413

  359,915

  99,347

  60 Nottinghamshire

  159,572

  303,758

  287,759

  84,648

  64 Staffordshire/Warwickshire

  234,848

  493,952

  365,618

  106,973

  72 West Midlands

  713,639

  989,658

  1,089,245

  248,652

  Total

  1,719,780

  3,527,425

  3,440,585

  773,666

  Headquarters

  02 Headquarters (Legal casework)

  24,231

  10,629

  7,596

  0

  Total

  24,231

  10,629

  7,596

  0

  National Total

  7,071,037

  14,972,313

  15,009,892

  3,670,532

  1 Including Central Courts Branch.

  2 Apart from the Metropolitan counties and Durham/Northumbria, areas did not become operational as part of the CPS until 1 October 1986.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the branch areas of the Crown Prosecution Service and give the number of current vacancies that exist for lawyers at(a) prosecutor, (b) senior prosecutor and (c) branch prosecutor level.

  Breakdown of lawyer vacancies by area showing Grade/Job title as at 30 June 1989

  CP

  SCP

  ABCP

  BCP

  CCP

  4

  3

  2

  1

  6

  6

  5

  5

  4

  3

  HQ1

  Director's Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Deputy Director's Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  HQ Casework

  +3

  -7

  0

  +1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  London/South East

  Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire

  -5·5

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  -3

  -4

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  -16·5

  -1

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inner London

  -20·5

  -7

  -3

  +3

  -3

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Outer London North

  -25·5

  -10

  -3

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Outer London South

  -25·5

  -4

  +0·5

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midland Region

  Cambridgeshire/Lincolnshire

  -12·5

  -2

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  -14·5

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  -10

  -2

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire/Northamptonshire

  -14·5

  -7

  —

  0

  —

  -1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  -10

  -1

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottingham

  -10·5

  +0·5

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire/Warwickshire

  -15

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  -29·5

  +2·5

  -2

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Region

  Cheshire

  -7·5

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  -24·5

  +1

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire/Cumbria

  -11·5

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  -13

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria/Durham

  -21·5

  -3·5

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales/Dyfed Powys

  -8

  -1

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire/Cleveland

  -3·5

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  360
  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  361

  CP

  SCP

  ABCP

  BCP

  CCP

  4

  3

  2

  1

  6

  6

  5

  5

  4

  3

  South Yorkshire

  -12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  -19·5

  -1

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South and West Region

  Avon/Somerset

  -12

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon/Cornwall

  -5

  -0·5

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset/Hampshire

  -15

  -4

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire/Wiltshire

  -4

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales/Gwent

  -11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  -4·5

  -3

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  -8

  -4

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  -0·5

  -1

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  -391

  -59

  -7·5

  +4

  -3

  -1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Posts in HQ as grades 5 and 6 have been shown as CCP and BCP equivalents according to grade.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the branch areas of the Crown Prosecution Service and state the numbers of current established posts for lawyers at(a) prosecutor, (b) senior prosecutor and (c) branch prosecutor level.

  Breakdown of lawyer posts by area, showing Grade/Job title as at 30 June 1989

  CP

  SCP

  ABCP

  BCP

  CCP

  4

  3

  2

  1

  6

  6

  5

  5

  4

  3

  HQ1

  Director's Office

  Deputy Director's Office

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1

  —

  HQ Casework

  1

  34

  —

  14

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  London/South East

  Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire

  29

  14

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  20

  11

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  30

  15

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inner London

  83

  43

  13

  —

  5

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Outer London North

  60

  29

  9

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Outer London South

  57

  27

  6

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midland Region

  Cambridgeshire/Lincolnshire

  26

  13

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  21

  10

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  22

  11

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire/Northamptonshire

  30

  15

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  23

  12

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottingham

  30

  15

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire/Warwickshire

  29

  14

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  59

  28

  8

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Region

  Cheshire

  23

  10

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  82

  40

  9

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire/Cumbria

  45

  21

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  47

  23

  6

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria/Durham

  53

  26

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales/Dyfed Powys

  27

  13

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire/Cleveland

  34

  13

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  30

  15

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  48

  24

  6

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South and West Region

  Avon/Somerset

  30

  14

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon/Cornwall

  25

  12

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset/Hampshire

  46

  20

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire/Wiltshire

  21

  10

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales/Gwent

  55

  27

  1

  4

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  29

  14

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  36

  18

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  23

  11

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1,174

  605

  80

  60

  25

  28

  9

  —

  —

  5

  1

  1

  1 Posts in HQ as grades 5 and 6 have been shown as CCP and BCP equivalents according to grade.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the branch areas of the Crown Prosecution Service and state
  362
  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  the number of established posts for lawyers at (a)

  363
  prosecutor, (b) senior prosecutor and (c) branch prosecutor level on the commencing of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Breakdown of lawyer posts by area showing Grade/Job title as at 1 October 1989

  CP

  SCP

  ABCP

  BCP

  CCP

  4

  3

  2

  1

  6

  6

  5

  5

  4

  3

  HQ1

  Director's Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Deputy Director's Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  HQ Casework

  3

  38

  —

  15

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  London/South East

  Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire

  27

  11

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  18

  9

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  24

  12

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inner London

  92

  43

  13

  —

  5

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Outer London North

  50

  26

  8

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Outer London South

  45

  21

  6

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midland Region

  Cambridgeshire/Lincolnshire

  17

  8

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  15

  7

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  14

  6

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire/Northamptonshire

  21

  9

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  16

  7

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottingham

  20

  9

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire/Warwickshire

  22

  10

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  48

  24

  8

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Region

  Cheshire

  16

  8

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  54

  26

  9

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire/Cumbria

  35

  16

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  41

  21

  6

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria/Durham

  34

  17

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales/Dyfed Powys

  21

  9

  —

  2

  —

  l

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire/Cleveland

  22

  11

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  23

  11

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  40

  20

  6

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South and West Region

  Avon/Somerset

  22

  10

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon/Cornwall

  18

  9

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset/Hampshire

  37

  16

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire/Wiltshire

  15

  6

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales/Gwent

  41

  20

  1

  4

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  22

  10

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  28

  14

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  15

  7

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  916

  471

  59

  75

  25

  30

  6

  3

  1

  4

  2

  1

  1 Posts in HQ as grades 5 and 6 have been shown as CCP and BCP equivalents according to grade.

TRANSPORT

  Disabled Travellers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that British Rail continues to make provision for disabled people in the event of sale into private ownership.

  Mr. Portillo
  No decisions have yet been taken on rail privatisation but if privatisation did proceed we would certainly wish to consider how best to safeguard the particular interests of disabled people.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that road pricing or toll schemes which are introduced will exempt disabled motorists who have to travel by road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government have no proposals for road pricing. There is a variety of
  364
  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  arrangements on existing tolled facilities. As for new privately financed toll roads, the Green Paper "New Roads by New Means" sought views on the extent which tolls should be controlled. We are currently assessing the comments received on the Green Paper.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to ensure that coaches and buses are made accessible to all disabled people.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department of Transport has been working closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to develop design guidelines to make buses easier for elderly and ambulant disabled people to use. These improvements are now being widely adopted by manufacturers, operators and local authorities.

  The Department is also working with other European Community countries towards changes in regulations that will require future generations of buses and coaches to be fully accessible to people with disabilities.

  Air Accidents
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in the light of the Government's conclusions on the value of independent investigative machinery in relation to air accidents and air misses as set out in Government observations on the first report of the Transport Committee of session 1988–89 on air traffic control safety and of the CAA's proposals to transfer responsibility for the investigation of the civil air traffic control elements of air accidents from the National Air Traffic service to the Safety Regulation group, he will instruct the Safety Regulation Group to assess the report submitted by the National Air Traffic service to the Air Accidents Investigation branch on the aircraft accident involving GUESS on 8 December 1983; if he will instruct the Safety Regulation group to examine all references to air traffic control in the Air Accidents Investigation branch report of that accident for accuracy and compliance with air traffic control rules and procedures; and if he will make it his policy to make available to the House any results of such assessments.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The accident to GUESS was the subject of a detailed investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation branch. During the course of this investigation the inspector considered all relevant circumstances including the ATC procedures adopted. Following publication of the accident report, there was no request for a review board and no evidence has subsequently been produced sufficient to justify reopening the investigation. It is not within the power of the Secretary of State to instruct the CAA further to examine this matter.

  British Rail (Capital Projects)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total value of capital projects undertaken by British Rail since 1979 for(a) locomotives, (b) passenger coaches, (c) signalling and telecommunications and (d) premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information is not readily available in the form requested. Since 1979 the total invested by British Rail in the railways is:

  £ million cash

  £ million 1989–90 Prices

  1979

  248

  518

  1980

  304

  529

  1981

  277

  433

  1982

  243

  352

  1983

  252

  347

  11984

  280

  368

  1985–86

  399

  491

  1986–87

  399

  475

  1987–88

  526

  594

  1988–89

  570

  601

  1 1984–85 was a 15 month financial period. The figure shown for 1984 is the 12 month internally reported result.

  The figures include investment in Freightliners, BRML and BREL but exclude the laying of continuous welded track which BR does not now classify as investment.

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with his review of standby vessels associated with offshore installations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The review of the Department's publication "Instructions to Surveyors on the Assessment of the Suitability of Standby Vessels Attending Offshore Installations" is now almost complete and a draft incorporating the latest changes will be circulated for final comment before the end of August.

  Offshore Operators Association
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association; and what matters are to be discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no plans to meet representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association.

  M12
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of building the M12; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The estimated works cost of the proposed new motorway from M25 to south of Chelmsford is £45 million, as set out in the recent White Paper "Roads for Prosperity".

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on what basis a new M12 was preferred to widening and improving the existing A12; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consideration was given to widening and improving the A12, before the M12 link between Chelmsford and the M25 was announced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Consultants appointed by the Department to carry out a scheme identification study of the A12 considered a number of options including widening of the existing road. A road linking M25 with the A12 near Chelmsford was chosen because it represented the best option for relieving both routes, including the congested Brook street interchange.

  A12
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of widening and improving the A12; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Widening the A12 on its present alignment between M25 and Chelmsford has been estimated to cost about £44·5 million.

  Minibus Driver Licensing
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in discussions with the European Commission on the treatment of minibus drivers in its proposal for a Council directive on driver licensing.
  367
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have made good progress in direct discussions with the Commission about minibuses. The Commission's proposals in the second driver licensing directive would require new drivers of minibuses with more than nine seats to take a second test and meet higher fitness standards than for the ordinary car licence.

  There is no case, on road safety grounds, for imposing these higher standards.

  Commission officials have indicated that they would be prepared to recommend modification of the draft directive so as to allow ordinary car licence holders, including the deaf, to drive minibuses with up to 17 seats, under certain fairly wide-ranging circumstances.

  The circumstances envisaged are when minibuses are used for charitable purposes by non-profit-making bodies. The driver should have held a full licence for at least two years, be aged 21 or over and be acting as driver on a voluntary basis. The minibus itself would be limited to a gross weight of 3·5 tonnes excluding any specialist equipment for the carriage of disabled persons.

  This approach would allow the continuation of our valuable present arrangements for many services provided for the elderly, the disabled, the sick, youth and religious groups and use by education establishments for all ages. The approach thus covers many categories of real need.

  Community bus services provided for these or similar purposes and driven by volunteers would also be unaffected, but other Community bus services and dial-a-ride services would not be covered. The approach would also exclude use by other amenity groups, such as sports clubs, non-charitable organisations and groups of individuals.

  Such groups could continue to use minibuses of up to nine seats, but for larger minibuses a driver with the higher licence category would have to be found.

  We recognise that this is not wholly satisfactory. It does strike a balance between the case for Community harmonisation and the need for flexibility in transport provision.

  We should welcome comments from interested organisations and in particular on the extent of the difficulties which may be caused by the types of minibus use for which a change in licensing requirements would still be required.

  We will shortly be issuing a consultation letter to interested organisations, asking for comments to be sent to Department of Transport, Driver and Vehicle Licencing Centre, POLD2, Room D9, Morriston, Swansea SA6 7JL, by Friday 15 September.

  I am grateful to individuals, the voluntary groups and the media in the United Kingdom and other parts of the EC for helping to make the case clear through the EC.

  Rear Seat Belts
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statistical evidence is available to support the view that it should not be made compulsory for car passengers in rear seats to wear seat belts.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Studies done in recent years, at TRRL and elsewhere, have shown that wearing seat belts saves lives, and leads to less serious injuries being sustained in many types of accident.

  We encourage all car passengers to use seat belts at all times. Making rear seat belt wearing compulsory before a
  368
  majority of cars are fitted with such belts could be premature. We have recently introduced legislation to ensure that new cars do have such belts fitted.

  Legislation has recently been passed which, from 1 September, will require children to be restrained where appropriate restraints exist.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce details of the proposed experiment on the rehabilitation of excess alcohol offenders.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We announced proposals to carry out a major experiment in the use of rehabilitation courses designed to influence the attitudes of drunk drivers in the White Paper "The Road User and the Law" published on 7 February this year. In England and Wales, enabling powers will be required for the courts to order rehabilitation for those convicted of drink-drive offences. In Scotland, we are looking into the possibility of setting up a trial scheme employing the existing powers of the courts.

  Road Traffic Law Review
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research projects in line with the recommendations he accepted have been initiated by his Department following the publication of the road traffic law review.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We shall be monitoring the effects of the use of technology on compliance with speed limits and traffic light offences. The transport and road research laboratory will also be assessing the experiment in rehabilitation of drink drivers and monitoring the effects of other proposals including retesting and the expanded high risk offender scheme.

  Autoguide
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has selected a promoter for the installation and operation in London of the autoguide system of electronic route guidance for vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I have decided that a licence to operate autoguide in the London area should be awarded to GEC, subject to successful negotiation on the terms of a licence and to the implementation of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill.

  Last January my Department invited the private sector to submit proposals for the installation and operation of a pilot autoguide scheme in the London area, which would be capable of being upgraded to a fully commercial system to which the public could subscribe.

  We received proposals from GEC and from Aguide Services Limited, a joint venture company of which Plessey is the largest shareholder.

  I have considered very carefully both sets of proposals, with advice from my financial consultants, Price Waterhouse.

  In inviting proposals, I made clear my intention to select the firm or consortium which we believed would ensure that autoguide was developed to provide effective and efficient electronic route guidance to a wide market as soon as practicable without compromising road safety or

  369
  the environment. Both sets of proposals were of extremely high quality; but I believe that overall those from GEC better meet my stated objectives.

  This decision does not in itself confer on GEC a licence to operate autoguide in London. A licence will be subject to negotiation by the Department and GEC, and to the implementation of the necessary legislation.

  If a licence is awarded it would give GEC the right to install and operate a pilot autoguide system in a specified part of the London-M25 area. The pilot scheme would be closely monitored by the Department. Our primary concern would be to assess the likely effect of a large scale autoguide system on road safety and traffic management. We have previously undertaken that the results of our evaluation would be presented to Parliament.

  If the results of our monitoring showed that a large scale system would not prejudice road safety or good traffic management, the operator would have a right to enter into negotiations for a second licence. This would allow him to provide a fully commercial autoguide system throughout the London/M25 area. Commercial operations could begin by the end of 1993.

  I am willing to consider the issue of a licence for a pilot scheme for a further area. The ASL proposal included a pilot scheme covering an area outside London. My Department would be willing to discuss these proposals further with that group if they so wish, and will welcome proposals from other groups also. One of my criteria in assessing proposals would be the extent to which they would promote competition in the development of autoguide. It would be a licensing requirement that a second scheme should be compatible with that being operated in London. This would offer motorists the prospect of continuous route guidance over a large area of the country.

  I believe that autoguide has an important role to play in easing congestion and so making the best use of our roads. It is clear that private industry shares that view.

  Panama Canal
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British-owned ships have used the Panama canal in each of the past two years; and if he will give details of matters relating to use of the canal discussed in the same period with British shipping interests.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The number of United Kingdom flag vessels using the Panama canal in each of the past two years from October 1986 to September 1988 is as follows. British-owned vessels that do not fly the United Kingdom flag cannot be identified separately and are not included in the figures. The information is obtained from the annual reports of the Panama Canal Commission.

  Number

  October 1986 to September 1987

  396

  October 1987 to September 1988

  460

  We continue to keep all matters relating to the canal under review, in close consultation with British shipping interests.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  White Papers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, for each of the last three While Papers issued by his Department, for which legislation has been started, he will state the time elapsed between their publication and the First Readings of any Bills connected with them; and if he will do the same for the last three White Papers issued by his Department prior to May 1979.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is not always easy to establish a direct relationship between one set of published proposals and subsequent legislative provision. The last three White Papers published by this Department, in which legislation was proposed and has subsequently been started or completed, were:"Special Needs in Education" published August 1980: Education Act 1981, First reading 22 January 1981;
  "Better Schools" published March 1985: Education (No. 2) Act 1986, First reading 19 February 1986;
  "Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge" published April 1987: implemented through the Education Reform Act 1988, First reading 20 November 1987.

  It is not for me to answer for the record of the last Government in this matter, but the information requested should be available in the Library of the House and the Official Report.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has made an assessment of the Single European Act; and how it will assist local education authorities in recruiting teachers from the European Community.

  Mr. Butcher
  Freedom of movement for the professions is a key priority in the single market programme. On 21. December 1988 the Council of Ministers of the European Communities adopted a directive which will enable a range of professionals, including teachers, to have their professional qualifications recognized for the purposes of practice in member states other than their own. The directive must be implemented by 1991. My right hon. Friend proposes to make regulations according the benefits of the directive to members of the teaching profession qualified in other member states from September this year. This should assist local education authorities in their recruitment of teachers from other member states.

  Teacher Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of excess teachers in 1979; and what is the current number.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of students successfully completing courses of initial teacher training in England and Wales in the summer of 1979 who were known to be still seeking a teaching post at the end of that year was 3,020, or 13 per cent. of all those qualifying whose status was known. These figures include both those unemployed and those in alternative temporary employment.

  In 1988 the figures were 700 newly qualified teachers known to be still seeking a teaching post at the end of the year, representing 5 per cent. of the total.
  371
  The two sets of data are not precisely comparable because in 1979 the employment status of about a third of those qualifying was assessed somewhat before the end of the year (in October).

  Soviet Studies
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Hamilton on Monday 10 July,Official Report,

  Students studying Russian language or Russian studies full time at British Universities

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Undergraduates

  Home

  409

  393

  388

  384

  428

  479

  482

  499

  487

  Overseas

  23

  17

  17

  19

  25

  43

  34

  40

  37

  Total

  1432

  410

  405

  403

  453

  522

  516

  539

  524

  Postgraduates

  Home

  53

  60

  47

  50

  38

  46

  44

  57

  37

  Overseas

  24

  11

  8

  7

  12

  6

  6

  8

  12

  Total

  77

  71

  55

  57

  50

  52

  50

  65

  49

  1 This includes eight students on first diploma or certificate courses not included in the answer given on 10 July.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in 1988–89.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The sum spent on official hospitality in 1988–89 was £33,813·30.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what representations he has received about provision for Christian conscience relating to the elements of the national curriculum in respect of(a) the teaching of evolution, (b the teaching of sex and social education and (c) the use of computers;

  (2) what are the implications of the statement in article 2 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights that the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education or teaching in conformity with their own religious convictions for the requirements of the national curriculum relating to (a) the teaching of evolution, (b) the teaching of sex and social education and (c) the use of computers where parents of some children object to such teaching or use as a matter of deeply held religious conviction.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received some 600 letters from members of the Exclusive or Plymouth Brethren and other Christian sects seeking withdrawal of their children from such elements within the national curriculum. There is no right of withdrawal from the national curriculum in maintained schools. But parents remain free to educate their children outside the maintained sector, where the national curriculum is not a legal requirement.

  Computer Use
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements will be made to enable a child, whether at a state or non-maintained school, to obtain a recognised qualification by examination where he
  372
  column 346, on Soviet studies, he will provide a breakdown of the figures based on (a) home students and (b) overseas students.

  Mr. Jackson
  The further information requested is shown in the table.

  or she, as a matter of deeply held religious conviction, declines to use a computer, if GCSE examination questions are so set as to be answerable only by computer.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The administration of the GCSE is the responsibility of the independent GCSE examining groups. It is open to schools or individual parents to discuss the special needs of particular pupils with the groups.

  GCSE Examinations
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the GCSE examinations.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I replied today to a report on the progress of the GCSE examination submitted to me at my request by the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC). I am arranging for copies of SEAC's report and of my reply to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Research Grants
  Mr Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much of his Department's budget is devoted to research purposes; how much is given in grants for research; and what proportion of each figure has been devoted to near-market research(a) in the current financial year and (b) in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 3 July 1989]: Details of the Department's expenditure on research, together with that in respect of the research councils and the universities, for which the Secretary of State is also responsible, are given in the "Annual Review of Government Funding Research and Development 1988", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Expenditure that might be described as "near market" research is not separately identified, but it is considered to be minimal.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the research grants
  373
  given for near-market research for which his Department is directly or indirectly responsible in the current financial year and each of the last two financial years.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 3 July 1989]: No such grants have been made in the last three years.

  Teachers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many incentive posts for teachers are currently available; what is the financial remuneration for each grade; what were the comparable figures three years ago, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1989]: I regret that the answer previously given contained some inaccuracies. The correct information is as follows:

  October 1987 (the first year)

  September 1988

  Value (£)

  Number

  Value (£) (from 1 April 1989)

  Number

  A

  501

  25,000

  858

  43,000

  B

  1,002

  69,000

  1,284

  59,600

  C

  2,001

  —

  2,568

  9,300

  D

  3,000

  28,500

  3,426

  27,000

  E

  4,200

  6,500

  4,710

  8,000

  TOTAL

  129,000

  147,000

  There will be a further 23,000 A allowances and 10,900 C allowances from this September as a result of the recommendations of the interim advisory committee and plans already in the pipeline. With changes in the availability of other allowances, the net increase in the number of allowances this year is 27,600, taking the total up to 174,600.

PRIME MINISTER

  Paris (Visit)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters she raised with the secretary general of the United Nations during her recent visit to Paris.

  The Prime Minister
  I did not have a formal meeting with the United Nations secretary general during my recent visit to Paris. But we met in the margins of other events and discussed international issues of current concern.

  Nursing and Midwifery
  Mr. Leith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement about the report of the review body for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine on the pay of nursing and midwifery educational staff.

  The Prime Minister
  The report has been published today, and copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are grateful to members of the review body for the work which has gone into the preparation of this additional report, which is supplementary to their sixth report on the pay of nurses and midwives in clinical and senior non-educational grades, published in February.
  374
  The review body has recommended pay scales, to take effect from 1 April 1989, for the new grading structure for nursing and midwifery educational staff, which was agreed between the two sides of the Nursing and Midwifery Staff Negotiation Council in March 1989. This follows on from the introduction last year of a new grading structure for nurses and midwives who do clinical work. Virtually all the staff concerned have now been regraded on the basis of the new structure. The amount of the pay increase individuals would receive under these recommendations depends on their grading under the old and now under the new structure.

  Nearly 80 per cent. of the staff concerned were previously graded H or I under the clinical grading review. Most of these have been allocated to grades 1 or 2 under the new educational grading structure and would receive increases of between 6·8 per cent. and 7·1 per cent.

  The review body has recommended proportionately higher increases for the minority of staff in the more senior grades who did not benefit from the introduction of the clinical grading structure in 1988. In addition. many senior tutors will benefit from the fact that the new structure provides for the correction of pay and grading anomalies which arose in 1988, under which some senior tutors were paid no more than, or less than, the tutors they were supervising.

  Excluding employers' costs the recommendations are estimated to add some 2·4 per cent. for assimilation costs and an average 7·4 per cent. for the basic pay increase, approximately £11·6 million in total, to the 1989–90 paybill costs for nursing and midwifery education staff in Great Britain.

  The Government have decided to accept in full the review body's recommendations, and a formal offer is being made to the staff side today. I hope it will be possible to put the new rates into payment as soon as possible.

  The expected cost of the new pay scales for educational staff, including the cost of introducing the new grading structure has already been reflected in the extra allocation made to health authorities following the Government's acceptance in February of the review body's recommendations on the pay of other nursing and midwifery staff.

  Paris Summit
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action she has taken to help implement those passages of the Paris summit communique which pertain to the forgiveness of international debt and the preservation of the rain forest.

  The Prime Minister
  It has long been our policy to welcome debt for nature swaps agreed voluntarily between commercial banks, conservation organisations and debtors. The United Kingdom has taken the lead in forgiving ODA debt and had now cancelled nearly £1 billion worth of such debts worldwide.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total cost of her overseas travel, including her staff, for each year from 1979–80; and how many countries were visited in each year.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The cost of my overseas travel, and of those accompanying me every year1 since 1979 and the number of countries visited in each year is as follows:

  375

  £

  Number of countries visited

  21979–80

  151,864

  9

  1980–81

  133,206

  12

  1981–82

  556,000

  16

  1982–83

  523,587

  13

  1983–84

  216,146

  11

  1984–85

  414,259

  10

  1985–86

  457,483

  16

  1986–87

  447,066

  13

  1987–88

  341,880

  11

  1988–89

  612,852

  14

  1 Billing delays prevent some costs from being shown in the financial year in which the services were provided. The figures, therefore, do not necessarily reflect when the expenditure was actually incurred.

  2 From May 1979.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Local Telephone Calls
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in rank order information available to him on the cost of local telephone calls for all countries within the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no standard measure which enables comparisons to be made between the cost of local calls in different community countries. For example, the average local call area is particularly large in the United Kingdom, which means that many calls at local rates here would be charged at long distance rates in other countries. One recent survey, based on rates during an 8am-6pm working day, and averaging prices for BT and Mercury, found the prices in pounds sterling for a three minute call to be:

  £

  United Kingdom

  0·098

  Germany

  0·072

  France

  0·056

  Italy

  0·054

  Source: National Utility Services, February 1989.

  However, Oftel has produced figures comparing costs of an average resident's telephone bill and the cost of an average business bill in the four European countries which in terms of population and size are most readily comparable. The figures are (as indices, excluding VAT):

  Residential basket

  Business basket

  United Kingdom

  100

  100

  France

  78

  85

  Italy

  101

  122

  West Germany

  103

  106

  OFTEL, January 1989.

  Regional Office
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether there are any plans for the Department of Trade and Industry to open a new regional office in eastern England.

  Mr. Newton
  Yes. The Secretary of State and I have decided to establish a full regional office in Cambridge,376
  building on its existing presence there to provide an even better service to business in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. This new regional office continues the process we announced in the White Paper "DTI—the Department for Enterprise" in January 1988 of strengthening and extending the regional network, recognising the importance of contacts with business at a local level.

  The DTI's regional offices are now handling over 500 applications each week for the enterprise initiative consultancy schemes, as well as dealing with hundreds of export inquiries, signposting firms towards help on the single European market, the enterprise and education initiative and the regional initiative. In all cases, our regional offices work closely with chambers of commerce, local enterprise agencies and other local business organisations.

  The Cambridge office will continue to get support from the three existing satellite offices linked closely with local business organisations, in Norwich, Ipswich and Chelmsford. Those satellite offices have played a valuable role in offering an open doorway to DTI services in important East Anglian business centres.

  Motor Vehicles (Clocking)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will detail the steps which his Department intends to take to protect the public from the fraudulent practice of clocking motor vehicles.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The fraudulent alteration of a car odometer is already an offence against the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. The Act is enforced by local trading standards officers. I have no plans to introduce new legislation in this area.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the extent of the illegal turning-back of car odometers by vendors of second-hand cars.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: I do not have the information on which to base such an estimate. However, during 1988 there were 383 successful prosecutions by local trading standards departments relating to false mileage recordings on motor cars.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will summarise his Department's inquiries into the possible production and potential cost of tamper-proof odometers to prevent fraudulent mileages being recorded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: My Department has made no such inquiries, although we have encouraged the motor industry to develop a British standard specification for tamper-resistant odometers.

  Objective 2 Support
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all local authority areas in the United Kingdom which are to qualify for objective 2 support from the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.
  377
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: My reply to the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), (Official Report, Volume 153, no. 111, columns 459–60) listed all the areas of the United Kingdom designated as eligible for the European regional development fund.

  The list of areas designated by the Commission under objective 2 was published in the official journal of the European Communities of 25 April 1989 (No. L112/19). The areas were defined by combined reference to local authority areas and travel-to-work areas. The hon. Member's constituency was designated in its entirety.

  The list of objective 2 areas is generally very satisfactory, but I regret that a number of areas have been excluded by the Commission despite repeated representations by my right hon. Friend and others.

  Integrated Development Operation
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total amount of financial support allocated by the European Commission for integrated development operation programmes for the latest date available in(a) Birmingham, (b) Bradford, (c) Yorkshire and Humberside, (d) Merseyside, (e) Manchester/ Salford/Trafford and (f) Strathclyde; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 20 July 1989] The Commission has agreed to allocate the following sums to four of these programmes:—

  £ million

  Birmingham

  203

  Bradford

  56

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  309

  Strathclyde

  378

  The figures include grants from the European regional development fund and the European social fund, and loans from the European investment bank and the European Coal and Steel Community. The other two programme applications have yet to be approved by the Commission.

  Post Office
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from Neilston community council concerning the refusal of the chairman of the Post Office to meet the hon. Member for Eastwood; and if he will make a statement.

  Right to buy applications by dwelling type

  1987–88

  1988–89

  District

  Houses

  Flats

  Not known

  Houses

  Flats

  Not knovm

  SCOTLAND

  18,724

  8,214

  7,251

  27,994

  16,027

  4,098

  Berwickshire

  86

  11

  —

  174

  8

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  144

  55

  —

  200

  52

  —

  Roxburgh

  97

  45

  124

  237

  89

  —

  Tweeddale

  48

  13

  —

  75

  21

  —

  Clackmannan

  360

  73

  —

  457

  130

  —

  Falkirk1

  609

  143

  636

  1,470

  411

  —

  Stirling

  258

  43

  314

  552

  81

  228

  Annandale and Eskdale

  139

  14

  85

  297

  29

  —

  Nithsdale

  366

  117

  —

  493

  168

  —

  Stewartry

  99

  18

  —

  134

  20

  —

  Wigtown

  180

  21

  —

  206

  31

  —

  378
  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: I have written both to the Secretary of Neilston community council, and to my hon. Friend.

  Odometers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps his Department has taken over the past 10 years to persuade the motor trade to develop and install tamper-proof odometers in motor vehicles.

  Mr. Forth
  As yet a full tamper-proof odometer has not been developed, but my Department has sought to encourage the motor industry to develop a British Standard specification for tamper-resistant odometers.

  Investment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what estimate he has made of investment by the German Government in industry and commerce during the period 1979 to 1988;

  (2) what is the present level of investment by Government in industrial and commercial enterprises in Germany, France, Italy and Spain as a percentage of gross domestic product;

  (3) what is the present level of investment by Her Majesty's Government in industrial and commercial enterprises as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Lilley
  There are no data available on the level of Government investment in industry and commerce in Germany, France, Italy and Spain. In the United Kingdom direct Government investment in industry and commerce is confined to the nationalised industries.

SCOTLAND

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of right to buy applications for(a) houses and (b) flats for each local authority in Scotland as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Prior to 1987, only the total number of right-to-buy applications was collected centrally from local authorities. The information available for 1987–88 and 1988–89 is given in the following table.
  379

  1987–88

  1988–89

  District

  Houses

  Flats

  Not known

  Houses

  Flats

  Not known

  Dunfermline

  851

  240

  —

  1,146

  410

  —

  Kirkcaldy

  672

  312

  —

  944

  482

  —

  North East Fife

  183

  63

  108

  n/a

  n/a

  518

  Aberdeen

  641

  286

  —

  1,154

  465

  —

  Banff and Buchan

  348

  47

  —

  262

  39

  201

  Gordon

  144

  9

  —

  169

  6

  —

  Kincardine and Deeside

  88

  14

  —

  89

  6

  —

  Moray

  389

  30

  —

  640

  80

  —

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  52

  2

  22

  77

  1

  —

  Caithness

  144

  11

  —

  106

  3

  —

  Inverness

  209

  34

  —

  367

  45

  —

  Lochaber

  169

  25

  —

  170

  30

  —

  Nairn

  25

  1

  —

  42

  3

  —

  Ross and Cromarty

  119

  2

  —

  194

  4

  —

  Skye and Lochalsh

  21

  0

  —

  37

  0

  —

  Sutherland1

  59

  0

  —

  56

  0

  —

  East Lothian

  339

  98

  496

  939

  412

  —

  Edinburgh

  274

  703

  2,212

  1,462

  2,496

  —

  Midlothian

  425

  130

  178

  684

  252

  —

  West Lothian

  668

  109

  —

  1,207

  262

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  64

  15

  199

  n/a

  n/a

  422

  Bearsden and Milnavie2

  44

  23

  —

  53

  27

  —

  Clydebank

  289

  316

  —

  536

  582

  —

  Clydesdale

  419

  25

  —

  524

  55

  —

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  150

  58

  —

  156

  111

  —

  Cumnock and Doon Valley1

  314

  23

  115

  n/a

  n/a

  214

  Cunninghame

  857

  222

  —

  1,167

  316

  —

  Dumbarton

  531

  219

  —

  593

  340

  —

  East Kilbride

  69

  20

  —

  91

  44

  —

  Eastwood

  73

  25

  —

  89

  27

  —

  Glasgow

  1,861

  2,474

  —

  3,070

  4,732

  —

  Hamilton

  594

  121

  281

  1,101

  357

  —

  Inverclyde

  277

  191

  —

  299

  231

  —

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  600

  102

  —

  688

  157

  —

  Kyle and Carrick

  537

  197

  350

  956

  399

  —

  Monklands1

  789

  253

  —

  386

  169

  433

  Motherwell

  n/a

  n/a

  1,351

  n/a

  n/a

  2,082

  Renfrew

  662

  551

  509

  1,133

  1,071

  —

  Strathkelvin

  273

  42

  271

  565

  164

  —

  Angus

  460

  44

  —

  512

  68

  —

  Dundee

  1,051

  470

  —

  1,208

  900

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  442

  140

  —

  589

  224

  —

  Orkney Islands

  66

  1

  —

  100

  1

  —

  Shetland Islands

  54

  4

  —

  53

  5

  —

  Western Isles

  42

  9

  —

  85

  11

  —

  1 Returns outstanding for Q4 1988 and Q1 1989.

  2 Return outstanding for Q1 1989.

  n/a—Not available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council dwellings sold under the right to buy were constructed(a) before 1900, (b) 1900 to 1910, (c) 1911 to 1920, (d) 1921 to 1930, (e) 1931 to 1940, (f) 1941 to 1950, (g) 1951 to 1960, (h) 1961 to 1970, (j) 1971 to 1980, (k) 1980 to 1981, (l) 1981 to 1982, (m) 1982 to 1983, (n) 1983 to 1984, (o) 1984 to 1985, (p) 1985 to 1986, (q) 1986 to 1987, and (r) 1987 to 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the age of council houses sold has been placed in the House Library. Prior to 1986, sales to sitting tenants were not subdivided into right to buy and on a voluntary basis.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dwellings were sold to(a) sitting tenants—right to buy, (b) sitting tenants—voluntary sale,
  380
  (c) other individuals by each local authority in Scotland and for Scotland as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information prior to 1986 does not differentiate between sales under the right-to-buy provisions and voluntary sales to sitting tenants. Tables giving the information available have been placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sales other than the right-to-buy sales, were completed by each local authority in Scotland and for Scotland as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on sales other than to sitting tenants or other individuals is set out in the following table.
  381

  Local Authority sales other than to sitting tenants and other individuals

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–3

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Scotland

  257

  911

  388

  1,066

  127

  788

  315

  1,214

  263

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Roxburgh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tweeddale1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central

  Clackmannan

  0

  0

  19

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Falkirk

  0

  29

  45

  0

  7

  0

  19

  0

  0

  Stirling

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stewartry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigtown

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  2

  17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  37

  2

  0

  11

  19

  0

  3

  0

  15

  Banff and Buchan

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gordon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Moray

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Caithness

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Inverness

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lochaber

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  25

  27

  33

  Nairn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ross and Cromarty

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sutherland

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Edinburgh

  0

  0

  0

  734

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  2

  1

  0

  2

  West Lothian

  13

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clydebank

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clydesdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley1

  0

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cunninghame

  0

  8

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  108

  776

  172

  279

  77

  769

  48

  1,187

  152

  Hamilton

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Inverclyde

  8

  4

  0

  0

  0

  11

  216

  0

  0

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0

  0

  0

  7

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Monklands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Motherwell

  0

  61

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Renfrew

  79

  0

  107

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Strathkelvin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside

  Angus

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dundee

  8

  2

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  4

  2

  0

  56

  Orkney Islands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetlands Islands

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1Returns outstanding for 1988–89.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State Scotland what is the number of right-to-buy applications current at end of quarter, for which the information is available, for each local authority in Scotland and for Scotland as a whole.
  382
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the following table.
  383

  Number of Current Applications at 31 March 1989

  Number

  Scotland

  32,918

  Berwickshire

  48

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  104

  Roxburgh

  125

  Tweeddale

  65

  Clackmannan

  357

  Falkirk

  848

  Stirling1

  520

  Annandale and Eskdale

  197

  Nithsdale

  268

  Stewartry

  71

  Wigtown

  116

  Dunfermline

  819

  Kirkcaldy

  986

  North East Fife

  337

  Aberdeen

  1,030

  Banff and Buchan2

  409

  Gordon

  108

  Kincardine and Deeside

  30

  Moray

  311

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  37

  Caithness

  47

  Inverness

  284

  Lochaber

  131

  Nairn

  10

  Ross and Cromarty

  70

  Skye and Lochalsh

  9

  Sutherland2

  58

  East Lothian

  564

  Edinburgh

  3,013

  Midlothian

  613

  West Lothian

  886

  Argyll and Bute

  390

  Bearsden and Milngavie1

  88

  Clydebank

  821

  Clydesdale

  411

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  173

  Cumnock and Doon Valley4

  255

  Cunninghame

  932

  Dumbarton

  1,040

  East Kilbride

  64

  Eastwood

  67

  Glasgow

  5,645

  Hamilton

  1,287

  Inverclyde

  406

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  637

  Kyle and Carrick

  856

  Monklands3

  942

  Motherwell

  1,528

  Renfrew

  1,414

  Strathkelvin

  364

  Angus

  257

  Dundee

  2,244

  Perth and Kinross

  463

  Orkney Islands

  54

  Shetland Islands

  36

  Western Isles

  73

  Highland health board: members appointed for the first time in 1989

  Name

  Background

  Nominated by

  Mr. J. G. Ligertwood

  Retired bank manager; treasurer of many charitable organisations a various times

  Highland health board

  Mr. C. Neilson

  Self employed retail businessman; former member of Lochaber local health council since its inception; chairman since 1977; former chairman of Lochaber district council

  Lochaber district council; Lochaber local health council

  Mrs. S. G. H. Stone

  Managing director of Highland Fine Cheeses Ltd.; founder, Ross-shire health protection trust

  Ross and Cromarty district council

  Miss I. Urquhart

  Registered general nurse; member management committee of crossroads (Ross and Cromarty); member Highland nursing advisory committee

  Highland health board

  384
  1 Latest available information at 31 December 1988

  2 Latest available information at 30 September 1988

  3 Latest available information at 30 June 1988

  4 Latest available information at 31 December 1987

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of loans from(a) local authorities and (b) other sources for right to buy purchasers by each local authority in Scotland and for Scotland as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information collected centrally prior to 1986 did not differentiate between sales under the right-to-buy provisions and voluntary sales to sitting tenants. Copies of tables giving the information available have been placed in the House Library.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were receiving training under the employment training scheme in Scotland for each month from September 1988 till the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The number of people in Scotland who have participated in employment training in each month from September 1988 is set out in the table. These figures exclude those people who continued in employment training under community programme terms and conditions.

  Date

  In training

  1988

  September

  4,361

  October

  6,608

  November

  9,095

  December

  11,660

  1989

  January

  13,931

  February

  17,793

  March

  20,866

  April

  21,965

  May

  22,309

  June

  23,205

  Highland Health Board
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the names of members of the Highland health board appointed for the first time in 1989; and if he will give for each their experience, expertise and relevant background and the nominating body.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all premises in Scotland(a) that are registered under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and (b) that are authorised to accumulate and discharge radioactive material under the same Act.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not yet available in a form that is suitable for publication.

  Fresh Water Mussels
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish the information he has on the condition of the Scottish freshwater mussel population; what research he has commissioned; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received about the survival of the Scottish fresh water mussel (Margaritifera Margaritifera) population.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The fresh water pearl mussel Margaritifera Margaritifera is widely distibuted in Scotland thanks to the generally high quality of our rivers. I am aware of concerns which have been expressed recently about the possible depletion of stocks by overfishing or killing of mussels by amateur pearl fishermen. I have received two letters recently about the threat to pearl mussel stocks.

  No research project on Scottish fresh water mussels has been commissioned by the Department. Scientific advice on fresh water species is provided or obtained as necessary by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's fresh water fisheries laboratory at Pitlochry. I am currently considering, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, a proposal from the Nature Conservancy Council that increased protection should be afforded to the fresh water pearl mussel under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Baby Foods
  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions have been carried out in relation to contaminated baby foods in 1989 in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many reported contaminations of baby foods are currently being investigated by the police.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no confirmed cases of malicious contamination of baby foods currently being investigated by the police in Scotland.

  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on whether the most recent contaminations of baby foods, which have been prosecuted have taken place inside or outside the factories of the companies concerned.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Such information is not centrally collected.

  Alcohol and Drug Abuse
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on the treatment of(a) alcohol abuse and (b) drug abuse in each of the past seven years.
  386
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Services within the NHS for alcohol misusers and drug misusers are generally provided as part of the range of community and hospital-based services. The cost of treatment in these particular areas is not separately identified. The Government have made substantial increases in resources available to health boards since 1979 and it is for individual boards to determine the level of expenditure on particular services from within their overall financial allocations.

  In addition, in 1984 the Government set up a programme of grant support for a range of local drug projects run by health boards, local authorities and voluntary bodies. The size of this programme has steadily increased and in 1989–90 it is running at approximately £2 million per annum, double the figure for 1988–89.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department spent £42,987 on official hospitality in 1988–89.

  Ministers (Travel)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when was the last recorded journey to Scotland by a Government Minister travelling north via the M1/A1 roads.

  Mr. Rifkind
  For journeys between Scotland and London my ministerial colleagues and I do not normally travel by road.

ENERGY

  Safe Integral Reactor Consortium
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) from which Government account money is provided for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority commitment to the SIR consortium; and if the money is a grant or loan;

  (2) how much research funding has been allocated for the years in which figures are available to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to support its role as a member of the Safe Integral Reactor consortium;

  (3) how much the SIR consortium is bidding for from the United States Department of Energy; and for what purpose;

  (4) what rate of return the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is budgeting for in its commercial venture as part of the SIR consortium;

  (5) when and where he expects the first SIR to be built;

  (6) when the SIR consortium was established; who are its original and its current members; and how much each have contributed to its income.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As I stated in my reply of 17 July at col.52, the UKAEA will be using some of its own pre-contract research funds to support its role as a member of the SIR consortium, whose other members are Rolls-Royce and Associates, Stone and Webster and Combustion Engineering. The terms of the UKAEA's involvement in the SIR consortium are commercially confidential.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy further to his reply of 17 July, if he will list the consents and permissions, with the granting authority in each case, necessary to build a nuclear power station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In England and Wales, an electricity board needs to obtain the consent of my right hon. Friend under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909, as amended. When granting his consent under section 2 he may also direct that deemed planning permission be granted under section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

  Anyone else needs to obtain my right hon. Friend's consent under section 3 of the Energy Act 1983 and to obtain the necessary planning permission from the relevant planning authority.

  In addition, a licence to install and operate a nuclear reactor must be obtained from the Health and Safety Executive under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Under the licence the agreement of the HSE must be obtained at all stages of construction, leading up to consent to commence operation.

  Other consents and permissions, which also apply to other types of development, may also be required from the appropriate authorities.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research funds he has allocated to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; and how much has been allocated in each of the last 10 years for(a) all research and (b) pre-contract research.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department's expenditure on its nuclear programmes over the last 10 years is set out in my answer of 10 July to the hon. Member for Sedgefield at column 380. Since April 1986, when the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority began to operate as a trading fund, charges to the Department under the programme letters have been on a cost-plus basis. These charges include a contribution towards general authority overheads, one component of which is pre-contract research. The component is not separately identified in charges to the Department.

  In the time available it has not been possible to provide figures for the Department's expenditure with the UKAEA on non-nuclear research.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in 1988–89.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Department spent £57,000 on official hospitality in 1988–89.

EMPLOYMENT

  Vocational Training for Mental Handicap (Conference)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library any papers arising from the first European national conference for 388
  vocational training for mental handicap held in Maastricht; and if he will take steps to ensure that the British Government is represented at future such conferences.

  Mr. Lee
  No papers resulting from the conference in Maastricht have been made available.

  The conferences are organised by the co-operation of European firms, employment initiatives and co-operatives for the psychologically disabled (CEFEC) which is an independent organisation.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number employed in the United Kingdom by(a) local government and (b) the railways industry in 1978, 1983 and the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will indicate any significant changes of definition affecting the comparison of these statistics.

  Mr. Lee
  The total numbers employed in Great Britain by local government were as follows:

  Numbers

  June 1978

  2,910,000

  June 1983

  2,853,000

  June 1988

  2,967,000

  December 1988

  12,964,000

  1 Latest available.

  (Data for Northern Ireland is not comparable and therefore not included.)

  Source: Department of the Environment.

  The abolition of the metropolitan counties and Greater London council and the change in status of local authority bus and municipal airport staff during 1986 and 1987 will have had a significant downward influence on the figures.

  The number employed in the railways industries in the United Kingdom were as follows:

  Numbers

  June 1978

  185,000

  June 1983

  161,000

  June 1988

  133,000

  March 1989

  1131,000

  1 Latest available.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish for the information given in the answer of 14 November 1988,Official Report, columns 418–19, concerning the latest new earnings survey, the estimated numbers from whom the sample was taken; and if he will add his estimate for the number of full-time as well as part-time workers.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The estimated numbers for 1988 are as follows:

  million

  Full-time employees in employment

  16·2

  Part-time employees in employment

  3·4

  Construction Training
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many construction training places on the ET scheme are training to a fully skilled standard.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available. Information on the types of training being undertaken by people on employment training will be available in the autumn.

  Deptford Skill Centre
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were trained on the Construction Industry Training Board (ATS) adult training scheme at Deptford skill centre; how much it cost for trainees qualified and placed in employment; and what was the national average cost of training a skilled construction worker.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the financial year 1988–89, 61 people were trained on CITB-sponsored adult training programmes at Deptford skill centre. The national average cost of training a skilled construction worker in a skill centre is £130 per trainee week. Skill centres are not involved in placing CITB-sponsored trainees and therefore figures on placing costs are not held.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many trainees were trained under the new JTS at Deptford skill centre during 1987–88; how many achieved skilled status; and how many were placed in employment at the end of training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the financial year 1987–88, 20 trainees successfully completed their new job training scheme training plans at Deptford skill centre. No figures are available on the destinations of those completing, therefore the numbers of those moving on to achieve either skilled status or employment is not known.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the development value of the site of Deptford skill centre.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government have appointed King and Company, surveyors, to value the Skills Training Agency (STA) estate, prior to the sale of STA to the private sector. King and Company's assessment of the value of individual skill centres is commercially sensitive until sale negotiations are complete. The whole of STA will be offered for sale and the Government are interested in bids from those who want to run a training business. Should there be any development gains, my right hon. Friend has made clear that he will make provision for the Government to share in any such gains in the years immediately after sale.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment within the catchment area of Deptford skill centre how many skilled construction workers are needed to meet the demand of employers; how many skilled workers were trained in these trades in this area in 1988; and to what extent this meets the placement figure for each trade.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Deptford skill centre attracts trainees from all over London.
  390
  The Construction Industry training board estimates that in 1988, between 4,500 and 8,500 replacement manual construction employees (excluding those in the unskilled operative category) were required.

  The London Research Centre's 1988 director of construction training estimates that 4,500 training places were provided by public and private sector organisations, and 5,000 college places.

  Placement figures for construction trades are riot available.

  Rehabilitation
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, on 3 July,Official Report, column 71, he will list the numbers of people who have completed: (a) rehabilitation courses and (b) courses of assessment and guidance at employment rehabilitation centres in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The numbers of people completing assessment courses and rehabilitation courses provided by the employment rehabilitation service in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Number of assessment courses

  Number of rehabilitation courses

  1984–85

  2,500

  14,500

  1985–86

  8,100

  12,900

  1986–87

  11,000

  12,400

  1987–88

  13,400

  12,200

  1988–89

  25,300

  11,800

  Wages Councils
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research he has conducted into the implications of abolishing wages councils.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A large body of evidence exists on the implications for pay and jobs of the abolition of wages councils. This includes studies undertaken or commissioned by the Department which have been listed in previous parliamentary answers (Official Report 21 February 1985, col. 516 and 18 June 1985, col. 92). Virtually all of the research work on this subject conducted in the 1980s and known to the Department supports the view that removing statutory minimum wage provisions can be expected to have beneficial effects on employment.

  Industrial Accident Hazards (Bexley)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many sites within the London borough of Bexley are subject to the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the London borough of Bexley one site has been notified to the Health and Safety Executive under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984. This is Rhone Poulenc Ltd., Crabtree Manor way, Belvedere.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update the table on employment of severely disabled persons given in his answer of 27 May 1988,Official Report, columns 395–6.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on the number of severely disabled workers employed in each employment service region on 31 March 1987, 31 March 1988 and 31 March 1989 is set out in the table.

  31 March 1987

  31 March 1988

  31 March 1989

  (a) Remploy

  South East

  329

  325

  950

  London

  687

  665

  South West

  521

  516

  515

  West Midlands

  672

  646

  608

  East Midlands and Eastern

  650

  653

  647

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,125

  1,104

  1,019

  North West

  1,644

  1,647

  1,595

  Northern

  909

  920

  873

  Wales

  1,504

  1,492

  1,450

  Scotland

  1,029

  1,072

  1,019

  (b) Local Advisory Sheltered Provision

  South East

  301

  322

  1,077

  London

  640

  639

  South West

  1,034

  1,072

  1,018

  West Midlands

  565

  617

  596

  East Midlands and Eastern

  672

  758

  788

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  556

  567

  685

  North West

  666

  699

  785

  Northern

  228

  235

  276

  Wales

  504

  532

  551

  Scotland

  754

  833

  912

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update the table on sheltered employment given in his answer of 16 June 1988,Official Report, columns 313–4.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not readily available. I will write as soon as possible.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Cope
  £44,100.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Panama
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice is currently being offered to British citizens resident in or travelling to Panama.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are advising British citizens intending to travel to Panama to consider whether their journey is necessary and, if so, to contact the embassy on arrival. We 392
  are not aware of any difficulties involving the resident British community, but the embassy maintains close contact with them.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures are adopted, and what public record is kept, by the Commission or Council of the European Community of the appropriate legal instruments, existing or specially introduced, in each member state which are activated to implement directives agreed by the Council of Ministers; if comprehensive publication occurs of such directives and respective legislation in each member state or on a community wide basis, and what relevant information is published by Her Majesty's Government, or other body, in respect of the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are not aware of any public record kept by the Commission or the Council. Details of directives and other instruments adopted by the Council are given in the Official Journal of the European Communities. The major measures adopted are also given in the six-monthly White Papers on developments in the European Community, but comprehensive information on national implementing legislation is not published by the Community or United Kingdom Government.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Aruba;

  (2) how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Benin;

  (3) how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Ecuador;

  (4) how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in St. Pierre and Miquelan.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now assign a full-time ambassador to Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no plans to make further appointments to Her Majesty's embassy in Managua for the time being, but diplomatic staffing levels at all our posts overseas are kept under review.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official visits abroad he has made during his tenure of office; how many officials on average accompanied him on each trip; and what was the total cost.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 July 1989, c. 171]: The reply omitted support staff (communications,

  393
  secretarial and security) who accompany my right hon. and learned Friend on his official visits overseas. The average number of officials accompanying the Foreign Secretary, including support staff, has been nine.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Baby Foods
  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prosecutions have been carried out in relation to contaminated baby foods in the current year in England and Wales;

  (2) how many reported contaminations of baby foods are currently being investigated by the police;

  (3) what information he has on whether the recent contaminations of baby foods which have been prosecuted have taken place inside or outside the factories of the companies concerned.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that there are two incidents of malicious contamination of baby food which are at present under investigation. There is no evidence that these or the other incidents reported earlier in the year occurred in the factory. None of these incidents has so far resulted in a prosecution for contamination under section 38(1) of the Public Order Act 1986.

  Police, Leicestershire
  Mr. Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet received the report prepared by assistant chief constable Don Dovesston into Leicestershire police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the investigation into allegations of improper disclosure of information by officers of the Leicestershire constabularly, which is being supervised by the Police Complaints Authority, has not yet been completed. When it is completed it will be for the police authority and the chief officer as appropriate to consider what further action should be taken. Home Office Ministers have no role in these procedures.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Hurd
  Final figures are not yet available. The provisional outturn figure is £43,379.

  Domestic Violence
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions the ministerial group on women's issues has reached on the Home Office research study on domestic violence.

  Mr. John Patten
  The ministerial group discussed the study at its meeting yesterday and considered that it provides a good basis for examining and determining policy. The group has set in hand:futher work on the use of the criminal and civil law and the response to domestic violence by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts;
  394
  an examination of the ways in which social services departments and health services could give more effective help to victims of domestic violence and their families;
  an examination of guidance and materials currently available to schools in this area and a consideration of the role of personal and social education in helping to prevent domestic violence.

  The results of these initiatives and others already in progress will be reported to future meetings of the group.

  Traffic Regulation Enforcement
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce type approval machinery for technological aids to traffic regulation enforcement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Type approval requirements already apply in many areas of road traffic law. The White Paper "The Road User and the Law" (Cm. 576), set out proposals to apply such requirements to automatic detection devices to be used in the enforcement of speeding and traffic light offences. Legislation to implement these proposals will be introduced when parliamentary time permits.

  Prisoners' Petitions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had regarding making the submissions of prisoners' petitions easier.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The House of Commons authorities have been in touch with my Department about improving the guidance given to prisoners for presenting petitions to Parliament, and this is being done.

  No representations have been received regarding petitions to the Secretary of State which though generally made on a form provided for the purpose are not req uired to be in any specific format.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accesses were made to each category of stolen and suspect vehicle index of the police national computer over the last year; and what has been the percentage growth in the use of these categories over the year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Though the index of vehicles comprises vehicles in various categories, the records are not kept in these separate categories, but are indexed by vehicle registration number. It is not therefore possible to give the information in the form requested, but, in all, there were 19,313,501 accesses to the stolen and suspect vehicle and vehicle owners index of the police national computer in the year to 30 June 1989, an increase of 0·95 per cent. over the previous year.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accesses were made to each category of the wanted and missing persons index of the police national computer over the last year; and what has been the percentage growth in use of these categories over the year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Though the wanted and missing persons' index of the police national computer comprises
  395
  records of persons in various categories, the records are not kept in these categories, but are indexed by name. It is not therefore possible to give the information in the form requested but, in all, there were 1,987,155 accesses to the wanted and missing persons' index of the police national computer in the year to 30 June 1989. This is an increase of 7·2 per cent. over the previous year.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accesses were made to each index of the police national computer over the last year; whether he will include in these statistics an indication of the number of access requests that could search more than one index.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The total number of accesses to each of the indices of the police national computer in the year to 30 June 1989 was as follows:

  Index

  Number of Accesses

  1. Stolen and Suspect Vehicles

  19,313,501

  2. Vehicle Owners

  3. Chassis/Engine Numbers

  354,337

  4. Fingerprints

  192,416

  5. Fingerprints (Scene of Crime)

  14,608

  6. Criminal Names

  1,083,116

  7. Wanted/Missing Persons

  1,987,155

  8. Disqualified Drivers

  811,960

  9. Convictions

  758,270

  10. Major Investigations

  21,328

  11. Crime Pattern Analysis

  371,684

  There have also been the following joint accesses:

  To indices 6 and 91

  1,083,116

  To indices 6, 7 and 9

  1,738,002

  To indices 6, 7, 8 and 9

  7,654,267

  To indices 4, 6 and 9

  615,754

  1 All accesses to the criminal names index will in addition automatically generate information from the convictions application.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each category found in the stolen and suspect vehicle index of the police national computer; and whether he can include in these statistics an indication of the minimum and maximum size of each category in the index over the year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:

  Category

  Current

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Confirmed lost or obtained by deception

  387,822

  372,611

  387,822

  Lost or stolen

  395,171

  378,478

  395,171

  Obtained by deception

  157

  251

  157

  Found

  26,188

  24,860

  27,996

  Removed

  13,045

  12,667

  20,346

  Street to street

  118

  109

  200

  Repossessed by finance

  0

  0

  0

  Company

  —

  —

  —

  Suspect

  787

  787

  1,095

  Police Vehicle

  3,862

  3,593

  3,862

  Blocked

  5,779

  5,255

  5,779

  Information

  17,620

  15,454

  17,620

  Seen

  7,014

  6,812

  8,012

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each category found in the wanted and missing persons index of the police national computer; and whether he can include in these statistics an indication of the minimum and maximum size of each category in the index over the year.
  396
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:

  Category

  Current

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Wanted

  35,466

  34,749

  37,194

  Fails to appear

  28,646

  27,066

  28,646

  Suspect

  2,325

  2,325

  4,891

  Impending prosecution

  68

  68

  95

  Deserter

  1,722

  1,440

  1,819

  Locate

  37,800

  33,324

  37,800

  Missing

  2,346

  1,977

  2,346

  Found

  22

  10

  24

  Absconder:

  from care

  504

  410

  524

  from hospital

  55

  34

  58

  from detention

  3

  1

  4

  from youth custody

  107

  89

  117

  from prison

  746

  609

  746

  from remand

  3

  3

  9

  from school

  32

  28

  53

  Recall:

  from detention

  0

  0

  0

  from youth custody

  0

  0

  0

  from prison

  283

  262

  297

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each index of the police national computer; and whether he can include in these statistics an indication of the minimum and maximum size of each category in the index over the last year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:

  Index

  Current

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Vehicle owners

  41,386,599

  39,948,809

  41,386,599

  Stolen vehicles

  475,199

  461,234

  478,104

  Chassis-engine numbers

  791,850

  755,425

  792,028

  Wanted/missing persons

  112,384

  107,707

  112,384

  Cross reference

  963,010

  939,279

  963,010

  Disqualified drivers

  368,214

  361,716

  368,214

  Convictions

  2,929,865

  2,539,276

  2,929,865

  Criminal names

  5,457,187

  5,301,962

  5,457,187

  Fingerprints

  4,004,441

  3,881,363

  4,004,441

  Crime pattern analysis

  13,394

  11,786

  13,394

  Extremists crime index

  142

  112

  142

  Major investigation

  326,362

  301,787

  326,362

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has information as to the number of accesses made to the police national computer; and whether he can give the proportion of access requests made to the vehicle indexes of the police national computer.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is collected on the basis of occasional monthly samples and annual totals are not therefore available. The last sample was taken in Febrary 1989. In that month, the number of transactions made to the police national computer (PNC) by each constabulary, and the proportion of these transactions which were made to the vehicle indices on the PNC, were as follows:

  Constabulary

  Nos. of transactions in February 1989

  Proportion of transactions made to vehicle indices

  Avon and Somerset

  76,595

  60·3

  Bedfordshire

  32,180

  61·1

  British Transport Police

  11,083

  33·3

  Cambridgeshire

  29,254

  61·9

  Central

  9,733

  52·6

  Cheshire

  39,560

  57·4

  City of London

  8,580

  60·9

  397

  Constabulary

  Nos. of transactions in February 1989

  Proportion of transactions made to vehicle indices

  Cleveland

  27,478

  60·2

  Cumbria

  31,387

  59·0

  Derbyshire

  37,040

  67·5

  Devon and Cornwall

  54,430

  59·1

  Dorset

  28,779

  58·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8,681

  50·2

  Durham

  30,236

  57·4

  Dyfed-Powys

  17,435

  46·6

  Essex

  73,061

  62·0

  Fife

  10,992

  56·6

  Gloucestershire

  24,595

  62·9

  Grampian

  18,651

  57·0

  Greater Manchester

  178,420

  56·6

  Guernsey

  888

  15·3

  Gwent

  13,122

  58·4

  Hampshire

  69,840

  52·4

  Hertfordshire

  30,679

  58·1

  Humberside

  40,351

  57·9

  Isle of Man

  2,820

  76·1

  Jersey

  3,509

  16·8

  Kent

  104,167

  59·2

  Lancashire

  88,280

  57·1

  Leicestershire

  30,345

  55·8

  Lincolnshire

  17,553

  64·3

  Lothian and Borders

  51,489

  53·3

  Merseyside

  76,081

  54·0

  Metropolitan

  612,032

  51·0

  Norfolk

  28,181

  68·3

  North Wales

  21,922

  48·5

  North Yorkshire

  38,095

  67·4

  Northamptonshire

  26,033

  63·6

  Northern

  9,174

  51·9

  Northumberland

  81,803

  63·8

  Nottinghamshire

  52,149

  69·9

  South Wales

  68,189

  64·6

  South Yorkshire

  58,966

  67·6

  Staffordshire

  32,507

  58·1

  Strathclyde

  114,162

  38·8

  Suffolk

  22,104

  57·8

  Surrey

  31,849

  57·4

  Sussex

  67,668

  53·8

  Tayside

  22,575

  55·4

  Thames Valley

  84,200

  57·0

  Warwickshire

  19,495

  65·7

  West Mercia

  34,955

  60·3

  West Midlands

  165,088

  65·0

  West Yorkshire

  94,156

  52·7

  Wiltshire

  24,473

  66·6

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of the consultants' report on the future of the police national computer organisation in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on 14 July at column 661.

  Summertime
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report the names of all organisations and individuals who submitted representations to him for a change in summertime arrangements prior to the decision to go out to consultation in 1987, for each of the last five years indicating the date when such representations were made.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the year before the first departmental survey on summertime arrangements, which was undertaken at the end of 1987, my Department was 398
  receiving about six to eight letters from hon. Members per month along with 12 to 15 letters from the public, and representations from Lords Vinson and Mountgarret and the Policy Studies Institute, among others. The rest of the information required is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Horseracing
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what figures he has for arrests and resultant convictions arising out of incidents at horse racing meetings, for each of the past five years as totals and as a proportion of attendances.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not available centrally.

  Murderers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are currently detained at Her Majesty's pleasure under the terms of the Children and Young Persons Act 1983; and what was the average length of sentence for those convicted of murder who were released or paroled in the last five years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information about the time detained in institutions other than prison service establishments is not readily available. The average time spent under sentence in prison service establishments by persons detained during Her Majesty's pleasure was between nine and a half and 10 years for those first released on licence in the years 1984 to 1988.

  Consultants
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which firms of consultants his Department has employed; and at what cost, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following contracts were awarded to firms of consultants during the period 1986–88:

  Communications Studies and Planning International—Study on subscription television.

  Concurrent Computer Corporation—Survey of Home Office Accounts Branch.

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates—Evaluation of the use of computers in Magistrates Courts: Funding and procurement of systems.

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates—Study into future provision of training for Magistrates Courts staff.

  Data Logic—Review study on police national computer project.

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells—Development of a financial management information system for the Probation Service.

  Ernst and Whinney—Support for automatic fingerprinting recognition planning.

  Express Computer Consultants—Performance study of Home Office Finance Division 1.

  Gilpin black Associates; The Grubb Institute—Management training for the Probation Service.

  Hay—MSL—Monitoring the performance bonus scheme.

  KMG Thomson McLintock—Office automation study for Home Office.

  PA Computers and Telecommunications—Study of network migration to police national computer project.

  PA Computers and Telecommunications—Future developments of computer system in Magistrates Courts.

  Pearn Kandola Associates—Formal qualifications and ethnic minority recruitment to white collar jobs.

  399

  Price Waterhouse—Implementation of computer systems in Home Office Prison Department.

  Purchasing Index (UK) Purchasing management information system.

  RIPA Services—Evaluation of the use of computers in Magistrates Courts training needs.

  Smith Associates—An analysis of the likely costs and benefits of introducing a mobile data terminal system in police vehicles.

  Sound Techniques—Evaluation of the use of computers in Magistrates Courts: Use of Computers in courtrooms.

  Systems Designers—Interim systems options study for police national computer project.

  Systems Designers—Feasibility study into the use of expert systems for multi-ethnic names matching.

  Systems Designers Scientific—A review of emergency communications services.

  Touche Ross Management Consultants—Study on scientific support for the police service in England and Wales.

  White Waghorn—Computerisation of Home Office Scientific Research and Development Branch accountancy system.

  1987

  Admiral Computing Ltd.—Automatic Handwriting Recognition—technical support.

  Arthur Young—Manpower Division—financial strategy review.

  Arthur Young—Police National Computer Upgrade—user requirement survey.

  Arthur Walton and Partner—Procurement in Home Office Science and Technology Group.

  Artificial Intelligence—Crime Auto Index—technical support.

  Atkins MC—Rental invoicing.

  Bechtel UK Ltd.—Assist in WARC purchasing.

  Bell Software Systems—Bootle Bureau Computer—technical support.

  BIS Applied Systems—Bootle Bureau Computer disaster-planning report.

  CAP Industry Ltd.—Automatic Fingerprint Recognition—design support.

  Claymore Services—Area Mapping System—technical support.

  Computer Services Company—Policy National Computer upgrade technical/management support.

  Coopers and Lybrand—Study on the future provision of staff training in the magistrates court service.

  Coopers and Lybrand—Staff training in Prison Service.

  Data Logic—Crime Auto Index—technical support.

  Roston Ltd.—Assist in WARC purchasing.

  Scientific Business Systems—Police Staff College Computer-technical support.

  Smith Associates—Automatic Fingerprint Recognition-technical support.

  Software Sciences—Immigration Service-technical support.

  Systems Designers—Intelligent Knowledge Based Systems-technical support.

  Systems Designers—Facial Recognition System-technical support.

  Systems Designers—PNCO Interim system arrangement study.

  Technical Support Consultants Ltd.—File transfer MCS facility project.

  Touche Ross MC—General Ledger System design and implementation.

  Touche Ross MC—Police National Computer Upgrade-project management support.

  Touche Ross MC—Police Administration Support Unit-business analysis.

  VNG Professional Services—Bootle Bureau Computer-technical support.

  White Waghorn—Financial Management System-technical support.

  Electronic Facilities Design—Automatic Fingerprint Recognition-operational requirement support.

  Ernst and Whinney ML—Procurement and Charging review.

  400

  Ewbank Preece Ltd.—Survey for Fire Service.

  Express Computers—Financial Management System-tech-nical support.

  Fraser Williams—Bootle Bureau Compuer-technical support.

  Huddart Security Consultancy—Research into major crime investigation.

  Mr. A. Iliffe—Writing new test material for CSSB.

  International Computers Ltd—Private Office Correspondence-technical support.

  IO Research—Electronic Facial Recognition-technical support/development.

  JSB—Immigration Service-SSADM support.

  Lear Month and Burchett—Bootle Computer Bureau-SSADM support.

  Logica Space and Defence—Automatic Fingerprint Recognition-design support.

  McPherson Associates—Research on reliability of a new personality test.

  MOM International—Project Management-technical support.

  PA Management Consultants—Assist with implementation of "Fresh Start" to Prison Service.

  PA Consultants—WARC Project.

  Procom Ltd—WRAC Project.

  RIPA Consultancy Services—Probation Information Service-technical support.

  1988

  Aberdeen University—Technical support for Scientific Research and Development Branch.

  Ampex—Videofile testing.

  Batalas—Police National Computer Office, Quality Assurance support.

  BBN—Technical support for Scientific Research and Development Branch.

  BIS—Magistrates Court contingency study.

  BIS—Financial Systems support.

  Cooper and Lybrand—Assistance with training seminars in Prison Service.

  Computer Search and Selection—Immigration programming support.

  CCTA—IT Division Post Implementation Review.

  Data Logic—Local Area Networks study.

  Dataflex—Programming support for Prison Service.

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells—Improving Clerical Support Services to HM Prison forms.

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells—Study of potential feasibility of private sector involvement in the remand system.

  Digitus—IT Division technical support.

  Eosys—Police Requirements Network study.

  Ewbank Preece—Microwave study.

  Express Computer Consultants—Software development for Financial Division.

  Grafton—Benchmark preparation for Police National Computer.

  Grafton—Software support for Police National Computer.

  Hunterskill—Programming support for Prison Service.

  ICL—Systems analysis for Immigration and Nationality Department.

  ICL—Bootle Computer Bureau Network Support.

  ICL—System sizing for Immigration and Nationality Department

  IN2—Post Administration programming support

  JSB—Database support for computerisation of central records

  Kerman Associates—IT Division technical support

  Logica—Fire Department Brigade requirements study

  Logica—Local Area Network study for Immigration and Nationality Department

  Metier—Bootle Computer Bureau project management tool support

  Oasis—Intelligency Knowledge Based Systems study

  Oracle—Bootle Computer Bureau software support

  PA Management Consultants—WARC project manage-ment

  PA Consulting—Investment Appraisal support for Immigration and Nationality Department

  PA Consulting—Police National Computer Office project

  401
  management support

  PA Technology—Proposal Evaluation: Automatic Fingerprint Recognition

  P-E Computer Services—Bootle Computer Bureau programming support

  Peat Marwick McLintock—Review of laundry service

  Peat Marwick McLintock—IND Relocation Study

  SIA—Fire Statistics Section hardware sizing trial

  Software AG—Police National Computer Office; Software support (2 contracts).

  St. George's Medical School—Technical support from Forensic Science Service.

  Touche Ross—Management systems strategy for prison industries.

  TSC Ltd.—Police National Computer Office; Operating System Support.

  Thornhill Computer Services—Bootle Computer Bureau programming support.

  Dr. R. L. Williams—Reviewing fingerprint evidence.

  Yale Data—IT Division technical support.

  The Home Office spent approximately £2,665,000 on consultancy services for 1986–87. Equivalent estimated payments for the calendar years 1987 and 1988 were £3,316,000 and £3,572,000 respectively. These payments include VAT as well as fees.

  Information for the years before 1986 is not readily available.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many perpetrators of racial harassment have been charged by the police(a) under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and (b) under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in the years 1987 and 1988, respectively.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on whether prosecutions under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 were for offences which were racially motivated is not collected centrally.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) men and (b) women have been convicted of child cruelty in courts in England and Wales in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women have been sent to prison for cruelty to children in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information held centrally for 1983 to 1987 on the specific offence of child cruelty is given in the table. Data for 1988 are not yet available. Many other convictions take place each year for offences of violence against children or sexual offences against children.

  Persons found guilty and sentenced to immediate custody for offences relating to cruelty to children

  Total found guilty

  Immediate custody

  1983

  Males

  47

  16

  Females

  42

  7

  1984

  Males

  57

  18

  Females

  53

  7

  1985

  Males

  40

  17

  402

  Total found guilty

  Immediate custody

  Females

  54

  13

  1986

  Males

  59

  20

  Females

  68

  10

  1987

  Males

  68

  20

  Females

  76

  19

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of inmates serving a life sentence were reviewed for possible parole during 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1988, the parole board considered the cases of 444 life sentence prisoners for release on life licence.

  Scottish Television Producers
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of United Kingdom network programming is currently achieved by Scottish television producers.

  Mr. Renton
  Programmes by Scottish producers comprise the following percentages of United Kingdom television network transmissions:

  Percentage

  BBC

  1·55

  ITV

  2·2

  Channel 4

  1·8

  The ITV and Channel 4 figures do not include output from Border television.

  Lotteries
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has received from the authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany to his request to explore means of stopping the posting to the United Kingdom of promotional and entry material for lotteries based in West Germany.

  Mr. John Patten
  The authorities in the Federal Republic have expressed their readiness to co-operate in this exploration and, via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, relevant information is being exchanged between them and the Home Office.

  Horserace Totalisator Board
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether future developments on the privatisation of the Horserace Totalisator Board, the allocation of shares in SIS and mergers within the off course bookmaking market will be frozen pending an announcement of an inquiry into racing finances.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend will announce his conclusions on the case for an inquiry into the long-term funding of racing when consideration is completed. The advice on the possible privatisation of the
  403
  Horserace Totalisator Board which we have received from Lloyds merchant bank is relevant to that consideration. The allocation of shares in Satellite Information Services is a matter for that company. There are no powers for the Secretary of State to make a general prohibition on merger activity in a particular sector, including the bookmaking industry.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the frequency with which the £400 fine has been imposed by different authorities for the unauthorised use by a non-disabled person of an orange badge issued to a person with a disability.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg:
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 13 July at column 643. The highest fine recorded for these offences was £50.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the west midlands as to on how many occasions complaints have been received against detective sergeant Michael Hornby; and what action has been taken in each case;
  404
  (2) if, pursuant to his answer on 5 July, he will call for a report from the chief constable of the west midlands as to how many complaints have been received against detective sergeant Michael Hornby since 1974; what action was taken in 1980 on the one occasion he was disciplined; and what was the nature of the complaint against him.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to his replies of 5 and 11 July 1989, columns 190 and 425]: I now understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that the information provided by the force that detective sergeant Michael Hornby had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in 1980 is incorrect. Detective sergeant Hornby has never faced disciplinary charges.

  I regret any inconvenience or embarrassment which this incorrect information may have caused.

  Child Custody
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mothers in prison, on remand or convicted for offences unrelated to their children's welfare, have been prevented from exercising their legal child custody rights by local authorities which have put their children into care without informing or consulting their mothers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. It is normal social work practice for all mothers to be informed or consulted about their children being taken into care.

THE ARTS

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  The Office of Arts and Libraries spent £7,943 on official hospitality in 1988–89.

  Horniman Museum and Library
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with the director of the Horniman museum and library about its future structure and funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 14 July 1989]: I met the director of the Horniman museum on 10 July and had a useful and informative discussion on the future of the museum. I was pleased to hear of progress achieved so far and asked to be kept in touch with developments in the transition to independent charitable status. The director is aware that the level of resources for the museum will be decided later in the year alongside OAL's other client institutions. The museum will naturally be encouraged to take full advantage of all sources of funding available to charitable institutions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Countryside Commission; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  I met the chairman of the Countryside Commission on 7 November when we discussed many issues relating to the countryside. I am always ready to discuss matters of mutual concern with the Countryside Commission.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the numbers of representations he has received concerning the European Economic Community directive on food irradiation.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have received about 70 letters making representations on this subject. Careful consideration will be given to the points raised.

  Code of Good Agricultural Practice
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the documents comprising the code of good agricultural practice; what is the price of each; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The main code of good agricultural practice booklet, originally a priced publication, was made available free of charge in June 1988. The following more detailed publications also form part of the code.

  RB 209—Fertiliser Recommendations (revised 1988) £5·00

  RB 500—Pesticides 1989 £8·95

  406

  Leaflet P441—Nitrogen fertilisers (1987)

  Leaflet P593—Sheep scab (1986)

  Leaflet 719—Sheep dipping and spraying (reprinted 1984)

  Leaflet P767—Farm chemical stores (1988)

  Booklet 2078—Guidelines for the use of herbicides on weeds in or near watercourses and lakes (revised 1985) £2·50

  Booklet 2081—Farm waste management: Profitable use of farm manures (revised 1986) £2·00

  Booklet 2198—Guidelines for the disposal of unwanted pesticides and containers on farms and holdings (reprinted 1986)

  Booklet 2200—Farm waste management: Advice on avoiding pollution from farm manures and other slurry wastes (revised 1985) £2·00

  Booklet 2272—Guidelines for applying crop protection chemicals: Ground crop sprayers for agriculture (reprinted 1986)

  Booklet 2409—The use of sewage sludge on agricultural land (revised 1987) £2·50.

  Booklet 2429—Farm waste management: Silage avoiding pollution (reprinted 1985)

  Booklet 2449—Guidelines for applying crop protection chemicals: Spraying fruit and hops with insecticides and fungicides (reprinted 1989).

  Leaflet P3042—Farm waste management: Storage of farm manures and slurries—Choosing a storage system.

  Leaflet P3043—Farm waste management: Storage of farm manures and slurries—Above ground circular slurry stores.

  Leaflet P3045—Farm waste management: Storage of farm manures and slurries—Weeping-wall slurry stores.

  Leaflet P3046—Farm waste management: Storage of farm manures and slurries—Stores for traditional farmyard manure.

  Leaflet P3047—Farm waste management: Storage of farm manures and slurries—Effluent tanks

  Leaflet P3122—Farm pollution: Dirty water-sources and volumes

  Leaflet P3123—Farm pollution: Dirty water-systems for disposal

  Leaflet P3124—Farm pollution: Dirty water-low rate irrigation systems.

  CAP 414—The Aerial Application Certificate: Information on requirements to be met by applicators and holders.

  Where no price is mentioned, the publications are available free of charge.

  Regional Panels
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names of his regional panels, the names of the people represented on each panel, their occupations and the interest they represent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The five regional panels in England are non-statutory bodies which help to ensure that the ministry and the farming industry are each aware of the other's attitudes and policies and to hear representations against decisions by officials. Membership of the regional panels is drawn mainly from farmers, farmworkers and landowners. Membership is undertaken in a personal capacity. Regional panel members do not act in a representational capacity for any organisation to which they may belong.

  There is an agriculture advisory panel for Wales which fulfils the same functions; this is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The names of the people who currently serve on the regional panels in England are as follows:

  Midlands and Western Regional Panel

  Chairman H. Salwey TD
  407
  Members:

  W. H. Bainbridge

  C. Briscoe

  A. R. Chadwick

  T. Clowes

  Mrs. J. Davies

  R. B. Garwell

  D. Harper

  A. T. C. Haywood

  A. A. Hignett

  J. S. Molyneux

  D. R. Penrose

  W. J. B. Taylor

  M. E. Twidale

  Dr. S. M. Williams

  Eastern Regional Panel

  Chairman - R. C. Bloomfield

  Members:

  J. Adams JP

  D. Bareham

  D. Black

  D. A. V. Cox

  Mrs. R. Eady

  E. W. Fause

  J. F. Goodge

  R. H. Kerkham

  J. Kerr JP

  B. E. Newton

  R. W. Patrick

  D. A. Read

  P. E. Richardson

  M. Thomasin-Foster

  R. J. Watts

  Northern Regional Panel

  Chairman - J. W. Raine CBE

  Members:

  C. H. Armstrong

  W. D. Avery

  C. A. F. Baker-Cresswell OBE

  R. H. Bosomworth J. C. Cooke

  J. H. Dixon

  J. M. Dearlore

  H. Duckett

  H. E. Morphet

  M. P. Pollard

  S. P. W. Kedgate

  A. P. Shirley

  J. Walby

  I. S. Watson

  South Eastern Regional Panel

  Chairman - K. J. Cyster OBE

  Members:

  B. Doble

  A. Gould

  J. E. Harrison

  J. Lington

  P. Lowater

  J. P. Martin

  I. D. Mcdowall

  D. G. L. Monnington

  H. Oliver-Bellasis

  A. E. Redsell

  D. Sword

  Mrs. S. Ward

  South Western Regional Panel

  Chairman - Sir Peter Mills

  Members:

  J. M. Eustace

  B. R. Jones

  R. Jones

  R. Lawton

  N. P. Morris

  M. Retallick

  D. Scott

  G. Trehane

  408

  Mrs. E. R. Wheatley-Hubbard

  J. Whetman

  H. B. Wright

  M. C. Yeo

  Nature Conservation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he takes to ensure, in exercising his responsibilities in relation to fisheries, that due regard is paid to nature conservation.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Fisheries in British Waters are managed and conserved as renewable natural resources. This may be through either national measures or those coming under the European Community's common fisheries policy. These are designed to keep fish stocks at healthy levels based on the available scientific advice. At the same time, my Department has regard for wider considerations on nature conservation, liaising with statutory and voluntary conservation bodies.

  Food Legislation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to publish a White Paper on amendments to the food legislation.

  Mr. Ryder
  I intend to make a statement in the near future.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  £48,875.

  Cereal Circles
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 11 July,Official Report, column 451, if he has received any scientific or other advice on the causes of the flattening of cereal circles.

  Mr. Ryder
  I am advised that this phenomenom is most likely to result from a combination of wind and local soil fertility conditions in cereals which are prone to lodging.

  Farmers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers previously in full-time activity have left the industry during the last five years as a consequence of direct financial pressure or bankruptcy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Records are not kept of the reasons why individual farmers leave the industry, and such information is not therefore available. However, in 1987, the last year for which information is available, there were 172 bankruptcies and 126 company insolvences in England and Wales among businesses which were primarily agricultural and horticultural.

  Pesticides Data Education Unit
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to increase the number of staff employed at his pesticides data education unit; and if he will make a statement.
  409
  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: Yes. Extra staff are being recruited this year to fill existing vacancies at the pesticide data evaluation unit and future staffing levels are under review.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to increase the financial resources available to his pesticides data education unit, in(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The financial resouces available to the pesticides data evaluation unit form part of central funds and cannot be quantified

  On 1 April in each year the numbers of inspectors, including fishery officers grades I and II, in post in my Department were:

  Chief inspector

  Deputy chief inspector

  District inspector

  Fishery officer I

  Fishery officer II

  Total

  1979

  1

  1

  10

  8

  —

  20

  1980

  1

  1

  12

  13

  —

  27

  1981

  1

  1

  12

  13

  —

  27

  1982

  1

  1

  12

  12

  —

  26

  1983

  1

  1

  12

  13

  —

  27

  1984

  1

  1

  8

  15

  —

  25

  1985

  1

  1

  8

  14

  —

  24

  1986

  1

  2

  10

  11

  —

  24

  1987

  1

  2

  9

  11

  10

  33

  1988

  1

  2

  11

  15

  38

  67

  1989

  1

  2

  12

  15

  35

  65

  The recent increase in numbers was mainly the result of a restructuring exercise which involved certain staff being regraded as fishery officer IIs.

  Alar
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the new evidence of levels of Alar in apples, whether he will now ban its use in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 July 1989]: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to information about residue levels of daminozide which was publicised recently by "Parents for Safe Food". These levels result from a method of analysis which is known to be non-specific and, therefore, liable to give false positives. Even if they were found by confirmatory analysis to be correct, they are still within the range considered to be safe by the independent advisory committee on pesticides.

ENVIRONMENT

  Tropical Hardwood
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much tropical hardwood has been used in each of the years from 1979 to 1988 by the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is not available, and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Pop Festivals
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number and names of local authorities which have passed resolutions under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to license pop 410
  separately. However, extra staff are being recruited this year to fill existing vacancies and future staffing levels are under review.

  Fisheries Inspectors
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of fisheries inspectors employed by his Ministry for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  festivals and other open-air entertainments, and have subsequently refused to license a specific event; and if he will list these applications.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 July 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mixenden Parents Resource Centre
  Mrs. Mahon.
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department intends to reply to the letter written in March by the Mixenden parents resource centre on the issue of direct funding.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department can find no trace of the hon. Lady's constituent's letter on this subject. If the hon. Member would like to write enclosing a copy, a response will be made as soon as possible.

  Rechem. International, Pontypool
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution proposes to publish the report arising from the investigation it carried out jointly with the university of East Anglia three years ago into background level of PC Bs and dioxins and including an investigation into the area surrounding Rechem International (Pontypool); and whether the preliminary findings are now available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The results of HMIP's investigations into background levels of PCBs and dioxins across the United Kingdom were published in summary form in HWI's third annual report (chapter 10). The full details of the study together with details of the analytical method are shortly to be published in a HMIP technical report.

  Hazardous Wastes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the facilities available for the disposal of wastes of the type formerly disposed through the Harwell hazardous materials service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The hazardous materials service from Harwell operates on a commercial basis and offers a range of waste management services, including the sorting, packaging and labelling of waste chemicals. These have been and still are disposed of at a number of licensed disposal facilities in England and Wales. Limitation as to the type of wastes acceptable at a site is generally a matter for the waste disposal authorities.

  Radiation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the causes of radiation dose rates in certain non-granite areas being higher outdoors than indoors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Dose rates from cosmic rays are usually lower indoors than outdoors because of the shielding provided by building materials. Dose rates from terrestrial gamma rays are occasionally lower indoors than outdoors because the activity of natural radionuclides in the building materials is lower than in the ground on which the building stands.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of new cars can now run on unleaded petrol without adjustment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Seventy per cent. of new cars registered in May could run on unleaded petrol without the need for adjustment. This compares with one third a year previously.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those sites in Yorkshire, and Humberside, for which he has given authorisation for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste during the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the Department's "List of Premises in England and Wales currently authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to dispose of radioactive waste", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. In addition to the listed premises the following have been authorised to dispose of low-level radioactive waste since April 1988;

  South Yorkshire

  Sheffield Health Authority, Lodge Moor Hospital, Redmires road, Sheffield

  West Yorkshire

  Dewsbury Health Authority (DHA), Dewsbury District Hospital, Healds road, Dewsbury

  DHA, Dewsbury General Hospital, Moorlands road, Dewsbury

  DHA, Staincliffe Hospital, Healds road, Dewsbury Immunoscope, Deacon House, Seacroft avenue, Leeds Leeds Western Health Authority, The General Infirmary, Great George street, Leeds

  Landfill Gas
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the extra £5 million capital allocations to enable local authorities to tackle the problems of landfill gas has been taken up.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The £5 million reserve capital allocation is to cover urgent and unforeseen expenditure in 1989–90. None of it has yet been used.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many explosions have occurred at landfill gas sites in England and Wales in the past 10 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has details of three explosions associated with landfill gas over the last three years but does not hold comprehensive records over the past decade.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many landfill gas sites have been identified as being currently in existence in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All landfills taking putrescible waste may give rise to some landfill gas. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution estimates that 1,709 landfills in England and Wales accept such waste.

  The inspectorate has issued guidance for landfills taking putrescible waste. Licensing of landfills is the responsibility of the waste disposal authorities, who should ensure that suitable conditions are imposed.

  Unlisted Buildings
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give consideration to the case for the planning legislation which would enhance local authority controls over the discretionary demolition of unlisted buildings.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has considered this carefully, but he does not believe that there is a need to extend controls over demolition.

  Housing Action Trust (Southwark)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he had made of how often the working party considering the possible creation of a housing action trust in Southwark should meet.

  Mr. Trippier
  The consultants, PIC Ltd., are responsible for arranging meetings with residents and other local interests on the North Peckham and Gloucester grove estates.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what precedents of ownership co-operatives exist for the working party to(a) examine and (b) visit at the end of the operating period of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark, when considering the future management of the Gloucester grove and North Peckham Estates.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Housing Corporation can put tenants in touch with ownership co-operatives now operating, and give them information about other local authority estates where tenants are thinking of forming such co-operatives.
  413
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the minimum number of meetings held annually by the proposed housing action trust board in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  It will be for individual trusts to decide how many meetings to hold each year.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would happen to all existing council employees working on the North Peckham and Gloucester grove estates, and in particular resident caretakers, in the event of the proposed housing action trust being created in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  A trust would give first consideration to council staff already working on the estates concerned when considering its staffing needs.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a firm and detailed management plan would be agreed prior to any ballot concerning the creation of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: We are currently seeking tenants' views on how the estates could be improved, including the way in which they are managed. We shall draw on these views to prepare a statement of what a trust might do. Tenants would then be able to consider this before they vote in a ballot. If established, a trust would have to take the statement into account in deciding the best way to manage its estates. It would also consult residents under section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 and section 64 of the Housing Act 1988.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether all the meetings of the proposed housing action trust board in Southwark and documentation of meetings would be open to the public.

  Mr. Trippier
  We intend to ensure that trusts open their board meetings to the public except in specified circumstances, for example where confidential information relating to individual people or commercially sensitive matters are under discussion.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  Expenditure on hospitality in my Department (including the PSA) in 1988–89 was £84,000.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the extra costs involved in splitting up the Nature Conservancy council.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: If there are any savings or additional costs resulting from the reorganisation of the NCC, they will be estimated in due course, in discussions with the NCC and the other bodies affected by the Government's proposals. These discussions have already commenced, and the outcome will be taken into account in determining the level of grant-in-aid to be given to the NCC in 1990–91 and to the successor bodies.

  Nature Reserves
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions he has given to the Nature Conservancy Council in respect of purchasing land for nature reserves.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The Government's general policy is that land should be purchased by public bodies only where this is essential in order for the body concerned to perform its functions. I have made this clear to the Nature Conservancy Council on several occasions. The council's current policy is to purchase land for nature reserves only as a last resort. where sites of key conservation value cannot be protected by other methods (such as management agreements).

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Hillsborough
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any tax will be levied on funds paid into or out of the Hillsborough disaster fund.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The tax consequences for a disaster fund depend on what form the trustees decide the fund should take.

  I understand that the Hillsborough disaster fund has been set up as a non-charitable discretionary trust. Cash donations to the fund are not liable to income tax or capital gains tax. Donations of assets other than cash may give rise to a capital gains tax charge for the donor, but there are provisions permitting deferment of the tax charge. For inheritance tax purposes, the normal rules for discretionary trusts will apply, but in practice it is unlikely that any inheritance tax will actually be payable.

  If the donations are invested, the fund will be liable to income tax on any interest or other investment income it receives. Beneficiaries will, however, be given credit for the tax already paid by the fund, so that a beneficiary who is a non-taxpayer can claim repayment of the tax in full. There will be no capital gains tax charge when money is distributed to beneficiaries, and again, although the normal inheritance tax rules apply, it is unlikely that, in practice, any inheritance tax will actually be payable.

  Tender Laws
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to abolish the operation of United Kingdom tender laws; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. The designation of certain currency of the realm as legal tender provides a safeguard for both creditors and debtors. A creditor may insist on payment in legal currency; and, in the absence of a prior contractual agreement regarding payment, a debtor can offer a "legal tender", that is, the exact amount of a debt (no change can be required) in legal currency. If refused, its subsequent payment into court prevents any further legal action against the debtor.

  Sterling Investments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money is invested in sterling which could be withdrawn at(a) one day's notice or less, (b) one week's notice or less and (c) a longer period than one week.
  415
  Mr. Lilley
  Data are not available to answer this question and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pound Sterling
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the reserves were spent in June in supporting the pound.

  Mr. Lilley
  The underlying fall in the reserves in June was $2,236 million but this was the result of a variety of transactions including, for example, transactions for Government Departments, with other central banks, and interest receipts and payments as well as intervention. It has never been the practice of the Government to publish figures of how much it has intervened in the foreign exchange markets in support of its exchange rate objectives.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current value in real terms of the public sector debt interest payments for each year since 1979(a) in money terms and (b) as a proportion of gross domestic product; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The table shows figures for general Government gross debt interest payments.

  Year

  1Real terms £ billions

  Percentage of money GDP

  1979–80

  16·5

  4·5

  1980–81

  16·8

  4·8

  1981–82

  17·9

  5·1

  1982–83

  17·4

  4·9

  1983–84

  17·5

  4·7

  1984–85

  18·4

  4·9

  1985–86

  19·1

  4·9

  1986–87

  18·4

  4·5

  1987–88

  17·7

  4·2

  1989–89

  16·8

  3·8

  1 1987–88 prices, using the GDP deflator.

  Over the whole period general Government debt interest payments are broadly unchanged in real terms. As a proportion of GDP interest payments have fallen significantly from their 1981–82 peak and have fallen every year for the last four years. Interest payments are forecast to fall further over the next four years in both real terms

  "Real short term interest rates and 12 month inflation rates in the European Community countries based on inflation rates which exclude owner occupier housing costs

  January 1988

  3Latest

  Inflation rate

  Real interest rate

  Inflation rate

  Real interest rate

  Germany

  0·5

  2·9

  3·0

  3·9

  France

  2·3

  5·9

  3·6

  5·2

  United Kingdom

  3·7

  5·0

  5·9

  7·8

  Italy

  5·0

  5·2

  7·0

  5·2

  Spain

  4·4

  8·0

  6·6

  7·7

  Netherlands

  -0·2

  4·6

  0·7

  6·1

  Belgium

  0·9

  5·6

  3·0

  5·1

  Portugal

  8·6

  4·8

  13·2

  -0·4

  Greece

  14·2

  2·2

  13·0

  6·2

  Denmark

  4·4

  4·3

  4·9

  3·8

  Ireland1

  2·3

  6·5

  3·2

  5·0

  Luxembourg2

  0·7

  5·9

  3·2

  4·9

  416
  and relative to GDP. The declining burden of debt interest has made room for more spending on priority services within a given total for public spending.

  Inflation
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the rate of inflation in the United Kingdom and in other European Community states in each year since accession; and if he will indicate against their names those countries who joined the ERM, and the year of doing so.

  Mr. Lilley
  The OECD "Economic Outlook" published in June 1989 gives the annual rate of inflation in each of the European countries since 1973. Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands joined the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system at its inception on 13 March 1979. Spain joined on 19 June 1989.

  Alcohol Taxes
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the yield in the current year by way of tax on alcohol from Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively; and if he will express the Scottish figures as a percentage of the United Kingdom total.

  Mr. Lilley
  The forecast yield from excise and value added tax on alcohol for the United Kingdom in 1989–90 is £7·3 billion. A regional breakdown of receipts is not available.

  Inflation and Interest Rates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the inflation rate and level of real interest rates in each European Community country since January 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: Inflation rates, excluding owner-occupier housing costs in order to put the figures on a more comparable basis, are given in the table. There is no agreed definition of real interest rates. The table shows the average short term money market rate in January 1988 and in the most recent month for which figures are available, deflated by the 12-month inflation rate in that month.
  417
  1 Figures for Ireland are for February 1988 and February 1989.

  2 Real interest rate figures for Luxembourg use Belgian interest rate

  3 Latest figures are June for the United Kingdom, France and Italy; May for Germany and Spain; February for Ireland and April for the other countries.

  Hoylake (Bermuda) Ltd.
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the activities of offshore investment companies in the light of recent activites of Hoylake (Bermuda) Ltd.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: No.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what happened to the live creatures and articles derived from endangered species imported or exported in contravention of national and international agreements and seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1988–89.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on Friday 26 May at cols. 810–11. The disposal of seized live creatures and articles derived from endangered species takes place within the arrangements outlined in that reply.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken by his Department to enforce the ban on trade in ivory recently declared by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The necessary instructions have been issued to Customs officers at points of entry into the United Kingdom.

  Money Measurement
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he now treats as his main measure of money in the economy.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The Government set a target range for narrow money MO and pays particular attention to it in assessing monetary conditions. The broad money aggregate M4 is also taken into account, though the interpretation of broad money, or liquidity, requires considerable judgment.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many complaints have been received about low flying from(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales in each month since January;

  (2) how many low-flying sorties took place over the United Kingdom in each month since January 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those low-range danger areas within which military aircraft are permitted to descend below 250 ft minimum separation distance during the run-in to a simulated target; and if he will list the minimum permitted height in each case.
  418
  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is being collated. I will write to the hon. Member with a substantive reply before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Wootton Creek
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence interests are served by the Royal Navy's responsibility for Wootton creek.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Royal Navy has no specific defence interest in Wootton creek. However, because it lies within the dockyard port of Portsmouth, the Queen's harbour-master retains responsibility for navigational matters there.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any estimate of the total redevelopment value of(a) operational and (b) non-operational service land in London and south-east England.

  Mr. Neubert
  No. Sites are valued individually as the need arises.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the total area of(a) operational and (b) non-operational service land in Great Britain, broken down by standard planning region.

  Mr. Neubert
  Records are not held precisely in the form requested, but the following tables give a breakdown of the defence estate, including freehold and leasehold land and foreshore, as at 1 April 1989(a) by function, and (b) by standard planning region.

  Acres

  By function

  Airfields

  72,657

  Naval bases

  3,088

  Training areas and ranges

  397,300

  Barracks and camps

  26,434

  Storage and supply depots

  24,861

  Research establishments

  48,760

  Telecommunications stations

  15,592

  Miscellaneous

  7,573

  TOTAL

  596,265

  By standard planning region

  Northern

  58,074

  North West

  32,768

  Isle of Man

  22

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  36,950

  East Midlands

  33,688

  West Midlands

  14,527

  Eastern

  90,581

  South East

  79,476

  South West

  137,611

  Scotland

  51,064

  Wales

  52,038

  Northern Ireland

  9,466

  TOTAL

  596,265

  Bases (Relocation)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans for the relocation of south-eastern military bases to less expensive regions of the United Kingdom.
  419
  Mr. Neubert
  We are continually seeking opportunities to rationalise the defence estate and to concentrate activities on lower-value sites, where there is a clear advantage of doing so in operational, management and financial terms. Present relocation plans include the move of the directorate general of defence quality assurance from Woolwich to Teesside, the officer and aircrew selection centre from Biggin Hill to Cranwell and some RAF units at Halton to Cosford.

  Polo
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take action to ensure that the career prospects of cavalry officers who indicate to their adjutant or commanding officer their disclination to subscribe to the regiment polo fund are not adversely effected.

  Mr. Neubert
  I do not believe that any action is necessary. Promotion in the Army is based entirely upon an individual's performance in his job. In addition, I made clear in my answer of 6 July at column 266 that no officer is required to subscribe towards his regimental polo team.

  Beer Rations
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the beer ration allowed to ratings in nuclear submarines per week; what advice his medical officers give about the safe levels of consumption for men on nuclear submarines; and if he will institute a review of the Royal Navy's policy on the issue of alcohol to ratings.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave on 3 May at column 127 concerning limits on alcohol consumption by ratings on board RN vessels, and on 12 April at columns 610 and 611 on instituting a policy review.

  Advice on sensible levels of alcohol consumption is given in group situations, and to individuals where a medical officer considers it appropriate. But it would be wrong to impose further restrictions on service personnel which are not justified by operational or safety considerations.

  US Maritime Prepositioning
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the port and anchorage facilities in the United Kingdom which have been designated for use for United States maritime prepositioning ships.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Discussions on the possibility of providing port and anchorage facilities for United States maritime prepositioning ships are continuing on a confidential basis, but no decisions have been taken.

  Navy Support Vessels
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total number of Royal Navy support vessels and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The details requested are shown in the table for 1 April in each year:420

  Year

  Royal Navy Support Vessels

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary Vessels

  Royal Maritime Auxiliary Vessels

  1979

  3

  29

  714

  1980

  3

  29

  660

  1981

  3

  28

  635

  1982

  2

  24

  623

  1983

  2

  25

  540

  1984

  2

  27

  540

  1985

  3

  28

  523

  1986

  3

  27

  516

  1987

  4

  26

  510

  1988

  3

  28

  529

  1989

  2

  26

  483

  The vessels in the third column have a number of support functions: research, mooring and salvage, tugs, range safety, ammunition and sullage, transportation, torpedo recovery and tank cleaning.

  NATO Forces
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish figures showing the percentage contribution of European nations to ready North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in each year since 1979 in the following categories(a) manpower, (b) tanks, (c) artillery, (d) combat aircraft stationed in Europe and (e) major warships, applying the same definitions and bases of calculation as used for the figures in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, page 2.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The figures quoted on page 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989" were produced by NATO specifically for use in the December 1988 defence planning committee report "Enhancing Alliance Collective Security: Shared roles, risks and responsibilities in the Alliance". Figures for each year since 1979 are not available on the same definitions and bases of calculation.

  F111 Aircraft
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the reason for the decline of four F111 aircraft in the figures for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation LRINF aircraft in the chart on page 51 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, compared to the equivalent table in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The figures presented in successive editions of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" provide an overall picture of the number of USAF F111 aircraft that are operationally deployed. The actual number available at any time changes due to a number of factors including attrition and maintenance work. The figure given in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989" reflects a reduction in the numbers of aircraft generally available.

  HMS Chatham and Norfolk
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the frigates HMS Chatham and HMS Norfolk were listed on page 53 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 as being operational on 1 April.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on 26 June 1989 at column 366.

  Nuclear Submarines (Disposal)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been made on behalf of his Department of the implications in international law, of the disposal of nuclear-powered submarines once their operational lives have been completed(a) within international waters, and (b) within United Kingdom territorial waters.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Studies have been carried out into the disposal of reactor compartments from decommissioned nuclear submarines. One option includes the disposal of the intact submarine at sea, but no decisions have been made on the method of disposal. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for the interepretation of international law and has been regularly consulted by the MOD about the international implications of disposing of decommissioned nuclear submarines at sea. The London dumping convention (LDC), which is the international convention having worldwide scope in the field of dumping, makes no differentiation between international and territorial waters.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total campaign and garrison costs associated with the security of the Falkland Islands and their subsequent maintenance; and what is this cost expressed as a per capita sum for the permanent population of the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total extra cost of the Falklands commitment, including both campaign and garrison costs, from 1982–83 to the end of the last financial year, is estimated to be £3,368 million in cash terms, or about £1,750,000 per Falkland Islander. Once our spending on replacement equipment is complete, we expect the overall extra costs to level out at around £55 million to £60 million a year, at today's prices.

  Birkbeck College
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contact his officials had on Saturday 1 July with The Sunday Times about Birkbeck college; if the contents of the article printed in the newspaper on Sunday 2 July were made known to his officials; and what response they made.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 17 July 1989 at column 67.

  Environmental Pollution
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce legislation to require new facilities for the production of nuclear warheads, nuclear fuels for military use and naval bases for nuclear capable ships and submarines to be subject to mandatory environmental impact assessments before permission is granted for construction.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: No. The Ministry of Defence follows the procedures set out in Department of the Environment circulars 18/84 and 15/88.

HEALTH

  Benzodiazepines
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted into the advisability of prescribing(a) hypnotic benzodiazepines and (b) benzodiazepine tranquillisers to children; and what conclusions have been drawn relative to each.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has not commissioned research in the specific areas referred to by the hon. Member.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Southport of 4 July,Official Report, column 150, when information about the increase in the number of patients referred to hospital ophthalmology departments for eye tests since the introduction of charges for eye tests, will be held centrally.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information about the number of cases seen by hospital eye departments since April 1989, when the sight test charge was introduced, will be available centrally only towards the end of next year.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on those of his proposals in "Working for Patients" designed to reduce waiting times for patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The proposals in the White Paper to improve the quality of service including the reduction of waiting times have been generally welcomed.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings of medical and non-medical staff he has addressed at those hospitals about which health authorities have expressed interest in opting out of the existing National Health Service management structure; and what plans he has to address such meetings in the near future.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have held a national conference in London and seven regional conferences for NHS staff from units which have expressed an interest in self-government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has addressed five of these meetings and I have addressed three. My right hon. and learned Friend has also spoken to staff on an ad hoc basis in a number of individual hospitals and will continue to do so over the coming months.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will name the medical organisations which have been critical of his proposals for hospitals to opt out of the existing National Health Service management structure; and if he will further set out the substance of their criticism.

  Mr. Mellor
  Many of the medical organisations who have commented on the White Paper have questions or concerns about the possible effects of hospitals becoming self governing within the National Health Service. These relate to the mechanisms for achieving high quality
  423
  medical education and research, the means of ensuring the provision of comprehensive services and the effects of the hospitals's freedom to set pay and conditions. We believe these are based on groundless misapprehensions about our intentions.

  On 10 July my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spoke to an audience of senior doctors and gave assurances about the safeguarding of medical education and research. We intend to take reserve powers to ensure that undergraduate, post graduate and continuing medical education are provided in self-governing hospitals. We have already announced that the service increment for teaching (SIFT) will be enhanced to meet the costs of hospitals which support undergraduate medical education and the service costs of research.

  District health authorities will have the responsibility of providing a comprehensive and cohesive range of conveniently sited, high quality services for their resident population. In doing this they will make full use of available facilities whether in health authority-managed hospitals, self-governing hospitals or the private sector. Health authorities will therefore ensure that there is no fragmentation of services.

  Self-governing hospitals will be able to set their own pay and conditions but the discipline of contract funding is likely to ensure that they offer rates of pay which are broadly in line with those in the Health Service as a whole.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will receive a deputation concerning proposals for opting out of hospitals in the borough of Walsall.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. This would not be helpful at this early stage. But I shall take into consideration the views of all those with an interest when assessing applications for hospitals to become self-governing.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will request the Electoral Reform Society to conduct ballots in those areas where it is suggested that hospitals should opt out of the existing National Health Service management structure;

  (2) if the Government will ask local authorities to conduct ballots on the same basis as in local and national elections in order to determine the level of support for hospitals to opt out of the existing National Health Service management structure.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the future timetable when it is suggested by health authorities that hospitals may opt out of the existing National Health Service management structure; and when he expects to make the first decisions on opting out.

  Mr. Mellor
  We intend that, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation, the first self-governing hospitals will be established in April 1991. The Department will issue further information about the application process later this year.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if those hospitals which opt out of the existing National Health Service management structure will be under the same obligation to admit patients as at present.

  Mr. Mellor
  A decision by an individual NHS hospital to opt for self-governing status, will not alter in any way 424
  its obligations to admit patients requiring treatment. It will be in no sense different in this respect to a directly-managed hospital. Emergency treatment and admissions will be provided by all hospitals with the requisite facilities. Elective admissions will be provided within the contractual frameworks that have been agreed.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received proposing that balloting should occur before hospitals opt out of the existing National Health Service management structure.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received representations on this subject from a number of hon. Members, community health councils and other representative organisations and from individual members of the public.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations in total he has received from the general public about the proposal to allocate a prescribing budget to each general practitioner.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received 219 letters from the general public specifically referring to our proposal to introduce an indicative prescribing budget scheme for general practitioners. In addition to these we have received almost 6,500 letters from the general public about the White Paper proposals, the majority of which have raised questions about, amongst other things, indicative prescribing budgets.

  NHS Premises (Retailing)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what income was received by the Northern regional health authority, or its component districts, in 1988 from retailing activities on Health Service premises.

  Mr. Freeman
  The net income received by the health authorities within the Northern regional health authority, from retailing activities on their premises during the tax year 1988–89, was £105,000.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list from 1 January to the latest date for which he has figures for the Doncaster health authority(a) the number of cases of meningitis recorded and (b) the number of deaths from meningitis, showing the ages of the patients concerned.

  Mr. Freeman
  Meningitis can be caused by a number of different organisms. The data show the number of notifications of(a) all forms and (b) meningococcal meningitis for Doncaster district health authority for the period 31 December 1988 to 7 July 1989. Mortality data for this period are not yet available.

  Meningitis (all forms)

  Meningococcal meningitis

  Doncaster district health authority

  14

  10

  Resuscitation Units (Doncaster Royal Infirmary)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the wall-mounted resuscitation units in the maternity wing of the women's hospital at Doncaster royal infirmary were installed; and when he expects them to become operative.

  Mr. Freeman
  Installation and use of hospital equipment is a matter for the district health authority concerned and I suggest the hon. Member contacts the chairman of Doncaster health authority for the information he seeks.

  Coronary Disease
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give, for each special health authority and district health authority the expenditure on coronary heart prevention(a) in cash terms and (b) as a proportion of the total revenue budget of the authority in the manner of the February 1989 National Audit Office report.

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

  As the February 1989 NAO report explained:
  "Health departments are unable to estimate the extent of expenditure on the prevention of coronary heart disease because of the notoriously difficult problem of costing health promotion activities."

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the guidance being issued to district health authorities about the prevention of coronary disease.

  Mr. Freeman
  Work is currently under way in the Department to develop guidance for regional and district health authorities on the organisation of health promotion services generally. The guidance will include specific references to coronary heart disease, building on experience from the first two years of the "Look After Your Heart" campaign, as well as other major areas of health education activity. When the guidance has been prepared, I will place it in the Library.

  Profiles
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the profiles requested by his Department in HC (88)43.

  Mr. Freeman
  The profiles mentioned in appendix 4 of HC (88)43 are epidemiological overviews of the health status of health authorities' populations. As they are being compiled by health authorities for their own purposes, not for submission to the Department of Health, decisions about publication rest with the health authorities themselves.

  NHS Administrators
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to either(a) reduce the number of administrators in the National Health Service or (b) place a numerical cap on the total of such administrators.

  Mr. Mellor
  As with all staff groups administrative and Mersey clerical staff groups make a necessary and vital contribution to the running of the National Health Service. All health authorities are asked to exercise restraint on A and C staff numbers.
  426
  This group is continuing to stabilize following the introduction of the management arrangements advocated by the Griffiths' report. Any growth is now occurring among clinically related A and C staff—that is, those who work in direct support of those providing patient care. Between 1982 and 1987, such staff increased by 65 per cent. from 22,700 to 37,400. Non-clinically related staff declined by over 10 per cent. during the same period from 86,100 to 77,200.

  Health Aids (Old People)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that all health authorities make necessary health aids which are supplied free to patients in their own homes also available free to those in residential and nursing homes.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the criteria under which residents in private old person's homes are entitled to National Health Service treatment.

  Mr. Freeman
  People in residential care homes retain the right to National Health Service treatment as if they were in their own homes. The person responsible for a private nursing home must provide adequate facilities and services for those accommodated and we would expect the fees charged to reflect this. Nursing home patients retain the right to National Health Service general medical, dental and hospital services.

  Medical Accidents
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been lost, and with what value of damages and costs, by regional health authorities in England as a result of medical accidents in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally. Health authorities are required to notify the Department of all compensation payments in excess of £100,000 made as a result of court orders or out of court settlements.

  The following awards/settlements resulting from medical accidents by National Health Service region were notified in each of the financial years 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Year and region

  Amount of award/ settlement

  £

  1980–81

  North East Thames

  240,000

  Oxford

  160,000

  1981–82

  —

  1982–83

  North East Thames

  195,000

  1983–84

  South West Thames

  250,000

  Wessex

  534,000

  Mersey

  160,000

  1984–85

  North West Thames

  220,760

  North East Thames

  235,000

  427

  Year and region

  Amount of award/ settlement

  £

  1985–86

  Yorkshire

  385,000

  Trent

  270,000

  Wessex

  275,000

  West Midlands

  250,000

  1986–87

  Trent

  115,000

  130,000

  375,000

  East Anglian

  151,222

  600,000

  South West Thames

  150,498

  Wessex

  175,000

  Oxford

  550,000

  West Midlands

  175,000

  260,000

  North Western

  207,000

  1987–88

  North East Thames

  430,000

  South Western

  350,000

  Mersey

  375,000

  1988–89

  Trent

  625,000

  North East Thames

  1535,000

  NHS staff1 in post at 30 September 1987

  Hospital consultants—cardiology

  Physiological measurement technicians—cardiology

  Region

  whole-time2 equivalent

  WTE per 100,000 population3

  whole-time2 equivalent

  WTE per 100,000 population3

  Northern

  8

  0·3

  49

  1·6

  Yorkshire

  7

  0·2

  80

  2·2

  Trent

  6

  0·1

  137

  2·9

  East Anglia

  3

  0·1

  23

  1·1

  North West Thames

  8

  0·2

  60

  1·7

  North East Thames

  7

  0·2

  59

  1·6

  South East Thames

  11

  0·3

  26

  0·7

  South West Thames

  6

  0·2

  37

  1·2

  Wessex

  5

  0·2

  24

  0·8

  Oxford

  6

  0·2

  14

  0·6

  South Western

  1

  0·0

  40

  1·2

  West Midlands

  9

  0·2

  102

  2·0

  Mersey

  8

  0·3

  86

  3·6

  North Western

  12

  0·3

  111

  2·8

  England total4

  116

  0·2

  876

  1·8

  Source:

  Department of Health (SMI3) annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower and the Office of Population Censuses and Survery.

  1 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff, including locums and agency locum staff.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent but unrounded figures used for calculations.

  3 Based on mid-1987 population estimates.

  4 England totals include staff employed in London post graduate special health authorities.

  Electrocardiograms
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the number of(a) electrocardiograms, (b) exercise electrocardiograms, (c) echocardiograms and (d) ambulatory recordings per 100,000 population carried out (i) in England and (ii) in each regional health authority area for the latest available year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is given in the table.
  428

  Year and region

  Amount of award/ settlement

  £

  380,000

  546,000

  220,000

  South East Thames

  1225,000

  Oxford

  465,000

  South Western

  290,000

  Mersey

  375,000

  140,000

  1 Provisional figures.

  Note. The figures shown represent the total amount of the award/settlement excluding costs which are not generally known at the time of the settlement and, therefore, are not notified to the Department. The figures do not take account of the fact that the health authority's liability may have been reduced by a contribution from a medical defence organisation.

  Cardiac Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the number of(a) cardiologists and (b) cardiac technicians in each regional health authority, expressed as an absolute figure, and per 100,000 population of the regional health authority for the latest available year.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is shown in the table.

  Electrocardiogram requests, NHS hospitals, per 100,000 population, England, 1987–88

  Group A1

  Group B1

  Routine Electrocardiograms

  Ambulary and Exercise ECG's

  (per 100,000 population2)

  (per 100,000 population2)

  England3

  6,384

  695

  Northern

  7,012

  523

  Yorkshire

  7,748

  837

  Trent

  6,671

  330

  East Anglian

  5,819

  575

  North West Thames

  5,900

  659

  North East Thames

  7,783

  1,031

  429

  Group A1

  Group B1

  Routine Electrocardiograms

  Ambulary and Exercise ECG's

  (per 100,000 population2)

  (per 100,000 population2)

  South East Thames

  5,488

  911

  South West Thames

  4,005

  475

  Wessex

  4,139

  672

  Oxford

  4,489

  432

  South Western

  5,177

  476

  West Midlands

  6,004

  528

  Mersey

  7,960

  966

  North Western

  7,942

  972

  1Source: KH13.

  2OPCS 1987 mid-year population estimates.

  3 England figure includes Special Health Authority.

  Medical Scientific Officers
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Davyhulme of 4 July, what has been the percentage increase in average earnings from April 1980 to 1988 in respect of medical scientific officers.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. Pay rates for NHS scientists and clinical psychologists have increased by an average of 113 per cent. between April 1980 and April 1988.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will define the circumstances in which local authorities and health authorities meet the full cost of the care of an individual placed in private or voluntary residential care; and whether these circumstances apply equally when the claimant is over pensionable age;

  (2) what access to residential care an individual enjoys if the statutory services are unwilling or unable to make provision.

  Mr. Mellor
  Statutory responsibility for the provision of residential care rests with local authorities. Under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and directions issued by the Secretary of State, local authorities have a duty to make arrangements for providing residential accommodation for persons ordinarily resident in their area who, by reason of age, infirmity or other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them. Local authorities may themselves provide such accommodation. Alternatively they may under section 26 of that Act, sponsor residents in voluntary or private residential care homes, in which case the local authority pays the full fees and the resident pays the authority in accordance with his or her means.

  Cook-chill Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will ensure that all National Health Service hospital in-patients are able to obtain a cooked alternative to cook-chill food if they request it;

  (2) what advice his Department has given to health authorities concerning the feeding of individual patients in hospitals providing only cook-chill meals where the patients concerned refuse to eat food produced by this method.
  430
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the lion. Member to my reply to him on Tuesday 17 January at columns 113–14.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has received regarding the Yorkshire regional health authority's proposals to adopt the use of four central production units within the private sector for the purpose of the introduction of the cook-chill catering throughout the Yorkshire region;

  (2) what is the position of the current in-house cook-chill production units following the decision of the Yorkshire regional health authority to privatise hospital catering provision;

  (3) what recent consultation has taken place between the Yorkshire regional health authority and (a) the district health authorities, (b) the community health councils and (c) trade unions, concerning their future plans for hospital catering within the region.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Yorkshire regional health authority consulted widely on its catering strategy and continues to do so when appropriate. Questions about its implementation are a local matter and not for me. The hon. Member may wish to contact the regional chairman for the particular information he is seeking.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued concerning the introduction of irradiated food into National Health Service catering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's announcement of their intention to permit food irradiation was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 21 June. New enabling powers are required to impose conditions and controls necessary for its introduction. It follows that any advice to the NHS must await the application of those new powers when available.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he intends to introduce to improve Britain's standing in the infant mortality league of the European Economic Community nations.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 18 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) at columns 138–39 announcing the Government's response to the first report from the Social Services Select Committee, Session 1988–89 on perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality.

  Private Ambulances
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations exist to ensure that private ambulances are roadworthy and safe to operate as ambulances; what regulations exist to require those operating private ambulances to be qualified to deal with sick or injured people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no statutory control over private ambulances or private ambulance operators who are free to operate subject to the provisions of common law and traffic legislation. The onus is on those buying private ambulance services to ensure that they are able to provide the appropriate facilities and staff to meet the standards required.

  Anthony Porter
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stockton, South relating to the death of Anthony Porter after receiving treatment at North Tees hospital, originally tabled for answer on 7 July.

  Mr. Freeman
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letter on 19 July.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1988–89.

  Campaign

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Drugs

  Nil

  700,281

  707,319

  Nil

  400,137

  AIDS

  Nil

  Nil

  948,605

  1,631,598

  Nil

  Anti-teenage smoking

  Nil

  266,975

  261,918

  Nil

  Nil

  Nursing

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  319,412

  Health education campaigns are conducted by the Health Education Authority which now has responsibility for AIDS and anti-teenage smoking campaigns, amongst others.

  Radiation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 472–3, to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), he will publish the general comments made in the last five years about the facilities available to clinicians administering radioactive substances referred to him by Her Majesty's inspector of pollution; and if he will list those clinics, hospitals and health authorities where his Department has pursued its concerns with the health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: I regret that this information could not be supplied except at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Vaccine Damage (Compensation)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much compensation is paid to brain-damaged victims following vaccinations who are deemed to be 75 per cent. disabled.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No payments under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 are made for disablement assessed at less than 80 per cent. However, anyone who believes they are disabled as a result of vaccination may seek compensation through the courts.

  Income Support
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claim the lowest level of income support in each of its three categories.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest estimate is that some 610,000 single people and 15,000 couples draw income support at the basic personal allowance rates only.
  432
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security gave today.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide as much information as possible which does not breach commercial confidentiality about his Department's expenditure on commercial television advertising for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: The figures are as follows:

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have no other source of income other than income support.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest estimate is that some 725,000 single people and 43,000 couples drawing income support have no other source of income, (including other social security benefits).

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what tests his Department carries out to see if it is possible for income support claimants to survive on the various levels of support where no other income is received.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is available from a variety of sources, including the "Annual Statistical Enquiry", the "Family Expenditure Survey", the "General Household Survey", individual research studies carried out over a period of time, and representations from outside organisations. It is also relevant that the real value of the benefit has increased very substantially over the period since 1948.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to increase any of the three grades of income support.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The personal allowance for certain 16 to 17-year-olds who, of necessity, have to live away from home was increased from 10 July, and there will be increases this October in the premiums for pensioners over 75, and for disabled pensioners. Further increases in the income support rates will be considered later this year as part of the annual uprating.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the level of income support for people in nursing homes and residential care.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The maximum amounts payable under income support to people in independent residential care and nursing homes are reviewed annually at the same time as the general uprating of social security benefits.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what action is taken by his Department when
  433
  the nearest relatives of an income support claimant over pension age in residential or nursing care refuse requests to top up the claimant's fees for care where the claimant's total income does not meet the full cost of care;

  (2) which agency is responsible for meeting the difference between the fees for private residential and nursing care and the total income of an income support claimant over pensionable age when his or her resources fall short of the costs of residence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 4 July at column 140. Local authorities can only meet the full cost of care for people over pension age, they cannot "top-up" income support. The funding arrangements for new residents of homes are of course to change following the announcement on the funding of community care made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 12 July at columns 975–79.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy regarding the payment of income support for longer than six months to a claimant in private residential or nursing home care when the claimant's house is for sale but has not been sold, and where the claimant has no resources to meet the costs of the home.

  Budgeting loans and community care grants nationally, regional and for local offices by client group 1988–89

  Per cent.

  (00)

  (01)

  (02)

  (03)

  (04)

  (05)

  (06)

  (07)

  (08)

  (09)

  (10)

  (11)

  (12)

  (13)

  (14)

  (15)1

  Total awards

  Great Britain

  Budgeting Loans

  0·5

  0·3

  0·6

  3·9

  0·4

  3·6

  3·6

  43·9

  0·7

  2·1

  16·7

  18·8

  1·0

  3·8

  0·0

  n.a.

  504,629

  Community Care Grants

  0·4

  4·5

  3·7

  14·3

  0·9

  3·4

  10·0

  25·2

  0·7

  1·5

  9·5

  16·4

  2·0

  6·3

  0·0

  1·1

  152,574

  North East Region

  Budgeting Loans

  0·3

  0·3

  0·7

  4·1

  0·4

  2·7

  3·0

  42·8

  0·8

  2·2

  20·9

  17·6

  0·9

  3·3

  0·0

  n.a.

  101,558

  Community Care Grants

  0·4

  3·7

  3·7

  14·5

  10

  3·2

  9·3

  26·2

  0·7

  1·3

  11·7

  16·3

  1·8

  5·9

  0·0

  0·8

  278,824

  Eston ILO

  Budgeting Loans

  0·0

  0·2

  0·8

  2·0

  0·3

  3·1

  4·1

  52·0

  0·3

  1·1

  25·6

  7·5

  0·6

  2·5

  0·0

  n a.

  1,316

  Community Care Grants

  0·3

  1·3

  2·3

  5·8

  0·0

  2·3

  5·8

  28·2

  0·6

  3·2

  30·2

  14·0

  0·6

  4·9

  0·0

  0·3

  319

  Hartlepool ILO

  Budgeting Loans

  0·6

  0·3

  0·7

  3·1

  0·6

  2·5

  3·4

  40·3

  0·3

  2·4

  26·8

  15·4

  1·4

  2·3

  0·0

  n.a.

  1,662

  Community Care Grants

  1·3

  3·0

  1·7

  8·3

  0·3

  3·0

  6·0

  30·3

  0·3

  1·3

  18·3

  18·0

  0·3

  4·3

  0·0

  2·7

  321

  Middlesbrough ILO

  Budgeting Loans

  0·2

  0·5

  0·8

  3·6

  0·6

  2·5

  3·3

  45·9

  0·6

  2·1

  24·2

  12·8

  0·6

  2·2

  0·0

  n.a.

  4,023

  Community Care Grants

  0·0

  3·6

  4·1

  12·0

  1·3

  3·7

  8·0

  32·1

  0·4

  1·2

  9·4

  16·4

  1·4

  5·2

  0·0

  1·2

  951

  Redcar ILO

  Budgeting Loans

  0·1

  0·0

  0·5

  4·1

  0·9

  12·0

  2·3

  37·0

  0·9

  1·5

  20·6

  16·6

  0·7

  2·9

  0·0

  n.a.

  1,369

  Community Care Grants

  0·0

  3·0

  3·6

  14·3

  2·4

  9·6

  7·5

  22·4

  2·4

  0·9

  10·3

  14·3

  1·9

  6·6

  0·0

  0·9

  503

  Stockton ILO

  Budgeting Loans

  0·3

  0·3

  1·1

  4·3

  0·6

  2·5

  3·5

  44·0

  0·6

  2·1

  22·3

  15·1

  0·9

  2·5

  0·0

  n.a.

  2,720

  Community Care Grants

  0·3

  3·2

  4·0

  11·2

  0·9

  3·6

  6·4

  36·5

  0·3

  1·4

  11·9

  13·9

  1·1

  4·2

  0·0

  1·3

  799

  1Key to client groups

  Code Meaning

  00 unallocated or unidentified

  01 over 80—with Income Support higher pensioner premium

  02 aged 60–79—disabled with higher pensioner premium

  03 aged 60–79—with ordinary pensioner premium, or over 60 without pensioner premium

  04 lone parent with Income Support disability premium

  05 family with disability premium

  06 other with disability premium

  07 lone parent without disability premium

  08 signs at UBO quarterly with Income Support family premium

  09 signs at UBO quarterly without family premium

  10 signing unemployed or with training allowance with family premium

  11 signing unemployed or with training allowance without family premium

  12 others with family premium

  13 others without family premium

  14 involved in trade dispute

  15 applicant not in receipt of Income Support—not applicable for budgeting loans
  434
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Income support can continue to be paid after 26 weeks, provided that the adjudication officer is satisfied that all reasonable steps to sell the property are being taken.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy regarding the realisation of the sale of the former home of an applicant for income support in private residential care where such a sale would render the resident's previous carer homeless, and where the carer is neither the partner of the claimant nor a relative over the age of 60 years, nor is incapacitated.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 4 July at columns 139–40.

  Grants and Loans
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number and percentage of(a) budgeting loans and (b) community care grants awarded to the 15 client groups defined by his Department for (i) Great Britain, (ii) the Northern Department of Social Security region and (iii) each of the Department of Social Security local offices of Redcar, Eston, Middlesbrough, Stockton and Hartlepool for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 10 July, 1989]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the reasons for the delay experienced by Mr. and Mrs. Elliot, of the Rodney road centre, Leeds, in hearing the outcome of their claim for family credit; what are the grounds for the refusal of (i) family credit and (ii) income support in that case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mrs. Elliot was notified on 3 November 1988 that her claim for family credit made on 22 September 1988 had been disallowed on the ground that neither she nor her husband were normally engaged in remunerative work within the terms of section 20(5)(b) of the Social Security Act 1986 and regulation 5(2) of the Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987. The delay was caused by the need to make inquiries of Mr. Elliot's employers to establish details of his employment. Mr. Elliot's claim for income support made on 14 November 1988 was disallowed on the ground that he was engaged in remunerative work of 24 hours or more within the terms of section 20(3)(c) of the Social Security Act 1986 and regulation 5 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987.

  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 6 July at column 247, we are considering ways of minimising the risk of families failing to qualify for either benefit.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the items of personal data held in the new computerised departmental central index, the size of the index, and how many accesses were made to the index over the last two months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 15 June 1989 at column 531.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what statistical information he has as to the reasons given to applicants by social fund officers at the local office in Durham city for the refusal in respect of an application for social fund loans.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Reasons for refusal of Social Fund loans 1988–89

  number of times reason given

  As per cent. of total times reason given

  Office: Durham City

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  1

  0·2

  Not in receipt of IS

  47

  8·4

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  171

  30·4

  Excluded items

  29

  5·2

  Excluded persons

  1

  0·2

  Amount < £30 (not travelling expenses)

  13

  2·3

  Total debt of £1,000

  1

  0·2

  Previous application and decision for the item

  24

  4·3

  No serious damage or risk to health or safety

  12

  2·1

  Inability to repay

  14

  2·5

  Help available from another source

  15

  2·7

  436

  number of times reason given

  As per cent. of total times reason given

  Insufficient SF funds, priority too low

  174

  31·0

  Suitable alternative available

  19

  3·4

  Loan refused because CCG awarded

  23

  4·1

  Other

  18

  3·2

  Total

  562

  Note: the proportions have been calculated as percentages of the total number of reasons for refusal. The total number of reasons for refusal may equal or exceed the total number of refusals because the social fund officer can give more than one reason for refusing an application.

  Students and Trainees
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances(a) full-time students/ trainees and (b) part-time students/trainees would be eligible for (i) income support and (ii) housing benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Students who are disabled, or lone parents, are eligible for income support while attending full, or part-time courses. Other full-time students can claim only during the summer vacation. Those attending part-time courses can claim income support providing they are available for employment.

  All trainees exempt for the requirement to be available for work, including those in receipt of a Government training allowance, are eligible for income support. Other trainees aged 18 or over may qualify for income support only if they are available for work.

  Students and trainees may claim housing benefit throughout the year for the home which they occupy, as long as it is not rented from their education establishment. Students and trainees receiving income support are eligible for maximum housing benefit for their rent and rates.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total expenditure on hospitality by the Departments of Social Security and Health in 1988–89 was around 100,000.

  Separate figures are not available for 1988–89 because the Departments operated a joint administration vote.

  Computer Centre, Livingston
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the staffing of his Department's new computer centre in Livingston.

  Mr. Moore
  The area computer centre at Livingston is the first of three new, purpose-built computer centres which will handle the payment of income support and pension claims. In accordance with the Government's policy of testing the market, I have examined whether the centre could better be operated by my Department along the lines of its other major computer installations, or by the private sector on my behalf.

  The examination has taken account of a range of considerations including the need to provide a secure

  437
  service to the public, the benefits to be gained from introducing competitive pressure into the Department's operations and the value of having a predictable cost profile over future years.

  On the basis of an evaluation of competitive tenders, I have concluded that the advantage lies with contracting out the operation of the centre and I intend to award a contract to Electronic Data Systems, a company with extensive experience of setting up and running operations
  438
  involving the production of large volumes of secure items. The contract will run for five years. The company will work under the supervision and direction of the Department's information technology services directorate and will be subject to strict control and monitoring to ensure adherence to the statutory requirements for the protection of information supplied by claimants and to the agreed standards of service.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Hormone Replacement Therapy
Lord Blyth Lord Blyth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to make male hormone replacement therapy available under the National Health Service.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the treatment of individual patients is for the doctor responsible for their care. If the responsible doctor deems hormone replacement therapy to be clinically necessary, then he will decide whether the known benefits outweigh the known disadvantages before deciding whether to prescribe it for his patients. If he does decide to do so, then it is available on the NHS.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware of the benefits to sufferers from cardio-vascular problems, of the lowering of tension and of the general well being which this treatment can give?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are aware of claims by Dr. Carruthers that the treatment can have beneficial effects in those areas. As yet, we have received no evidence; but we shall certainly look with interest at any evidence produced by Dr. Carruthers.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us are very glad not to have had male hormones replaced to the level at which they once stood?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure what answer I can give to that; but I certainly note the noble and learned Lord's comments.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome the statement made by the Minister. Presumably from his answer to the second question, he believes—as I do—that this is a serious form of treatment prescribed by doctors who think it is appropriate for those who feel that they need it. Perhaps it might be commended to the Prime Minister at this time when she obviously is concerned about the lacklustre performance of her Ministers here and in another place. Has the noble Lord seen the professional comment that in chickens, henpecked varieties become cock of the roost; and, as regards humans, wimps become champs? The mind boggles!
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Trumpington has just leaned across to tell me that she does not want male hormones. Regarding my second answer, we still do not know whether the treatment can be effective for anything other than its current use which is largely for treatment of osteoporosis.

Birds: Protection
11.8 a.m.
Lord Somers Lord Somers asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the statutory provisions for the protection of endangered species of bird are adequate, and whether they are properly enforced.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides a comprehensive statutory framework for the protection of wild birds and their habitats, and contains additional safeguards for endangered species. Enforcement of these provisions is a matter for the police authorities and the courts.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his Answer. However, what he said does not seem to have been very effective. Is the noble Earl aware that only a few weeks ago there were between five and seven deaths of hen harriers in England? Now, owing to their destruction, there are no hen harriers.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware of the situation to which the noble Lord refers. However, I know that he will understand that I cannot comment on that because of the investigations being undertaken by the Cumbrian police. As a matter of principle, I am sure that I share the view of all your Lordships that the illegal killing of all species of birds, especially those which are rare and vulnerable, is deplorable; the more so when wanton cruelty is involved.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there appears to be a remarkable increase in robbing nests and in deliberately slaying the young of endangered species? Would it not be possible for those responsible for enforcing the regulations to have discussions with organisations like the RSPB? That would be very helpful in providing valuable additional information to prevent that appalling behaviour.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that considerable discussions already take place particularly between the NCC, the RSPB, other interested bodies and the police authorities.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell me this? What will be the result of the recently announced reorganisation of the National Countryside Commission in terms of its relationship with the EC birds directive, which seems to be an admirable measure in Europe? Will its effectiveness in any way be diminished by that reorganisation, or do the Government have something else in mind?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is not a National Countryside Commission.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I realise that it is quite impossible to keep a 24 hour watch over all the special protection areas. However, are the Government not being rather slow in providing only 32 out of a possible 220 sites?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord touched on the very important question of habitats. I believe that he was referring to the 33 special protection areas in the birds directive. Those are a subset of the SSSIs—sites of special scientific interest. Over 5,000 sites are now designated. That is the major work undertaken by the NCC, and that covers 1·5 million hectares.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in view of the 200 illegal bird killings which have occurred over the past eight years with only four successful prosecutions, perhaps I may ask this question. What consideration has been given to the introduction of new measures that will prevent gamekeepers who have been convicted of an illegal bird killing from being re-employed in a similar capacity? That is in line with the provisions which currently apply to falconers and taxidermists. Is the Minister aware of the very real anxiety of the RSPB? It recognises that there are ample protective provisions, but it is deeply concerned at the lack of enforcement and at ineffective deterrents.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure from where the noble Lord obtains his figures.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: From the RSPB.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the penalty under the Act is a fine of £400, but for more endangered species under Schedule 1 it is up to £2,000. According to the Home Office, which collates the statistics for enforcement under Section 1 of the Act, for the three years up to 1987, the last year for which figures are available, there were 343 prosecutions. That figure excludes the private prosecutions that might not have been recorded. Of those, 290—that is, 85 per cent.—were successful.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend happy in his mind that the regional authorities concerned are taking the right steps occasionally to unendanger certain species in some areas where they may not be endangered at all and in fact are becoming a pest?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we continually look at our list of endangered species, but we rely on advice from the NCC on these matters.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl and to the House for the confusion over the initials which I always have. It was the Nature Conservancy Council to which I referred and its relationship to the EC birds directive. Perhaps the noble Earl can answer my question now that I have put that right.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's question takes us a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I draw to his attention that there is an Unstarred Question next week on the subject.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that there are no endangered species on the list in Schedule 1 of the Act which could possibly be considered as pests? Does he further accept that much concern is felt not only for species on that list but for all other species protected under the Act, because the Act is not being enforced as rigorously as it should be?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord knows of any occasion where the Act has not been enforced, I hope that he will draw that to my attention. However, from the letters I receive, particularly from racing pigeon fanciers, some birds on the endangered species list are considered to be pests.

Agricultural Investment
11.15 a.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why agricultural investment in real terms is 40 per cent. lower now than in 1979 and is at its lowest since 1945.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, the agricultural industry is going through a period of adjustment. In earlier years the emphasis in EC policy was upon increasing food production, but this went too far, although the UK Government consistently advocated a policy of restraint. Farmers are now responding to a situation in which the need to bring surpluses under control has at last been recognised in the common agricultural policy.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but is she aware that when her right honourable friend the Prime Minister opened the Royal Show about a fortnight ago she referred to the success of the Government's agricultural policies? If we bear in mind that agricultural investment in the 10 years of this Government has fallen by 40 per cent. in real terms, that we have lost 70,000 jobs and that farm incomes have declined by 50 per cent. in real terms, can she tell the House, if that is success, what the Government regard as failure?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I consider it a success that we have increased home production for our daily needs between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. compared with past years. I consider that a very real success. However, if the noble Lord is referring to a fall due to low farm incomes, many factors affect the level of investment in agriculture. Naturally, if farmers have less cash, they are likely to put off spending. Also, if farmers consider that investments will not give them a good return, they

1037
are not likely to make them. As regards job losses, employment on farms has been falling for many years and for traditional farming activities is likely to continue to fall. However, there will be substantial new opportunities for farmers in non-traditional activities.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister be a little more honest and instead of referring to agricultural adjustment say that there is an agricultural depression?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords, because it depends which branch of farming one is in. For example, the dairy people are doing very nicely, thank you.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in order to buy a new farm implement today one is forced to borrow money and that it is high interest rates that are creating the situation referred to by my noble friend Lord Carter?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I appreciate that some farmers may be facing short-term difficulties, but farmers and agricultural investment would be damaged far more by a resurgence of high inflation than by a period of high interest rates.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that there is continuing public concern about the safety of agricultural produce? For example, I refer to the outbreaks of listeria, salmonella and other diseases which Members of this House know about only too well. In the circumstances, and given that we are approaching an important date, can the noble Baroness say how the Government justify reducing investment in research and development by 15 per cent. over the next three years?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should say to the noble Lord that we are not referring to R&D investment but to such items as tractors and farm machinery. However, if he is asking me whether under-investment, as he sees it, would weaken the UK position in 1992 from the point of view of the Question on the Order Paper, there is no evidence of under-investment in UK agriculture relative to other EC countries. UK farmers are responding to the market situation by investing less, but the asset structure of the industry remains healthy. The total liabilities of the industry are well under 20 per cent. of its assets and the amount of fixed capital on farms is higher in real terms than 10 years ago.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness for all that useful information. But does she not agree that R&D is an essential component of agricultural investment?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have to be a little tough about this and say that that has nothing to do with the Question.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister referred to the 20 per cent. of the total value of the agricultural industry that is borrowed. That figure includes the value of land. If she would be good enough to look at the borrowing figure against what is normally known as the tenants' capital in agriculture, she would find that the industry was extremely highly borrowed.
I return to the subject of 1992. I am sure that the Minister will grant that, with 1992, we have to sweep away the whole of the paraphernalia of the green currencies, the MCAs and the rest and that should provide an opportunity for British agriculture. Can she say how we can prepare for that if investment has declined by 40 per cent. and is still going down?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in case the noble Lord has not seen it, I commend to him the record of farm incomes in the United Kingdom over this year. I believe that I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as regards the 1992 situation. Farming in all European countries is a business like any other. You must cut your coat according to your cloth.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wish to clear up a point. Is the noble Baroness saying that it is the Government's view that spending on research and development is not a form of investment? If that view applies to agriculture, can she say whether it also applies to industry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Question refers to "agricultural investment in real terms". That has nothing to do with R&D in this context.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is no resale price for incomplete research and development and therefore it cannot appear on the balance sheet at the moment?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister referred to farmers preferring high interest rates to inflation. Is she aware that we now have both?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to say that again, please?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am satisfied that the House heard, but I shall repeat the question. Farming now suffers from both very high interest rates and a high rate of inflation.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, interest rates will remain as high as necessary for as long as necessary in order to reduce inflation. Farmers cannot be made a special case.

Student Accommodation: Use by Homeless
11.23 a.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consult the Committee of Vice-Chancellors with a view to securing the committee's co-operation in using student accommodation for homeless people during the long summer vacation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are substantial problems attached to the noble Lord's suggestion. The main one is that student accommodation in higher education institutions is generally not held vacant during the summer vacation but is used for a variety of purposes.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. In order to get the matter into perspective, would he suggest to the university authorities that it would be helpful if, at the end of the long vacation, they produce a return which shows how many units of accommodation were used for other purposes, over what duration and what proportion that represents of the total?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals will note the noble Lord's suggestion. He will be aware that the committee cannot bind the universities. It is up to the individual institutions to decide what to do. However, I hope that they will note the noble Lord's suggestion. If such information is available I hope they will start to collect it.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that not merely is this accommodation largely used by postgraduate and overseas students with no home in this country and so on, but universities and other institutions of higher education are compelled to charge an economic rate? They are compelled by the grant-giving bodies to make the best possible use of their accommodation throughout the vacation. That leads to the letting of accommodation for conferences and other needs. So the amount earned is already known and no special return is needed. The grant-giving bodies are already aware of any university that is failing to meet the demands made on it to make the best possible use of its grant.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can confirm what my noble friend has said. Rightly, universities have to have regard for their primary functions and the need to use their resources to the best advantage in order to support those activities. The commercial lettings of their halls of residence and other units of accommodation also serve a useful purpose. They help to meet the full-year cost of student accommodation thereby reducing the burden on students.
Lord Peston: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, would the noble Lord care to comment on the paradoxical position that, so far as one can see from the figures given the other day, the expenditure being laid out for bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless appears to be so large that it would be a good idea to draw the attention of the universities to the potential sums available? They are obliged to earn as much money as possible. It appears from the figures that the last thing they should do is to provide accommodation for students. The way to make money is to provide accommodation for the homeless.
Lord Henley: My Lords, quite obviously their first duty is to provide accommodation for students. During the vacation they must look for other sources. I am sure they will take note of the noble Lord's suggestion.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that thin sandwich-course students do not have long summer vacations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, but quite a number of students do have long summer vacations.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if this suggestion were implemented the difficulty would be that the students would never get back their accommodation? The answer is as straight as that. If the homeless are rehoused in such a manner it will surely show desperation. Is the Minister aware, therefore, that it is a problem primarily concerning London, where, frankly, the only solution is for the Government themselves to intervene with regional set-ups which will look after the homeless and will have powers to acquire from local authorities the empty properties which they have no justification for holding?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is a matter for the universities to decide whether they can make some use of their surplus accommodation for whatever purposes they consider best. The noble Lord has tried to widen the Question to include the homeless generally. The Question relates to what the universities can do concerning this problem. It will be unwise for me to expand the Question to the whole subject of homelessness.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in other countries, particularly in Scandinavia, university accommodation is available during the summer months for holiday purposes for visiting tourists? Does the Minister know whether any of our universities use their facilities in that way? A provision allowing such accommodation to be available could benefit people on lower incomes who are visiting this country could it not?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot help my noble friend on that matter. I know that universities use their accommodation which is surplus during the vacation for a variety of purposes. I shall have to find out whether it is used for holiday purposes. It is a matter for the individual institutions.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if I may help the noble Lord: perhaps he will be willing to tell his noble friend that the universities in this country do precisely what she says. It is an extremely good value for money operation which one is happy to advertise at this moment in your Lordships' House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I received some advice from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It stated that halls of residence and accommodation were used for conferences and that the Open University runs residential summer schools. It did not mention holiday accommodation.

Royal Assent
11.29 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts.

Parking Act,

Control of Smoke Pollution Act,

Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Act,

International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Act,

Licensing (Amendment) Act,

Antarctic Minerals Act,

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act,

Transport (Scotland) Act,

Social Security Act,

London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Act.

Continental Shelf Bill [H.L.]
11.30 a.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
As your Lordships will recall, Section 3 of the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Act 1989 was debated in this House in January. The purpose of Section 3 was to implement the recent agreement with the Republic of Ireland on the delimitation of the Continental Shelf. It gave power to amend by Order in Council the Continental Shelf (Designation of Additional Areas) Order 1974, to the extent necessary to give effect to the agreement. As a result of an unfortunate oversight, power was not taken in Section 3 to amend the Continental Shelf (Designation of Additional Areas) Order 1971. Line B, agreed with the Irish, runs through the area designated by that order of 1971 at its south western corner. This was not noticed until after Royal Assent
1042
when a large scale map was prepared during the drafting of the order to be made under Section 3. There is therefore no alternative to a further Bill.
The House has already approved the policy of implementing the agreement with the Republic of Ireland. However, the wording of Section 3 does not achieve the legislative purpose. It is slightly too narrow. The purpose of the Bill is simply to amend Section 3, so as to take power to modify the order of 1971. This would allow the agreement to be implemented. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
11.32 a.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the complexities of this small Bill. We now understand the reason for it, and I agree that it is necessary to get it through all its stages expeditiously so that the agreement between the Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland can be brought into force without further delay.
I recall the difficulty which successive governments have experienced in reaching a settlement. The argument started at the time that I was a Minister in the old Commonwealth Office, which is quite some time ago. I hasten to say that I did not start that argument. It all had to do with the agreed boundaries. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could say with some confidence that there will be no further trouble with the lines once they are agreed.
We noted what the Minister said about Section 3 of the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Act which passed through this House earlier this year. I am particularly anxious to get this definition absolutely right because I note from map A in the agreement that line A is very close to the front door of my home in Anglesey. Therefore, I am as concerned about this, as are my Irish friends across the water. The immediate problem, however, is mercifully on line B, and the small strip at issue is only 1·5 per cent. of the total area. We support the Bill and hope that it will remove any possibility of future dispute with the Irish Government.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may take 30 seconds of the House's time to ask the Minister this. Can he be perfectly clear that the change, which was prevented by the former Act and which is now made possible by the Bill before us, will be one by which the United Kingdom gives up to the Republic of Ireland its claim to a tiny corner, and not the other way round?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I believe I can assure him that there is no prospect of him becoming an Irishman as a result of the Bill. I hope he will find that reassuring. I can also answer the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in the affirmative. I am grateful to both noble Lords.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Continental Shelf Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Then Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th July), Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill
11.35 a.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This is a wide-ranging Bill, dealing with a variety of issues across the whole span of Scottish education. Some of the matters with which it deals have been the subject of widespread consultation and discussion, and the Bill reflects the outcome of those discussions. In other matters contained in the Bill the Government have deliberately chosen to take a lead and to set the pace for change. But all the provisions of the Bill will contribute constructively to the further improvement of the education system of Scotland.
The major part of the Bill is taken up with the provisions for self-governing schools. Although the term "self-governing school" is new, the concept is not. Noble Lords will recall the debates which we had on grant-maintained schools in last year's Education Reform Bill, now the Education Reform Act 1988. Any noble Lord who cares to compare Chapter IV of Part I of the 1988 Act with Part I of this Bill will immediately detect a family resemblance. Indeed there is a close and deliberate similarity between the two measures. Self-governing schools are, in essence, grant-maintained schools by another name; and the purpose of this Part of the Bill is to extend to Scotland the facility already established south of the Border. It is interesting to see that those provisions of the Education Reform Act have been found immediately useful to parents and governing bodies in England, and that nearly 20 schools are to assume grant-maintained status this Autumn. There is good reason therefore to extend to Scotland, in terms appropriate to the Scottish system, a facility which is already available in England. Thus the principle underlying self-governing schools is already familiar and has already been debated and accepted by the House. There are, however, two general points which I should like to emphasise.
In the first place this provision, whereby a school presently under the management of an education authority may acquire its own board of management, independent of the education authority, is entirely optional for a school. There is absolutely nothing in this Bill which would enable government to compel a school to change its status in this way against the declared wish of the parents and the school board. Under the provisions of the Bill the initiative for
1044
change can come only from the school board or from a substantial group of parents. No pressure will be brought to bear on schools to change to self-governing status. The only inducement to change will be in the attraction of the concept itself, of being self-governing. We are content to let people decide for themselves what suits them best in their local situation. Those who are content with the provision made for them by their education authority can remain secure.
The second general issue on which I should like to dwell for a few moments is the place of self-governing schools within the context of the public provision of education by local authorities. There has been a good deal of talk, in Scotland at least, of self-governing schools somehow leading to the break-up of the comprehensive system. It is not really clear what the critics mean by that. A comprehensive school which becomes self-governing will remain a comprehensive school. The parents who chose that school, and who cared enough about it to take it through the process of becoming self-governing, presumably value it for what it is and will want to keep it what it is—a comprehensive school. They may want to make it a better comprehensive school, but that is another matter and nobody could fault them for that.
However, what the critics really seem to be concerned about is that self-governing schools may break the local authority monopoly of public school provision; and that requires some comment. Local authority provision will continue to be the basic means of providing public education in Scotland for the foreseeable future. It is true that if a large proportion of schools in an authority's area become self-governing, that would have an impact on the local authority service. But if that were to happen it would be a symptom of something fundamentally amiss with what the local authority was providing.
We do not believe that the local authority system is fundamentally flawed; nor do we see evidence of such widespread dissatisfaction with it among parents. However, the Government believe that the alternative of self-governing status should be available. Even where parents do not opt for such a major change in the way their school is governed, we expect that the very existence of that option will be a stimulus to local authorities to be more responsive to the reasonable wishes of parents.
The Government are not alone in this belief. Shortly after the Bill was published councillor Malcolm Green, the chairman of Strathclyde Education Committee, was warning his colleagues that in order to prevent parents in Strathclyde voting for self-governing schools they would have to make sure that schools were acceptable to parents. That in itself is an achievement of this legislation. The providers of education need always to remember that they are there to provide a service—and I am sure that most of them do. A basic measure of the quality of any service is the level of satisfaction among its clients. From this principle stems the Government's concern for parental choice.
In 1981 this Government introduced the measure which first opened the door to parental choice when we brought in the parents' charter legislation. Last

1045
year we legislated really to let the parents into the schools through the medium of school boards. All the signs are that, despite initial misgivings, that step will be recognised as generally beneficial. But we also believe that there will be circumstances where a school as a whole comes to feel that it could operate more effectively under management of its own. Hence this Bill.
I turn now to specific provisions in the Bill. A self-governing school will be a school which started life as a public school (I use that term in its proper Scottish sense) and the Bill is designed to ensure that it will retain the essential features of a public school. It will still be publicly provided; it will provide free education; and anyone who wishes to attend it will be entitled so to do.
These principles appear in the first dozen clauses in particular. There, noble Lords will find, the Bill provides specifically that self-governing schools are to provide free education and that the right of a parent to choose which school his child shall attend is extended to self-governing schools on essentially the same terms as it does to public schools. In other words, a self-governing school will be obliged in general to admit pupils on demand, up to the limit of its capacity. Elsewhere in the Bill, at Clause 16, it is provided in effect that, on becoming self-governing, a school is to retain the essential characteristics which it had as a public school. I shall return to that subject later.
There are also important provisions in Clause 7 to underpin the essentially public character of a self-governing school. Under that clause, which defines the duties and powers of the school's board of management, it is specifically provided that the board should promote links with the local community and encourage wider use of the school's facilities; and also that the board should consult regularly with the parents of children at a school. The board is also given a specific duty, to which we attach a good deal of importance, to have regard to the scope for enhancing provision at the school for pupils with special educational needs.
The composition of the board, set out in Clause 3 and Schedule 1, will be similar to that of the school board which went before it. School boards will shortly be a feature of most public shools in Scotland, and I am happy to say that all signs are that this is a welcome change. The basic structure of the board of management will, like the school board, include elected representatives of parents and teachers, along with outside members appointed or co-opted by the board, with parents in the majority. We have, however, taken the view that, since a board of management will have much greater responsibilities than a school board, it should be strengthened by some enlargement of the number of outside members.
The responsibilities of the board are set out in Clause 7 to which I referred. It is a key clause. A self governing school, as well as being public, will at the same time have one of the most important and valued characteristics of an independent school; namely, autonomy. It really will be self governing. Decisions on the curriculum, staffing and purchase
1046
of equipment will be taken by the school's own board of management. The board will be responsible for the disciplinary regime in the school, for the moral values which it promotes and for its general ethos.
The procedure to be followed by a school seeking to become self governing is set out in Clauses 13 to 20. The Bill provides for the procedure to be initiated in either of two ways: by the school board passing a resolution, or by a written request signed by parents. A secret postal ballot of parents of children at the school must then be held within three months. The ballot would be funded by the Secretary of State and conducted by an independent body. If fewer than half the parents eligible vote on the first occasion, a second and decisive ballot would be held. If the majority of those voting favour self-governing status, proposals would then have to be published and submitted to the Secretary of State.
These proposals are a crucial pail of the process. The ballot is an important test of parental opinion but is otherwise no more than a trigger mechanism to determine whether the matter cart go any further. It is on the proposals, not on the ballot result, that the Secretary of State takes the decision as to whether the school is to become self governing. The content of the proposals, as approved by the Secretary of State, forms the nucleus of the scheme of government under which the board of management will have to operate. It is laid out in Clause 16
The proposals perform a twofold purpose. First of all, they define the organisational characteristics of the school as it is. If it is a six-year, coeducational non-selective secondary school when it applies for self-governing status, that is what it must remain under its scheme of government. But the proposals offer an opportunity to the board to define other matters which may be equally important to them; for example, to say something about the curriculum, the ethos of the school, its catchment area if it chooses to have one, and so on. All these matters can properly be included in the scheme of government; and once they are there, the board will be bound by them
The clauses from Clause 21 onwards contain necessary and substantial provisions to which your Lordships may want in due course to give attention. They are for the most part consequential on the basic scheme set out in the earlier clauses but I think that I should draw your Lordships' attention to the financial provisions. Clause 26 to 29 provide for the financing of self-governing schools. Grant would be paid direct to the board of management and recovered by the Secretary of State from the local authority. Our intention is that it should be in line with what the school could reasonably have expected to receive had it remained under the management of the education authority. In self-governing special schools and others with provision for children with a record of needs there must be close and continuing dialogue between the school and the education authority over the provision to be made and the appropriate scale of grant.
There is one other clause in Part II should like to mention as it attracted attention in another place on several occasions. I refer to Clause 30, which

1047
contains the provisions necessary to enable the basic characteristics of a school to be varied in the future.
There was a great deal of debate when the Bill was considered in another place about the fact that it would be technically possible for a school to change its characteristics and in particular to alter the arrangements for selection of pupils. That provision, however, has to be seen against the background that any school's essential function is to respond to and meet the needs of a community, and we shall hold fast to that. It would have been absurdly inflexible to have put it into primary legislation that a school might never change in any of its basic characteristics. No school, private or public, is under that constraint at present; and it would be quite unrealistic to pretend that changes in demography or indeed in educational theory will never make it necessary for a school to reorganise.
As for the particular question of selection, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave an unequivocal commitment, which I am happy to echo here, that it is no part of the Government's intention to reintroduce the kind of selectivity which used to be a feature of the school system. But he also pointed out that it seems to be generally recognised as educationally beneficial when certain regional councils select gifted musicians and dancers and provide special units for them. There is no earthly reason why a self-governing school likewise should not in due course decide to encourage giftedness in that or in some other direction—it might be in mathematics, technology, languages or sport.
Your Lordships may want to return to these and other matters later. There are important matters also in Parts II and III of the Bill, and to these I shall now turn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, do I understand that the Secretary of State will have no power to overrule a school which wants to introduce an academic selectivity test in an area?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the Secretary of State has complete power to accept or reject proposals.
I now turn to clauses in respect of further education contained in Part II of the Bill. The measures in this part of the Bill are not in any sense partisan. They are the outcome of close consultation with the interests concerned and I am confident that they will meet with general acceptance. Clauses 54 to 60 provide for the appointment of new college councils for further education colleges managed by education authorities. These should be in place by April 1990.
The Bill provides for a maximum membership of 20 of which at least half would be nominees of employers and not more than one-fifth members or employees of the local authority. By October 1990 education authorities should have made arrangements to delegate functions to college councils and to provide the means for councils to carry them out. The Bill also gives college councils
1048
the powers to raise funds, accept gifts and retain income.
Clauses 61 to 63 give education authorities the power to conduct commercial activities through further education colleges. Authorities may set up companies to undertake these activities and make loans to them if required. These powers are among functions which may be delegated to college councils. Under Clauses 65 and 66 college councils with the agreement of education authorities may form companies with full responsibility for the management of colleges.
Part III of the Bill contains a range of provisions, not very extensive in themselves, which however will provide essential legal underpinning to some of our most significant policy initiatives. First, there is provision in Clause 69 for the establishment of privately sponsored technology academies. That will be another means of widening the range and diversity of schools available to parents. Those academies will provide young people with access to a type of school which will equip them well for their adult life and work in an advanced industrial society. They will also offer a real opportunity for raising standards and expectations of pupils, parents and teachers generally.
There are also some significant provisions relating to the teaching profession. Clause 70 contains an enabling power which, if necessary, the Secretary of State can use to ensure that appraisal of teachers' individual performance within staff development programmes is introduced on a national basis. Any effective programme of staff development must start from an accurate identification of a teacher's needs through an assessment of his or her teaching. Clause 74 is designed to promote more open competition for promoted posts: it requires education authorities to advertise nationally when filling any posts of principal teacher, and to consider all applications.
Clause 75 removes the now anachronistic procedure for the dismissal of a teacher which has been superseded by more recent employment legislation. And Clause 76, which we introduced in response to representations from the head teachers' associations, enables the Secretary of State to remove a group or groups of teaching staff from the ambit of the statutory national committee which determines the pay and conditions of service of teaching staff in schools.
Clause 69 makes provision for testing in primary schools. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in October 1988 our proposals for curriculum and assessment he referred to existing powers which enable him to prescribe general requirements for education authorities and which could be extended in order to put arrangements for national testing in primary schools on a formal basis. That we are now taking the opportunity to do.
The Bill also makes important amendments to the statutory provisions affecting handicapped and other learning-impaired children. Clause 71 clarifies the power of education authorities to send children to special schools outwith Scotland and to pay the necessary fees and expenses. It also reinforces the

1049
right of the parent to make a placement request for a special school other than the authority's school. Education authorities are generally sympathetic to the views of such parents and the problem is not a large one. Nevertheless, the rule which allows authorities to refuse a placing request for an independent special school if they themselves can make provision at less cost has sometimes been applied too stringently. In some instances, despite the extra cost, it would have been reasonable and in his best interest to send the child to the school nominated by the parent. In future, in responding to such placement requests, authorities will have to have regard to the comparative suitability of the two schools as well as their respective costs. The clause also opens up opportunities beyond these shores by empowering education authorities to assist the attendance of children with special needs at establishments outwith the United Kingdom.
I think that I have said enough to demonstrate the range of the Bill and the significance of the measures included in it. It is a substantial Bill in Scottish education terms. It has many facets. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
11.54 a.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his usual helpful and courteous explanation of the Bill. At the outset perhaps I may register regret that this major Bill on Scottish education should be taken on a Friday at almost the last gasp of the Session. I am sure that the Minister has had representations from his Scottish colleagues, many of whom registered their displeasure at the last meeting of the Scottish Peers. I regret to have to start in that way, but it is important that we let the powers-that-be know that we consider that this should not be treated as a precedent for future Scottish business. Having said that, I should like to say a few words about the Bill.
The Bill is the major piece of Scottish legislation this Session. It could have serious repercussions in an area of Scottish life. Without being smug, we believe that our education traditions are better than those in most other parts of the country. Despite some ill-founded criticisms, our comprehensive system has been a success for the great majority of Scottish children. All the tests and comparisons with pre-comprehensive education show that the present system gives a clear advantage to the children of Scotland.
The opting-out proposals were never discussed with those responsible for education in Scotland: the teachers, the parents, or the local authority managers. I have found no evidence from parents of any desire to move to opting-out schools. The Minister will be aware that the much milder proposals of the School Boards Bill had little parental support. It became clear when we were discussing that Bill that, while parents wanted a great deal more consultation about their children's education, they did not want management responsibilities.
1050
We are worried about the opting-out possibilities contained in the Bill. The Minister made a number of points and said that opting-out would be at the wish of the parents alone. It only needs a few schools to opt out totally to disturb the whole schooling system in the area. That matter will come out when we discuss amendments at a later stage. With opting-out, we shall move to selectivity and privilege. That will be turning back the education clock. It will positively reduce choice for many of our children whom we know from experience have a great opportunity fully to stretch their potential in local comprehensive schools.
Selection for some inevitably means rejection for others. For 20 years I was a Member of the other place representing an area of Glasgow from which the greatest number of selected school children came. My experience turned me firmly against any form of academic selection. I speak with some heat on the subject. I have seen children of four and a half running out of nursery schools asking their mothers whether a letter had arrived. The letter was to inform them that they had been given a place in one of the local authority fee-paying schools. The anguish of the parents whose children had not passed the test was painful to see. Nursery schools of course prepared the young children for the test. It soon went around the district that a nursery school had more passes into the selective school that year than another nursery school. Parents naturally moved towards that school. Nursery schools were selling the following year's places on that year's exam results. Children of four and half and five were doing that.
I recall speaking to the headmistress of one nursery school. She said something that I am still trying to work out. I had not realised she said, that it was not enough merely that children were happy—remember, we are talking of children of four and a half—they had to be successful as well. I have never been able to understand that point.
I could go on talking about the failed parents and their pleas to me as the local MP to try to have their children accepted by the selective school. I feel embarassed when I recall some of the arguments used by those well-meaning, worried parents and the lengths to which they were willing to go to improve their children's chances. I was at their houses; I spoke and played with the children. Play for some of them was solving and resolving the latest intelligence tests that their parents had bought so that they would do better in the test. There was one child who could count rapidly from 20 to one. When I later spoke to the school psychiatrist, he said, "Yes, but he could not count from one to 20". That example is not an exaggeration. For nearly 20 years I saw not only the successful children but the failures. I hope only that the famed resilience of children will allow them to survive so terrible a period.
I am sure that there was a collective sigh of relief when selectivity stopped and children went to their local school with their friends, brothers and sisters. The idea of opting out is being thrust upon us just when the school boards are about to be set up. We know that this is because of the unstoppable reforming zeal of the new chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland. Change must be

1051
permanent—I thought that Leon Trotsky said that, but perhaps opposites come together—keep moving the target and do not allow things to settle and people to think!
Like water privatisation and the poll tax, this Bill—which was probably born on the back of an envelope after a discussion in a remote corner of St. Andrews University—is a bridge too far. This new concept of Scottish education will be disastrous. Folk memories of the old system, particularly in my part of Glasgow are still there to be awakened. I look forward to the next election and helping to awake people to the damage likely to be done to our Scottish educational system.
The Bill is about opting out. As the Minister said, 53 out of its 83 clauses are concerned with that. He does not call it opting out; he says that it is reorganisation. We believe that it will mean opting out, academic selectivity and in some ways financial selectivity.
I hope that in his reply the Minister will put forward evidence to show that there is a desire in Scotland for the Bill. I have received heavy correspondence from parents, teachers, students in further education, local authorities and parents and teachers in special schools. They are all seriously worried about the bill. People from rural schools—and the Minister will know more about them than I do—are also most concerned about the damage which the new proposed set-up could bring to their areas.
In the nature of things the Minister may suppose that those who support the Bill are unlikely to write to me or my noble friends. That is not true. It is always the case that when a Bill is introduced letters are sent to Members on both sides of the House by people pressing their case. However, I can honestly say that I have received no letters supporting the Bill. I received an addendum from the Consumer Council expressing a little optimism; but by and large the letter was hostile to the Bill.
Can the Minister remove my worries and let me know the breadth and depth of support on which he can call? After the recess we shall have plenty of time to deal in detail with the large number of amendments about which I have been informed. My noble friends and I will be tabling amendments on all aspects of the Bill. In a long Committee stage we can examine the Government's proposals for further education colleges, the testing procedures for children in primary schools, the conditions of service for teachers and some of the provocative changes proposed in our ancient university administration.
The passage of the Bill in another place brought few concessions and none of any importance. One concession, offered but refused, which shows how little support there is in Scotland for the Bill, was the idea that there should be a two-thirds majority of parents eligible to vote before a school can opt out. Of the 10 Scottish Conservative members in another place five are Ministers. Of the five remaining, Mr. Alan Stewart was at best lukewarm about the Bill. Mr. Bill Walker thought that it was permissive and would seldom be used. Sir Hector
1052
Munro and Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith—both notable people—were positively hostile to the Bill. Two of the Ministers' colleagues are opposed to the Bill and two are lukewarm I have found no trace of the view of the fifth Member. The Church of Scotland is opposed to the Bill; likewise the Scottish Consumer Council and the Scottish Parent Teachers Council. A MORI poll showed that the people of Scotland are opposed to the contents of the Bill. We are entitled to ask the Minister exactly who wants the Bill, other than the new chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland?
12.5 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wish to add my protest about a Bill of this importance being dealt with at the back end of the Session on a Friday. I suspect that the Minister agrees, but it would be too much to ask him to say so. It is an important Bill but it is difficult to see the necessity for it. One can see the reason; one cannot see the necessity. The reason is as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—to push forward the great revolution in which a number of Tories appear to believe.
Last year we passed the School Boards (Scotland) Act but the school boards are not yet in place. I believe that the provisions of that Act should be running and settled before any change occurs, if that is desirable. I cannot believe that the present Bill is desirable.
In Scotland 96 per cent. of all children attend state schools. In September, 1988, there were 2,387 primary schools and 434 secondary schools. I do not know how many of those will be eligible. Eligibility is in the hands of the Secretary of State but perhaps the Minister can indicate the criteria. For example, I imagine that the small primary school next door to my farm, Padanaram School, will not be eligible because it has only 14 pupils and few parents. I shall be interested to know the criteria.
With regard to the general purpose of the Bill, is the Minister satisfied that the inspectorate can cope with the enormous variety of schools? I understand that a complete inspection of schools is carried out every five years. A large variety of schools under different systems puts a further strain on the inspection system.
I was interested to note the reason for the correction to the Bill—that the parental majority should be omitted. It appears to be an afterthought which the sensible people in the Scottish Office have been able to put over on the yuppies. It will be interesting to know the reason for the change.
Clause 24 permits the Secretary of State to ensure that no favouritism is exerted by the local authority towards its schools as against the self-governing schools. However, I can find no clause which controls the favouritism which the Secretary of State might exert towards the selective or self-governing schools. We shall be asking a lot of questions about specialist services. Certainly in rural areas the specialist services for music and art, for example, are extremely important. They are of course provided by local authorities. Will a self-governing school have to buy them? Will they be available? Will local authorities

1053
be compelled to give self-governing schools all the services they require to the detriment of their own schools? There are many factors to be considered, and many questions to be asked about all the clauses in the Bill. However, I think that the matter comes back to the fact that this is a doctrinaire Bill.
There can be no reason for pushing it through. It will be enormously expensive to administer. I do not know how on earth one can expect to have a large number of schools carrying out all their own budgeting, their financial control and everything else, and run that alongside a local authority looking after the rest of the schools in its area, and at the same time not expect administrative costs to rise enormously.
The only reason I can see for the Bill is the enormous spite that certain sections of the Government have shown against any local authority. There are of course troubles in some local authorities. It is perhaps true that there is a certain amount of doctrinaire thinking in Glasgow about Paisley Grammar School. It appears that there is a certain amount of trouble in Westminster as regards the running of the local authority. However, there is a simple answer to all that. If we had a proper electoral system the people of Westminster need never worry, as Westminster would never be Labour controlled. The same is true in Glasgow. If proportional representation existed, at least there would be proper representation. That would be extremely helpful. This measure, however, is no way to solve the problem. It is a purely doctrinaire approach.
There is one clause in the Bill that I am quite in favour of. I must confess that there is a deep split in the Social and Liberal Democrats in Scotland over whether the rector should chair the court of universities. Most of my colleagues who have been rectors for the ancient universities are for the change. However, I have been rector of a new university, and if I had had to take the chair and do all the work that a chairman has to do to get business through, I should not have been as successful as I was in looking after the interests of the students. If a court cares to elect a rector, that is all well and good. I approve of that clause and I confess to this terrible split in the Social and Liberal Democrats.
Happily, however, it is nothing to the split that exists in the Tory Party in Scotland. I have read with great interest, as has the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, the Second Reading debate in another place. Alick Buchanan-Smith and Sir Hector Monro, two different but very admirable types of Tory, were both against the Bill. Alick Buchanan-Smith may be suspected of Liberal tendencies, but no one could suspect Sir Hector of many Liberal tendencies. However, they are both upright and honourable men whose opposition to this Bill is based, I think, on much sensible thinking.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith stated in another place:
"I understand what my right honourable and learned Friend said about the size of regional authorities and trying to make education more personal and closer in its administration. If that is what we are tilting towards, perhaps we should look at the future of our regional authorities".
1054
That is a very sensible alternative. I am sure the Minister sees some merit in that. Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith continued:
"However, as politicians we have to be careful. We have to assimilate change".
I should have thought that that is one of the good characteristics of the Conservative Pary, but, oh no, now the government are rushing into a further step before the school board system has been properly tried out. Mr. Buchanan-Smith continued:
"All new systems need dedication and time if they are to work properly … I support strongly the principle of school boards and I welcome them. I will continue to do what I can to support them".
This is great and sensible stuff. I am sure my quotations are doing the Ministers on the Front Bench a great deal of good. They must be welcoming this reading out of Tory material. Sir Hector Monro stated in another place:
"When the matter was raised during the general election, I was on to Central Office in Scotland as quick as a knife to find out what it was all about. I was assured that what I had heard did not apply to Scotland. I conveyed that assurance to my local press and it was widely reported in the local newspapers".
That concerned opting out. Sir Hector finished his speech by saying:
"We should not be creating divisiveness. We should be aiming for harmony, quality, discipline and achievement".
Mr. Buchanan-Smith finished his speech by saying that an important Conservative dictum is:
"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change". —[Official Report, Commons, 6.3.89; cols. 646–662.]
That dictum was put even more aptly by an American who said: "When a thing ain't broke, don't fix it". I am sure that, in his heart of hearts, the Minister agrees with that. However, he has his job to do and no doubt we shall have long weary sessions during the Committee stage on the matter of school boards. However, I think this is a very bad step. It is an unnecessary step and I believe that the Government will regret taking it.
12.17 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, on the principle that if one has a legitimate grievance one should express it again and again, I should say that I certainly support the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Mackie of Benshie, in protesting that a Friday should be chosen for this extremely important Bill. With that in mind, I shall be brief. Perhaps that is what the Government Whips hoped of all of us when they tabled this business for a Friday. This is not good enough. I hope that this protest, which we have had to make often before, will this time register.
I, like many others, have been very comprehensively briefed if that is the right word, by various local authorities or parent groups and others. I am glad of that briefing because I must confess that I am not as well informed as I should be on the subject of Scottish education and Scottish schools. Having said that, I am very conscious of the fact that your Lordships' House has a special responsibility in connection with this Bill because it was not adequately considered in another place. Therefore, we have a very real job to do.

1055
I wish to concentrate on one point that arises in this Bill, which is the question of opting in or opting out—perhaps I should say opting out or opting in. The all important thing surely is that the parents should genuinely want that provision. As the Bill stands, it appears that a bare majority would suffice to carry it. I noticed that the Minister talked about a substantial group of parents. A bare majority is not a substantial group of parents. When we are in Committee, we shall have to consider very carefully the percentage which should be necessary for any opting out to be allowed. I do not know whether it should be two-thirds or even three-quarters for such an important step. I ask the Government to give very serious consideration to that point and whether they should not themselves introduce an amendment. If they do not I am quite sure that others will do so and that there will be very widespread support for such an amendment.
The other side of the coin in relation to opting out is the possibility that after five or 10 years parents may realise that they have made a mistake. I am not sure what the provisions are for opting in again. I recognise that one cannot have schools opting in and out like yo-yos. If a school is allowed to opt in again, it must be made clear to parents that that is a very serious step and one that cannot be altered again five years later, because the children's future is at stake. Nevertheless, I ask the Government to give special consideration to how schools might be allowed to opt in as well as to opt out.
In principle I favour the Bill. It is very widely drawn and covers a broad field. It introduces what I am sure is the right principle, namely, that parents are responsible for the education of their children.
I had intended to stop at that point. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, raised a point on which I should like to take sides. That is the question of the rector being chairman of the court. I had 15 years' experience on the court at St. Andrews. I found that students chose people who were eminent in the entertainment field. The last thing that one expected was that those people would rise to the occasion. I do them an injustice in saying that, because in fact all of them took their duties extremely seriously. They brought an outside perspective to the affairs of the university which was extremely valuable not only to the students but to the court as a whole. Without quoting names, I should like to say how impressed I was by all the rectors who were elected and did a splendid job at St. Andrews. Other universities must have found the same. It may appear in the first instance that the rector is not suitable for the chair, but one cannot tell whether that is the case for some time. On balance I am sure that it is right to give the rector the benefit of the doubt.
I have said enough. We have only eight speakers in all on this Bill, but that is because it is Friday.
12.23 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate in giving voice to the complaint that we should have a Second
1056
Reading debate on a Bill of such importance to the Scottish educational system on a Friday morning.
The present ministerial incumbents, spread as they are between New St. Andrews's House and old St. Andrew's House, do not take kindly to being reminded that a decade or so ago there were other ministerial incumbents of New St. Andrew's House of a different political persuasion. I can say in defence of my then colleagues and in support of my complaint this morning that we most rigorously refused to concede to the usual channels when we were approached to place Scottish Office business before your Lordships on a Friday. I think that the only exception to that was during the course of the devolution Bill, but that was of such a protracted character and lasted for so many interminable hours that our momentary weakness at that point might, even restrospectively, be forgiven. Nevertheless, I too make complaint. I feel that the Minister who has clout if he wishes to use it, should take on board the serious objections which have been made in your Lordships' House this morning.
I hold the view that a system of comprehensive education—free entry to the system for each eligible pupil, initially unstreamed and subsequently banded as appropriate, having regard to ability and aptitude—is a tried and satisfactorily tested educational concept which befits the Scottish sense of equity and fairness. I believe that such a system has the general approval of most parents and has the advantage of leading early in life to a spirit of social harmony among its participants, in distinct and marked contrast to the early and subsequent social divisiveness which a selective system tends to encourage. I consider that any attempt to begin to dismantle such a system—for surely the Bill embodies such a possibility—must be viewed with considerable suspicion.
A careful reading of the Bill gives a clear explanation of its purpose. It does not of course indicate the difficulties of an educational character which will arise as and when the Bill duly becomes an Act of Parliament. For example, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to the effect that self-governing schools are to be funded on the same basis as they could have expected to be funded had they remained educational authority schools. Indeed, there is no mention that any funding regulations which may apply should not disadvantage education authority schools meantime existing.
The Bill is silent on the question of a self-governing school introducing a system of general academic selection. However, in The Scotsman of 6th April last the Minister, Mr. Forsyth, predicted that self-governing schools might want to specialise in subjects like music and dance or classics. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, touched upon that point when he opened the debate. I think that Mr. Forsyth's example of music, dance and classics is a strange combination, but that is his choice and not mine.
In that article in The Scotsman to which I referred Mr. Forsyth said:
"It is quite conceivable that a school might well want to have a selective intake for that particular subject. We are not prepared to rule out selection entirely".

1057
In view of such ministerial comment the worries which I expressed at the outset of my remarks about the possible return of selection, albeit via the back door, are surely not entirely groundless.
In the Bill, under the heading "Financial Effects of the Bill", we discover the phrase:
"The financial effect of provisions allowing schools to become self-governing (clauses 1-53) should be generally neutral".
I have suggested that enactment of the Bill will generate an unsatisfactory educational consequence of considerable dimensions. That is my conviction. I have said that the Bill has been silent where it might have spoken. It has pronounced on the question of financial effect: "largely neutral" is the message.
How true is that? How will the self-governing schools fare financially, both in terms of their revenue for books and equipment and also of their capital building projects? Schools in deprived areas require additional financial attention or enhancement. If a neighbouring school or schools opt out, the educational scene in that area changes. It changes irrevocably; but so probably does the financial need and certainly the financial need of deprived adjacent schools. A Bill silent on that crucial but important financial consideration introduces a strong note of educational divisiveness into our society as a whole.
If an opting-out bandwagon starts rolling, I can see nothing in the Bill as drafted—I shall be pleased to be corrected on this point if I have misinterpreted the Bill—to prevent a resolute but prejudiced Minister from being disposed to favour financially the self-governing school rather than balancing fairly its needs with those of its remaining local authority counterparts.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, touched upon the question of the rectors of our four ancient Scottish universities. Schedule 10 of the Bill is headed—one might be forgiven for thinking rather cunningly so—"Minor and Consequential Amendments". But buried in the minor and consequential amendments is the reference which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has just mentioned. In the other place, Mr. Allan Stewart, the honourable Member for Eastwood, tabled an amendment which he was subsequently advised was technically incompetent but which a reading of the Official Report of the proceedings of the other place suggests that the Government would at least give consideration to his point. I am pleased to see that move on the Government's part, and it is certainly one that will have my support as I see it develop.
The Bill is unnecessary. It is prejudicially partisan and is probably unworkable. I suppose that much the same could be said of so much else that has passed through as legislation during the period of the present Administration.
12.32 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, like other noble Lords, at this stage I should like to speak rather generally and particularly about the part of the Bill dealing with self-governing schools. There will be a great deal to discuss in Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, believes that the matter was not properly
1058
discussed in another place. I do not know whether he has looked at the Committee proceedings, but they are at least four inches thick. If we are to follow them up properly, we shall take a good deal of time to do so.
Noble Lords who have spoken have expressed the views that the Bill is unnecessary and even potentially harmful to the education of young people in Scotland. In so doing, they have reflected fears which have been expressed by the local authorities in Scotland, teachers' unions, a number of parents and parent-teacher groups, the Scottish Consumer Council, the Church and a number of MPs, including the distinguished Conservative MP, Sir Hector Monro.
The Bill is not perfect and there are a number of aspects that I want to examine carefully. However, I suggest to noble Lords that many of the general fears reflected so far in the debate are more fear of what seems to be the unknown than well-founded objection to something undesirable for us in Scotland.
The Bill is a natural and even a necessary follow-on to the legislation that was put in place last year in Scotland. That education Act is the truly radical and far-reaching one. It sets up school boards and makes it possible in due course through them for the management and running of a school to be devolved away from the local authority and put in the hands of the school itself with central services available from the authority as required. That is radical change from the local authorities' point of view and from the point of view of parents and the staff of schools.
If your Lordships recollect, there was, as one would expect, a tremendous fuss in Parliament and outside as the Bill went through. We were told that it would be unworkable, that it was un-Scottish and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said of this Bill, that it was politically doctrinaire. It was said that it was everything that was bad, and that it would wreck the system. But what impact has it had?
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, mentioned Strathclyde and the folk memories there. What has happened in Strathclyde region? There, a council responsible for the educaton of half the children in Scotland, a council with a large Labour majority, has now set itself to embrace last year's legislation with considerable enthusiasm and is producing plans for the devolution of decision-making to schools which appeared, at any rate from press reports, to go considerably further than the legislation demands. It is clear from what councillors in Strathclyde have said that they see the benefits of devolution of schools to young people, parents and teachers, and they are wasting no time in going strongly in that direction and giving a lead to others.
The Bill is a reinforcement of last year's legislation because if, as a school begins to take responsibility for its own affairs, it finds the local authorities unwilling to hand over the reins, or obstructive or unhelpful, then under this legislation the school will not be obliged, willy-nilly, to stay under the local authority. It will have the option of applying for self-governing status, of being still a school within

1059
the state system, still with similar funding to the rest of the region, still with specialist services available if they are wanted, still free, still with similar curriculum, but self-governing outside local authority control.
There will be some schools which apply to opt out fairly soon. They will be schools which, for whatever reason, now feel that they would do a better job that way. But my guess is that they will be few. By far the greatest impact of the Bill on schools in general in Scotland will be that it will make a local authority much more sensitive and conscientious about helping school boards to take on more responsibility as and when they wish it to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that he could not see the need for all this. But, if he recollects, the legislation to ensure that parents in Scotland could have a choice of schools, as they have had in Tayside since 1974, aroused just the same fears that it would wreck the system; but it has not done so and no party is intending to go back on that now.
The Bill is a necessary reinforcement of school boards and the devolution of decision-making to schools. The fears being expressed at the moment—and they are being expressed right across Scotland—will disappear as quickly as the fears about last year's legislation are now disappearing. It is extremely important for Scotland—and I beg your Lordships to consider this point—that our natural caution and our fear of new thinking and of new ways of doing things should not hold us back from moving with the times.
Getting away from detailed central management to devolving the running of institutions to local people on the ground is a growing trend in many parts of the world. In New Zealand, under a Labour Government, all schools will become self-governing in the next Session. Much new thinking on devolving of power to schools has gone on recently in Tasmania, and those ideas are taking off across Australia under a federal Labour Government. In Denmark, another form of local management of schools is well established. In England and Wales, pilot schemes have been operating in various authorities and have proved both successful and popular. Their schools are now going that way too, although under their system to ensure standards do not vary too widely it has been necessary to establish a common curriculum as well. On the other hand, in Scotland there is already what amounts to a national curriculum and all that has to be added in this Bill is the testing at two stages in primary schools, which is common to all schools.
In a recent article in the Scottish press, one of Scotland's most distinguished local government officers, the chief executive of Strathclyde region, Mr. Robert Calderwood, expressed views to the effect that the role of local government in the modern world is changing and that local authorities in Scotland must in future see their role and expertise more as enablers of others than as themselves runners of all the services. He explained why he saw that as very much a worthwhile and skilled role for officials and councillors.
1060
I agree with Mr. Calderwood. The last education Bill was an attempt to help Scotland's education move into a new age. This Bill follows that up. I hope very much that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
12.40 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I must apologise for entering the debate without having put my name on the list of speakers. I am what might be called a hybrid. I am very much a Scotsman but I am an English Peer. I thought that I should leave the harvest field today and come to this debate. I have only one point to make and I shall come to it in a moment.
First I should like to say that I am the product of a Scottish education as it was 75 years ago. I was sent to school at the age of four and a half—and thrashed on the very first day. It intrigues me to compare that with my children's education and the improvements there; and now my grandchildren's education. That is why I feel that this Bill is unnecessary and there is no reason at all for it. I might add that I even see a little difference in education in the 10 years between my noble kinsman and myself. When I see the tremendous improvement over the years in Scottish education, I feel that this Bill is unnecessary.
The point I wanted to raise is that during the passage through this House of the English education Bill I was asked to go to meet a schoolmaster at a very good comprehensive school in Waltham Abbey. He had been at that school for quite a long time and was very worried about the opting out situation. The point that he made to me and which I am now making to your Lordships concerned the parents. That schoolmaster had been at the school for a very long time. There was a parents' committee and he had been struck by the enormous turnover of parents at the school. If one were to take the opinion of parents, even within one year, as he said, it could change rapidly in a big school because of the turnover of parents. He made that point very strongly indeed.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, also made the point about opting out and opting in. There would be a continuous process of people wanting to opt out and in. The meeting with the headmaster—and there were a few other people there including two Conservatives and the Bishop of Chelmsford as well as myself—provoked a most interesting discussion. That point was made most strongly and I wanted to say that opting out is something to which the Government must give most careful consideration. The point that was made to me by the headmaster impressed me so much that I felt I ought to put it to your Lordships so that the Government could think about it.
With regard to the Bill as a whole, I have been impressed with what most of the speakers have said. The Bill seems to be completely unnecessary—at least the bulk of it. There may be some matters which could be improved, but the Bill as a whole and the amount of legislation it contains seems to me to be unnecessary when Scottish education now has such a good name.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate and although we have been few in number the quality of the contributions made by noble Lords and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, have given the Government some food for thought. I too should like to add my protest that this major piece of legislation should be dealt with at this time on a Friday. It is difficult enough to get Members of the House interested in Scottish legislation during what one might call the normal days of the week; it is far more difficult to get people to come here on a Friday to hear what we have to say about the situation over the Border. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, voiced the protests of us all much more eloquently than I can do, and I do not propose to take up any more time of the House on that matter.
The Government surely by now must be impressed with the very persuasive and powerful arguments advanced by noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Each and every one of them has indicated from his own basis why this is an unnecessary piece of legislation. Ths most important word in the Bill is "status"; that is what the Bill is all about. It is a reflection of this Government's pathological dislike of local authorities and their desire to move anything and everything out of the hands of the representatives of the people and put it into the hands of others.
It is significant that in your Lordships' House the Government have only been able to find one supporter outwith the Front Benches. Even allowing for today being a Friday, one would have thought that if there had been any enthusiasm on the part of the Government's supporters, they might have had better representation in the Chamber. Perhaps the six to one majority against the Bill which we have seen in this House is a fair reflection of what the people of Scotland think of the Bill.
At the beginning of his very comprehensive outline of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, said that all children would get into the new schools. If I may say so, that may not be quite a true reflection of the power which is being given to the new board, because in Schedule 2 it is quite clearly laid down that in certain circumstances, including for example the necessity to employ another teacher, a child need not be admitted to the school. So there is a power of exclusion in Schedule 2 of the Act.
It has been said that the Bill is extending to Scotland what is happening in England. I have never understood that to be a necessary prerequisite of legislation for Scotland. What is good for England is not necessarily good for Scotland. We have already seen that in regard to the legal reforms that are taking place when the reforms of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were followed by proposals from the hands of the Secretary of State in another place.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, has he listened at all, for example, to what I said in the debate about New Zealand and Australia and the fact that this is
1062
by no means an English Bill? Has he listened to any of that or does he simply disagree?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I was not saying that it is an English Bill. I said that what is good for England is not necessarily good for Scotland. No more am I prepared to say that, because something is a success abroad, it is either necessary or will be a success in Scotland.
This is a completely unnecessary piece of legislation in keeping with the Government's philosophy in all fields. I submit that it sows the seeds of elitism in public education. The Government's policy seems to be: if it moves, privatise it regardless of the consequences.
The reality of what has been done in the fields of electricity and water is beginning to strike home now that those Bills have had their passage through this House. But education is a much more delicate matter than electricity or water. Education reaches to the heart of society and the community and is a continuous and necessary process. As I think my noble friend Lord Carmichael indicated, what we have here is really an urban Bill which is of no value to people in the rural communities where there is no choice and where there may be only one school. It cannot therefore be applied universally thoughout the education system.
Education must not be tinkered with lightly. There should be a positive purpose in any change. Like my noble friend Lord Carmichael I concentrate at this stage on the matter of schools. Pans II and III will be looked at very closely at a later stage once they have been evaluated. However, we can guarantee from this side of the House that the Bill will receive very close and demanding scrutiny during its further stages.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhill put it very neatly when he said that the Bill is a dismantling of the comprehensive system. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, also put the matter in a nutshell when she said that the Bill is not perfect. The Government have had plenty of time to get it right. If the noble Baroness is saying that the Bill is not perfect at this stage, when will it ever be perfect? There has been plenty of discussion in another place about it and still we have the same provisions.
The Bill in effect is privatising public education by the back door. Scotland does not want it. Scotland does not need it. That is not to say that Scots parents are not interested in the education of their children. They always have been and always will be. If implemented, the Bill invites the effective takeover of a school by a group of parents for whatever motivation. As few as 30 parents can spark off the mechanism to achieve self-governing status. A simple majority of parents can dictate a school's life for a considerable period of time. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, asked whether it should be a two-thirds majority, or 75 per cent. to 25 per cent. Whatever the majority is it should not be a majority of those persons taking care to cast a vote. The majority should be a majority of all parents in the school and not restricted to those who cast a vote. It will be all too easy under this Bill to organise

1063
the takeover of the school by persons with some motivation for good or ill.
One of the strange things about the Bill is that it does not define what a parent is for the purpose of voting. It defines what a parent member is in Clause 78. But a parent member has to be a parent before he can become a member; that is a natural follow on. So who are we talking about? Who will have the right to vote as a parent? According to Clause 13(5) of the Bill, the question of who is a parent will be determined by the school board. How does the school board determine who a parent is for the purpose of this Bill? No guidelines are given to the board as to how it is to discriminate between people who may be parents.
Let us take an example. Is the parent involved the natural parent or natural parents of the child? If we take a case where a couple have separated but the father may be maintaining the son and the wife has remarried or has another partner, or what is called these days a stable relationship, and the child is living at home with the mother and either her new husband or her associate, is the natural father (who has the welfare of the child at heart) to be excluded from having a vote in determining the future education of his son for whom he is responsible, while the new husband or wife (as the case may be) will be given a vote? It is very important for these reasons that this matter should not be left in the air because one can see a great number of difficulties and arguments arising. It is the lack of definitions which make the Bill very complicated to interpret.
Another question one asks is, what is all the hurry about? As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, why not give the school boards a chance to settle down before this matter is thrust upon them? The Bill is blinkered in that it does not take into account the wishes of parents and children who will be entering the school in, say, three years' time. What right have they as members of the community to determine the status of perhaps the only school in the vicinity? If the Government intend to proceed with this unnecessary legislation they must make arrangements for feeder schools and the community to have a say in any change of status for the school.
The position is not so easy as it is made to look in the Bill. The whole structure is too limited to reflect what might be the attitude of the community as a whole. Of course the community and comprehensive education go hand in hand. There is provision that the local authority can be consulted, and the Church if it is a denominational school, but there is no facility, as I understand it—the Minister will put me right when he replies—for the community to make its voice heard.
If one considers the composition of the board of management, Clause 3(1) states:
"parent members (being persons elected to the board of management under this paragraph by parents of children in attendance at the school … staff members".
Clause 3(1)(c), states:
"appointed members (being persons appointed under this paragraph to and by the board of management".
1064
There is no guidance given in the Bill as to where these people are to come from and on what basis they are to be selected. They will have a vital say in the education of the children in Scotland within the school which opts for this new status. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the Government intend to bring in some form of guidance for the use of the board of management on how they are to find people to sit on these boards. One of the dangers of the proviso is that the board of management may be infiltrated by outsiders who will no doubt reflect the views and status of the parent and staff members who have opted out.
It does not seem that the new school is under any obligation to provide special education facilities for children. It is mentioned in passing but there is no obligation to do so. In Clause 16(4)(c) one of the things that a board of management can do is to specify,
"any arrangement whereby pupils are admitted to school by reference to ability and aptitude".
What does that mean? Does it not have the seeds of elitism in it? Is it not an open door to selectivity?
The Bill is the product of a politically motivated Government who do not know what Scotland is all about. Looking at the way in which it has been introduced—I make no reflection upon the Minister—Scotland has once again been treated as an appendage of England. Scotland has a pride in its education system, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said. The basis of that system is an acceptance of equality of opportunity for all. From the present school system in Scotland many great names have emerged. Wherever we go in the world we meet the products of the state system who are providing distinguished service to the community at home and abroad. There is a private sector, publicly funded, in Scotland, and it flourishes on the sidelines of education. That is all that should be done. We should have the public system, or the private system if it must exist—although I am naturally against its existence, but that is another matter.
What does the board of management have to do? It has to manage the school on the money given to it by the Government. It is not maintaining the school, but managing it. The words "opting out" have been used in this debate more than once. I suggest that the Government are using the Bill as a vehicle to opt out of their educational responsibilities and obligations and pass them on to the school boards of management. Does the Minister give us a guarantee that this new-found status will eradicate the sales of work which are a feature of school life in Scotland even today where the schools are under-funded?
Clause 7(3) states:
"Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, but subject to any provision made by the scheme of government of the school, the board of management of a self-governing school shall also have power to provide education other than school education at the school".
This is one of the difficulties of interpretation in the Bill. Nowhere are education and school education properly defined. They become rather intermingled. I do not know what "school education" is meant to define, because one is either educated at school

1065
or not. That criticism becomes deeper when one considers Clause 11(2). Clause 11(1) states:
"No fees shall be payable in respect of school education provided at a self-governing school".
Clause 11(2) states:
"The board of management of a self-governing school may make charges in respect of some or all of—
(a) such education and facilities as are provided by them other than as part of the provision of school education".
What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that everything that a pupil gets at public schools these days such as sports, drama, debates and so on, all the essentials of a broad education in Scotland, will have to be paid for by the pupils who are purportedly receiving a free education under Clause 11(1).
Under Clause 11(3) the board of management,
"shall provide free of charge, to all pupils in attendance at the school, books, writing materials, stationery, mathematical instruments, practice material and other articles which are necessary to enable the pupils to take full advantage of the education provided at the school".
That is what is difficult to interpret. It is not talking about the school education but about the education provided at the school. I find the drafting of the Bill extremely puzzling.
As has been said, this is an educationally divisive Bill. If people are rejected from the school—assuming I am right that the school has power to reject pupils—who will look after the rejects? They will be put back to the state school while the other school goes merrily on its way. What is to happen to access to the specialist services such as child guidance? Will those services be provided to the school or will they be paid for as part of the management? The only reference I can find is in Clause 34 which states that the local authority is obliged to provide administrative, professional, technical or other services at a charge. If pupils are to be deprived of services such as child guidance that is a difficult and sad matter. Perhaps it is a matter with which the Minister can deal.
I close by supporting those who have opposed the Bill and say again that the measure is unnecessary and does no service either to the community or to the education system of Scotland.
1.2 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I wish to begin by referring to the concern expressed by your Lordships that an important measure such as the Bill before us should be taken on a Friday. I appreciate very much that that concern comes from all sides of the House. I shall certainly pass on those comments to the usual channels.
One thing I believe should be noted about the Bill is that its main provision is entirely permissive. The initiative for a school to become self-governing can come only from the parents with children at the school. The Government have set no targets for the number of schools that should become self-governing; there would be no useful point in doing so. We are seeking simply to place a tool at the disposal of parents to use it or not as they see fit.
One may wonder what it is that the opponents of this measure fear. There is much talk of divisiveness,
1066
of the break-up of the comprehensive system, the re-introduction of a separate tier of selective schools and so on. It is also said that such things are unwanted, that there is no evidence of demand. The critics cannot have it both ways. If there is no demand, nothing will happen. So why the anxiety? Yet if the anxiety persists, and perhaps it does, perhaps the reason is that these criticisms are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what a public system of education is supposed to do. The critics appear to conceive education as a homogeneous commodity which can be cut up into pieces of convenient size as if it were a pudding or a cheese and to be thus distributed to the population. Every school should be like every other school, otherwise the system would be unfair. And in order to ensure this uniformity—which is mistakenly identified with equality of opportunity—the whole system must be centrally controlled and directed.
The Government's view is very different. We believe that a school, like any other institution, really begins to thrive when those involved with it feel that they have some control over their destiny and when they identify with it because it is working with them and for them and depends upon their commitment for its wellbeing.
We also believe that the reasonable aspirations of parents cannot be met unless there is some diversity of types of school available. After all people are themselves very diverse. They have different aims, ideals and expectations. This diversity cannot be given its proper expression within the confines of a homogeneous uniform school system imposed by central authority.
The evidence for this belief can be found in the independent sector. There is plenty of diversity among the independent schools. There are large schools and small ones, single sex and co-educational and a wide variety of traditions and emphases. That is all very well for those who can afford it. But where is the justice in restricting such benefits to those who can afford to pay? There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that people who want the oportunities offered by independent schools do not come just from the higher economic groups in society. The success of the assisted places scheme, whose entrants come from the lowest income group, is proof enough of that. What this legislation sets out to do is to offer a similar choice and diversity to all who wish to take it up within the framework of the public system of free school education.
However, our concern is not only with the self-governing schools, but with the whole public education system. It may be that only a minority of schools will take the road to self-governing status. Those that do will not be specially favoured in material terms. They will receive grant at the same level that they might have expected had they remained under local authority management, neither more nor less. It is certainly not part of our plan to create an elite corps of schools in that sense.
But we do believe that the very existence of the self-governing option will be a stimulus to education authorities to respond positively to the wishes and aspirations of parents. We also believe that the self-governing option will give rise to healthy

1067
competition between schools. Schools should be attractive in every sense of the word. They should be striving to make themselves attractive to parents and pupils. Nothing can stimulate that as effectively as a measure of healthy rivalry between them.
This is not a superficial matter of publicity and glossy brochures, although those things have their place. It is based on the good sense of parents and pupils as well. They will be looking for a school which is able to show that it can meet their real needs—a school which is drawing in a competent and committed staff and offers a curriculum and a standard of work which will set pupils up for their future in the world of employment.
Where parents have a choice these are the things they will be looking for. Schools should be competing with each other to provide the kind of education which parents and pupils want. That kind of competition will force up standards everywhere.
I now turn to the various points which your Lordships have made in the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggested that from parents there was no evidence of support for the measure that we now propose. The decision to bring forward Scottish legislation offering parents an alternative to local authority management of schools was prompted by evidence from a number of schools that parents in Scotland felt that there would be advantage in having such an option available. Coupled with the results of a published opinion survey showing very substantial support in Scotland for the concept, there was no justification for denying Scottish parents the same right to seek self-governing status of the kind that was already available in England and Wales.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us which these schools are? Is one of them Paisley Grammar School?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, can I add to that and ask the Minister whether he knows the schools that gave the opinion that they wanted to opt out? How many of them were schools that were going to be closed?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, or the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, precise details. However, I can assure them that the evidence was not just taken from schools that were going to be closed.
I make the point here—and repeat what I said at the beginning—that the cardinal feature of the Bill is that its main provision is a permissive measure. If in this Bill we were introducing some statutory provision to force schools to become self-governing, that would be a very different matter. However, no school has to become self-governing and it is important that that point should be made at this stage so that the thrust of the Bill is put into perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also suggested that a move to selectivity will reduce choice. Our proposals are about extending choice for parents and
1068
about parents choosing schools. They are not about schools rejecting pupils as a result of some form of selective education. The procedures in Clause 30 are a safeguard for the existing nature of the school, and that is exactly what they are intended to be. Opponents of the Bill speak of it reintroducing selective schools complete with an 11-plus examination. We have made it clear that no changes should be made under Clause 30 in the first year of self-government by schools. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said specifically that he has no intention of endorsing proposals from a school which would mean a return to the selective system of some years ago.
More than that, any change under Clause 30 requires the majority support of parents in a ballot. It is unrealistic to believe that parents will support proposals which would reject the two-thirds or three-quarters of pupils in the current intake necessary to create a traditional school.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, claimed that no concessions had been made by the Government in the other place. The Government gave some 50 undertakings in Committee in the other place and honoured them on Report. Major changes made in response to pressure from all parties included the extension to special schools of the provision for full governing and, with regard to membership of the board of management, the Bill had not originally provided for a parental majority but we have now accepted that.
On a parallel theme, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, questioned whether enough time had been given to this Bill in another place. I must disagree with him on that. The Bill received long and detailed consideration. There was a Timetable Motion but over 125 hours were spent in committee and further time was available under the timetable if required.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said that he thought this was an imperfect Bill and implied that it would continue to be so. I hope—and your Lordships may agree with me in regard to this Bill, as in regard to all Bills which pass to us for scrutiny—that should it have its imperfections (and I would be the first to admit that it probably has) it will have many fewer by the time it leaves this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said he thought it was a good idea that school boards should have time to settle down first before moving on to measures set down by this Bill. I am sure that any school would be well advised to let its school board become well established first, but there will be exceptions to that rule; there will be special cases where schools want to move early, and we see no reason to stand in the way of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked me which schools would be eligible. All schools are eligible to apply under this legislation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that a school is viable and successful. That may mean that individual schools are turned down. That will not merely be a function of size. A small rural primary school may be the most sensible and viable proposition for this type of education for local pupils.

1069
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, also touched on the drafting and what appears to be the removal of parental majority. There is no policy significance in that: it merely arises from a printing error. The paragraph taken out by the correction sheet has been tabled as a government amendment, but was left off the Marshalled List on which the House voted on Report. We intend to restore that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, along with other noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Perth and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, referred to the university clause which deals with provisions for rectors and principals. I should first set the record straight. At present the Bill leaves the position of Scottish rectors unchanged. Originally in response to views of some university courts the Bill proposed a change, but it became clear that there was no government support for that change and the Government amended the Bill accordingly.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred to the ballot majority. Your Lordships' House had a full debate on these matters during the passage of the Education Reform Bill last year. Amendments to that Bill, were made, to which the House did not object. They provided for a second ballot to be held where the turnout on the initial ballot was less than 50 per cent. of the electorate. Those provisions are now law in England and Wales, and provisions identical in effect are embodied in this Bill.
Those who argue against the simple majority consistently overlook the essential fact that a ballot on self-governing status is not itself decisive. It is not at all like a company voting to change its constitution, where the vote itself is decisive of the matter. All that a ballot under this Bill does is to provide a test of public opinion and to determine whether the school board shall go ahead and apply for self-governing status. For that purpose a simple majority is by far the most appropriate test.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, also asked me about arrangements for opting back in as and when relevant. There are procedures in the Bill allowing a self-governing school to be wound up where it is clear to the board of management that it should not continue. In these circumstances there must be discussion with the education authority to determine its plans for future education of the pupils affected. Where the authority is content to resume control of the school as a going concern, this can be done. The Secretary of State would consider discontinuance proposals to this effect under Clause 31. If satisfied he would return the school property to the education authority and it would be for the board of management and the authority to arrange an orderly transfer of the staff required.
It is important that the education authority is free to decide whether to resume control of a school. There will be cases where alternative provision for the pupils is already available and there is no further need for the school.
Turning to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, he said that, so far as he was aware, there was nothing on the face of the Bill to guarantee that funding would be on an equitable basis with the public schools. As I said in the course of my opening
1070
remarks, it is certainly the Government's intention that so far as possible a self-governing school should not be better or worse off by virtue only of being self-governing than it could reasonably have expected it to be had it remained under educational management. However, in attempting to fulfil that intention, we must face the fact that educational authorities in Scotland do not determine the resources which go into individual schools by reference to a funding formula directly related to the individual school. In fixing grant to a self-governing school we shall have to make a judgment based on what we know of the local authority spending pattern, as to what the school could reasonably receive. However, that will only be a judgment and not a sum fixed by a formula, which the local authority will not have. The kind of general formulation which we have used in describing our intentions would not gain any real force or meaning by being put into statute in such very general terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, also referred to schools in deprived areas and pointed out that they would perhaps need a different funding method. Grant will be calculated so as to give the school the resources that it could reasonably have expected to receive from the local authority. Thus, funding will reflect local authority decisions. However, that does not necessarily mean that the school will simply receive the average from the local authority. It depends on how the local authority distributes its resources. For example, if an authority has a policy of putting extra resources into deprived areas, provided there is a formula for calculating that, the formula will be applied to the self-governing school. Thus, in principle, neither the school nor the authority will be better or worse off.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie—and I am glad that the noble Lord was able to contribute to this debate along with his noble kinsman—referred to the high turnover of parents. Indeed, that is a matter which we should always bear in mind. However, I suppose that it is possible to exaggerate this aspect, for, if a family has three children spaced over five years, its association with a secondary school could well span over 10 years. That is a rather sobering thought. I have four children over six years and until the noble Lord raised the point I had not made the terrible calculation of exactly how long it would take to educate them all.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, expressed concern that not all children can get into their chosen school. Schedule 2 exactly mirrors the legislation which applies to public schools under the 1980 Act. An education authority is also entitled to refuse an application if there is no further room in the school. The point is that both public schools and self-governing schools are obliged to admit pupils up to the limit of their capacity.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, also said that he did not think there was a definition of "parent" in the Bill. Clause 80(2) applies to this Bill the definition of "parent" in the School Boards Act, and I refer the noble Lord to that Act.
The noble Lord said that he wondered what "free" education meant. Clause 11 is designed to leave

1071
boards of management in precisely the same position in managing their schools as are education authorities in regard to fees and charges. The noble Lord suggested that there was no obligation to provide for special education needs. Under Clause 16(4) the existing provision for special needs becomes a characteristic of the schools and under Clause 7(6) it is a positive duty of self-governing schools to develop such a provision.
The noble Lord asked whether there is any guidance on whom boards should appoint as fellow members. We are prepared to consider issuing guidance if that is thought to be helpful, but it is for boards themselves to decide what kind of wider perspective they want to introduce into their deliberations.
The noble Lord felt that this legislation and the self-governing option had no value at all to rural schools. The Bill is about parents exercising choice over the management of schools. Parents in rural areas surely have the same rights and opportunities to seek that change.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, perhaps he can clear up one point. I believe he said that there would be no change in the position of a rector taking a chair in an ancient university. However, in Schedule 10 there is a change. Meetings of the university court will be presided over by a chairman who will be elected instead of the rector being entitled to take the chair.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to write to him with full details of any slight changes there may be. As I said earlier, it was originally intended that there should be a significant change here but that was not proceeded with and, as I understand it, rectors are in the same position as they have been hitherto. I believe there is a slight change in the arrangements for the principal to take part in chairing meetings in the absence of the rector, which has not been the position until now. However, I will write to the noble Lord with full details.
In summary, we want to foster excellence. There are some excellent schools within our present public system and they are not all in the most socially favoured areas. The schools which stand out are those which have a strong and able head, a committed staff and an interested and supportive body of parents. That is what makes for excellence. We believe the way to foster that is to unlock the forces of local initiative. The provision for self-governing status will help to do that and I therefore commend this Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Bill
1.24 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stallard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("97A") insert—
("(1) If, in any off-sale premises, or the off-sale part of any other premises with three or more points of sale, the holder of an off-sale licence or his employee or agent completes the sale of alcoholic liquor to any person other than at a point of sale used solely or mainly in respect of alcoholic liquor, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) The holder of an off-sale licence or his employee or agent shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself that any person buying alcoholic liquor under subsection (1) above is aged 18 or over.").
The noble Lady said: With the leave of the Committee, and to save time, I speak also to my Amendments Nos. 4, 22, 26 and 27. Amendment No. 1 offers an alternative to subsection (3), which Amendment No. 4 seeks to delete. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 4, 22, 26 and 27 are consequential on Amendment No. 1.
In speaking to these amendments I should like first to emphasise that I entirely support the aims of this Bill, which are to make it as difficult as possible for under-age drinkers to obtain alcohol in supermarkets. I say "as difficult as possible" because nothing will ever make it impossible. There is a way round everything. Even if we all carry identity cards to produce when buying alcohol, there is no way of stopping under-age tipplers from getting an older friend to buy alcohol for them.
Having said that, I wholeheartedly support Clause 1(2) as it stands and as far as it goes. However, as I said on Second Reading, I have very grave reservations about Clause 1(3): first, on account of the great inconvenience and annoyance it will cause to the vast majority of shoppers who are over 18 and perfectly entitled to buy anything they please but who would have to queue up twice in order to buy alcohol; and secondly, because subsection (3)(b) creates a new criminal offence—that of wilfully buying or attempting to buy alcoholic liquor without the sale having been authorised. That offence is punishable by a hefty fine and, as an inevitable consequence, the acquisition of a criminal record and all that that entails in regard to one's credit rating, the possibility of obtaining a mortgage, holding a firearms certificate, and so on, in the future.
On Second Reading I gave the example of a busy person, possibly a bachelor or working wife, in a hurry, with much on his or her mind—possibly one of your Lordships—who is in a supermarket, picks up a bottle of wine and puts it in the bottom of the trolley. Other items are then piled on top. When the shopper arrives at the till the bottle is suddenly produced. As I understand it, the shopper would be guilty of a criminal offence under Clause 1(3)(b).
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is satisfied that the adverb "wilfully" is an adequate safeguard against the conviction of an innocent shopper who forgets, in the way that I have described, that he or she has a bottle of wine at the bottom of the trolley. However, I am still not satisfied. I can envisage a grey-haired lady in a hurry, and perhaps unaware of the dire penalties she is risking, seeing a long queue at the authorisation point, dashing to the till and saying to the girl, "I am in an awful hurry. You know I am over 18. Can you let me through quickly with this"? She would be committing a criminal offence.
One could also take the case of a young boy who had saved up his pocket money to buy a bottle of whisky for his father's birthday, who has told no one of his plans and who is ignorant of the law. He too would be committing a crime, because I have always understood that ignorance of the law is no defence.
It has been argued that neither would be charged, but you cannot be sure. I do not think it is right to make laws on the basis that they will not be enforced. Later I shall be proposing in Amendment No. 4 that Clause 1(3) shall be deleted from the Bill. But in my opinion Clause 1(2) is not strong enough on its own and therefore Amendment No. 1, which I am moving, puts the onus of preventing sales of alcohol to minors squarely on the supermarkets by making it an offence for them to sell alcohol to anyone other than in a shop within a shop, as many already do.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said at Second Reading that he had been given to understand that the cost of the authorisation points which subsection (3) would have created would be £13,000 to £14,000 per shop and the cost of making shops within shops would have been significantly more. These figures sound to be widely exaggerated. I believe that some rails and an extra till, which is all that would be necessary, cannot possibly cost anything like that.
My remaining Amendments Nos. 22, 26 and 27 are consequential. I like Amendment No. 2 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, even better than mine, for it is a simpler and cheaper way of achieving the same objective. I shall listen with interest to her when she moves it and to the views of other Members of the Committee on both amendments. I beg to move.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I wish not to follow the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, entirely, but I shall speak to her Amendment No. 1 and, relative to that, my Amendment No. 3. The first proposal before the Committee this afternoon effectively imposes a requirement to use a dedicated check-out or point of sale in a store with over three of these points. Here I find myself in some conflict with the noble Lady. It has been fairly reasonably established by the multiples and the retail trade that the dedication of certain outlets causes a good deal of confusion at certain periods in the shopping week to the store and rather more importantly to the consumer. They do not know where to go. It is incredibly difficult, even in a modern store, to direct consumers to
1074
particular numbers of check-outs when there are perhaps 25 or 30 of them. The practice has been considered by the multiples and rejected.
The second part of the first amendment requires that,
"The holder of an off-sale licence … shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself that any person buying alcoholic liquor under subsection (1) above is aged 18 or over".
That simply reiterates the requirement already imposed on those selling alcoholic liquor in terms of Section 68(1) of the 1976 Act. The Committee may recall that I drew the attention of the Chamber to this fact at Second Reading. That section makes it an absolute offence to sell to a person under the age of 18, whereas the proposed amendment appears to introduce the defence of a seller having taken all reasonable steps. Nevertheless, I believe it is a proper and worthy attempt to beef-up this clause.
I suggest that the difficulty lies in the proposed new Section 97B(1)(a) which I suspect we shall come to later. That provides for the authoriser to be reasonably satisfied. I shall return to that at an appropriate time. There is a deficiency in the clause. It is not clearly understood by the promoters of the Bill that premises other than off-sale premises, such as pubs and hotels, can have off-sale departments or provide an off-sale facility which does not fall within the definition of the off-sale part repeated in the Bill and which is derived from Section 119 of the 1976 Act.
I am advised that the off-sale part referred to in the Bill has a particular and significant meaning within the terms of Section 119. It is described as a "term of art". It does not include off-sale departments not designated in terms of that section. So a non-designated off-sale department in a pub or an hotel would not be covered by either the clause or the amendment. The measures are here to include all premises from which alcohol is sold for consumption off the premises; namely, the off-sale.
As a consequence, it will be the holders of a licence, but not an off-licence—which will include public house and hotel licence holders—that have to be brought within the ambit of the Bill. It will not be simply the holder of an off-licence. That is quite complementary to what the noble Lady is seeking to do in subsection (2) of her amendment. I shall be moving Amendment No. 3, which would tighten the loophole. We cannot have people under the age of 18 buying in supermarkets with three points of sale or more and having to be supervised in this way when in fact such supervision does not cover a general licence holder—namely, a publican or an hotel keeper—who also has more than three points of sale. In general I support the noble Lady in the endeavour that she makes in her amendments.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has suggested that we consider with Amendment No. 1 Amendment No. 4. which goes a good deal further, as my noble friend has pointed out, in that it will delete Clause 1(3) altogether. Therefore it seems sensible that we should have a debate on the principle of that subsection with this group. I therefore take the opportunity of addressing a few remarks to the Committee in amplification of

1075
what I said at Second Reading in my opposition to Clause 1(3).
Before I do so perhaps I may be permitted to refer to an article that appeared in the Daily Record shortly after the Second Reading debate under the headline "Off Their Trolleys!". The first sentence reads,
"Three meddling English Tory Peers are plotting to wreck the Bill to curb teeny tipplers in Scotland".
The Peers referred to are my noble friend Lady Young, my noble friend Lord Lucas and myself. The article continues with a somewhat scurrilous attack on myself and other noble Lords who find fault with Clause 1(3) of the legislation. One noble Lord opposite suggested to me that perhaps the article was libellous and I might make my fortune. Having read it, I do not propose to waste my time by pursuing the matter through the courts. The editor may sleep quietly at night.
It was a disgracefully inaccurate account of what took place at Second Reading. One entirely supports newspapers which go in for campaigning—juvenile drinking is a highly appropriate subject for it—but to deliver a scathing attack on those who, while supporting the aim, happen to disagree with the method adopted in Clause 1(3) of authorisation before one reaches the check-out point, seems to be the most extraordinary way to win friends and influence people.
I resent the expression "English Peer". My noble friends may speak for themselves. There is no such thing as an English Peer. There is a United Kingdom peerage. I am proud to be a United Kingdom Peer. If the writer of the article had done any homework at all, he would have discovered that I was born in Scotland, of parents and of grandparents all of whom were born in Scotland, that many of my relations live in Scotland today, that I am a frequent visitor to Scotland, that I served in the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders for a period of my life and that I am very proud to count myself a Scot. If it is the view of the author of the article that nobody is entitled to count himself a Scot unless he lives within the circulation area of the Daily Record, I have to disagree.
The article was also hopelessly inadequate and inaccurate when it said under a subheadline "Everyone backs this Bill". It conveniently failed to mention the Scottish Consumer Council which, in a cogent and persuasive statement that was widely quoted by noble Lords during the Second Reading debate, came out strongly against Clause 1(3) of the Bill. Perhaps I may leave the Daily Record there. However, if it thinks that I shall be intimidated by the kind of abusive nonsense which has been written in its pages and that somehow this will frighten me into withdrawing my opposition to Clause 1(3), it has another think coming. I do not suppose that those words will be accurately reported, but we shall wait and see.
I turn now to the amendments and in particular to Amendment No. 4, which would delete Clause 1(3). I have reread the speeches made at Second Reading, although I cannot confess to have read everything written about the Bill. I remain totally
1076
convinced that Clause 1(3) is aimed at the wrong target and that it seeks to achieve its aim in a way which will cause wholly disproportionate inconvenience to the vast majority—probably over 99 per cent.—of those who shop in the larger supermarkets. I remind the Committee that the amendment is aimed at those with three check-out points or more.
I have looked again at the evidence. The Scottish Consumer Council, which ought to know, is fairly specific when it says that, where there is evidence that youngsters buy their drinks at off-licences, it is in fact at the smaller ones, the ones with perhaps one or two check-out points, the small corner shops, which do not have the same high standards as apply to sales in the larger supermarkets. Yet those very shops are excluded by this reference to three or more check-out points. On that ground, therefore, this subsection is misconceived.
My next point again concerns the Daily Record. I was accused, in terms that were intended to invite ridicule and contempt, of making the point that most youngsters are introduced to drinking in the home and that adults will buy drinks which are then consumed by children. There is a good deal of evidence of that. At Second Reading I referred to the ESRC conference which I chaired last year. It was intended to give publicity to a number of university research projects which had been funded by the ESRC into the whole subject of teenage drinking. There were some interesting findings.
I am surprised that, in looking to see what influences youngsters to start drinking, the promoters of the Bill do not take account of the research done at the University of Strathclyde on the impact of television advertising on young drinkers. I found myself wholly convinced by the very circumstantial work that had been done there. Although very small children—I am not quite sure what a teenage tippler is but I refer to 10 to 14 year-olds—look at the advertisements they do not draw the message. However, for those over 14 the messages that are intended to be conveyed by these advertisement have a considerable impact. Lager may be advertised to young adults, but for 14 to 18 year-olds the message comes through clearly that this is what young macho men should be doing and this is the way to get all the girls and to impress your friends. That would be a much better target if one were trying to discover what the influences are.
Where do youngsters start drinking? They start in the home. This was the evidence of the OPCS study to which my noble and learned friend referred when he replied to the Second Reading debate. It was accepted by the committee on drinking and crime among young people, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. It did not say where the drink comes from but it was perfectly clear that the great majority of those who drink regularly—once a month or more frequently than once a month—have been supplied with drink from the home. That is a much more difficult problem to address.
If Parliament is right in believing that it is a crime to sell drink to someone under 18, which it is—Clause 1(2) strengthens the law in Scotland on that point—somehow we have got ourselves out

1077
kilter with a larger section of public opinion which does not think that it is an offence at all. Indeed the OPCS study and the noble Baroness's report say that it seems to be becoming an almost accepted part of normal social behaviour. It is to these problems that we should be addressing ourselves and not trying to pick on the larger supermarkets and imposing massive new hassles and procedures on the vast majority of their customers, who are over the age of 18.
It seems to have been suggested—it was certainly suggested by the Second Scottish Standing Committee in another place—that somehow Scotland faces a more serious problem of teenage drinking than the rest of the United Kingdom. That does not seem to be borne out by the facts. Another piece of evidence from the ESRC was research carried out by Professor Ken Roberts of the Department of Sociology of the University of Liverpool. He used the ESRC 16-to-19 research initiative which was begun three years ago and will run to 1991. It is based on representative samples of young people from four areas—Swindon, Sheffield, Liverpool and Kirkcaldy—who are being surveyed in a variety of ways and on a wide range of their activities. Perhaps I may summarise Professor Roberts's research work. The report said:
"Most of the young people were already using alcohol, at least occasionally, before leaving the statutory school-leaving age. By age 17–18 only 25% were consuming alcohol less than once a month if at all, while 21% were drinking three times a week or more frequently, Males (14%) were more likely to be frequent drinkers than females (9%). Drinking alcohol was far less common among the Kirkcaldy sample than in any of the other areas, but that seemed to be due entirely to the Scottish respondents' generally slower social development".
That is entirely in accordance with the findings of the OPCS study as summarised in the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, entitled Young People and Alcohol. If we take the study of 15 year-olds in that report, it appears that they usually have an alcoholic drink at least once a week. In England and Wales the figure for males is 52 per cent. and for females it is 37 per cent. In Scotland the figure for males is 34 per cent. and for females 22 per cent. I have quoted just one age group but the difference is true in respect of all age groups from the age of 13 to 17.
Therefore the suggestion which has been made that somehow the problem is so serious in Scotland that it merits taking this drastic step to interfere with the normal operation of supermarkets and that it is justified seems to me wholly without foundation. If there is a problem of teenage drinking, it is clearly not as serious in Scotland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, as is evidenced by these reports.
Moreover, returning to the first point, if there is a problem of teenagers buying drink it is not from the larger supermarkets. I should like to remind the Committee once again that the evidence is perfectly clear. Indeed, it has been quoted by the Scottish Consumer Council: fewer than 1 per cent. of the shoppers at the larger supermarkets are under 18. That figure applies to all purchases: it refers to sweets, teenage magazines, tights or whatever else young people may wish to purchase. One can understand youngsters finding it exciting to do their
1078
shopping in a supermarket where there is such a range of goods. However, less than 1 per cent. of the customers are of that particular age.
What will Clause 1(3) do? It will require separate queues, a separate authorisation point and everyone—that is, the 99 per cent. as well as the 1 per cent.—will have to go through this procedure and will require such authorisation. We may, of course, return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, on Second Reading. He said that we do not actually need an authorisation point; it is sufficient that you have an authorisation of some sort. We have yet to hear from any of the promoters as to what form the authorisation will take. For example, will it be a sticky label, a ribbon tied round the item or separate wrapping? Of course, separate wrapping cannot be used because the bar code does not work as you pass it over the checkout point. All this is to be imposed to solve a problem which is manifestly less acute in Scotland than elsewhere and manifestly much less serious in relation to the larger supermarkets than to other outlets.
I remain convinced that Clause 1(3) is misconceived. I am astonished to learn that the Government felt it right to give all the assistance that they did in another place. However, I recognise that, having heard some of the arguments, my noble and learned friend sought to draw back somewhat on Second Reading. I would regard this Committee as woefully failing in its duty to consumers generally were it to allow the legislation to go through.
Perhaps I may conclude on this note. I shall certainly join with those who wish to try to amend the legislation by removing Clause 1(3), or, if we fail in that, at least to remove some of the mischief therein. If the Bill is amended, it has no chance of making the statute book this Session. Is it not much more important to get it right than to do it quickly? Is it not much more important that we should wait for the results of the review of the 1976 Act which the Government have promised to bring forward early in the autumn and then look at the matter comprehensively?
We could look at the result of the survey, the responses to which my noble and learned friend referred on Second Reading and then legislate, having aired the subject as we did on Second Reading and as we have done again today. We would then have a Bill widely agreed by everyone. Based upon the survey, it would tackle what every one agrees is a growing social problem.
No one is keener than I on this matter. Why was I asked to chair the ESRC conference unless it was because, as a former Secretary of State for Health, I had come face to face with some of the problems of teenage drinking. No one is keener than I to see measures taken which will curb a social abuse. However, I am not prepared to sit by and watch misconceived measures put forward which are aimed at the wrong target, which impose quite unacceptable burdens on the vast majority of the population and which will achieve nothing.
When we come to Amendment No. 4, I shall certainly support my noble friend's proposal. I am much less enthusiastic about shops within shops than

1079
the noble Baroness. They could add considerably to costs and cause problems, especially at times of congestion. I believe that Clause 1(2) is absolutely right; but Clause 1(3) really must not be allowed to reach the statute book.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may briefly intervene. I should first like to back up what my noble friend said about the attack upon him and upon my noble friend Lady Young in the Daily Record. Scotland needs all the friends that it can find among people who know and understand Scotland well. To my certain knowledge, my noble friend Lady Young has spent a great deal of her life since becoming a Peeress interesting herself in the affairs of Scotland, becoming acquainted with them and helping in that respect. I am very sorry that this attack should have been made. In the case of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, it was totally untrue to say that he is not a Scot.
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said in respect of Clause 1(3). I shall not reiterate the argument. I shall have one further word to say when, as I hope I shall, I move the amendment tabled in my name.
Although the solution of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is better than that contained in Clause 1(3)—I think it would suit the customers better and would work better—I do not think that Parliament should tell shops how to do their job or how to arrange their premises unless it is unavoidable. Different arrangements suit different customers in different sets of buildings and in different environments. Therefore, I am rather hoping that the noble Lady, having looked at my rather simpler and different amendment—which would, in fact, do something about larger supermarkets without completely reorganising the shop—may find that it is attractive to her. If so, perhaps she may consider not pressing this amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am not sure whether I heard the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, correctly when he talked about research which appeared to compare Liverpool with Kirkcaldy. I do not know whether he said that Kirkcaldy was regarded as the centre of the drinking universe of Scotland. It has various other claims to fame; indeed, it used to be famous for making linoleum, although the people have perhaps given that up now and are turning their attention to drink. While the research may be interesting, to take tile study on one Scottish town the size of Kirkcaldy and draw any inferences from that is really not a wise thing to do, if I may say so. It is only an indication of what might happen in Kirkcaldy.
I agree with what the noble Lord said about television advertising. That matter was discussed on Second Reading. I regard the amount of television advertising which takes place as disgraceful. In my view it should be taken off the screens altogether and the product left to find its own way into the market place without extravagant claims being made for it. As Members of the Committee may recall, I mentioned that little children as young as eight or nine years of age are running about advertising beer.
1080
It is advertised on the front of their favourite team's football jersey which they wear. They do so because members of the team wear the jerseys and because their parents have had to buy these for them.
So far as concerns the opponents of this Bill, I detect a feeling in the Chamber that they will take the opinion of the Committee and divide on one or another of the amendments which have been tabled. That being so, it appears from what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that he accepts, if that happens, that that is the end of the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: In this Session.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In this Session, indeed yes. It would not receive Royal Assent this Session. That would be, to say the least, unfortunate. That is the way the timescale has worked out. The Opposition will oppose the amendments.
We accept that there are other targets for the sale of alcohol which should be hit. The noble Lord,Lord Lucas, made an interesting point about public houses and hotels selling drink. They are not caught by the legislation. The mere fact that other outlets are not caught by the legislation does not mean that it is sensible to kill off the legislation. The legislation can be revised and amended once the Bill is on the statute book.
2 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Will the noble and learned Lord give way? I think he has missed the point I made or perhaps I did not make it properly. The point I made was that the pub/hotel with a similar number of outlets to the off-sale part must come within the ambit. We are talking about outlets of a given size. Presumably we define the outlet by the number of points of sale. We cannot say that three or more outlets in somewhere described as a supermarket should be different from the provision in respect of a public house.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The amendment states:
"If, in any off-sale premises, or the off-sale part of any other premises with 3 or more points of sale".
That does not cover the area indicated by the noble Lord. I accept that there might be a gap in the Bill. The noble Lord raised the matter effectively. Steps can be taken to deal with that gap in later legislation. That is not a reason to kill off the Bill and to start all over again.
A great deal of fuss is being made about what happens and what does not happen in supermarkets. As I said on Second Reading, we are dealing with the sale of a poison. People who provide and the age of people who buy should be severely restricted and controlled. What is to stop a supermarket from putting up notices at points of sale reminding people that according to the statute the sale of alcohol has to be authorised by a person in the premises? There is no difficulty. They can have a large notice where the drink is sold saying, "Please remember to have your alcoholic purchase authorised before taking it to the point of sale." What is the difficulty?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: If one read every notice that is put up in a supermarket one would never get around the place.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: They do not have clocks in supermarkets, so one never knows the time. It is one of the devices they use to keep people in.
As I said, a great deal of fuss is being made. Let us take a railway station, for example. Before one boards a train there is a notice saying, "Please do not board the train without a ticket". People then go to the ticket office and buy a ticket so that they can show it to an inspector. If they do not have a ticket, they will hide in some part of the train in the hope that they will not be caught. People obey rules when they are introduced.
An example of "wilfully attempting to buy" would be if a person went to the point of sale and someone then said, "You have not had that authorised", and the purchaser ignored that advice and tried to get out without the authorisation. That would be wilful. The word "wilful" exists for a purpose. As stated earlier, we like to believe that common sense is applied to prosecutions in Scotland.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: If the noble Lord is supporting the Bill from the Opposition Front Bench, he owes it to the Committee to try to tell us how it will work. On Second Reading he said that he did not want to get bogged down in the technicalities of the matter. The noble Lord brings great skill to us. He may not know much about supermarkets but he knows a great deal about the law. He must tell the Committee how the provision will work. He cannot slide over it as he has just done.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: As I said on Second Reading, it is not my responsibility to tell supermarkets how to implement the law. No one else is told how to implement the law. The law is on the statute book and people affected by it have to obey it. It is not for me to tell supermarkets how to organise themselves. There is adequate provisions for supermarkets in subsection (2)(a). That is being ignored by the Bill's critics. If a sale is completed at a point of sale used solely or mainly in respect of alcoholic liquor, paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) do not apply. There is a way out for supermarkets in the Bill as it stands.
I should emphasise that I am speaking in a personal capacity. Although I am speaking from the Front Bench, this is a Private Member's Bill. I shall oppose any attempts to bring the Bill to an end at this stage.
Lord Campbell of Croy: In general, it is a great pity that at this stage of the Bill we should have an issue to discuss without being able to make any change. Over the years I have become familiar with all the problems of Private Member's Bills introduced in another place. I was lucky enough when I was in the other place, in ballots and other ways, to introduce Bills and, with the help of friends in your Lordships' House, to get those Bills through.
Perhaps I may go back nearly 30 years. I was the Scottish Whip responsible for establishing what is
1082
called the Second Scottish Standing Committee which enables Scottish Private Member's Bills to go into a special committee and so avoid waiting in a queue behind all the other United Kingdom Bills. I mention that point because I have every sympathy with Members of another place and Peers who try to introduce Private Member's Bills.
We are placed in a most unsatisfactory position. We know that if any change is made to the Bill (if one word is altered) it cannot go through in this Session because there is no time left next week in the other place for it to consider any suggested changes. I hope that if that should happen the Bill will be taken up in the coming Session. I hope that any arguments about the issue with which we are dealing today will be settled by then and that a Back-Bench Member or a Peer will have priority and will be able to take the Bill through. I wanted to register my view that it is most unsatisfactory that at the Committee stage—the earliest stage at which we are able to consider the detail of a Bill—we should know that we cannot make any change.
I accept the fact that there is an issue in Clause 1(3). I shall say no more about it because it has been described. All noble Lords who have spoken and many people outside the Committee are in favour of the principle and purpose of the Bill—except for this subsection now in issue—and the provisions that it will add to the legislation in Scotland in an attempt to stop teenage drinking.
I listened to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. My experience of Private Members' Bills in another place shows that it is not as easy to amend a Bill as he suggested. It is difficult enough to get the original Private Member's Bill through Parliament; but to think that it can be amended within a year or two is asking a great deal. It is not as easy as he suggested.
I understand the point put forward by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. However, that we should be in this position at the Committee stage is most unsatisfactory.
Lord Monson: I also have reservations about Amendment No. 1 standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Saltoun. I prefer Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. However, there is no doubt that my noble friend has given powerful and cogent reasons for deleting subsection (3), or at least drastically modifying it.
My noble friend highlighted the practical points and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, validly put forward the point that the Bill is aimed at the wrong target. It is the smaller stores which tend to sell alcohol to youngsters. However, the subsection adversely affects individual freedom in a way which is inappropriate in a Private Member's Bill, particularly in one which comes before us immediately before the Summer Recess. I understand that it received virtually no scrutiny in another place.
Surely it is better to have a proper Bill on the statute book later than an imperfect Bill a couple of months sooner. I believe that we should agree to Amendment No. 4 and possibly also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
The Viscount of Falkland: One of the encouraging aspects of the Bill is that a popular daily newspaper in Glasgow has seen fit to create a campaign. I do not read that newspaper, and I do not know how it would describe me. I sympathise entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, because my forebears were given a Scottish Peerage; I come from an entirely English family; and I served in an Irish regiment. I do not know what it would make of that! Nevertheless, it has created a furore about the problem which is most serious in Scotland as it is throughout the United Kingdom.
I sense that from these Benches and from my friends on the Opposition Benches there is a certain party animosity. Of all the subjects that we debate in this House alcohol abuse and its related problems are not party-political matters. It appears that a popular newspaper has seen a problem—that of under-age drinking—which in Scotland is of high profile. It is shown up rather more sharply because of the country in relation to the population. I believe that the Scottish Office has seen a problem and felt that it must do something. Its proposals, certainly those in subsection (3), are not workable.
I agree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that the ideal would be a statutory obligation to have a shop within a shop. That would solve many problems. I also agree with her remarks about identity cards. Nevertheless, there is now a wide availability of drink from supermarkets, especially to young people, and that was not the case 10 or 15 years ago. Statistics produced by the various retail organisations show that in Scotland there is a problem, albeit small. There is a lack of small shops where young people might go to buy alcohol as they do in England. I do not believe that the supermarkets in England are a problem. The steps those supermarkets have taken are admirable. It would be a very unwise under-age drinker who would stand in the queue of a supermarket and try to get away with buying a bottle of whisky. I do not think he would get away with that in the first place, and he would be stupid to try to do so because in London he could go 100 or 200 yards down the street and buy it in a small shop. I agree therefore with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that this provision is targeted at the wrong people. It is the smaller shops which are the problem. I believe that is the case in Scotland; but in Scotland there are fewer smaller outlets, so I suppose it is natural that the attentions of the Daily Record should be focused on the supermarkets.
I sense that there is a certain animosity in Scotland towards the large supermarkets. I hope there is not any underlying political animosity which stems from an anti big business feeling. I get the feeling that the animosity towards the big supermarket groups as offenders in this area of allowing young people to buy unauthorised alcohol is rather a political reaction. As I said on Second Reading, I do not think the large supermarkets are to blame in this area. I believe they take steps to ensure that staff are properly trained to serve people, and they also take steps to put up notices to make sure that young people realise that this is not the place to try and get away with it. I have seen such notices especially in the London area.
1084
I agree with the contents of the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. I assume she does not intend to press the amendment. It is an interesting alternative, but my own impression about the Bill is that it has been put before us at the wrong time. I do not understand how it got here. It is a most extraordinary Bill. I find myself in a very difficult position because I have sympathy with the underlying aims of the Bill; I have sympathy with the large supermarkets as I think they are the wrong targets, and I also have sympathy for the Government because I think the Government are doing a lot now, together with the universities and voluntary agencies, to deal with this problem. We have never seen a time of greater awareness and greater action in dealing with drinking, and in particular with under-age drinking. I support the amendment of the noble Lady; but I agree almost 100 per cent. with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I feel an additional sympathy with him because of the handling he received from the Daily Record. I have not seen the newspaper concerned, and I only hope that I was not referred to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to say a few words about this group of amendments. I did not have the opportunity of speaking on Second Reading, but I shall do my best not to make a Second Reading speech.
The first point that I think all of us would accept is that we are, in this country, faced with a major problem of drink abuse. That is true of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Northern Ireland. On that point there can be no disagreement at all. We cannot also minimise the significance of that because, as many are aware, 50 per cent. of the cases of unpremeditated violence that take place in this country are committed when the assailant is under the influence of drink. In 50 per cent. of murder cases the same is true. Therefore no one can, in the light of that, underestimate the significance of the issues we are debating today.
Therefore, there is a strong case for action. I am not talking about any action but action which is well-directed and action that is relevant to the problem we are facing. I am bound to say that I still hope very much that someone will explain to us why it is the supermarkets with three or more outlets that present us with the most significant problem. No effort has been made to put forward a sustainable argument on that issue. All the evidence seems, as the very powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, indicated, to go in exactly the opposite direction.
The principal problem which we face in terms of young people getting access to alcohol is, first, in the home and, secondly, in small shops. I believe that to be the position in England and Wales, and I have not the slightest doubt that it is the position in Scotland. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can believe that by the creation of this bureaucratic arrangement of authorisation points we shall make a major contribution to dealing with teenage drinking in Scotland. It seems to me, as I have indicated, that all the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

1085
I hope that we shall argue this matter on a calm, rational basis. The sort of abuse to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and his colleagues were subjected is quite ridiculous, as was the abuse directed at the Scottish Consumer Council because it had committed the grave offence of coming up with the wrong conclusions. We should be able to debate issues of this kind quietly, rationally and reasonably. Accepting as I do the seriousness of the problem, I do not believe that Clause 1(3) makes any sense whatsoever and I shall certainly vote against it.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): It might be appropriate if I say a few words on the amendment of the noble Baroness. I recognise that, if her amendment were to be carried, as a necessary consequence subsection (3) would be deleted.
I have much sympathy with the aims of the noble Baroness. Her amendment would effectively create a shop within a shop for the sale of alcohol, or at least a separate dedicated check-out would be required. Not only would such a course achieve the clear aim of the Bill to close off that channel as a possible source for the intending under-age purchaser, but it might also significantly reduce the impulse buying of alcohol products. That in itself might be desirable but it is a far wider issue than is intended should be encompassed by this Bill.
My immediate purpose in intervening is to say to the noble Baroness, if it is her intention still to press the amendment—and I understood from a hint that she gave that she is more attracted to a later amendment and accordingly may seek to withdraw this amendment—that in a number of senses it is technically deficient. I suspect that she may have had advice from those who are more familiar with English licensing law than Scots. On this side of the Border only specified parts of any particular supermarket are licensed. However, under the 1976 Scottish Act it is the premises themselves which are licensed. The reference in the amendment to:
"the off-sale part of any other premises with three or more points of sale",
would not have any meaning in Scotland. The words "any off-sale premises" in the earlier part of the proposed subsection would cover all supermarkets which sell alcohol, all specialist wine and spirits merchants and all licensed grocers.
As I see it, the importance of the amendment can be stated briefly. When the matter was first considered the best proposal was seen to be to impose a regime of a shop within a shop. That is clearly a very expensive regime to impose on supermarkets. While the noble Baroness quarrels with the indications of cost that I gave her, there is no doubt whatsoever that that regime would be an expensive one. It was in an attempt to avoid the excessive costs of a shop within a shop that the Government and a Member in another place sought by means of subsection (3), to introduce an arrangement which would be less onerous and costly than a shop within a shop arrangement.
I do not propose to discuss Amendment No. 4. While some very powerful and no doubt sincere arguments have already been advanced this afternoon, in essence they are a repitition of
1086
arguments which were put forward at Second Reading. The views of the Government were made known by me at the Second Reading stage, and if we have to deal with subsection (3) in any detail later on this afternoon I can elaborate at that stage. For the present, it may be sufficient if I indicate to the noble Baroness the technical deficiencies of the amendment as I see them.
Lord Stallard: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the amendment and I wish to deal with some of the points that have been raised. However, before doing that and without getting into the area of the Second Reading debate, as we seemed to be doing at one stage, and repeating what we said at Second Reading, I am bound to say that the point that was perhaps not adequately made during the Second Reading debate, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has just said, is that the original intentions of the Bill were a shop within a shop.
It was a matter of pressure from without. It is almost the same pressure that is on now from the Retail Consortium and supermarkets, which said—they probably had a point—that that would be almost impossible. They said that they could not envisage such a proposal. The Government, having listened to those criticisms, said to the: promoters of the Bill, "If you insist on this, we cannot support such a Bill, but, if you are prepared to take it away and come back with something like this, we could support it". That is a rough reply to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as to how the Bill comes here.
The Bill comes here as a result of massive public concern expressed in Scotland by more than 90 district councils and hundreds of individuals who replied to a questionnaire sent out on a completely different aspect of amendments to the licensing Bill. In their replies, they expressed their concern about under-age drinking. That was their main concern, so it was legitimate.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I apologise for intervening so early in the noble Lord's speech, but the same point was made at Second Reading. Are we to understand—the results of the survey have not yet been published—that that massive response was to express concern about teenage drinking, or was it a response about teenage purchases of alcohol in larger supermarkets? Which was it? When the noble Lord refers to over 90 district councils, were they all aiming at the large supermarkets in their areas?
2.30 p.m.
Lord Stallard: The questionnaire concerned all aspects of under-age drinking—under-age drinking in public, access by under-age people to drinking and lack of supervision of the sale of alcohol. The concern of those people in Scotland covered all aspects. We in England might not like the Scots taking that view. They may be a different community and much more strict in some ways than their English counterparts, but that is what happened. There is sufficient support in the communities in Scotland for such a measure.

1087
The Bill received government support in the other place and massive public support. The noble Lord referred to one newspaper and he took umbrage about the way he was treated. He is not the first politician to have been insulted in a newspaper. That is one of the hazards of the game. That newspaper is not readily available in the Library. I have looked for it. We seldom see it in the Library so many noble Lords will not even have seen the article to which he referred. Perhaps he is worried about the circulation of the Daily Record. Perhaps he is over-anxious, in which case I may have put his mind at rest.
We must consider the best way round the problem. There must be a compromise in a Private Member's Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is an expert on the matter. I admired his handling of Private Members' legislation in the other place. There must be a certain amount of compromise to obtain the maximum amount of support for a Private Member's Bill. One cannot do better than obtain government support. That is what the Bill has achieved. Have we achieved a good enough compromise? Is the need sufficient to justify going through with it? Does that mean that we should not have any amendments? We all understand the problems of Private Members' legislation in the other place. Time on a Friday runs out every year. As other noble Lords have said, if we amend a Bill it is virtually out of court for this Session.
Then people say, "So what? Why not wait until the amendments come forward and pick it up again next Session?" I find that just a wee bit difficult to take. With regard to the football identity card legislation, we on this side have asked, "Why not wait for the outcome of the Taylor Report before we push for identity cards?" We were absolutely trounced and jumped on by virtually all those who have spoken today and who participated in that debate and voted in it. They were not prepared to wait for the Taylor Report before they pushed ahead with the ID on football supporters.
Only yesterday we asked the Government to wait for the outcome of the reports, surveys and discussions on the disabled and handicapped before anything was done in the social security field in relation to some of the problems there. We were told that there was no need at all to wait for these reports; the matter was being dealt with there and then and that we were out of order. So, when we ask, we get scant response. One cannot say that that is all right and then be asked to wait for some hypothetical date in the future when there will be another report. That is blatantly playing party politics and we are not in that business so far as this Bill is concerned.
Those who promoted the Bill have a commitment to its aims. That commitment is shared by all Members who have spoken on this issue. We ought to rise above some of the points advocated in the amendments. This is not nit-picking but it is not far off it. The amendments are a determined attempt to respond to a campaign that has emerged in your Lordships' House but was not evident in the other place. It is the same Bill with the same procedures.
1088
Everything is the same in this House as in the other place.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that this is not an anti-supermarket or anti-business campaign of any description. We all deal with supermarkets—and some supermarkets we like better than others—and there is no anti-supermarket feeling. However, we cannot dodge the fact that the Retail Consortium and mainly the supermarket members have circulated letters and documents to a great many Members of the Committee—not, I may add, to me until yesterday, when I received the first one. I now have a list of Members to whom they have circulated this material. I do not complain about that. It is normal parliamentary procedure and there is nothing wrong in it, but we know that people are responding to that kind of correspondence and campaign. It is as simple as that. That has caused the uproar, if it is an uproar—certainly it can be called an added interest—in this Chamber which was perhaps absent in the other place.
We have to ask whether we can justify the aims, objectives and methods laid down in this Bill in relation to the problem. We think we can. We believe that the concern is there. With regard to the surveys, I shall not be selective and pick out the items which I like. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, picked out some of the parts that he liked. However, there were parts of the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, which are of particular interest. I shall select one on page 9. It is Table 8. It refers to those aged 15 years who had an alcoholic drink at least once a week and was used to prove that Scotland is not a bad as England. The problem is much worse in England than it is in Scotland. But one could have looked above that item to Table A and to the 15-year olds who say that they have had a proper drink, which is a substantial measure of an alcoholic drink, and the figures are almost the same. The noble Lord did not mention that.
I can say that the noble Lord is being selective, as most of the quoted statistics have been—
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am at a slight disadvantage when commenting on that because the official reporters have my copy of the document. However, the table from which I was quoting showed that at every age the figures for Scotland were substantially lower than the figures for England. That was the specific point that I sought to make.
Lord Stallard: The noble Lord quoted the 15 year-old age group from the table and I have just repeated what he said. I was listening very carefully. I do not quarrel with that. Those are points in debate. One picks out points that one likes and leaves out other points. However, in this case we have to look at all the points.
In any case, I should not have said that that was an argument against the Bill. Because the problem is not as bad in Scotland as it might be in England may perhaps be an argument for a similar Bill or other measures in England. It is not an argument for saying to the Scots, "Because you do not have as big a problem as we have, you cannot have this legislation. We shall not let you have it because your

1089
problem is not as big as ours". That is not a serious argument at all. That argument did not weigh heavily with me.
Then there was the argument about the wrong target. We are encountering it again. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, pointed to some of the concerns raised by the different situation in Scotland. He said that the geography in Scotland was different and the number of supermarkets was different. They are in different localities. It is a completely different set-up from Camden Town, Wandsworth, Brixton or other places in London or generally England. There is a difference and there are sufficient concern and evidence to show that the supermarket is involved as well as all the other outlets.
I have dealt with the points about waiting for further reports. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, also mentioned the Daily Record reports. I do not know whether she has been mentioned in them. They are not very easily accessible here. I would not worry; we have all been mentioned in some report. It happens all the time. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, we do not take our cue from the papers. We never have done so from any newspaper or any source. I certainly do not. If I believe that a matter is right, I say so—even if the papers agree with me. I shall continue to do so.
I have dealt with the question that the noble Viscount asked about how the Bill came here. It came here in the usual way from another place because of the outcry in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned that drink abuse is a major problem in the United Kingdom. We all agree. It is a major problem in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All of us who work in an area connected with social security are extremely worried about the problems and the crime related aspects to alcohol. However, that is an argument for action.
Those who are sponsoring this Bill consider that the Bill is a form of action. We have no better proof of that than the words of the Minister in another place. He said that the Government regard the Bill as a significant part of an overall package of measures. There is a package of measures, including the Bill. Many other things are happening in Scotland in relation to under-age drinking. There are other things in the pipeline for the forthcoming report. It is a package of measures and the Minister in another place was big enough to say so. The Minister also referred to our conviction and that of the Scottish Home and Health Department that the Bill is a useful measure in that context; and they will continue to support it.
As I said at Second Reading, I cannot improve on that. That is as good a recommendation as we can get for passing the Bill unamended in order to do something. I asked about when amendments could be made to the Bill when it becomes an Act, because sometimes events happen very quickly. I was told that the intention is that the new statutory requirements would have permanent effect. They would not have time limits on them. However, any relaxation or limitation would simply encourage the re-emergence of the problem of under-age drinking. But the matter would be kept under review. If the
1090
new measures proved ineffective for whatever reason, they would be modified or repealed as appropriate.
The second clause in the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to introduce and vary orders and so on. The safeguard is there. The forthcoming legislation is there, by which time this may have been in operation for some while. We shall be able to see what is happening. We shall therefore be able to move specific amendments.
The amendment of the noble Lady, and the consequential amendments, were ruled out at the early stages of consultation with the Government and other supporters—the Retail Consortium and others. The shop within a shop was not a viable alternative. We have accepted that. We do not think it is viable either.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who replied adequately, as did my noble friend Lord Macaulay, to the legal aspects that he raised about the off-sales part of any other premises. I had a doubt about the situation in hotels because I am not absolutely au fait with that. But I have no doubts about the pubs or other places which do not have specific off-sales parts. The pub already has controls. The staff who serve behind the bar cannot be under 18, and these restrictions already apply to public houses. Having said that, I hope that the noble Baroness and those who support her will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: We have had an interesting and useful debate on the amendment. I should like to say a lot of nice things to all those who have spoken in support of it; however, time does not permit. I realise that my amendment is defective and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, after ("97A") insert—
("(1) If, in any off-sale premises, or the off-sale part of any other premises, with 3 or more points of sale, the licence holder, his employee or agent causes or permits a person under 18 to sell alcoholic liquor he shall be guilty of an offence.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 4. It is absolutely clear from the debate that we have had on the previous amendment that everybody in the Committee agrees that there is a need to strengthen the law to make it less possible for young people to buy alcoholic drinks in shops in Scotland. In my view the proposers have done very well in identifying one source of the problem. The fact is that young people can go into a shop, large or small, and frequently find shop assistants who might be sympathetic. They can put pressure on those often very young assistants to sell them a can of beer or a bottle of wine when no one is looking, both of them thus breaking the law. Some young people persuade older people, but mostly they persuade their contemporaries.
For smaller shops Clause 1(2) deals with this strongly and well and it should work. It says that if

1091
a shop assistant is under age, he or she cannot sell alcohol to anybody without first calling over a more senior person to authorise the sale. That is good. We all want to see that on the statute book for Scotland.
The promoters of the Bill recognise that the larger supermarkets have a number of check-outs where the assistants are under 18. It would not be easy on a busy Friday afternoon or a Saturday for every young assistant to get every sale checked without causing massive hold-ups for customers. So the promoters, with the Government's help, designed subsection (3), which we have been discussing at great length. I do not know why the Government advised the promoters that this scheme would work. Quite apart from being extremely inconvenient, it is far too easy for young people to dodge the system. As the Scottish Consumer Council has pointed out, if anything, it makes it considerably easier, not more difficult, for a young person to do so.
All that a young person under 18 has to do is to get a friend over 18 to take the bottle to the authorisation point to have it stamped and then put it back on the shelf where the under 18 year-old can collect it and go to the check-out to pay for it. Because the young check-out assistant sees it as being authorised, he or she is less rather than more likely to query that young person's age for what is supposedly the second time. On those grounds alone subsection (3) would not work. We owe it to the Scottish public and to the young people to have a far stronger scheme in large supermarkets.
My amendment may well be defective. I drafted it myself and did so without consulting the supermarkets. Indeed, I did not consult anybody. It suggests that in supermarkets with three check-outs or more no shop assistants under 18 should sell alcohol at all; at all the check-outs where alcohol is among the goods on the trolley, the check-out assistant must be 18 or over. If a supermarket wants to put under 18 year-olds at one or two check-outs, for example YTS trainees learning the job, those check-outs must be marked only for purchases not including alcohol. That clearly follows.
That means that no authorisation scheme is required by law at all either at a separate point or by individuals called to the check-out because no under-l8-year-old assistants will be selling drink. Shops will be able to continue or extend any supervision they want over older assistants, but young assistants will no longer be a problem.
When I told the Retail Consortium that I had tabled this amendment, it was not very pleased with me because it would like freedom in larger supermarkets to go on using 18 year-olds on check-outs which sell alcohol. I had to tell them that I was sorry. In small shops that is unavoidable, but I do not believe that in larger shops very young shop assistants should be submitted to that pressure even if they are half protected, as they would be under the Bill's authorisation scheme. They are not fully protected. I want to remove that scheme, and so I have put my name to Amendment No. 4. I want it to be absolutely forbidden for young people to serve on supermarket check-outs in the larger supermarkets.
On Second Reading I congratulated the promoters on all their hard work, and particularly on the provision for smaller shops in Clause (1)(2). If we do not amend this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has made plain, it will go on the statute book. It will go on that statute book with a scheme for larger shops which, whatever the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay and Lord Stallard may say, will make it easier and not more difficult for young people to buy drink in those larger supermarkets, and that will greatly inconvenience customers in the process.
When in this Chamber we study Bills and identify weaknesses in them, it is our constitutional duty to say so and to tell the House of Commons, the Government and, in the case of private Bills, the promoters, how we consider that the Bill can be improved. It seems to me that it is our duty this afternoon in this Committee to amend the Bill. I accept that that means that it will not go on to the statute book immediately. However, it will be there for picking up in improved form. The ideas and discussions will be there; and I hope that my particular suggestion will also be there if members of the Committee accept it. In the new Session, it can either be incorporated into a private Bill which can come forward in that form, or as part of a government Bill.
I should be grateful if the Government can tell us what will be their attitude about that. I am convinced that as yet this Bill is not workable and not strong enough. I hope that if it comes back as part of a government Bill, it will be stronger, If it is not stronger than this Bill, I shall attempt to amend that new Bill to make it stronger because I do not believe that this Bill will work in this form. I beg to move.
Lord Stallard: I ask the noble Baroness whether her Amendment No. 2 is in place of the existing Section 97A(2) in the Bill or in addition to it. It seems to me that if that is inserted into the Bill and the rest is left intact, there is a danger of contradiction between the two parts. The noble Baroness amends the second part with her amendment, but then leaves the second part in the Bill. I should like the noble Baroness to clarify whether that is her intention.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope it is clear that my intention is to insert this amendment into subsection (2) before the piece which is already in the Bill, and then, in Amendment No. 4, to remove subsection (3).
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps at this point I may respond briefly to the amendment moved by my noble friend. As she made clear, the amendment would require supermarkets, where they have three or more points of sale, never to have someone under the age of 18 at a point of sale where goods including alcohol are to be sold. In other words, all alcohol sales in such supermarkets would be made by an adult. Where there is no provision for the supervision, authorisation or approval by an adult, the sale would have to be made by someone over the age of 18. That would mean from the supermarket's point of view in regard to management that there

1093
could be significant difficulties. However, no doubt my noble friend has considered that and indeed may have received some advice from those concerned in the running of such large stores.
It is a different approach to that which is taken under subsection (3), and it might be argued that in many respects it is a more onerous and difficult one for those who operate supermarkets. However, perhaps I may say to my noble friend, as I said earlier to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that I recognise clearly she has a very genuine and real purpose behind this amendment. She is as determined as anyone else that the problem of under-age drinking should be attacked and the purchase of alcohol by youngsters restricted as much as possible.
I do not think it necessary to repeat that, if this amendment is pressed, the Bill falls, whatever may be the particular virtues of the amendment. However, I am happy to undertake that the Government will consider carefully this rather more stringent measure in the context of the intended review and revision of the 1976 Act and, if appropriate, will bring forward suitable amendments in the context of the Government's legislation to which I referred at Second Reading. In the meantime. I suggest that there would be no good reason to prevent this Bill's rather more limited provisions reaching the statute book. However, I appreciate that my noble friend may not be satisfied with the undertaking to deal with it at a later stage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I note what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said in the final few sentences of his reply, but I should like to make one or two observations on what happens if this Chamber passes an amendment to this Bill.
I have objected to that line of argument from Ministers of different political persuasions over the years. If we are to take it seriously, it means that this Chamber can never pass any amendment to any Private Member's Bill coming from the House of Commons. I find that wholly unacceptable. The whole purpose of this place is to act as a revising Chamber, and in that situation I very much hope that we will not hear such arguments again from the Government Front Bench.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, continued on the point I made earlier but, if I may say so, has not quite understood the point I was making; that the Bill is coming so late to this Chamber. Fortunately, in most cases Private Member's Bills come to this place in time for us to make any necessary changes and there remains time for the Bill in the other place. I want to make that clear. It is because the Bill has come here late that we are in this position.
While I am on my feet, I should like to ask for further elucidation from my noble and learned friend on what he has just said. In another place the Government announced, in reply to a Written Question a few weeks ago—I hope I have translated this correctly—that further legislation on Scottish licensing is likely in the coming Session of Parliament. Governments do not have to and usually
1094
avoid giving an undertaking to bring in a Bill in the next Session, but in this case I believe the wording was quite clear and that there is an undertaking. Perhaps my noble and learned friend can confirm that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My noble friend is too wily a fox in these matters. Indeed, there has not been quite the express undertaking or the lines that he seems to believe. Nevertheless, there has been a clear indication given by the Secretary of State for Scotland that he is reviewing these matters and that he intends to legislate at an appropriate moment.
Baroness Seear: The Committee will correct me if I am wrong; but perhaps I may put this point. Is it not true that if this Bill falls because it is thought to be not properly put together and therefore not achieving its object, and if the Government do not produce their own Bill, there is nothing in the world to prevent a noble Lord from launching a Private Member's Bill on precisely the same lines the minute we return after the Recess?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank all Members of the Committee who have joined in this debate. I particularly thank my noble and learned friend for what was not exactly an undertaking, but an indication that when the Government legislate on this subject they will try to produce a Bill that is stiffer, which will make it more difficult for young people to buy drink in large supermarkets. I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that I do not think it would be proper, in the light of what has been said by several very experienced Members of the Committee, to allow this Bill to go on to the statute book unamended and in such an unsatisfactory condition. The scheme would not work. That is the opinion of everyone except I believe for two Members of the Committee who have spoken and perhaps the Government. I am not sure. I hope that the Committee will support me if I divide the House.
2.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 20.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Killearn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bessborough, E.

Longford, E.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cowley, E.

St. Davids, V.

Cox, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Craigavon, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Hacking, L.

Somers, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Young, B. [Teller.]

1095

NOT-CONTENTS

Dundee, E.

Peston, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Henley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kirkhiil, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Long, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.5 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I should say that if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 5 to 21 inclusive because they will have been pre-empted.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lady said: I have already spoken to the amendment at some length. It is an amendment to leave out Clause 1(3) which creates authorisation points and provides that anyone who fails to take alcohol to an authorisation point before going to the till commits an offence. I beg to move.
3.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 22.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kagan, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Killearn, L.

Beloff, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mayhew, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cowley, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Craigavon, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Hacking, L.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Somers, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Broadbridge, L.

Henley, L.

Carter, L.

Kirkhiil, L. [Teller.]

Dundee, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Long, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

1096

Merrivale, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Phillips, B.

White, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 25 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 21, column 2, at end insert—

"Selling alcohol other than at a point of sale designated for that purpose.

Yes

Yes

level 3 on the standard scale").

The noble Lady said: This amendment is consequential, as I believe I explained at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 27 were to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. I now call Amendment No. 27.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 2, leave out lines 22 to 29.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Teacher Redeployment, East Sussex
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the best use is being made of two history teachers, formerly of Lewes Priory Comprehensive School, in the light of proposals for their redeployment contained in East Sussex County Council's education reorganisation plans.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to ask this Question, which raises a number of serious issues of apparent injustice, of freedom, both of professional practice and of parental choice, and of education. It concerns whether the provision of the best possible education for pupils in East Sussex is helped when the teachers in question have been removed from their classrooms, particularly at a time of growing teacher shortages.
I must begin by expressing great appreciation to all noble Lords who have agreed to take part in the debate this afternoon, especially on a Friday afternoon so near to the end of the Session. I shall

1097
be as brief as possible, but it might be helpful if I open the debate with an overview of the development of the present unhappy situation.
The teachers concerned, Mr. McGovern and Dr. Freeman, both have impressive professional track records, individually and in the achievements of the history department in which they worked and of which Mr. McGovern was head. Between them they have four academic degrees, including a First-Class Honours degree and a Ph.D., and over 30 years' experience of teaching. Their department was outstandingly successful. Its courses for GCE, CSE and GCSE became the most popular options at Lewes Priory School, with excellent results across the ability range, from Oxbridge entrants to average and below average ability pupils.
They were greatly appreciated by their students. I have here a letter sent by their pupils expressing support for them and also expressing concern at the way in which their education has been jeopardised. But Mr. McGovern's career as a secondary school teacher ended today, while Dr. Freeman has been excluded from teaching for the past two months, during which time his sixth-form history students have been supervised, but not taught history, by a supply teacher whose subject is English.
The troubles began when, after careful thought, these teachers and their colleagues thought that it would be in the best interests of their pupils to offer them the opportunity to study for the Scottish O-grade exam, an equivalent to GCE, which was still available, alongside the GCSE because they had grave reservations about the educational merits of the GCSE course.
Their criticisms of the GCSE history course have been largely vindicated. For example, Southern Examining Group has reprinted this year's paper and has agreed to make major changes in the future, including removing questions based on "empathy" from the written examinations. Moreover, the teachers were invited to write a new national history syllabus, which for the first time allows students to study the development of the United Kingdom. That syllabus has been endorsed by 10 of the country's leading historians, including three members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton and my noble friend Lord Beloff, who I am very happy to see is to speak today.
It is important to emphasise, however, that, despite their reservations about the GCSE syllabus, these teachers taught it successfully to a very wide ability range. They also wished to offer alongside it—teaching it in their own time—the Scottish course, which they believed was educationally superior and thus better for their pupils. More than 40 pupils chose to take advantage of that offer over the past two years, with good results. However, that commitment to providing the best possible education for their students was the beginning of the end of those two teachers' careers as history teachers.
Denied the freedom to discuss the option with parents on school premises, they met parents outside school and taught the Scottish course in their own free time, away from school. They were then
1098
subjected to an astonishing series of attacks, being accused of insubordination and mutiny, and threatened with dismissal.
Then, with the reorganisation of sixth-form teaching in Lewes, they applied for posts appropriate to their qualifications and achievements. The LEA's policy is to redeploy staff in comparable posts. But when Dr. Freeman, the sole person in post eligible for the head of history post in the new 11-to-16 school, applied for that job, the board of governors unanimously rejected him. The LEA subsequently formally overrode the board of governors' decision, but on the condition that Dr. Freeman should immediately resign the post ostensibly offered to him and leave teaching—though if he failed in any new venture assigned to him, such as establishing a schools' visits business, he could apply to be attached to the county's supply pool.
Dr. Freeman, with a wife and three young children to support from his single salary and with no alternative offer, felt utterly intimidated and was reluctantly obliged to accept the arrangement. He consequently had to stop teaching his exam classes, denying them the continuity of teaching that the LEA had promised under the reorganisation scheme and his timetable was taken over temporarily by a supply teacher who, I am informed, announced as soon as he met the sixth forms that he was incapable of teaching them the syllabus.
Meanwhile, Mr. McGovern was denied an opportunity to continue teaching at secondary school level. He only finally, last month, accepted retraining as a primary school teacher as a means of retaining his livelihood while allowing him to continue to teach.
Those are tragic outcomes in which two superb history teachers have been obliged, under duress, to accept posts which deny them the opportunity to make a professional contribution commensurate with their capabilities. That is personally humiliating and professionally insulting. It also deprives the pupils of their expertise and commitment and is a gross misuse of valuable resources; for there can be no more valuable resource than dedicated, experienced teachers with proven records of success appreciated by parents and pupils.
The LEA and the governing body have tried to justify their position by claiming that those two teachers should have buckled down and made a success of the new exam. But they have taught that exam with successful results. It has also been implied that they have been troublemakers, especially by speaking to the media and by undermining the authority of the head. But they had to use the media in order to publicise their offer to teach GCE alongside GCSE as they were not allowed to use the normal means of communication through the school. I would argue that they were fully justified in speaking to representatives of the media in an attempt to make their predicament known, as they believe that their position has been misrepresented by the authorities concerned. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the authorities did not discipline the teachers; presumably they had no good reason to do so. Instead, they chose to use the reorganisation to force them from their jobs.
It might also be argued that it was in the interests of the school that those two teachers should no longer work there on the grounds that there was an irretrievable breakdown of relationships between them and the head. But that is entirely unsubstantiated, and Mr. McGovern and Dr. Freeman have been consistently denied any opportunity to challenge the board of governors in order to vindicate themselves.
It might also be said that the authorities felt that they should support the head in a situation that had become confrontational. But it is appropriate to ask whether it was the head or the teachers who were acting unreasonably in attempting to promote the pupils' best interests, especially in view of the strong support given to the teachers by pupils and parents and by the subsequent vindication of their criticisms of the GCSE history syllabus.
Those teachers are now effectively precluded from speaking for themselves. Indeed, it was a condition of employment for one of them that he should not speak about the matters in public or ask in public for any inquiry. Such is the atmosphere of secrecy that parents, pupils and the public have not been informed about the fate of those teachers.
An Early Day Motion in another place, signed by more than 50 honourable Members, deplores what it describes as,
"a vindictive forcing from their jobs",
of those two teachers. The events which I have outlined and which, given more time, I could amplify and substantiate in great detail, appear to me to merit that descriptive epithet of "vindictive".
Given that those two teachers are now effectively precluded from pursuing their case further, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Secretary of State to consider setting up an inquiry to look into that deplorable situation. I understand that it would be possible for him to do so under Section 68 of the 1944 Act or otherwise, and I sincerely hope that he will do so, for there is so much at stake.
There is the freedom of teachers to offer their pupils the best possible education according to their professional judgment. It is worth noting that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has now included the Scottish O-grade in the list of approved exams for England. There is also the fundamental question of whether justice has been done, and has been seen to be done, for Mr. McGovern and Dr. Freeman.
Until or unless this sad state of affairs has been fully investigated and the results made public, there will continue to be grave disquiet not only among many teachers, parents and pupils in East Sussex but also among many people throughout the country who are concerned about fundamental freedoms and educational standards. Until there is adequate justification in public of the treatment meted out to these teachers, I am afraid that there will be some credibility given to the suggestion that the situation there is more akin to East Germany than to East Sussex, not least in its inhibiting effect on other teachers' freedom to express their professional judgments in public.
I believe that this can be in nobody's interests. I sincerely hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to offer some reassurance that steps will be taken to investigate this deeply disturbing situation.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the whole House must be grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for raising this matter even at this very late hour. I want to speak on this issue because, looking at the evidence, I too am most concerned at the outcome of what cannot be regarded as other than a most unhappy affair at the very least. One of the three teachers involved, as I understand it, has found a suitable post in a tertiary college. But of the other two to whom my noble friend referred, Mr. McGovern and Dr. Freeman, one is not doing any teaching at all and the other is teaching in a primary school.
The situation is particularly ironic when we consider that the last time this House debated education it was on a Motion concerning the shortage of teachers. In fact, that very matter has just been debated in another place. Yet here we have two very well qualified teachers who clearly are not playing the role they should in the education service.
My concern is all the greater because of the reason for this sad state of affairs. For professional reasons the teachers disagreed with the GCSE syllabus although they taught it and wished to teach the Scottish O-grade as well. This is not the time to debate the GCSE examination. I am sure that it is here to stay. It has been greatly welcomed by many teachers and is still in its early days. I do not wish it to be thought for one moment that I am speaking out against that examination.
I understand that the stance taken by the three teachers was that they were unhappy about the content of the GCSE examination and wished instead to teach the Scottish O-grade. Of course we could debate at length the content of the GCSE examination. I have considerable sympathy with the professional views of the teachers involved. Indeed I was interested to hear, I think, on the "Today" programme, one speaker say in connection with the bicentennial celebrations which have just taken place; "Of course everybody knows the date 1789". He added, "It is almost as familiar as 1066".
When I heard that I wondered just how true that is today among all school children. To my generation learning dates was part of the teaching of history. I regret to say that I do not remember that many of them now, but a number of them stick. One of the facts today—certainly I observe this from seeing what my grandchildren learn—is that learning dates is not part of the history syllabus. I suspect that children leave school today without any general knowlege of history and that if one were to talk about Anglo-Saxons they would not know where they came into history at all.
We could debate the issue at great length. Of course the modern view of themes and empathy is something quite new. It is something which has worried many people, and both those who are interested, particularly in history, and those who are very concerned that our children should grow up

1101
with some knowledge of their own history. In this case and not for the first time I believe that we have something to learn from the Scots. The Scottish O-grade certainly seems to cover the kind of syllabus which teaches children about what I should perhaps call the history of the United Kingdom.
It is not unreasonable that a teacher's professional judgment should carry great weight in any school when deciding the syllabus. My understanding of the position in schools is that it is usually the head of the department who determines what syllabus should be used. After all, he or she is the expert. There are, to my certain knowlege, a great many different syllabuses at both A-level and O-level, and, as I understand it, GCSE. What I find puzzling above all is why, given a willingness to teach the GCSE and the Scottish O-grade, such teaching was not allowed within the school. It seems to me a most extraordinary situation. As I understand from what I have read, it was felt that it was impossible to run two parallel syllabuses. I find this the oddest of all reasons. For years in comprehensive schools two parallel syllabuses—indeed more—have been run for a good many subjects for both O-level and CSE. The school may have been criticised but it could manage it; and there would be other children who were presumably doing neither O-level nor CSE but some other study. It is a matter of arranging the timetable.
Two worrying features emerge from this unusual experience. There is an uncomfortable feeling that the educational establishment—however it is being defined—has decided that only one syllabus in that authority should be taught regardless of the professional views of the teachers involved and that anything else is ruled out. It is very distrubing as a matter of educational practice to consider that it should be taking place. Two teachers feel a great sense of injustice. I believe that my noble friend Lady Cox is quite right to draw our attention to it.
The three teachers seem to me to have done a public service. They have opened up a debate which, in a free society, they are perfectly entitled to do. It is one which concerns professional historians. It is one which concerns everyone who is interested in achieving the best education possible for our children to equip them for the world of the 21st century. Above all, it is the teaching profession and the professional teachers whose voices should be listened to in the matter of the new syllabuses now being drawn up. If they are not listened to, then something is seriously wrong with the arrangements being made. I am therefore very glad that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has now included the Scottish O-grade as one of the examinations that can be taken.
The situation is a worry to parents because the teachers were teaching a syllabus that the parents wanted, as I understand it. They were unhappy with the GCSE course. Although I am very well aware that teachers often feel that parents do not know best about their children, it is parental concern about some of the syllabuses in school which has given rise to the need to have the new national curriculum. I believe that their concerns need to be listened to.
1102
Finally the treatment of the teachers may well inhibit others speaking out, although it would be in the public interest to hear what teachers who are responsible for certain subjects have to say about the syllabus. I therefore support my noble friend. The matter is worthy of an inquiry. It ought to be looked into to make sure that these unhappy circumstances do not happen again. We really cannot afford that.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when it was first drawn to my attention that this short debate would be taking place, what initially attracted me to it was the implied criticism of the new GCSE exams and the fact that some preference seemed to be given to the old O-level and A-level type of exam. I was interested in the debate because I have very recently finished the great series of exam-catching and pieces-of-paper-acquiring train that starts with O-levels and finishes with a degree. My final degree was in history. I can safely say that O-level history was undoubtedly one of the most boring parts of that procedure, for the simple reason that we did not do much history but we learnt a hell of a lot of dates. I can remember some extremely good card schools and noughts and crosses circuits going on at the back of the classroom because the teacher—who was a very good teacher at A-level—found himself merely dictating to us to try to reinforce the fact that we had to get enough dates down. This point is one that should be remembered.
The old O-level exam had one fundamental flaw in it. One had to learn a great many facts, facts and more facts, in the right order and that was it. Very little analysis took place. I have seen the Scottish O-grade exam and many of its questions seem to have the same weaknesses.
The new GCSE exam, which I looked at for the first time only a few days ago, suggests a far greater amount of emphasis on analysis. I agree that certain matters such as empathy are very difficult historical problems to deal with. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will undoubtedly have much more to say on this subject. He is somebody whose books have used to pass my own exams. This question cannot realistically be addressed by 15 and 16 year-olds. There is the much quoted example of a 16 year-old being asked to describe why, as a Palestinian terrorist, he would blow up certain people. That is the kind of question that should be left to a far later age when the person has a very much better grasp of his subject. I am not against the use of dates, but they should not be used as the be-all and end-all. They should be subservient to the argument.
Having got that off my chest, the treatment of the teachers is another question and should be thought about very deeply. It would appear to me that the teachers were acting professionally and correctly when they suggested that they thought they could do better by their pupils. It must be remembered that it is unfortunate that a great deal of education is seen to be almost subservient to exam grades. The teachers felt that it would be best for their students if those students took a Scottish O-grade exam, probably because the teachers felt that they could get them through it. This is possibly a reflection on

1103
the way our education system works. If they were doing that in the best interests of their pupils, I believe they deserve support.
My knowledge of this subject is restricted to a hurried reading of all the many press articles on it. The general consensus of opinion is that everybody overreacted all along the line. The teachers dug their heels in a little too hard. Certainly the headmaster and the authority seemed to be coming down with a very heavy hand. I would suggest that a deal of compromise would have got everybody further along the road in this matter.
As to the matter of sitting exams which are not usually taken in a school, I am, for the simple reason that I am a bad dyslexic—a fact with which I have bored your Lordships on a number of other occasions—totally in support of pupils being able to choose exams. My educational career would have stopped dead if it was not for the fact that my school allowed me to sit O-level exams set by boards that allowed a wider range of concessions than did the board whose exams the people at that school normally sat. The Scottish O-grades were considered because they provided a wide range of concessions. I ended up taking the Cambridge University local board instead. If exams are of a similar status and this can be done without crippling the institution with bureaucratic details, I would suggest that pupils should be allowed to take these different exams.
The problem of running two syllabuses is a great one, however. Although the old CSE exams were taught alongside O-levels they were often provided because the CSE generally put far more emphasis on work written during the terms and on compiling projects. I should like again to point out that anybody with writing difficulties would find that incredibly difficult, for the simple reason that one can find it difficult to fill a single sheet of paper. In the case of dyslexia it is more tiring and stressful to maintain a standard and it is very difficult to fill a number of sheets of paper. The same may apply to people with bad eyesight or an arm impairment. For such people it would be extremely difficult to pass continuous assessment papers. Therefore, I suggest that a different approach would cause problems. The GCSE, with its greater emphasis on course work, may well restrict people in future. Of course, that is another question but I hope that attention will be drawn to it at a later date.
Finally, if the teachers were thought to be doing the right thing by their pupils, they should have been allowed far more flexibility in so doing. I suggest that, even if the school did not feel that it could safely offer the exam, there should not have been an outcry against the pupils being taught privately outside school. I am sure, because I often sat my examinations in a room dictating to a typist, that an invigilator from an examination board could have been found.
Bearing that in mind and bearing in mind that I dislike the heavily date-orientated attitude that I have described, I suggest that the case of the teachers should be examined. I believe that we cannot afford to waste any teachers at all at this time, especially
1104
those who have proved themselves to be extremely committed to the interests of their pupils.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, sympathy has been expressed, and rightly expressed, for two admirable teachers who through no fault of their own have been deprived of an opportunity to exercise their professional skills. In addition, I have a little sympathy for one other person—the noble Lord on the Front Bench who will be replying for Her Majesty's Government because the record of the Department of Education and Science with regard to this long drawn out problem hardly bears examining. As my noble friend Lady Cox said, there are ample opportunities in our legislation for the department to inquire when something appears to be going wrong and it is difficult to think of anything which has gone more wrong, and more obviously wrong, in recent years.
I make a very strong appeal to the noble Lord on the Front Bench—and I realise that he is not in a position to give any assurances—to ask his right honourable friend to institute such an inquiry. I think that the implications of this case go to the very heart of the problems which his right honourable friend faces in the reform of our education system.
These reforms depend fundamentally on the co-operation of the teaching profession, the local authorities and, under our new legislation, quite considerably on the boards of governors of individual schools. In this case those responsibilities have been interpreted in a very curious or negative way. I hasten to add that this is not a party matter. The political control of the East Sussex County Council has changed during the course of these events. When they began, the county council was run by a combination of the Labour Party and the then Alliance. At the last election it reverted to Conservative control. But as far as I can see no difference whatever was made. The councillors of my party were as supine in the hands of their bureaucratic officials as their predecessors—at any rate, most of them. Therefore, it is not a party matter.
This relates to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It is a perfectly genuine and acceptable difference of view about what should go into an history syllabus, the way in which it is most properly examined, the relationship it should have to other parts of a school syllabus, and so on. These are matters which certainly deserve public ventilation. No one would believe that we have reached finality, if indeed finality on such a matter is ever within our reach. However, what seems to have happened in this case is that the school governors took so decided a line in favour of what we might call the progressive, the modern or the empathic form of history teaching that they refused to consider the arguments put forward by the teachers in question.
Therefore, regrettably, one has to look at that board of governors. Boards of governors are, broadly speaking and as noble Lords know, composite bodies. The local authority nominates some governors. Parents—this is given particular focus by the new Education Reform Act—elect governors and

1105
others are co-opted. Of the four governors nominated by the council, none is a Conservative. I believe that it is not unusual for majorities to nominate governors of their own persuasion and, given the fact that political nominees do not have a majority, perhaps it is not important, though it is something that might be looked at.
More important is the fact—the Department of Education and Science was informed about this—that there was some doubt about the handling of the election of parent governors. In a relatively small community like the town of Lewes, I have no doubt that there are a number of occupations and professions among the parents of the local school. However, when one looks at the list of parent governors and of those whom the parent governors and the local council governors co-opted, you do not find a butcher, baker or candlestick maker. With hardly an exception—I believe one is a trade union official, not in the educational world—almost all the others are directly connected with either the University of Sussex or the Brighton Polytechnic. They are all persons professionally engaged either directly in education or are officials of bodies concerned with advancing certain educational theories and practices. That is not at all what was in the mind of the Secretary of State when that role was given to parents. They cannot in any way be considered representative of parents. It would be very peculiar if the majority of parents in any area covered by a school were drawn from so narrow an element.
One's view on this is fortified by the fact that, as we know, a great many parents of the children concerned in the choice of history syllabuses were so eager to follow a different course that they went to the length of meeting the teachers outside school premises and arranging for alternative accommodation. They may not have been professional educators, but the parents who took that amount of trouble to ensure that their children had the best teaching available locally were certainly caring parents. It seems that it is only if one appreciates that these teachers were up against a body of governors who were, if you like, as committed to the alternative view of history teaching as these two teachers were committed to a more traditional view—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am merely seeking information. I realise my ignorance regarding the whole matter. I live fairly close to Lewes and perhaps closer than many noble Lords who are speaking this afternoon. I have lived in that area for many years. I am president of the Battle and Bexhill Labour Party, which is not the strongest in Europe. I am astounded that this governing body can be presented as some kind of Left-wing racket.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am sorry, but to live 15 or so miles from a town does not normally lead one to have in the forefront of one's mind the names and occupations of school governors in that town. I did not know them myself until I did a little work for the Secretary of State preceding his own
1106
investigation. I was perplexed that any body of men and women could take the line that they did in persecuting these teachers. I have no doubt that the noble Earl figures prominently in the Labour Party for his area. But I began by pointing out that this is not a party issue. Apart from the original choice of the four governors to which the political parties are entitled, as far as I know the parties have played no part in this dispute at all. It is matter within the education profession.
If we are to come to an agreement concerning the changes in the syllabus (and there are other contentious subjects besides history), it is very important that we get the benefit of whatever reasoned expressions of opinion that may come from the teachers primarily concerned. We are much indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for the chance to ventilate this story. As she pointed out, not only have these teachers produced an alternative proposal for a syllabus which has received cross-party support among noble Lords and professional historians not yet ennobled, but it has been forwarded by the Secretary of State to the group that is now working on the national curriculum in history.
Anyone who has studied the views of the Secretary of State on the subject of history, which are not unlike my own—that is not surprising since we were taught by the same schoolmaster—will realise that they are to some extent likely to be similar.
It seems that two teachers whose work has been considered sufficiently important to merit the attention of the National Curriculum Committee have at the same time been excluded by a combination of over-active governors, bureaucratic officials and, alas, indifferent elected representatives from pursuing a career in which they had achieved distinction and in which, if they were given a further opportunity, they would no doubt: achieve still further distinction.
I remind your Lordships that it is riot merely that they cannot be employed in Lewes; because the local authority has refused to back them, they cannot be employed by other local education authorities. A teacher moving from one authority to another is bound to be looked at askance if he does not bring with him the support of the authority for which he originally taught.
It is a scandal which demands clearing up lest there be a renewal of such actions. I should like to say to the noble Lord on the Front Bench that it is something for which the Government willl get no credit if they try to bury it.
4 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in speaking from the Opposition Front Bench on this, perhaps I too may emphasise that this is not a party matter and that I do not intend to make any party points. To use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, we are discussing here a genuine and acceptable difference of view. I am on the other side of the debate. I do not think that these teachers are correct in their view of history; but I disagree with many people on many different matters, including my own subject. I

1107
certainly do not think that it then follows that they should lose their jobs because of that.
I am with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in being unhappy about the traditional view of history. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the French Revolution. It is an interesting idea that there are still young people who seem to think that on 14th July 1789 people went around saying, "Today is the opening day of the French Revolution". When I was at school that is how history seemed to have been taught. If the traditional view is that extreme, it will not do. I always head naturally for the middle of the road, and so I do not take the other extreme. I look askance at people who do not seem to know important dates or have no idea of what happened. Clearly, we need some balance in history.
I feel that the GCSE will take us in the right direction because, within the GCSE, we shall have a range of syllabuses. If teachers are allowed to play their proper part, their professionalism will dominate what happens and there will still be room for differences of view on history courses. In saying that these teachers have been abominably badly treated, I do not want to get involved beyond that in any view of the nature of history or history teaching. Perhaps we shall have a chance to debate that subject in your Lordships' House. We shall enjoy such a debate enormously.
I should like to mention two technical matters which concern me. As I understand it, under Section 5 of the Education Reform Act, which I think will come into operation in the coming academic year, no school will be able to pursue a course of study for an external qualification unless the Secretary of State approves. I did not know that the Secretary of State has approved Scottish O-grade. If he has, it is news to me. I should like confirmation of that point.
In looking not just at this case but to the future, what concerns us is the nature of the school and the role of teachers in the school. We all see the school as a community, and we all want it to be a cohesive and pleasant place. Nonetheless, within that, it must be possible for teachers to take differing views. If teachers find themselves professionally at odds with colleagues, I cannot believe that any of us would want them to be prevented from expressing their views. I know that all kinds of people can be a pain in the neck. During my career I have specialised in being like that myself. I can see that a headmaster or a headmistress would be upset. However, it would be entirely wrong to argue that teachers should be prevented from speaking their minds even to the point of disturbing the parents.
I emphasise that point today because we are moving towards the local management of schools. Within the local management of schools we shall see much more dominance by the governing body and the head teacher. Most of us favour that, albeit in different ways. If that were to lead to the excessive subordination, or even subjugation, of teachers, it would worry all noble Lords who felt that they should support the Government on the matter when the Education Reform Act was passed. That is why I am concerned about the matter.
1108
We are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing the debate and giving us some of the relevant details. She used the words "insubordination", "mutiny", "troublemakers" and "confrontational situation". So what? Have we reached the stage where teachers will be attacked for speaking up, even to the point of boredom? It is a nuisance. I imagine that it is possible that those two teachers were a nuisance; but I cannot believe that they, or anyone else, would deserve the consequences.
What worries me further—I look to see whether the noble Lord who is to reply can say any more on this point—is that in a curious way the local authority did not seem to have the courage to face up to the issue and say, "We are going to discipline you. We shall take you through the whole set of procedures". Without suggesting that it looks like a conspiracy, one must smell a rat. I think that is what the noble Baroness was guiding us towards. Can one believe that those two teachers were not qualified to continue as history teachers in East Sussex? Are we being asked to believe that East Sussex is so full of superlative history teachers that those two are somehow unemployable?
I have lost the precise detail, but I gather that one of the teachers has been asked to retrain as a primary school teacher. I hold primary schools in high regard. One always wonders why one's children, who were so lovely in primary school, turn out to be so awful in secondary school. That is another matter; but, nevertheless, one does not regard the two stages of education as academically the same. I hesitate to make the point, but it is as if the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, or I were asked suddenly to downgrade the level of our teaching. The shock that would occur to this country's education system if that were even suggested would be such that we of course know that it would never be done. Joking aside, it will not do.
What therefore is to happen? We have these people. Prima facie they have been subject to injustice. There is also the waste of assets. The Secretary of State cannot merely wash his hands of the matter—I do not make the point, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, did, for the sake of the Conservative Party; I make the point for the sake of this country's education system.
It is possible for the Secretary of State to mount an inquiry. The least he should do is to use his good offices to open up this matter—we have had the benefit of the debate—and come back via whoever speaks for him in the House and say to your Lordships, "I have looked into this matter in detail. I have used my good offices. The following will happen".
I need not say more on the subject, because we are all agreed and worried. I am worried. I have scanned the press, as has the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for the overwhelming case on the other side, which is what I am waiting to hear. It may be that the noble Lord will give us the overwhelming case for the other side. If he cannot, then for the sake of justice, not for the sake of what history we should teach, the Secretary of State must do something.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I begin by saying what I shall not be talking about this afternoon. I do not intend to go down the GCSE/GCE controversy. As my noble friend Lady Young said, this is not the time or the place to discuss that matter in detail; I shall mention it only briefly. Nor shall I discuss the general controversy about the teaching of history. Nor do I intend to follow some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Beloff about the governing body of the school which he appeared to believe was a nest of Leftists. As he knows, under the 1986 Act a number are elected by the parents and it is up to the parents to decide who to elect. My noble friend Lady Cox—
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the Minister give way? Did the department inquire into the circumstances of the last election of parent governors? It was then strongly stated that some nominations were ruled out because they came in late while others were not? I know that that information was conveyed to the Department of Education and Science and it casts a different light on the freedom of election by parents.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware that the department has looked into the matter but later in my speech I shall deal with departmental investigations. I shall inform my noble friend whether that is the case.
My noble friend Lady Cox asks whether the best use is being made of two history teachers employed by East Sussex County Council and whether they have been treated badly by their employers. We need to be clear about the relative responsibilities of the Government and the local education authority in this matter. The staffing of maintained schools is a matter for local education authorities and schools. It is for them to decide the number of teachers to employ and their deployment taking into account local needs and priorities and the resources available to them. The Government are not involved in these decisions. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on them.
My noble friend Lady Cox asked whether an inquiry should be instituted under Section 68 of the 1944 Act. My understanding is that the Secretary of State has already investigated one complaint from Mr. McGovern under Section 68. Mr. McGovern's complaint related to the actions of the LEA and the governors with respect to the teaching of GCSE history at the school. The Secretary of State found no evidence to show that the governors or the LEA had acted unreasonably.
The Secretary of State has not been asked to investigate any matter in relation to the teachers' employment but it is open to anyone to ask him to do so. He may intervene only if he is satisfied that the local education authority or the governing body has acted unreasonably. My right honourable friend would need evidence from both sides in any dispute before reaching a decision. Any noble Lord or the teachers concerned are welcome to write to my right honourable friend and ask that an inquiry be instituted.
1110
It may be useful if I set out how matters stand in general. First, I should like to sketch out the background on the present division of responsibilities between teachers, heads, governing bodies and LEAs about how subjects should be taught in our schools. Under the teachers' pay and conditions document an individual teacher is required to work,
"under the reasonable direction of the head teacher of that school"
and to carry out his teaching duties,
"having regard to the curriculum of the school".
The head in turn is required to carry out his professional duties in accordance with the provisions of the Education Acts and, to the extent to which they are not inconsistent with these provisions, with the articles of government of the school and with any,
"rules, regulations and policies laid down by his employers".
Turning to this particular case, I am informed that, after careful consideration of the overall curriculum policy for the school in consultation with teachers, the governors of Lewes Priory School decided that the GCSE provided the appropriate framework for the delivery of that policy. The governors issued a set of guidelines on this subject and the head ruled that there would be no preparation for GCE examinations within the school's curriculum. The history teachers concerned were unwilling to work under the direction of the head teacher in this matter and canvassed parents and the press for support.
The Government's view on this matter of general policy is that the GCSE should be the main form of assessment for pupils at age 16. Pupils all over the country have recently completed papers and course work in what is the second round of this new examination. There are certainly still improvements to be made. But the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate on the 1988 examinations judges the GCSE to be an overall success. The inspectorate reported that it had produced:
"significant improvements in the quality of teaching and learning in years 4 and 5 in secondary schools".
On the matter of choice for schools, the Government believe that there should be on offer a sufficient, but not excessive, choice of quality syllabuses. The choice and variety of GCSE syllabuses, including history syllabuses, is fully sufficient—there are over 40 history syllabuses on offer at present. This facilitates healthy competition and a range of alternative approaches to teaching and learning.
The Government would certainly not assert that no improvements can be made to existing GCSE history syllabuses. But it is entirely open to those in history teaching in our schools to carry forward this debate and, in conjunction with the GCSE examining groups, to develop better syllabuses. Indeed, a group of our most distinguished historians recently published a draft GCSE history syllabus. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has followed their work with interest.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as the Minister is reading his brief, I do not know whether he is aware that it

1111
was the two Lewes teachers who drafted the syllabus. The academic historians the Minister referred to merely gave it their approval.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that correction. I was not aware of that, but I shall certainly make sure the department is aware of it. I shall continue.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I should point out to my noble friend that I made that point in my speech. Perhaps he might have listened and taken the point on board and made note of it when he was thinking about his reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. If I may continue, mention has been made of the Scottish examinations. The Government are fully persuaded of the high quality of Scottish examination syllabuses in general, and of their suitability as preparation for entry into higher education. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science therefore intends that qualifications certified by the Scottish Examination Board should be approved for use in maintained schools in England until at least 1991. It is, however, within the framework of the overall curriculum policy, for governors and head teachers in individual schools to decide whether it would be appropriate to offer Scottish qualifications.
Like all other syllabuses, those offered by the Scottish Examination Board will, in the case of national curriculum foundation subjects, need in due course to comply with national curriculum requirements in order to secure continued approval for use in maintained schools in England. Syllabuses will need to take account of the statutory attainment targets and programmes of study for the subject concerned. In the case of history, these have yet to be announced.
The circumstances of the case raised today arise from reorganisation in East Sussex. Let me sketch out in general the position of individual teachers who may be affected by schemes of reorganisation. If, as is usually the case, a teacher has an authority-wide contract—that is, his place of work is deemed to be the LEA rather than a particular school or college—the authority will have a responsibility to look for alternative comparable employment elsewhere in the authority. Only if the LEA cannot offer such employment, or an offer of employment is unreasonably refused, could an individual properly be made redundant. But this rarely, if ever, happens; in practice teachers who lose their posts following a reorganisation generally move to other posts in the authority, secure employment elsewhere, or take premature retirement.
The teachers' pay and conditions document provides further safeguards as regards salary. If as a result of the closure or reorganisation of an educational establishment any teacher loses his post and is re-employed by the same authority in a new post, he is entitled to be paid a salary no lower than the one he had previously been receiving. And, if a teacher loses his post other than as a consequence of
1112
an approved scheme of reorganisation, the authority still has the discretion to safeguard the teacher's salary in this way. That is the position in general.
My noble friend asks about the redeployment of staff contained in the East Sussex LEA's education reorganisation plans. I understand that on 1st August 1986 the LEA published proposals under Section 12 of the 1980 Education Act to make a significant change in the character of the Priory School in Lewes. The effect of that change was to remove the school's sixth form from 31st August 1989. The proposal was related to the LEA's intention to establish a tertiary college on the site of the technical college to cater for all 16 to 19 year-olds in the Lewes area.
The authority's proposals were carefully considered by my right honourable friend, who decided to approve them on 12th March 1987. The LEA is now under a statutory duty to implement the proposals.
When East Sussex Local Education Authority consulted local people about the reorganisation, it had the following to say about staffing matters:
"Paramount in any reorganisation is the need to minimise the disruption to pupils' education. The essential element…is careful planning…changes in staff. [The proposed reorganization] would involve staff in having to choose the age-range which they wanted to teach … the staffing of the new structures would be handled with great care, in consultation with staff and their professional associations. New staffing structures will be devised with the aim of achieving the best match between staff expertise and organisational structure … Appropriate in-service arrangements will be made to support staff into and beyond the transitional stage".
I repeat that the Government are not involved in decisions about the use of individual members of staff. I understand that all teaching staff at the Priory School, including the two history teachers concerned, have been given the same consideration in the redeployment exercise and that the LEA has consulted the teacher unions.
One of the members of staff concerned, Dr. Freeman, was offered a post comparable to his existing post at the reorganised Priory School, but I understand that he turned this down and has resigned from the school with effect from August 1989.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am sorry to keep interrupting the Minister, but he seems to have been so badly briefed that it is only fair to do so. Is he aware that an arrangement was made by the local education authority with Dr. Freeman that he would be offered the post provided he immediately resigned it and did not take it up? It was not a question of taking a post and then deciding to resign.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was not aware of that. However, as I have stated, if the noble Lord or anyone else feels that there are matters which ought to be inquired into, they can raise them with the Secretary of State. It was my understanding that Dr. Freeman has agreed with the LEA that he should undertake a one-year programme of retraining in tourism and leisure in 1989–90.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I am just extremely ratty on a hot Friday afternoon, but this will not do. Noble Lords have raised this as a specific issue. To be fobbed off by being told that we can write to the Secretary of State is quite unacceptable. I have done my job: I have said what I want to happen. I want the noble Lord either to tell me what he will do or to tell me that he will go to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and tell him what I and other noble Lords have said he should do. We cannot go on with this briefing, which, with no disrespect to the noble Lord himself, I find most unattractive and quite unacceptable.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said. He will understand that I cannot grant him an inquiry now. My right honourable friend will obviously read the debate and take note of what noble Lords have said. If any noble Lord or anyone else wishes to take the matter further, they can write to my right honourable friend. If he considers it fit and proper he will then institute an inquiry. I cannot give that assurance myself.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I wonder whether under the circumstances my noble friend will consider this suggestion. Every noble Lord who has spoken this afternoon feels very strongly on the subject. I appreciate that my noble friend is not a Minister in the department concerned. However, we should like to have an undertaking from him that he
1114
will himself raise with the Secretary of State the concerns expressed this afternoon and indicate that it is the wish of everyone who took part in the debate that there should be an inquiry into this matter.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before my noble friend continues, perhaps he will allow me to add a further point. There appear to be considerable inconsistencies between the brief which he has presented to the House and the facts—which are there to be challenged—presented by noble Lords who have spoken. I think that there are sufficient inconsistencies for my noble friend at least to go back to the Secretary of State and say that, taken together, they are grounds for further investigation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was coming to the end of my speech, but I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Young. I certainly give the assurance that I shall personally bring the matter to the attention of my right honourable friend. I do not think that I can say anything more, but I give the assurance that I shall bring it to his attention. I reiterate that it is open to anyone to apply to my right honourable friend to institute an inquiry under Section 68 of the 1944 Act. I do not think that I can go further than that.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past four o'clock.

  AUTOGUIDE: AWARD OF OPERATING LICENCE
  AUTOGUIDE: AWARD OF OPERATING LICENCE
  PLUTONIUM EXPORTS TO US
  PLUTONIUM EXPORTS TO US
  USE OF "RIGHT HONOURABLE"
  USE OF "RIGHT HONOURABLE"