Sitting of 20 June 1989

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

  HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Operation Grocer recently carried out by employment service fraud investigation in East Anglia and Lincolnshire.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): This operation was one of two concentrated fraud investigations in East Anglia and Lincolnshire into possible cases of benefit fraud involving people working as crop pickers or in packing houses while claiming unemployment benefit. Claims to benefit in more than half of the 800 cases investigated were withdrawn, saving the taxpayer £400,000.
    Mr. Irvine: Does my hon. Friend agree that carefully targeted unemployment benefit fraud investigations such as Operation Grocer are particularly cost-effective? My hon. Friend has already given the House some figures but can he provide the full figures for 1988–89 of claims for unemployment benefit withdrawn following investigations by his Department and give some indication of the overall savings made?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Targeting these investigations carefully can produce substantial savings for the taxpayer while ensuring that those who are claiming public funds wrongly are prevented from doing so. The claims withdrawn in the year 1988–89 will be in the region of 869,000.
    Mr. Hardy: Whilst in no way defending any form of fraud does the Minister accept that if the Government put the same resources into and took the same interest in dealing with tax evasion and tax dodging of all types, the benefit to the country would be enormously greater than that which has followed Operation Grocer?
    Mr. Nicholls: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question belies the sentiments that he expressed in the first. This is a question about those who wrongfully claim other people's money. The hon. Gentleman is talking about people who wrongfully try to keep more of their own money. If he is interested in the comparative figures, I can tell him that the cost of investigating Department of Employment fraud in 1987–88 was £15·9 million. The cost of investigating Inland Revenue fraud, which includes individuals and companies, was about £42·4 million.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much long-term unemployment has fallen during the past year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ken Hargreaves: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which regions had the sharpest fall in long-term unemployment during the past year; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): In the year to April 1989 the number of people unemployed for 12 months or more fell by 28 per cent. Long-term unemployment has fallen even faster than total unemployment and is now at its lowest level for more than six years. Long-term unemployment has fallen in all regions. The biggest falls have been in East Anglia, the south-east and the west midlands.
    Mr. Wood: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which demonstrates that Government policies have meant that many more people are working and producing goods and services that people require than are involved in wasteful Government schemes such as those advocated two years ago by the Opposition. Can my right hon. Friend tell me more about the specifics in terms of particular age groups such as those between 18 and 24, those over 25 and those over 50 who have particular problems in employment?
    Mr. Fowler: There have been reductions in unemployment in all those age groups. Among 18 to 24-year-olds, long-term unemployment is now down by one third compared to a year ago and has more than halved over the past two years alone. Among the over-25s, long-term unemployment has fallen by a quarter over the past 12 months, and among those aged over 50 there has been a fall of almost 30 per cent. over the past two years.
    Dr. Reid: I welcome any fall in any form of unemployment. However, will the Minister recognise that the long-term unemployed in my constituency have been among the worst hit by the decision to close part-time benefit offices? May I bring to his attention Cleland and Newmains where there would be no additional cost to his Department if the offices were run since the local club in Cleland offered its premises free, I have offered my parliamentary premises free and the local community has even offered to pay the taxi fares to those offices for Department of Employment employees? Does he think that the closure is a totally unjustifiable imposition on those who are already suffering through long-term unemployment?
    Mr. Fowler: No, I do not think that. I shall certainly think about the hon. Gentleman's example and consider whether anything can be done. What he said at the

    131
    beginning of his question was right—that the whole House should welcome the fact that long-term unemployment, which must be regarded as the priority, is falling quickly, and more quickly than unemployment generally.
    Mr. Conway: I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend's comments about long-term unemployment. Will he debunk the myth put about by Opposition Members that the fall in long-term unemployment has resulted from people taking part-time jobs? Has not about 85 per cent. of the growth in employment been in full-time employment, in contradiction to the myth propagated by the Opposition?
    Mr. Fowler: During the past 12 months there has been a large increase in full-time employment. However, I do not in any way devalue part-time employment, which many people want. As a purely factual statement, I confirm that full-time employment has increased by more than 80 per cent. during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Corbett: As the Government have helped to create record unemployment, with the closure of one factory in five in Birmingham, the west midlands and the remainder of the country, can the Secretary of State tell us when unemployment will come down to the level that he inherited in 1979?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman needs to study the comparisons between Britain and the other western European countries, in all of which the unemployment rate rose in 1979 and in the early 1980s. The significant factor in what is happening in this country, especially in the west midlands, is that unemployment is falling faster than it is in any other western European country.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just the fall in long-term unemployment, but the massive rise in employment generally that is very beneficial to citizens of all ages? Is he aware that Lancaster is rapidly running out of industrial land because of the great pressure from businesses wishing to start up? Will he ask his colleagues to assist him in reclaiming what remains of derelict land so that it can be used for industry?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly consider any proposals put to me by my hon. Friend because I agree with the thrust of her question. She is right to suggest that the figures show that this country's record in creating new jobs is better than that of any other country in western Europe.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not true that the Chancellor's only weapon to fight inflation—pushing up interest rates—is deliberately designed to squeeze activity in the economy, which will reduce the number of jobs and therefore increase unemployment? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to say what he expects the unemployment figure to be in 12 months' time? Is he aware that most people suspect that there will be an increase in unemployment and that the figures that he cheerfully announced this afternoon will look very different in 12 months?
    Mr. Fowler: I will not make such an estimate, and I never have done. At the general election in 1987 the Labour party, in its wildest dreams, said that it would reduce unemployment by 1 million in two years. This Government have reduced unemployment by more than 1
    132
    million and there are still more than 600,000 vacancies. There is no reason why unemployment should not continue to fall. The hon. Gentleman cannot bear to hear the good news about unemployment.

    Single Market
    Mr. Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research has been commissioned by his Department into the impact of the single market in the north-east.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): Our department has not commissioned research exactly as described in the hon. Gentleman's question. The impact on particular sectors and regions will depend on how successfully individual firms respond.
    Mr. Clelland: Should not the Department have conducted such research, given that during the past 10 years of Conservative Government manufacturing industry in the north-east has been reduced massively, with the resultant loss of skills that the Government are doing little or nothing to replace? How can the region be expected to compete on anything like equal terms when more and more people are being employed in service industries and fewer and fewer in making goods to sell outside the region and the country?
    Mr. Cope: I noticed the report produced by the Northern Development Company the other day which stated that it had just had its most successful year ever in increasing jobs in the north-east and in investment. That is why business confidence in the north-east is now at its highest level for many years, as another recent survey showed.
    Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the projected employment increase for the third quarter of 1989? According to that, the north-east is second only to East Anglia in the projected rate of growth in jobs.
    Mr. Cope: The north-east is extremely well placed in the country as a whole and for 1992 and the single market. Unemployment in that area has been falling fast.

    Secondary Picketing
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to legalise secondary picketing; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: The Employment Act 1980 removed immunity from all secondary picketing, that is picketing away from a picket's own place of work. I have no intention of changing this legislation.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the possibility of any restoration to the trade unions of the potential of secondary action or secondary picketing would be disastrous for industrial relations, for British competitiveness, British jobs and British exports? Does not the fact that the Labour party is making such proposals demonstrate that it has learnt absolutely nothing during the past 10 years?
    Mr. Fowler: That is entirely right. Only the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and his Labour colleagues want to see a return to the flying picket. The

    133
    public regard that as creating indefensible hardship and we are very happy to debate the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West on that.
    Mr. Heffer: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent pamphlet on industrial relations issued by the Incorporated Catholic Truth Society which states that secondary picketing is a legitimate action on the part of workers to defend themselves from employers who are taking their rights away? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at that pamphlet? If he does, he might learn something and discover that it is not just members of the Labour party who feel strongly about the rights of workers in industry.
    Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly look at that pamphlet. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will equally consider what a former Labour Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, said about secondary picketing in 1979. He said that he thought that it was entirely wrong that indefensible hardship could be imposed on innocent people. I believe that the great majority of the British public share that view.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way forward for industrial relations in the future to build on the steady improvements of the past 10 years is to encourage collaborative attitudes in industry and in particular, no-strike agreements? Does he further agree that to go back to the 1970s with secondary picketing and intimidation, as the Labour party suggests, would be a betrayal of ordinary working people who would not forgive any party which sought to do that?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. That would also destroy jobs in this country. The bad industrial relations of the 1970s caused job after job to be exported overseas. That is what the Labour party promises if it is ever returned to office.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the International Labour Organisation convention specifically includes a right to sympathetic action and that Britain, under the Thatcherite Government, is the only EC country which now legally bans secondary action? Having distinguished herself in a minority of one over the social charter, will the Prime Minister marginalise herself still further at the Madrid summit in a minority of one over the right to industrial action? When will the Government learn that industrial disputes will not be stopped by ever more repressive legislation or by trying to legalistically to ban the right to strike?
    Mr. Fowler: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he wants to remove the protection from the public. What he is about is putting the unions above the law. When the hon. Gentleman was interviewed in The Guardian he was not arguing for the right to strike; he said that secondary picketing would also be sanctioned by his proposals. That is the situation and it is about time that he came clean on that.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will report on what steps the Government are taking to help small firms; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cope: There is a wide range of schemes to help small firms gain access to advice, finance and training, and to help those who want to start their own businesses. Those include the small firms service, the loan guarantee scheme, the business expansion scheme, the enterprise allowance scheme and business growth training, launched in April to help small businesses improve their competitiveness and profits through training.
    Mr. Harris: As about 1,300 small businesses are set up each week, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an area of considerable success for the Government? However, what help is being made available to those small firms to improve their performance, profitability and skills training under the business growth training scheme announced by his Department in April this year?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, there is tremendous growth in the small firms sector which reflects the growth in enterprise in the economy generally. Business growth training consists of five broad options to help small businesses improve their competitiveness, starting with small companies, open learning kits, and so on, and working up to seminars and consultancy projects at the higher levels.
    Mr. Cryer: What effect does the current high level of interest rates have on small firms? Will the rate of bankruptcies among small firms, which has reached an all-time record under the Government, be likely to increase or decrease? Lastly, how many of the 2 million jobs that have been lost in manufacturing industry since the Thatcher Government were elected in 1979 have been in small firms?
    Mr. Cope: The proportion of small firms in manufacturing is smaller than in the economy generally, but I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question precisely without notice. It is sometimes difficult for large as well as small firms to deal with high interest rates, but many business men realise that they are essential to deal with inflation.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the establishment and growth of small firms often has its roots in self-employment? I believe that the number of self-employed in Britain has grown by 1 million over the past few years, but Italy, with roughly the same population, has 6 million self-employed people. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the help given to small businesses is also given to that seedcorn—the self-employed?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, it is. Since 1979 the number of self-employed has increased by rather more than 1 million, but, in making international comparisons, one must bear in mind that the definitions are not always the same and to some extent the higher figures reflect the different tax and social security structures in other countries.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister agree that a number of job opportunities in rural areas have been lost because small firms do not have proper access to training? Does he further agree that in rural areas the Government are already finding it difficult to find people to serve on the training and enterprise councils because people are far better off running their businesses and do not want to he bothered about joining such bodies? Is it not time that the Government took their responsibilities seriously and gave

    135
    the proper resources to training colleges and other educational establishments in order to provide decent training for jobs in rural areas?
    Mr. Cope: As the hon. Gentleman will find out in a few days' time when we announce the first training and enterprise councils there is no shortage of good people who are only to anxious to contribute to the nation's training effort in that way.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the development of the small firms sector has been remarkable since the bleak days when the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was the Minister responsible for small firms and when they were dying like flies? However, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that high interest rates are beginning to hurt the small firms sector very much and that they will be even more damaging if they go any higher? Will he please ram that point home in his discussions with Treasury Ministers?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, I will. I shall also reflect on the fact that responsibility for small firms has been held by distinguished right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.

    Industrial Training Boards
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage employers to participate in the industrial training boards when these boards no longer raise a statutory levy.
    Mr. Nicholls: I have asked the chairman of each ITB to bring forward proposals for future arrangements that command the support of employers in the industry.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Minister satisfied that employers will respond to the voluntary levy? Does he realise that many will rely on other firms to pay the levy and then poach their apprentices, as I remember the Central Electricity Generating Board doing in respect of British Coal employees in the 1960s?
    Mr. Nicholls: While I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, the evidence is to the contrary, because many non-statutory training organisations have the active support of employers. Over the past couple of years, employers in a number of industries that did not have statutory arrangements before banded together to organise training.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to suggest a uniform training levy regardless of the size or needs of the individual company?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right to harken to a theme of the White Paper "Employment in the 1990s", in which we made the point that the formalised structure of an industrial training board complete with a levy-raising power does not deliver the goods. That is why we made the proposals we did in the White Paper.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: How does the Minister seriously square his assertion that everything in the training garden will be lovely under the voluntary system with the comments of the Federation of Master Builders—hardly a Labour organisation—that the power of ITBs to collect a levy would not have been given at the time that it was had the voluntary system met national training requirements?
    136
    If he thinks that that proposition is out of date, how does he square his belief with his own Manpower Services Commission's research showing that 79 per cent. of employers would not contribute more financial resources voluntarily if asked to do so?
    Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman were entirely right in his observations there would be no cause for increasing the number of skilled personnel within the construction industry, because there would be a full complement of trained people willing and available. Clearly that is not the case. We made the point in the White Paper that special circumstances may apply in respect of the construction and engineering industry training boards. Proposals for all ITBs are being received from employers who wish to make particular points, and they will be borne in mind.

    Unions (Funds)
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to prevent employers from using the remedy of sequestration of funds against trade unions who refuse to obey court orders; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholls: No, Sir. The remedies available to the court in cases involving contempt are a matter for court procedures and rules, not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Mr. Carrington: I am greatly relieved at my hon. Friend's answer. Does he agree that sequestration is frequently the only sanction that the courts have to ensure that trade unions obey the law— [Interruption.]—and that any proposal from another political party to abolish sequestration would be a recipe for industrial anarchy? Far from abolishing it, we should consider expanding sequestration to cover the highly organised, so-called unofficial strikes that affected London's transport so badly over the past few months.
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right in his comments about sequestration—and proof of that was the degree of sedentary heckling to which he was subjected when he made mention of it. Sequestration is not a new, Tory remedy—which is how the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) frequently attempts to portray it. It is a remedy that goes back as far as the ecclesiastical courts, as a way of enforcing particular court orders. If they could, the Labour party would ensure that that remedy would be left available for all classes of action except those against trade unions for breaking the law. They are in the business of restoring the power of the trade unions to kick the hell out of the public, and obviously my hon. Friend disapproves of that.
    Mr. Leighton: Is not the Government's rhetoric about handing the unions back to their members completely misleading, because the draconian step of sequestering union funds has the effect of taking a union away from its members? Is it not the case that British workers have fewer rights than those of any other western industrial nation? Unions find it completely impossible to have lawful disputes, and that is why there is a rash of unofficial action.
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. It is not impossible to engage in a lawful dispute: recent events back that up to the hilt. The proposition is perfectly

    137
    simple. It is that trade unions should not be above the law but should be subject to it as the rest of us are, and, if they disobey it, subject to the same penalties. The hon. Gentleman's policy—to allow the right of sequestration to be used against anyone except trade unions that break the law—clearly appeals to the hon. Gentleman and his friends, but it does not appeal to the public.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Trade unions should indeed obey the law. Can my hon. Friend think of any reason other than party financial gain for the Labour party to wish to place them above the law?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Labour party tries to present itself as a new, squeaky-clean, moderate party, but it is a creature of the trade union movement and is funded by it.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which local authorities have refused to co-operate with employment training; and what was the date on which his Department received notification in each case.
    Mr. Nicholls: A comprehensive record is not held centrally of local authorities which have decided not to participate in employment training.
    Mr. McKay: As the Minister knows, the Conservative-controlled Barnet and Merton authorities have refused to take part in the employment training scheme. Is that not further evidence that the scheme was ill-thought-out and ill-funded from its inception?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am deeply shocked that the hon. Gentleman should launch an attack on his own Labour-controlled local authority. Barnsley metropolitan borough council is Labour-controlled, a training manager and a member of the main consortium training agency. Moreover, the Barnsley trades council is a training manager as well, in its own right. All the trade unions that were apparently against employment training, including the Transport and General Workers Union, are serving on the trades councils. The decision of two Conservative-controlled authorities not to join the programme, whatever their reasons, is a matter for them. The hon. Gentleman should rejoice at the fact that his Labour-controlled authorities do not see it that way.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware of the valuable contribution made by employment trainees to daycare centres for the elderly and handicapped in and around my constituency? Is he also aware of the insecurity that faces those centres—and the trainees—as a result of the spiteful action of the Labour-controlled Wolverhampton council in withdrawing 400 ET places provided by the Government with £700,000?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right to deplore the spiteful attitude of certain Labour-controlled authorities. If, however, she hears the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) inveighing against employment training, she can take some comfort from the fact that his feelings are not shared by his local authority: Oldham borough council is a training manager under employment training.
    Mr. Meacher: It is not the Labour authorities or the trade unions that are refusing to co-operate with ET. Is the Minister not aware that only 13 major companies have signed up nationally, and that only two have filled more than half the contracted number of places? Does he know that, according to the Government's own figures, Habitat has filled none of its 200 places, Mothercare has filled none of its 50 and Remploy has filled none of its 456? Worst of all, only 41 per cent. of the Government's national target number of places have been filled. With a record like that in meeting targets, will the Secretary of State be applying for the Chancellorship in the coming reshuffle?
    Mr. Nicholls: Two points need to be made. First, as always, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. It is difficult to know whether he is wrong because he really does not understand or because he chooses not to. Secondly, if accurate, his scenario is extremely bad news for the unemployed. When faced with giving such an account—wrong though it is—all that the hon. Gentleman can do about the plight of the unemployed is to giggle his way through it.
    If the hon. Gentleman really wants to know the position, let me tell him what he knows well enough: in addition to the companies that are part of the large companies unit, a whole range of companies are providing placements instead of being training managers in their own right. The hon. Gentleman makes no mention of that. He has also failed to remind us that the programme is still building up, and that other companies will be joining the LCU shortly. As always, what he cannot stand is good news, even when it comes from his own constituency.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that in Harrow the employment training schemes are regarded as so successful that the problem is not that advanced by the Opposition but the fact that uncertainty is being caused because they do not yet know whether they have a contract for next year, or what the budget will be? Will my hon. Friend confirm that they will be dealt with as soon as possible so that the excellent work of employment training can continue?
    Mr. Nicholls: Obviously the contracting and recontracting programme has to be done as speedily as possible. However, my hon. Friend is right to make the point that this is an outstandingly successful programme. It is far more successful than any other Government training programme has been and it has given real hope to the unemployed—a great deal more hope than the sour words and diatribes that we hear from the Opposition.

    Restart (Redundant Mineworkers)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now bring forward proposals to amend the restart scheme in respect of redundant mineworkers; and if he will make a statement on the progress of his discussions on this matter.
    Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a draft statutory instrument before the House to modify the terms of the redundant mineworkers payment scheme.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is No. 43 on the remaining Orders of the Day. With all the Cabinet reshuffles that are being suggested, I want to make sure that the Department of the Employment Minister gives a commitment that the order

    139
    will be brought before the House during the next 14 sitting days, to stop the harassment that is going on at Department of Employment and Department of Social Security offices. Will he also guarantee that when the amended regulations are brought forward they will include retrospective payment of up to £1,000, for miners who have lost that kind of money during this year-long battle?
    Mr. Cope: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the order, he will find that it contains a provision for retrospective payment. I think he will find that it is in article 3(d). The order is subject to affirmative resolution, so it will certainly come before the House. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity at that stage. There has been no harassment of which I am aware, but if any hon. Member wishes to raise individual cases with me he can do so.
    Mr. Dickens: Despite the carping by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), does my right hon. Friend agree that VAT returns prove conclusively that in every week of the year something like 900 new businesses are started in the United Kingdom? Does that not show— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring, presumably, to redundant miners' new businesses?
    Mr. Dickens: Of course. Many of the beneficiaries of these new businesses are miners. Does that not show that the spirit of enterprise is now growing throughout the United Kingdom, and will it not be reflected in the results at the next general election?
    Mr. Cope: I am sure that it will be. I am also well aware that many redundant mineworkers have taken advantage of the Government's various schemes in order to start small businesses.
    Mr. Eadie: We certainly welcome the last point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the order that is to come before the House of Commons—that he intends to implement the promise that he made to the miners' parliamentary group that there would be retrospective legislation. Are we also to take it from what the right hon. Gentleman said that if we know of any cases of harassment of miners—I have evidence that some harassment is taking place in the midlands and the north-east—we shall be able to present those cases to him and he will look into them?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, that is what I have said this afternoon, and it is also what I have said in the past about such cases. So far, they have not been raised with me, but if there are any cases I shall look into them. The hon. Gentleman knows, from when he came to see me with his group, that we take this matter seriously.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of fall in unemployment in the United Kingdom and in other comparable European countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: Over the past two years the rate of unemployment has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major industrialised country. The rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom is now 2½
    140
    percentage points below the European Community average and below that of France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Ireland and Greece.
    Mr. Hayward: I welcome the figures that my right hon. Friend has given, which clearly demonstrate that future prospects for the unemployed in Britain are better than in most of the rest of Europe. Will my right hon. Friend welcome the enormous order that has been announced today by Rolls-Royce from TWA? It shows that British companies can compete successfully on the world market and guarantee long-term prospects for jobs in high-technology industries.
    Mr. Fowler: I have just seen the news of that order. I am sure that the whole House will want to congratulate Rolls-Royce. It is yet further evidence of the success and capability of the British aerospace industry, and is extremely good news for jobs.
    Mr. Fearn: The Secretary of State has just mentioned figures showing the fall in unemployment. Can he say what part tourism is playing in that fall?
    Mr. Fowler: Tourism is one of the major employment growth sectors in the economy. About 1½ million people are employed in the tourist and leisure industry, which is clearly one of the most important industries in Britain.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every week unemployment levels continue to drop at an ever-increasing rate in the west midlands? We noticed that during the European elections unemployment was not mentioned once by the opposition parties. They can no longer capitalise on it because of our success with it.
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The rate of unemployment has fallen faster in the west midlands than in any other part of the country. There are more people now in work in Britain than ever before in our history. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.

    Trades Union Congress
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss employment issues.
    Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress on 15 June.
    Mr. Strang: After the rout of the Conservative party in the Euro-elections, is it not clear that the TUC and the vast majority of British people want the Government to abandon their opposition to the European social charter? Will the Prime Minister be the only one of the 12 in Madrid to stand out against a measure aimed at improving standards for employees and pensioners throughout the Community?
    Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend will continue to do what she has always done on behalf of Britain—to fight our corner within the European Community. If the hon. Gentleman takes comfort from the result of the European elections, we look forward to seeing whether the smile is on the other side of his face after the next general election.

    Ports
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the future of scheme ports once the dock labour scheme is abolished; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: The decision to abolish the dock labour scheme has been widely welcomed.
    The Confederation of British Industries, chambers of commerce, and associations representing warehousing and freight transport have all welcomed the ending of the scheme's restrictions and believe that this will result not only in a more competitive ports industry but in more business investment and jobs in scheme port areas.
    Mrs. Gorman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that despite the £770 million subsidy, the scheme ports already charge 40 per cent. more than the non-scheme ports—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—and that in order to become competitive with the non-scheme ports and with Rotterdam there has to be agreement between the local employers and the dockers on the way forward—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] People in my constituency who work at the Tilbury docks will be very glad when the Government's new measures are in force.
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. The business and trade of non-scheme ports has continued to increase over the past 10 or 20 years, and so has employment. I believe that the end of the dock labour scheme will mean that the scheme ports will be able to share in the benefits of the industry.
    Mr. Tony Banks: As the Government are very much in the pay of the port employers, what sort of contribution does the Secretary of State expect the employers to make to Tory party funds next year?
    Mr. Fowler: From the ending of the dock labour scheme, we expect a contribution to scheme port areas, which will mean more jobs, and that will mean better prospects for all in those areas and all ports around the country.

    Enterprise Allowance
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on developments in the enterprise allowance scheme.
    Mr. Cope: Over 440,000 unemployed people have been helped to start their own businesses under the enterprise allowance scheme since it began in 1982. We have provided for 90,000 places this year and about 85,000 people are currently in receipt of the allowance.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those figures are extremely welcome, particularly as 9,000 people in Chelmsford have joined the scheme? As 57 per cent. of the businesses involved have lasted for more than three years, does he agree that it is an excellent method of job creation? Will he calculate how much it costs the taxpayer to provide that number of new jobs?
    Mr. Cope: The net cost per person off the unemployed register is about £1,846, but we are not talking only about people who actually create the businesses; there are also
    142
    the people whom they employ. For every 100 people who complete the enterprise allowance scheme there are 139 people working two years later.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.
    The Prime Minister: (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way of improving the environment is through increased prosperity? Will she therefore press on with her highly successful policies of the past decade to ensure that this prosperity allows us to continue to meet the aspirations of all our people?
    The Prime Minister: It is because the Government have created the conditions for a record standard of living that we have been able to spend so much on improving the environment, so much on improving the quality of water—about £1·2 billion this year—and a great deal on improving river cleanliness so that we have the first-equal record of anyone in Europe, far better than any previous Government. Of course, we are spending nearly £2 billion to ensure compliance with the acid rain directive. Altogether, by ensuring prosperity, we have been able to contribute the maximum amount to the environment.
    Mr. Hattersley rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.
    Mr. Hattersley: Last week—last Monday to be exact—the Secretary of State for Social Security explicity rejected the idea that the state pension should provide a "comfortable standard of living". Is that Government policy?
    The Prime Minister: The basic state pension has always been a basic state pension—never anticipated to create for all the needs of life. That is why we have—[Interruption.]—at the level at which we would and do provide. That is why, even when I was Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Pensions, we started a second pension, the basic pension followed by a second compulsory pension, either a graduated pension financed by the state or an occupational pension scheme. That is why we also have housing benefit. That is why we also have income support and family credit to make up the pension and to make up incomes to a reasonable standard of living beyond that which the basic pension could possibly reach.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Prime Minister make it absolutely explicit—I use the words again—that when the Secretary of State for Social Security says that pensioners living on the basic pension should not expect a "comfortable standard of living", that is Government policy? Yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: If pensioners have no further income than the basic pension, they will be entitled, as are 2 million, to income support—[Interruption.] The Income

    143
    support for older pensioners will go up this October-November. That, too, was the policy accepted by the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, if he only knew it.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Prime Minister never learn? Does she not realise that it is the bland statement of such callous policies that encompassed her humiliation last Thursday?
    The Prime Minister: It is the policy which Labour Governments have had to follow as well, in spite of all their rhetoric. I can remember, as the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection,—[Interruption]—for five years, that in his time—[Interruption.]—inflation averaged 12 per cent. a year over five years. I can also remember of that Government, in which he was a Minister—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must have an opportunity to reply.
    The Prime Minister: I can also remember, when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for High Prices —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that inflation in 1976 was 21½per cent., and the then Labour Government could not even make up the pension to that.
    Sir John Hunt: Will my right hon. Friend give thought today to the Underground strike, which is set to paralyse London tomorrow? In the interests of the long-suffering travelling public in London, is it not time that irresponsible wildcat action of this kind was outlawed by legislation, and when will that be done?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly and utterly condemn this strike. It is contrary to the public—is against fellow members of the public who rely, and who are entitled to rely, on transport to get to work. It is a typically selfish policy to put themselves first, before those who have to use —[Interruption.]—to put themselves first, deliberately causing massive inconvenience to those who have to work. Of course, we do not expect Labour Members ever to think of public service.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister agree that, while the question last Tuesday was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would need the removal men, the question now is when the right hon. Lady will need the removal men? Does she have the same unequivocal support from the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary that she gave them last week?
    The Prime Minister: We are very much together as a Government—[Interruption.]—as the hon. Gentleman knows, in spite of tremendous efforts to say to the contrary, and we are very happy with our houses at Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street and in Carlton gardens.
    Sir Richard Body: When my right hon. Friend is considering whether, at the next meeting of the European Council, the subject of the European social charter is to be raised, will she bear in mind that long ago, the European social charter was established by the Council of Europe,
    144
    that this country was one of the first to sign and ratify it and that there are members of the European Community, not least Spain, that have yet to sign and ratify it?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes the point very effectively indeed, and I shall raise it at Madrid. I agree that we signed the charter of the Council of Europe, which is a declaration and is not legally binding. In regard to the proposed social charter for Europe, it is quite absurd to try to impose on very different countries with different social services the same level of social services. It would either mean enormous burdens of extra costs on employers, and therefore more unemployment, or it would mean colossal extra subsidies from this country and Germany to those poorer countries in Europe which could not afford it without our aid. With £2 billion net paid to the European Community, we are paying enough.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McFall: Now that in European terms both Scotland and Wales are Tory-free zones, and mindful of the voters' verdict in the Vale of Glamorgan, Vauxhall, and Glasgow, Central, does the Prime Minister accept that her nostrums for the country are now as potent and as palatable as a tub of hazelnut yoghurt?
    The Prime Minister: I am naturally concerned that we have no representation in Scotland, but had Scotland had a Labour Government in the United Kingdom, it would not enjoy a fraction of the prosperity that it now enjoys.
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Yeo: Knowing my right hon. Friend's great concern with environmental issues, does she share my sense of shock that every single member of the European Community has been successfully prosecuted for failing to comply with European Commission directives—that is, every single member with one exception, and will she confirm that the one country with an unblemished record of commitment to both the European ideal and the green ideal is the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the United Kingdom is indeed the only one of the main EC countries not to be so prosecuted, because our record on the environment is so good. That is one reason. The second reason is that, as is well known, this Government always play by the rules.
    Mr. Ashdown: When, on Friday, the Prime Minister meets Dame Lydia Dunn, the most respected and most senior of Hong Kong's politicians, will she pay special attention to the comments that Dame Lydia made yesterday when she said that failure to face up to the nationality problem in Hong Kong could undermine the administration of the colony in the years up to 1997? If the Prime Minister will not herself—[Interruption.] If the Prime Minister believes that Britain cannot meet that responsibility itself, will she at least take the lead in ensuring an international solution to these issues?
    The Prime Minister: The last time that the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members asked that, I pointed out that we are endeavouring to find increased flexibility, first in the sections of the British Nationality Act 1981 and, secondly, under the broader immigration rules. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has also pointed out that the British overseas passport does not confer right of abode on people and that right of abode would not enable them to move freely and easily around Europe. That requires citizenship. However, those people can come here for a very brief period with the other passport. If it came to a vital refugee problem, of course, we would wish to garner the help of the whole world to deal with it.
    Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stanbrook: While reflecting on the good as well as the bad things arising out of the Euro-elections, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the outgoing President of the European Parliament, Lord Plumb, did a very good job indeed and deserves all our thanks, regardless of party, for the competence, dignity and integrity which he demonstrated over two and a half years as the first British holder of that post?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I gladly join my hon. Friend. The noble Lord has been an excellent President of the European Parliament and has given valiant service to it, on which I most earnestly congratulate him. I wish him good luck in the future in his seat in the European Parliament.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Has the Prime Minister read the unanimous report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and the Civil Service on Delors? If she has read it, has she understood it? If perchance she understood it, does she agree with it?
    The Prime Minister: The whole report I have not read. I have read the Chancellor's evidence. It is absolutely first-class and points out that he would not think of joining the exchange rate mechanism at present; he believes I hat the first priority is to get inflation down. I understand that some of the Labour members of the Committee went flatly against the Labour manifesto and voted in favour of joining the exchange rate mechanism.

    NEW MEMBERS
    The following Members took and subscribed the Oath or made the affirmation required by law:
    Catharine Letitia Hoey, for Vauxhall.
    Michael Goodall Watson Esq., for Glasgow, Central.

Public Places(Hygiene)
3.34 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the fouling of public places by dogs.
After the European elections, I can safely say that dogs are the No. 2 subject of the month. The public are rightly concerned about the increasing number of attacks on people by savage dogs, and the Government have responded to that concern. Last week, the Home Secretary promised to strengthen the power of the courts to deal with dangerous animals and with stray dogs and to apply heavier fines to irresponsible dog owners. The Secretary of State for the Environment promised to increase pressure on local authorities to clear up dogs' mess and to charge owners who allow their dogs to stray. Therefore, to some extent, the Government have pre-empted some of the matters that I wanted to deal with in my Bill. I am most especially concerned, however, with the hygiene aspect of the problem.
I decided to introduce this Bill when a mother came to my surgery a few Saturdays ago and pointed out that her small daughter, who had been playing on a grass verge, had slipped into some dog's mess—verges are often used as public latrines by animals—and had been very seriously ill in hospital. It was at that point that I began to discover the number of diseases that are transmitted through dog's mess. It is not just an aesthetic, but a serious hygiene, problem, and, quite rightly, the Government take the problem of public hygiene very seriously.
In addition to the well-known worms, toxocara, which can affect people's spleens and livers and, of course, cause blindness, dogs' faeces also contain salmonella and campylobacter. Those are the diseases with which the child I have mentioned had been afflicted. They can cause serious damage to the intestines of small children and are quite common in adults. There are a number of complaints from which people suffer without realising that the problem stems from dog faeces. Whenever we breathe and smell those faeces, we are taking into our bodies some of the organisms that are present.
A solution to the problem would be privately owned streets. The people who owned their streets would then ensure that they were kept free from dog fouling. As it is, the public own the streets through the local authorities. The Secretary of State has rightly empowered local authorities to take more steps to encourage local councils to introduce pooper-scoop schemes and heavier fines. In Westminster, the fines are up to £100, but that has not entirely persuaded people to do something about this unpleasant problem.
When, in the old days, people had the problem of disposing of soil, they simply threw it out of the window, with the warning of, "Guar-e-loo". Then, when I was a child, the nasty habit of spitting required "do not spit" notices on all the buses. Why do we still tolerate the problem of dogs using the streets as if they were public lavatories?
As I have said, I am concerned about the hygiene problem, as well as how to control dogs on the streets. I draw the House's attention to the situation in several American cities, including the city of Charleston in North Carolina, where there is a dog lead requirement. No dogs are allowed on public streets unless they are on a lead, and
148
that copes with the problem of identifying the person who owns the dog. That is one of the main concerns expressed when we talk about the prospect of legislation in this place. I recommend to the Secretary of State that at some time in the future he thinks about that problem. I am waiting to see, however, how the measures that the Government have recently introduced will affect it.
When there are food poisoning incidents, the Government step in immediately to reassure the public that they are doing all they can to control the problem. They inspect, and they require people preparing food for the public to adopt very high standards. Yet still we allow people with dogs to walk the streets and leave behind them potential disease-causing piles on the pavements.
Next time that we have registration for the community charge we should examine the possibility of people putting their dogs on the community charge form. We could then charge the dog owners for cleaning up after their animals. Meanwhile, my main concern is for health. I should like to propose in my Bill that dog owners be required to obtain a certificate—an MOT of health—from a vet before they are allowed to take their dogs on to the streets.
People will say that that cannot be enforced, but one might as well say that one cannot enforce any sort of public hygiene. Of course it can be enforced, and, last week, the Government stated that they would permit the authorities to introduce more wardens to catch irresponsible people.
We cannot continue to tiptoe around the problem or sweep it under the carpet. It is important that our streets are kept clean and beautiful in the same way as some cities in America. In addition to the current regulations operated in many of our cities and in the Isle of Wight, dog owners in this country should be required to obtain from a vet a certificate that the dog has at least been tested to see that it does not contain worms and other diseases, that it is vaccinated against rabies in addition to the ordinary diseases, and that it cannot cause the problems that currently exist.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Vivian Bendall, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Harry Greenway and Mr. Jerry Hayes.

PUBLIC PLACES (HYGIENE)
Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to control the fouling of public places by dogs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOLS ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Allocation of time to Bills),
That the Report [19th June] of the Business Committee be now considered. —[Mr. Sackville.]
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
The following is the report of the Business Committee:
That the Resolution [24th May] of the Business Committee shall be varied as follows:

(1) The order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken shall be Amendments to Clauses Nos. 1 to 3, Part I of Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 4 to 7, Part II of Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 8 to 10, Schedule No. 2, Clauses

149
Nos. 11 to 14, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 15 to 18, Schedule No. 4, Clause No. 19, Schedule No. 5, Clauses Nos. 20 to 24, Schedule No. 6, Clauses Nos. 25 to 28, Schedule No. 7, Clauses Nos. 29 to 32, Schedule No. 8, Clause No. 33, Schedule No. 9, Clauses Nos. 34 to 74, Schedules Nos. 10 and 11 and Clause No. 75; Government new Clauses; remaining new Clauses.

(2) The following table shall be substituted for the Table set out at the end of that Resolution:

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Amendments up to the end of Schedule No. 3

5.30 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 75

6.30 p.m.

Government new Clauses

7.30 p.m.

New Clauses Nos. 1 to 10

10.00 p.m.

Remaining proceedings on consideration

11.00 p.m.

Third Reading

Midnight

Orders of the Day
  Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 1

  DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAINTAIN SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOLS
  3.43 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 14, at end insert `but the Secretary of State shall not, in performing the duty, or exercising the power, distinguish, as regards the benefits or services provided or as regards the terms on which they are provided, between pupils at any self-governing school and pupils at education authority schools in the same area.'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Government amendments: No. 72, No. 83, No. 84, No. 91, No. 92; and Government new clause 25—Recurrent grant in respect of provision for special educational needs.
  Mr. Canavan: As the Bill stands, it is a serious threat to one of the basic principles of comprehensive education,—equality of educational opportunity for all children and young people, irrespective of their ability or aptitude. One of the finest achievements of the 1964–70 Labour Government was the introduction of comprehensive education, and it is worth recalling that it was introduced in Scotland without legislation. The then Secretary of Slate for Scotland, Willie Ross, simply sent a circular round to all local education authorities in Scotland, and even the few authorities which were Tory-controlled complied with the Secretary of State's request, because it was reasonable and because there was such widespread consensus in Scotland at that time about the fairness of comprehensive education, and particularly the basic principle of equality of educational opportunity. Many people saw through the unfairness and the evils of the two-tier system, under which children were selected or rejected at the ages of 11 or 12 on the result of just one test.
  It is greatly to be regretted that the Government have now broken the consensus in favour of comprehensive education, a system for which there is still widespread support in Scotland. Scotland moved towards comprehensive education without the need for legislation, yet the Government are forcing this Bill through the House against the wishes of elected Scottish Members, the majority of those working in education and the majority of parents, all of whom want nothing to do with such an infringement of the basic principle of equality of educational opportunity.
  There is an understandable fear of a return to a two-tier system, and without my amendment there will be an increased chance of that happening. The Secretary of State may show bias towards self-governing schools and give them special treatment or unfair advantage over local authority schools. The Government are intent upon eroding the local authority education sector. For political, not educational, reasons, the Secretary of State may try to

  151
  encourage that erosion by giving additional funds to schools that opt for self-governing status, in the hope that that will have a snowball effect, with more parents voting for self-governing status because they want that additional funding for their children.
  The Bill will split the local authority education system into two different sorts of school. The self-governing schools will be funded by direct grant from the Secretary of State, with the remainder being funded, as at present, by local authorities. The local authority is dependent upon the Secretary of State, through revenue support grant, for most of the money that it spends on education. It is also dependent upon him for borrowing consent for capital for projects such as the building of new schools or extensions to existing schools. The Secretary of State will have his hands on the purse strings not only of what he hopes will be self-governing schools but, indirectly, of local authority schools. There will be an opportunity for a certain amount of financial manipulation to give unfair advantage to self-governing schools.
  The amendment would place upon the Secretary of State a statutory responsibility to be as even-handed as possible between local authority schools and self-governing schools. The Minister may have already noticed that there is a similarity in the wording of my amendment to clause 24, which states:
  "the authority shall not, in performing the duty, or exercising the power, distinguish, as regards the benefits or services provided or as regards the terms on which they are provided, between those two categories of pupil."
  The two categories of pupils referred to are those at self-governing schools and those at education authority schools.
  To refresh the memories of those who were members of the Committee, and the memories of Members present now for Report, clause 24 refers to certain services and benefits for pupils which will continue to be the statutory responsibility of the education authority even for self-governing schools after opting out has taken place. Schedule 6 specifies the obligations which the education authority shall continue to have even after self-governing status has been acquired. Those responsibilities include the responsibility for health and cleanliness of pupils.
  Health and cleanliness are important. It is often said that cleanliness is next to godliness. However, educational opportunity is also important. With regard to the important aspect of educational opportunity, which is the prime function of a school, the Secretary of State should have a continuing responsibility to be even-handed in his treatment of education authority schools and any schools which may opt for self-governing status.
  If the drafters of the legislation, and presumably the Secretary of State, thought it necessary to write into the Bill a continuing statutory responsibility on education authorities in connection with self-governing schools, I maintain that there is an equally compelling case to place a statutory responsibility on the Secretary of State to be even-handed in his treatment of the two different categories of schools and the two different categories of pupils.
  The Secretary of State has some responsibility, directly or indirectly, for the education of all children in Scotland. It is sometimes said that we are all Jock Tamson's bairns. However, in this matter of education, I suppose we are all
  152
  the Secretary of State's bairns. Just like any good parent who tries to be even-handed with his or her children, if the Secretary of State is to be a responsible and good Secretary of State for education in Scotland, he should have regard to the need for equality of educational opportunity between children attending self-governing schools and those attending education authority schools in the same area.
  Unfortunately, the Secretary of State so far, by many of his actions, has failed to live up to his responsibility to be even-handed with pupils, whatever school they attend or whatever category they fall into. That is obvious from the massive cuts in educational provision and the resources provided to education authority schools. Those cuts have been imposed by the Government while at the same time, they can find millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to operate the assisted places scheme in non-education authority schools, which in effect means that millions of pounds of public money are being given out to bolster that privileged sector of education which caters for less than 4 per cent. of Scottish children.
  In view of the Secretary of State's track record in being very unfair and using public money to bolster privilege while at the same time denying adequate resources to 96 per cent. of children who attend education authority schools in Scotland, there is a strong need for a statutory responsibility like that proposed in my amendment. It would place the onus on the Secretary of State to give equality of treatment to all children in Scotland, instead of giving an unfair advantage to a privileged minority.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) made three or four general points in support of the amendment before coming to the point of principle. I accept at the outset that he has a genuine point of principle, but the amendment is unnecessary.
  The hon. Gentleman's first point was that the legislation is being passed against the wishes of the majority of parents. It is worth reiterating that nothing will happen at self-governing schools unless the parents wish it to happen. Under the revised provisions before the House, there will, if necessary, be two ballots of parents and, unless they express the wish for their school to have self-governing status, there will be no change. Therefore, this is purely permissive legislation. That is the crucial point against those who have sought to tell the Scottish people that anybody will be forced to do anything under the self-governing clauses.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point was that the legislation seeks to undermine the comprehensive system. I have no doubt that we shall return to that point during the debate, but it is not central to the hon. Gentleman's case at this stage. However, it is interesting to note what has been revealed about Opposition Members' view of the objectives of Scotland's comprehensive education system. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) made a remarkable admission in an article in the Glasgow Herald this morning. In a number of respects, it was a remarkably honest article, and I commend him on that. He said:
  "Before 1979, Education was used by successive governments in an attempt to engineer an even more egalitarian society."
  All is revealed. That is what the Labour Government's education policies in Scotland were all about—not according to propaganda from the Adam Smith Institute

  153
  or the Tory party central office, but according to the Labour party's Front-Bench education spokesman. They were all about social engineering.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: They did not make a good job of it in my case.
  Mr. Stewart: I shall not make any personal comment on the hon. Gentleman's education. As he knows, I am a product of the Scottish comprehensive education system, and proud to be so. However, I went through that system rather earlier than the hon. Gentleman.
  Dundee high school has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). He will be glad to know, as I am sure the House will be, that this year Dundee high school celebrates its 750th year. Those who sometimes make the most wild assertions about Scottish educational traditions should bear in mind the fact that the tradition of that school has continued in Dundee for three quarters of a millenium.
  The third point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West related to the assisted places scheme. However, that scheme is about choice, just as the provisions to which the amendment refers are about choice. [Interruption.] Let me give the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) a quotation, again from the revealing article written by the hon. Member for Fife, Central:
  "the hi-jacking and exploitation by the right of parental choice is one of their most significant victories."
  I agree. It is a significant and continuing victory.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the assisted places scheme is a creaming-off process that attacks comprehensive education, by taking certain children out of it to receive special treatment. The same was done a long time ago. The scheme favours a particular grouping, and the price of it goes up year by year at the expense of comprehensive education.
  Mr. Stewart: Not at all. The scheme is designed to give those having incomes below a certain level the opportunity to send their children to particular schools. The scheme extends choice and gives parents an opportunity to choose a particular sector of education. It makes no attack on the comprehensive system.
  4 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House over the way in which the assisted places scheme operates. He seems to suggest that all parents having an income below the level to which he referred have a right to an assisted place for their child, but he knows perfectly well that that is not true. The headmaster of the school operating the scheme has the final say. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is right to say that the headmaster—correctly, from his point of view—chooses the cream of the pupils. There are hundreds and hundreds of cases of children of parents who meet the income criteria being refused admission.
  Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) for confirming that there is a large demand for assisted places. That line was not generally taken by Labour Members in Committee, but the hon. Member for Falkirk, East has more experience and understanding of Scottish education trends than do
  154
  members of the Labour Front Bench. While the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that not every pupil who wants such an education has an opportunity to receive it, that is not an argument for not extending that opportunity whenever possible.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) argues that there should be an equality of treatment as between the Secretary of State's financing of self-governing schools and that which the Secretary of State partly, if not wholly, determines for schools in the local authority sector. The Government's position on that aspect has been stated with great clarity. At the 18th sitting of the First Scottish Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister stated:
  "It may help the Committee if I restate the cardinal principle that an individual self-governing school should be neither better nor worse off than it could reasonably have expected if it had remained under local authority management. That phrase has been used many times in Committee and was contained in the descriptive paper that we issued in December, and discussed in response to points made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)."
  I recall that he did so with the brevity to which members of the Committee became accustomed during its proceedings: My hon. Friend continued:
  "Therefore, it is right that they should be treated no better and no worse than would be expected for equivalent schools managed by the education authority for the same area."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 20 April 1989; c. 854.]
  That seems crystal clear to me. I would expect my hon. Friend the Minister to express some sympathy with the general point of principle made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West—although not with many of his arguments—but I feel that the amendment is unnecessary.
  Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) referred to the three quarters of a millenium for which Dundee high school has served the people of Dundee. I must point out to him that it has not served them all; it has served only those who could afford the fees. The Opposition are entirely opposed to any link between access to education and ability to pay, which is why we do not rejoice in 750 years of Dundee people being refused education.
  Mr. Alan Stewart: Logically, then, the hon. Gentleman must wish for the abolition of the independent sector.
  Mr. McAllion: I look forward to the day when access to education is given freely and equally across the country, irrespective of ability to pay. I certainly support the abolition of public funding for the independent sector. If people want to do their own thing with their own money that is their affair, but they cannot look to public funds from the taxpayer for the indoctrination of elitism in a whole new generation of children.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. McAllion: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once, but this is the last time.
  Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his usual courteous manner. Does he agree that pupils from his constituency and mine attend Dundee high school under the assisted placed scheme because of the level of their parents' income and also because they were acceptable, being, in most cases, able and talented? Those

  155
  children have been given a unique opportunity. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that children should not be offered such opportunities?
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman entirely misrepresents the scheme. Private fee-paying schools suffer from the same problem experienced for many years by public-sector schools—falling rolls. Because falling rolls meant that the private sector could not maintain its own business, the Government dreamed up the assisted places scheme as a way of filling places with the help of public money. That is why the Labour party will phase out the scheme when they come to office at the next election—as we will; make no mistake about that.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood said that he considered the amendment unnecessary. He would think that, because it ties down the Secretary of State for Scotland to treating both sectors fairly. The Conservative party does not want that; it wants to leave the Secretary of State enough room to exercise bias in the allocation of funds.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill was purely permissive. That is not true. Under the clause as it stands, the Secretary of State will clearly favour schools that opt for self-governing status. Parents will quickly get the message: if they want their kids to be educated in a decent school—a decent building with decent equipment and well-paid teachers—they had better opt out of local authority control, because the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to squeeze public-sector funds and force them out. There is nothing permissive about that. My hon. Friend's amendment is right on the ball, and should be supported.
  In Committee, the Minister said that self-governing schools would receive exactly the same funding as they might reasonably have expected had they remained under local authority control. Such a proposition is unproblematic only if schools that opt out remain unchanged under the direct rule of the Scottish Office. What will happen when the Government try to apply that principle? What if the roll changes in a school? The funding will then have to change as well. Who will decide how it is to change? The Secretary of State for Scotland.
  What if the character of the school changes? That is also permissible under the Bill. A school may go for academic selection or for single-sex status—or, indeed, mixed status—which will obviously have funding implications. Who makes the decision about funding implications? Again, the Secretary of State for Scotland makes it, completely on his own.
  What about the capital requirements of a school? It is hard to imagine that the Secretary of State for Scotland will know what the capital funding of any school might have received, had it remained under education authority control. He would need to know the state of the building and the level of priorities in a particular school compared with other schools in the education authority's area, and also where the school would be placed in the programme by the education authority. All that the Secretary of State can do is to put a school at the top of the list and provide it with more capital funding than it might have received from the education authority. I do not know how anyone can say that the Secretary of State will not be allowed to do that.
  156
  If the Secretary of State is serious about the principle that there will be no additional funding for self-governing schools that opt out, he must accept the amendment. It writes on to the face of the Bill a restriction that the Secretary of State for Scotland must be fair to both sectors.
  Mr. John McFall: On the point about the funding of self-governing schools being the same as that of local authority schools, does not my hon. Friend agree that, for years, Scottish local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled local authorities, have spent more on education than the Government say that they ought to have spent? We have been told by the Government that, although local authorities have spent over the limit during the last 10 years, they will nevertheless be given as much as they have already spent on education because they believed that it was essential to spend that much on education. That holds the key to the debate. The Government will sugar the pill with extra finance and thereby allow self-governing schools to opt out. The Government have given no credible answer on that point.
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. that is obvious to everyone in Scotland, particularly since last Thursday's European election results, when the Tories were finally rejected completely in Scotland. To those of us who live in Scotland, it has been obvious for many years that the Government have been squeezing the funds that they have made available to public sector schools. They have squeezed the money that they have made available to education authorities, mostly by controlling what is now called the revenue support grant. They have placed strict limits on education authority spending. The poll tax will now make it virtually impossible for education authorities to raise enough money to spend on schools.
  The Government are trying to ensure that the kind of services that are provided by education authorities will be minimal. They have provided them with only minimal funding for those services. At the same time, they have tried to create a new self-governing sector to which the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will have no restrictions placed upon him as the Bill stands, will be able to allocate funds as he likes.
  That is the carrot that will be used to tempt parents to take advantage of what was described by the hon. Member for Eastwood as purely permissive legislation, although it is nothing of the kind. It is a carrot to try to save the reputation of the radical, far Right-wing Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). He wants to create a two-tier system and also to destroy the local education authority schools sector in Scotland. This is another step down that road.
  God knows what will come after this measure. When the School Boards (Scotland) Bill was considered, it was said that it would give power back to the parents. Power was not given back to the parents. Instead, it paved the way for the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill. This Bill will pave the way for yet another monstrous piece of legislation, behind which there will be only one principle—to attack the public provision of education and to destroy local authority schools. That is why the House, in line with the people of Scotland, should vote for the amendment.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendment. I am sure that the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will be read with great interest by his constituents and also by mine, particularly his views on that very fine school, Dundee high school. I did not attend that school, nor did any of my children, but as a Dundonian I believe that it has enhanced the status and position of Dundee, a status and position that sadly, it would not enjoy without the school. It has contributed handsomely in the past to the provision of many leaders in almost every walk of life. However, the hon. Member for Dundee, East, has put it on record that he wishes that school, after 750 years, to be destroyed.
  That is not so very surprising. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) referred to the fact that in today's Glasgow Herald, there is a most interesting article by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). I am confident that it will be referred to regularly in future and that his attention will be drawn to it on many occasions. There is no question that he has set out clearly what the views of the Labour party are and have been. He wrote:
  "Before 1979 Education was used by successive Governments in an attempt to engineer a more egalitarian society."
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central is nodding in agreement. He is obviously proud of that. That is good, because I shall find that article very useful in future. I shall also find it useful to quote back to him his comment earlier in the same article that
  "privatisation represents a much greater threat than Anglicisation."
  There is nothing in the Bill about privatisation. Self-governing schools are not privatised schools.
  4.15 pm
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), to give him credit, is consistent. He found it just as difficult to live with a Labour Government as he does with a Conservative Government. He said that in Scotland today the Conservative Government are putting through legislation which is opposed by the majority of Scottish Members in the House. Of course, that is nothing new. I remind him that the Labour Government passed a Bill through the House to abolish the grammar schools—a fundamental change in English education—without a majority in England. I do not argue with that, because I believe that the unitary Parliament is the right place to take such decisions, but the hon Gentleman and his colleagues cannot have it both ways. They either support the unitary Parliament and what it does or they do not.
  In the euphoria since last Thursday—I congratulate the new Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) who is obviously a credit to the Labour party and I am sure will be a credit to the House—Labour Members have been very happy with the result and the leaders of the Labour party have been making noises about what they will do in government. If the Labour party was in government, in the same situation as previously, when it had no majority in England, quite properly it would wish to put through legislation affecting England, using its majority in other parts of the United Kingdom—usually Scotland and Wales—to make sure that that legislation got through. The hon. Gentleman is not being even-handed, which is unlike him as he is usually pretty consistent in the way in which he deals with these matters.
  158
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West spoke about cuts in education funds. He and I know that the amount of money contributed by the taxpayer, and previously by the ratepayer, per child in school in Scotland has increased substantially under the Conservative Government, and that the only real reductions occurred under the last Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the increase in funding per child has been substantial and has continued under the present Government.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) in a fairly lengthy intervention, made it quite clear that, under the assisted places scheme, hundreds were refused acceptance. If that is the case, we can count on his support to increase the funds available so that the hundreds who have been refused places will be able to enjoy the benefits of the scheme. Although those being refused acceptance do not run into large numbers in my constituency, the hon. Gentleman may well be right that hundreds are being refused. We have only his word for it, but if that is the case we look forward to him joining us in the Lobby at some future date when we persuade the Government to increase the funding to make that very fine scheme work effectively.
  All hon. Members will realise that the Government and their supporters have never made any secret of the fact that they believe that, when local education authorities are receptive to the needs of local schools and understand the needs of the local community, the likelihood of a school board and the parents wishing to become self-governing would be remote. It will occur only in circumstances in which the parents and the school boards consider that the local authority has not understood, does not wish to understand and does not respond. It is clear that this is permissive legislation.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: To underline my hon. Friend's point, does he agree that the legislation has already been successful? It was only the threat of self-governing status that caused Strathclyde regional council to change its attitude to the extension to Neilson primary school.
  Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood for that helpful intervention. I agree with him. What is more important is that, as this legislation is going through the House, we have on the statute book an Act to set up the school boards, and that has produced a dramatic change in attitudes in Strathclyde. Strathclyde is now clearly embracing the setting up of school boards, and it is doing so in a much more positive and aggressive way than the present statute. That can only be encouraging.
  It is obvious that the amendment does not reflect Conservative Members' view that this is enabling legislation. That is all it is—it enables; it is permissive; it does nothing more than that. It enables the school boards and the parents, if they feel that the local education authority is not responding to their wishes, to vote for their school to be self-governing, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West must remember that his amendment has not taken account of the lengthy debates in Committee. He does not accept that Conservative Members believe that there will be no demand for self-governing schools. If Scottish education is everything that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues claim, there will be no demand for them.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray

  159
  (Mrs. Ewing), who had to return to Scotland this morning because of a serious illness in her family. It is particularly unfortunate because the amendments dealing with special needs and special schools are within my hon. Friend's specialist interest. I will do my best to put her points of view.
  I support the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). Amendment No. 33 goes to the heart of the fallacy that the Conservative Government are trying to promote in this legislation—the idea that parents will have a free choice between opting out or staying within the state system. However, we all know that there are two situations in which opting out will become a reality, and they are a school closure or a school having reason to believe that it will be more favourably treated in capital allocation by opting out of the state system.
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) always makes some remarkable contributions in Scottish debates. He should recognise that this legislation is now being pushed through Parliament by a party that is now the third party in Scotland. It is about 5 per cent. behind the Scottish Nationalist party. The hon. Gentleman should realise also that support for the Scottish Conservative party, as measured by last Thursday's European election, is now less than that for the Green Party in west Surrey. That seems a fragile mandate on which to push forward a piece of legislation that is overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of the Scottish people.
  I now refer to what happens to parents when faced with the problems of school closure or the thought that their school might be better funded under the opting-out legislation.
  Today's Glasgow Herald tells us that the ruling Labour group in Strathclyde
  "seems set to proceed with the closure of two secondary schools and eight primaries, despite bitter opposition from parents' groups."
  It would be understandable even if parents who opposed the legislation were tempted by the opting-out provisions. I recall a speech by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) in the Scottish Grand Committee last year when we were discussing the NHS and the opting out of hospitals. He said, as a fierce opponent of the opting-out provisions, that he, as a constituency Member, might be pushed, as an alternative to closure, into considering opting out on the part of a hospital in his area.
  I think I see the hon. Member for Tayside, North indicating assent to that proposition. Opting out will not solve the underlying resource and capacity problems in the health or education services. The Tories will have to say exactly which schools they would like to see closed as an alternative to those which stay open as a result of being tempted to opt out. What is proposed will solve nothing. It will simply move the problem, in the education service or in the NHS, to another area. It will also create problems in terms of dividing and fragmenting the education system.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when this legislation becomes law, the Secretary of State, in the final analysis, will have to agree to a school becoming self-governing. Surely that is the Government taking some responsibility?
  Mr. Salmond: There is no question but that this is a piece of centralising legislation. It gives enormous power to the Secretary of State over a range of matters. But it does not give parents much power. It would be remarkable if the Minister, desperate to secure some evidence, whatever it might be, of support for opting out, did not grasp at any straw and allowed any school to opt out so that he could claim it as a success for his policy.
  It is also difficult to believe that there will not be nods and winks in the direction of certain schools to the effect that if they opt out, they will be exceptionally well treated by way of facilities, new buildings and the like. Parents will face being squeezed between the Strathclyde stick of school closure and the Tory carrot of extra resources. That is not a free choice, and this is not enabling legislation.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a difference between school rationalisation because rationalisation is necessary—which is bound to be unpopular with individual groups of parents—and school rationalisation which is used for other purposes? Consider, for example, the rationalisation carried out in Strathclyde because a majority of the Labour group, against the wishes of the chairman of the Labour group, decided that they did not want single-sex schools in the area. That was an ideological decision. It was different from a straightforward and sensible rationalisation, even though it might be opposed by individual groups of parents.
  Mr. Salmond: I have no intention of defending every decision of Strathclyde regional council. Indeed, I do not think that Labour Members would wish to defend every decision of that council on school closures. There is a consensus that the closure programme in many cases was carried out clumsily, to put it no stronger. But at the heart of the argument is the fear that the provision for opting out will tempt people faced with the closure of their school into taking that step, when it will not solve the problem. It will not solve the problem of capacity or offer the additional resources that would be required if more schools in aggregate were to remain open.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) should say which schools in Strathclyde he would close as an alternative to those he would keep open. Unless additional resources are provided for the education service, the take-up of the opting-out provision will be secured by the heavy stick of school closures or the carrot of additional resources.
  The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West goes to the heart of the fallacy that the Tory party is putting forward in this legislation. If Conservative Members wish to claim that there is no intention to treat differently those schools that may be tempted by opting out, they should find no difficulty in accepting the amendment.
  Mr. McFall: On the issue of single-sex schools, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government are flying a kite in relation to Strathclyde? The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in pushing his point without any foundation. There are five single-sex schools in Strathclyde—two are in my constituency and are amalgamating—and I have never heard his argument advanced as a matter of policy. Indeed, I can inform him that it is not a matter of policy because I have contacted the director of education and have raised that point with him. He has said that the abolition of single-sex schools is not a part of Strathclyde's

  161
  policy. The Government are trying to drive wedges in those areas where there is already pressure because of falling resources and where they have therefore been able to spread discord. That is the real reason.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Salmond: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and I hope that he will accept that the reasons that I am giving as to why people might opt out highlight the fallacy of believing that this legislation can be successfully opposed by a general debate about the rights and wrongs of opting out. If we were to have a general debate about those rights and wrongs, Scotland would give an overwhelming majority against opting out. The difficulty with this legislation is that particular pressures may be unfairly imposed on particular groups of parents which may lead them down the road of opting out.
  Mr. Allan Stewart rose—
  Mr. Salmond: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have already done so once.
  That is why the SNP made that point so strongly in Committee and said that opting out could not be opposed simply by means of a general debate.
  I now turn to the issue of special needs, special schools, special resources and the Government amendments. There were many disreputable and unsatisfactory aspects to the Bill's Committee stage, but the political interchange that led to special schools being included in this legislation was one of the most disreputable of all. I am happy to see the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in his place as I say that. As I understand it, special schools were not included in the original legislation. The Labour party made the mistake of tabling an amendment that would have had the effect of including them. However, the English Conservative Members on the Committee then hijacked the amendment and tabled it as their own. That was part of a political game that the Tory members of the Committee were playing.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. I saw an excellent amendment on the Amendment Paper and felt that it strengthened the Bill. When I serve on a Standing Committee, I read the Bill and the amendments and if I think that they are excellent amendments, I want to show my support for them. Therefore, I approached the Clerk to try to add my signature to that marvellous, extra and wonderful amendment but found that it had disappeared, so I tabled it myself.
  Mr. Salmond: I am not impressed by the innocence with which the hon. Gentleman puts his case. Although I was not present in the Committee to hear him, I have now read the Hansard report of his speeches and it would be difficult not to interpret or detect from his speeches the relish with which he seized on a mistake made by the Labour party. We all play a political game—
  Mr. Brown rose—
  Mr. Salmond: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  We all play political games they—are the stuff of politics—but we should not play political games with children who need special attention in education.
  Mr. Brown rose—
  Mr. Salmond: If the Government had carefully considered the question whether special schools sould be included in the opt-out legislation, we can assume that such provisions would have been in the original Bill. This is a serious issue that demands careful consideration. Such provisions should not emerge in the legislation simply as part of a political interchange between Conservative and Labour Members.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): If the hon. Gentleman is telling the House that he has read the Hansard of the Committee proceedings, I am surprised that he did not read the strong representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) read to the Committee from a lady from Bearsden who has a child with special needs. If the hon. Gentleman has also studied the Bill, he will be aware that, contrary to what he has just told the House, there was a provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to include special schools by order. The original Opposition amendment, which was then tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, simply made it automatic that special schools should have that right.
  Mr. Salmond: Exactly; I thought that that was the point that I had just made.
  As to the assurances that the Minister gave in Committee, he changed course as a result of a political interchange that took place in Committee. I do not believe that he can convince us that a great deal of thought had been given to that change of course.
  Mr. Forsyth rose—
  Mr. Salmond: Perhaps the Minister would listen for a second, and then I shall ask him to answer a specific point about remarks that he made in Committee.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He spent the time in Committee attempting to argue the case for disruption of the House and telling the people of Scotland that the Committee was a waste of time. Is he now criticising the Government because they responded to the arguments that were put in Committee, and amended the Bill accordingly?
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister's intervention is totally irrelevant. The disruption was to challenge the right of the Government to parachute English Tory Back Benchers into the Committee. I should have thought that the way that the clause emerged in Committee was ample proof that it was unsatisfactory to have a debate on Scottish education dominated by people who had no interest in the Scottish education system.
  I trust that the Minister will not dispute assurances that he gave in Committee about consultation with interested groups on special needs children. The Minister may remember—if he cares to pay some attention to the debate —that he gave assurances to the organisations particularly concerned with special needs children that he would engage in a process of proper consultation about the changes that were to take place. I take it that the Minister remembers that assurance.
  I now have a copy of a letter about the consultation that took place. A letter from Mr. Cunliffe of the Scottish Education Department was posted on Friday, 2 June. Presumably it reached the organisations on Monday, 5

  163
  June. The organisations were given until Tuesday, 13 June, to submit their opinions to the Government. Given the complexity of special needs education, acknowledged on all sides, does the Minister really believe that a consultation period of a week is enough to consider the full range of issues that were debated in Committee? Should not the Minister have allowed a decent period for the organisations to submit their opinions on the legislation?
  If the Minister could not give a proper consultation period, would it not have been proper not to proceed with this aspect of the Bill? If the Government wished to proceed with the opting-out of special schools, could it not have been done later? I would be grateful if the Minister would intervene and confirm that I am correct in saying that only a week was allowed for organisations to submit their opinions on the Government's proposals. I take it that the Minister confirms that that is the case.
  Mr. Cunliffe's letter refers to unique problems in trying to assess the resources for recorded children. Then it refers to a dialogue between the education authority on the one hand and an opted-out school on the other as to what degree of resources should be applied to each recorded child. The Minister may call it a dialogue. Having read the letter, I think that complex issues are involved and that these children will be no more than piggies in the middle of a battle between the education authority and the schools that have opted out.
  In line with the commitments that the Minister gave in Committee about genuine consultation and considering seriously the range of issues involved, including the resourcing of special schools and the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray raised in Committee, does not the Minister feel that a longer period is required for consultation and reflection? I would be grateful if he would give a constructive response.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: It may be helpful if I say something at this point about the Government's amendments Nos. 72, 83, 84, 91 and 92 and new clause 25 and respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in respect of amendment No. 33. We have made it clear all along that, in setting the amount of grant to be paid to a self-governing school, the aim will be to ensure that it is not better off or any worse off than it might reasonably have expected to be under continuing local authority management, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out.
  The most important consequence is that the recurrent grant paid to a school must reflect the level of spending by the education authority on its own schools. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was talking nonsense when he argued that it was a centralising measure. The Secretary of State will not determine the level of funding for a school; that will be determined by the level of funding reflected in the policies of the local authority. The detailed arrangements giving effect to that principle will be a matter for the grant regulations to be made under clause 25. Amendment No. 33 certainly does not achieve any such effect. The Secretary of State is not involved in providing services directly to pupils, whether in a self-governing school or an education authority school. When
  164
  considering overall levels of resources, what matters is equality of treatment for schools, and that is central to our entire thinking about self-governing schools.
  I must say to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that, if he reads the report of the Second Reading debate and the quote that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State used from his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), he will see that we understood the Labour party's position to be that it was against equality of opportunity in education, but was in favour of equality of outcome. That is the difference which separates the two sides of the House. It was extremely helpful for the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to spell it out so clearly.
  The remaining Government amendments are largely concerned with ensuring equity of treatment in resourcing provision for recorded special educational needs in self-governing schools.
  I was sorry to hear of the absence from the House of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) due to family illness. It was a great blessing to the Standing Committee that it was the hon. Lady who participated in our proceedings and not the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. She approached the matter in an extremely constructive and helpful way, unlike the contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman. With the hon. Lady's particular experience and interest in special education, we found her advice invaluable in the lengthy discussions that we had on special needs, notably on the changes made in part III to the 1980 Act arrangements for placements of recorded children, and, more generally, on the effect of part I of the Bill on special educational needs. The form of the Bill reflects that influence. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan did not acknowledge that.
  I should acknowledge, too, the many organisations that have given us helpful advice on the proposals in the Bill in relation to special education, for which we were extremely grateful. I express special appreciation to Sense in Scotland, which is concerned with the deaf-blind. It has followed the proceedings in Committee very closely and its main concern was that provision for special educational needs should be both secure and adequately financed. I believe that the amendments that we have tabled today will reassure it on both counts.
  Amendment No. 72 reflects the concern on both sides of the Committee that self-governing schools should continue to provide for special educational needs and that there should be a positive duty to encourage and to increase that provision. We have, through clause 28, protected existing levels of provision for special needs. As schools now have a duty to have regard to the need to improve that provision, it is not sensible to require the balloting procedure to apply to improvements that flow from that duty. Amendment No. 92 means that increases in special educational needs provision should not be regarded as a change in the characteristics of a school.
  Mr. Douglas: If the boards of management of schools that become self-governing are to have this responsibility—I speak with a little interest—who will make the assessment of whether they are adhering to that responsibility? Will the local education authority or the Secretary of State make that assessment?
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Forsyth: The board of governors will be under a duty to do so. If it is failing in any of its duties, there is provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to take action. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me a little longer, I think that it will become more evident how we see that process working. Perhaps I could send him a copy of the letter that we sent out, following my undertaking in Committee, when I stressed the problems of the time available. I believe that a copy of the letter would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 are made in respect of a further undertaking that I gave in Committee. They deal with the description of a school that is to be provided, along with published proposals relating to that school's application to become self-governing. The amendments would require the description to state what range, or, in other words, the kind, of provisions that the school has for pupils with special eduational needs. Clause 16(4)(b) recognises that all schools should make some provision for special educational needs and requires the extent of that to be stated as a basic characteristic of the school. The amendments, therefore, considerably strengthen the requirement to specify the provision for special educational needs at any school.
  When the Committee amended the Bill to make special schools eligible for self-governing status, I agreed to bring before the House on Report amendments that would make any necessary changes to allow for that.
  I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, as I said when I intervened, that it is quite extraordinary for him to take the view that we should not listen to the views expressed in Committee and seek to respond to them. A clearly expressed wish in Committee was that special schools should be eligible in the same way as other schools for that purpose. [Interruption.] I am surprised that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) is scoffing, because he tabled the amendment in Committee in the first place.
  Mr. Michael Brown rose—
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and then to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I believe that hon. Members should not forget the 12th sitting of the Committee on Tuesday 11 April, when I read out the letter sent to me by Mrs. Lamont from Bearsden. The House should remember that Mrs. Lamond took the trouble to write a letter to one of the Scottish newspapers putting it clearly on the record that she felt that it was a disgrace that the Opposition were rejecting the possibility of children and parents of children at special schools being offered the same opportunities as those offered in the Bill to other people. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) says that he has read the proceedings of the Committee, he clearly needs to read again the Hansard of the 12th sitting of that Committee.
  Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. I recall that the substance of the complaint, and of the letter that appeared in one of the Scottish newspapers from Mrs. Lamond, made the point that parents felt aggrieved that
  166
  education authorities were able to take policy decisions to close special needs schools and to deprive them of a facility, and that those authorities believed that that would increase parental choice. Of course, the Labour party took its time-honoured position that the local authorities—the politicians—know better than the parents what is needed for their children. That is why the Labour party changed its mind on this matter and withdrew the amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes had added his name. He then took over the amendment and moved it eloquently during our proceedings.
  Mr. Salmond: I hesitate to interrupt a reunion of the board of Michael Forsyth Associates, but will the Minister reply to the question that I have asked several times? Does he feel that a week's consultation matches the commitment he gave in Committee to consult the organisations concerned? Given the complexities of the issue, is a week's consultation adequate for organisations to respond? Will he answer directly?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am finding it increasingly difficult to accept that the hon. Gentleman has read the Committee proceedings. I said that there would be difficulties over consultation, given the time scale involved. The amendment was not moved by the Government, and I accepted it on the basis of the views and arguments expressed.
  Mr. McFall: On one side.
  Mr. Forsyth: I was concerned with the side mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes a few moment ago—the side of the parents of children with special needs who believe that the choice should be available to them in the legislation.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
  The Committee was right in its judgment that, if parents of children at a special school wish it to become self-governing, they should be allowed to pursue that objective. I do not agree that special schools are so different from the generality of schools that the parents involved do not wish to participate in ensuring a good education for their children. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan talked of the compressed timetable, but we have been impressed by the responses we have received and we have received a considerable amount of support for the amendments to which I am speaking.
  Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister not accept that his argument falls down? If he is saying that the fact that the amendment arose from the Committee caused grave problems over consultation, would that not he an argument for rejecting the amendment in Committee until the Government could carry out proper consultation and think again on the legislation?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman seems to have parted company from his hon. Friend the Member for Moray. If the basis of his argument is that we should not have made amendments at this stage in respect of special needs because there should have been a longer time for consultation, none of the commitments I gave to his hon.

  167
  Friend the Member for Moray would have been possible. I do not think that his hon. Friend would be too pleased with him, but there is nothing new in that.
  There are some distinguishing characteristics. Most pupils who go to special schools have records of needs, and they pursue an educational curriculum that is frequently individual and different in content. Therefore, we had to consider how the existence of records of needs might affect the position. Under part 5 of the record, the authorities have a statutory duty to nominate the school to be attended. That nomination must take into account the views of parents and can be subject to the effect of a placing request. It remains the authority's duty to provide for the special educational needs of recorded children and that duty inescapably determines the majority of school placement decisions for such children. That meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas).
  It has been necessary—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is saying that not all recorded children go to special schools. That is not what I said. I said that the authority's duty to provide for the special educational needs of recorded children determines the majority of school placement decisions for such children. That may be in mainstream education or in special schools.
  It has been necessary to consider how the authority's role in supplying the special educational needs of recorded children may be fitted into the arrangements for self-governing schools. That aspect is not confined to special schools. Certainly, special schools contain more recorded children, but, where appropriate, recorded children are placed in mainstream schools and the effect of education authority nominations through the record must also be taken into account.
  We have concluded that what is needed are not different arrangements for self-governing schools but an approach to the calculation of a separate element of recurrent grant for schools, whether special or mainstream, focused on the provision made for recorded children.
  The arrangement I propose for the consideration of the House comprises two essential stages. First, there should be a dialogue and exchange of information between each self-governing school in an area and the education authority. The authority will say what provision it needs to make to fulfil its statutory duty in relation to the education of these children. The schools will tell the authority of the provisions they are able and willing to make to help the authority fulfil that duty. The object of the exchange is that each school and authority should agree on the amount of provision that the school will make and which the authority would take advantage of.
  The second phase of the process will be for the school and the authority to estimate the cost of that agreed level of commitment towards recorded pupils and notify that amount to the Secretary of State. Normally, recurrent grant would be set at that level. In the event of agreement not being reached—this concerned the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West—on the level of provision or on its cost or both, the Secretary of State will be able to make a determination. If the Secretary of State cannot accept any aspect of an agreement, he may also make a determination. The recurrent grant calculated under these
  168
  proposals will be additional to the grant calculated under clause 25 for the generality of functions at a mainstream self-governing school.
  For special schools, account must be taken of pupils with special educational needs who may not have a record, either because it is still being prepared or because they have been placed there by children's panels or social work departments. The agreement between the authority and the special school and the recurrent grant will therefore take account of all children and all other costs that arise.
  Mr. Douglas: Am I interpreting the Minister correctly? Is he saying that it would be in the interest of a special needs school and the education authority in terms of opting out not to reach an agreement but to be in conflict because they would then receive additional resources for special educational needs in a particular area?
  Mr. Forsyth: No, the hon. Gentleman is not interpreting my words correctly. The additional provision will be made to take account of the needs of the child and an assessment will be made of the best placement for the child. The additional funds provided if the placement is at a self-governing school will be deducted from the education authority's grant in the same way as the provision for self-governing schools in respect of mainstream education. Therefore, there is no incentive to offload the responsibility on to the Secretary of State. That would be undesirable.
  I am fairly confident—
  Mr. McFall: I have considered special needs since the subject was raised in Committee. Taking an empirical case, there are parents with severely mentally handicapped children and parents with profoundly mentally handicapped children. After discussing the issue of special educational needs with those parents. I detect a division in the way they think their children should be educated. Some parents of severely mentally handicapped children have said that they do not want their children to be educated in the same environment as the profoundly mentally handicapped.
  The character of a school can change within two or three years and if a school has opted out and the parents of severely mentally handicapped children are dominant, they may make a decision to admit only severely mentally handicapped children. What will happen to children who are profoundly mentally handicapped? If they cannot obtain a place at the school near their locality, will the local authority have to look again at its provision for the mentally handicapped?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to repeat what I have just told the House at great length. In the case of a particular placement, there will be dialogue between the education authority and the school. If there is disagreement over the needs in terms of provision or resources, the Secretary of State will have a locus. The removal of the requirement to hold a ballot and obtain the Secretary of State's permission to change the characteristics applies only to an improvement in provision for special needs, not to a diminution of it.
  5 pm
  I am confident that our proposals for special schools mean that they can opt for self-governing status in the certainty that they can continue fully to participate in the provision for special educational needs required for the

  169
  local education authority's area. Mainstream schools preparing to become self-governing will have the assurance of a continuing role in the education of recorded children. The amendment to clause 25 is technical and consequential.
  For all those reasons, I commend the Government amendments to the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West will recognise that his amendment is not necessary and that the commitments on funding that he seeks have already been given in Committee. I am not sure that I can go along with his attitude towards assisted places or his ideas on education, which appear to be concentrated around the concept of equality of outcome. That is best summarised in the remark made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, that if it is good enough for Henry McLeish's children it is good enough for everyone else. That view was definitely rejected. The clause, although ensuring fairness in the funding of schools, also allows for diversity and an extension of parental choice.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I live with the memory of a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh when the Minister pronounced his belief in cheque-book choice for education. Against that background, I find it not just difficult but absolutely impossible to accept that the Minister is sincerely concerned about Scottish education. Although I am liable to be criticised for apparently criticising my colleagues on the Front Bench, I must say that I can think of nothing more damaging than the opting out of special needs schools. The Minister is not just famous but notorious for running around Scotland telling the doctors and the teachers that they do not understand his proposals. No one except the Minister seems to understand his proposals, although I do not believe that even he understands the damage that will be done to special needs schools. He will live to regret his proposals.
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) chided my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about a unitary Parliament. The days of centralised Administration have outlived their time. That will soon be the position in this country, as it is already in most other parliamentary democracies. No other developed parliamentary democracy allows a small group of unrepresentative people to impose their unwanted policies on an unwilling population, as is happening in Scotland. The House and the unitary system—of which the hon. Member for Tayside, North is so proud—are being brought into disrepute by the arrogance with which the Minister has proceeded not just with this legislation, but with the legislation on the National Health Service in Scotland. Conservative Members talk about the possibility of schools opting out rather than face closure, but my understanding is that this legislation is exactly the same as that for the NHS and that there will be no possibility of a school opting out simply because the local authority has proposed its closure.
  It is worth pausing for a minute to think about what the Government propose for Scottish education. I do not doubt that the Minister will call it choice. Scotland has been forced to accept the assisted places scheme and the grant-aided sector of private education, which is funded largely by taxpayers' money. I cannot understand why Thatcherite Conservatives are in favour of giving taxpayers' money to private schools. I simply do not understand their logic. The Government are withdrawing
  170
  taxpayers' money from almost every organisation in the United Kingdom, but for some reason the grant-aided sector survives that philosophy.
  Scotland will also have the Minister's opting-out system and the local education authority system. All that is designed for one purpose only—to sap the confidence of local authority education in Scotland. Although the Minister will not admit it, he is hoping that the local authority sector will fail and that his opting-out system will flourish. His assisted places scheme has little to do with education and everything to do with filling the empty desks in the grant-aided sector. That is why, in the final analysis, the decision about who should have places under the scheme lies not with the Secretary of State, not with Members of Parliament and not even with local education authorities; it lies with the headmasters of the receiving schools.
  Scotland faces a range of education that the Minister will claim means choice, but its purpose is to sap the confidence of the state sector, which is so excellent in Scotland. Every Right-wing Government in any country have always been guilty of promising to the majority what they know only the minority can have. The Government know that this legislation relates only to the minority and that the vast majority will be left with a denuded education system. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West tabled his amendment in an attempt to prevent the Minister favouring schools that opt out, at the expense of local authority schools.
  As most of my colleagues know, I shall not return to the House after the next general election—[Interruption.] Unlike the Minister, I am leaving voluntarily. He will be thrown out, and a few more Conservatives with him. In three years' time, when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is Secretary of State for Scotland and my own Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central, (Mr. McLeish) is Education Minister, I shall be very disappointed if they do not put an end to the assisted places scheme and all the rubbish that the Minister has proposed today. I do riot know what sort of brains in the Scottish Office thought up such rubbish.
  I have a feeling that I will not need to express that disappointment, because I have sufficient confidence in my hon. Friends. They know the damage that the Conservative party in Scotland, small though it is, is doing to Scottish education. It will be up to my colleagues to rebuild that system into the proud system it once was before the advent of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I will lay a wager with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). I will wager a bottle of whisky that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), will be back in the next Parliament.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I want to make it absolutely clear that I accept that wager.
  Mr. Leigh: I am delighted to find a sporting gentleman on the Opposition Benches. Those of us who served on Committee will remember that my hon. Friend the Minister offered us a bottle of whisky if we could answer the Highlands and Islands board's examination of 1890.

  171
  Only four of us took part and I came a very close second only because I had some small historical detail about a battle wrong.
  I was interested that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) intervened in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). The hon. Member for Hillsborough obviously thinks that English Members have an important contribution to make in these matters. We must have a contribution to make because we can inform Scottish Members about what has been happening in England.
  Clearly the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has not done his research. If he had read the Committee proceedings or carried out research into what has been happening in England, he would have discovered that far from schools choosing opted-out status because they are in danger of being closed, or because they want increased capital allocations, they have chosen that status because the parents want to run their own schools.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan should have considered what has happened in Lincolnshire, in Skegness grammar school, which was the very first school to opt out. If he had considered that, he would have found that Conservative-controlled Lincolnshire county council had not the slightest intention of closing the school or cutting its capital allocation.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman could save himself a great deal of trouble. Due to the benefits of Scottish education, we can read the national newspapers and we can find out what is happening in England.
  Mr. Leigh: I read national newspapers and Scottish newspapers with great interest. The hon. Lady may have noticed that The Scotsman published an article of mine recently about Europe, entitled "The Nightmare and the Dream". I am grateful to The Scotsman for giving me the opportunity to make my point.
  Mr. Salmond: Is it not possible that Scottish and English parents take a different view of these things? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that the prosecution of this legislation is a reason why the Conservative vote sank so low in Scotland last Thursday?
  Mr. Leigh: That is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows that that cannot be true. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear, this is permissive legislation. If it is true that this legislation is deeply unpopular among Scottish parents—and I do not know whether it is or not—I am prepared to give them the chance to find out what it is about. In Committee I asked the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) time and again whether he thought that any schools would opt out. He refused to answer me. We are facing entirely permissive legislation about which the House should not be too worried.
  Mr. Bill Walker: In response to the comment made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), is my hon. Friend aware that, in an election in Kirriemuir, the region responsible for education in my constituency, the nationalist candidate was hammered? My constituents have never failed to understand my views or those of my
  172
  colleagues in respect of education, and they support me and my hon, Friend the Minister. There is no better way of showing that support than in a regional election where education was an important issue.
  Mr. Leigh: We should be careful here. Our nationalist friends are still suffering from the result in Glasgow, so they are feeling a little fragile. We should not be too hard on them.
  I must reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East about the unitary Parliament. That point has been made again and again in our debates. No doubt he was a Member of the House when the debate was going on, and he must be aware that grammar schools in Lincolnshire were being threatened with closure simply because a Labour-dominated Parliament was trying to force Lincolnshire to close its grammar schools. That Parliament was dominated by Labour Members because of the preponderance of Labour Members from Scotland. The arguments about a unitary Parliament do not hold water.
  5.15 pm
  These debates have revealed fear among Labour Members. They are afraid that there are Conservative Members who are prepared to take these arguments into the very heartlands of Labour party support in Scotland. We are not trying to ape what the Labour party has done. Our radical ideas will bear fruit. They have already borne fruit with the sale of council houses in giving ordinary people choices and opportunities which they would not have had before.
  One point comes out strong and clear from our arguments: this is not an attack on the state sector. If we wanted to attack—and I use that phrase carefully—the state sector, would we not be talking about education vouchers or tax relief for sending children to private schools?
  Mr. Douglas: That is exactly what the Minister is doing.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) should consider what is happening. We are strengthening the state sector. We are talking about creating magnet schools, flagship schools and schools which will provide an opportunity for the whole state sector. This debate is not about destroying the state sector; it is about improving it. I have no doubt that when people look back on these debates, they will see this legislation as a watershed in Scottish politics. They will see that for the first time, we had the courage to go out there and give choice and freedom to the people.
  I will not let the hon. Member for Fife, Central forget his article in the Glasgow Herald. He stated:
  "The new right has temporarily defined the terms of the debate because they are willing to engage—the hijacking and exploitation by the right of parental choice is one of their most significant victories."
  Was it not also significant that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that English Members—I presume he meant me, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) or one of my other colleagues who are present—dominated the debate? Perhaps we began to dominate the debate because we are in touch with what people really want. This is not about giving rights to minorities. It is about giving rights, opportunities and choices to people who have not been able to afford them

  173
  or take those opportunities hitherto. That is why we will find that this legislation is a watershed and why, from this moment on, we go onwards and upwards in Scotland.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Is it not even more significant that, from what I can detect, the Opposition might not vote against the Government amendments?
  Mr. Leigh: I think that it is significant that the Opposition might not be prepared to vote on amendment No. 33. I challenge them to vote on their amendment. Are they not going to do that because they realise that the amendment is completely unnecessary and misguided? Perhaps they will not vote against it because my hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee:
  "the amount of recurrent grant will be comparable to the provision made for schools still under education authority management … self-governing schools will remain in the public sector. Therefore, it is right that they should be treated no better and no worse than would be expected for equivalent schools managed by the education authority".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 20 April 1989; c.854.]
  Amendment No. 33 is unnecessary and misguided. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West is really worried not about what this narrow technical part of the Bill contains, but that his heartland is being eroded by my hon. Friend the Minister, who will sweep back to power in Scotland in two or three years' time.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: We have just heard eloquent testimony to why Scots want some control over affairs such as education. We have endured such speeches for nearly eight weeks in Committee. I am deeply apologetic to my hon. Friends for their having to listen to another two or three minutes.
  I assure my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that when we take over the Scottish Office in 1991 or 1992 one of our first steps will be to phase out the assisted places scheme because it encourages nothing but privilege and it is a waste of public expenditure. The £10 million that will have been spent on the scheme by that time could be used more productively in the state sector, where I am sure that children get a better education.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman make that promise to the House. Does he recall that in Committee he said:
  "Some parts of the Bill might remain, some parts of it might be popular. It would be foolish for anyone to commit any Government of any political party to what they will do in two or three years' time."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee; 18 May 1989, c. 1501.]
  Why has the hon. Gentleman changed his mind?
  Mr. McLeish: The events of the past two or three days may have confirmed in the minds of civil servants and the Government that we are now on course—[Interruption.] It would be foolish for any party to give an overall commitment to everything, but let me make it clear that we shall phase out the assisted places scheme, and later on this evening we shall chart what we shall be doing with other parts of the Bill:
  The Minister is still playing politics with some of the most sensitive educational issues in Scotland. I bitterly deplore the fact that special needs are still being used as a political football by the Minister and his colleagues on the hard Right, including the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. Alan Amos: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: No.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes mentioned earlier the letter he had received from Mrs. Lamond. I investigated that letter a bit more effectively than did the hon. Gentleman. Mrs. Lamond wrote to the hon. Gentleman, but on the back of a number of considerations that he has not outlined to the House, the first being essentially political. The lady was advised to write to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), but he was regarded as too moderate to do anything purposeful with it. It was then suggested that somone a bit more extreme could deal with it more effectively on the Floor of the Committee. Therefore, the letter was sent to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, allowing him to use it in a most disgraceful fashion by taking one example of a lady with a handicapped child.
  Since I have been a Member of the House there have been few occasions when an hon. Member has used a letter in such a way to bring contempt on the Government Benches and to illustrate that they have no policy on special needs. Under the guise of crocodile tears, they are seeking to suggest that they care about the future of Scottish education and special needs.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: No.
  Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) to cast aspersions on a lady who has a handicapped son and who wrote to me as a member of the Committee to ask me to commend to the Minister the reason for including special schools within the Bill? Surely you should rule against the hon. Gentleman misusing an ordinary lady with a handicapped child for his political purposes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have heard nothing out of order.
  Mr. McLeish: At the end of that contribution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you missed the hon. Gentleman laughing. That was interesting.
  Special needs is a sensitive issue and we are worried that special needs schools in Scotland will be eligible to become self-governing schools. I want to put on the record once more that we deplore the decision that was taken in Committee, supported by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The issues involved in special needs schools are far too emotive and sensitive to be divorced from the work of the education authorities which have served them well over many years.
  Mr. Amos: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: No.
  The Minister should put on ice the part of the Bill that deals with special needs until he has engaged in some realistic discussions. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a good point when he said that there had been no decent discussions with special needs groups in Scotland. It is outrageous that an area of such sensitivity has been treated in such a cavalier way by the Government, especially the Minister.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is making a great deal of the lady from Bearsden. Does he recall that the amendment that he tabled in Committee—[Interruption]—which he withdrew and which we acknowledge was a mistake on his part, was supported by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council? Is he arguing that not only the lady who wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) but the organisation which speaks for parents and parent-teacher councils in Scotland are out of step? Would it not be appropriate to take account of their wishes rather than responding in the prejudiced way that we have heard in the few moments that he has been addressing the House?
  Mr. McLeish: The SPTC took that decision because the lady was a member of the SPTC and she asked it to write and prepare that amendment.
  My third and final point relates to the possibility under clause 28 of the characteristics of a school being changed, which poses a direct and real threat to special needs provisions. Very few Opposition Members feel reassured by the Minister's words or actions on the amendments that have been tabled today. The Government should now take seriously special needs in Scotland, whether it be special needs schools or the integration of children with handicaps into local authority provision.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has tabled an amendment that has produced a good debate. I sincerely hope that when we call for a Division the Government will support what is a common sense and obvious way of moving forward.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has just said. There has been a disgraceful lack of consultation with bodies representing children with special needs. The imposition of the guillotine on the debate means that we have had no opportunity tonight to discuss the needs of Gaelic speakers and those adult users of school education who will have no opportunity to have their needs considered.
  That is demonstrative of the Government's bullying attitude. They still believe, as we know from listening to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), that they have a right to impose their wishes on the basis of a tiny unrepresentative minority of 10 Scottish Tory Members of Parliament telling Scotland what it will have to suffer. Despite last week's election results, they are still imposing their views on us. They have no European Member of Parliament in Scotland. Glasgow, Central returned a Labour Member to the House, and the Tory candidate lost his deposit yet the Government claim that they have a basis for imposing their views on us.
  The Government keep telling us about this being a unitary Parliament, which gives them the right to do what they are doing, but they seem to forget that under no circumstances could England have imposed upon it the views of a number of people who do not even represent one seventh of the Members of that Parliament. That is what happens to us and that is why their conduct risks breaking up the United Kingdom and they are complete fools if they do not realise that this is where this is leading. They should realise that once again last week the Scottish people told them that they do not want the Bill. In our doorstep discussions, a lot of anger was shown by people asking why we were having such a Bill when the vast majority of Scottish people clearly do not want it, any more than they
  176
  want the poll tax or the Government cuts, and so on. I hope that a Conservative Member will explain to us tonight on what grounds they can do this to the Scottish people.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are not only imposing the legislation on the people of Scotland but have not even consulted them about many of its provisions? In Committee, I challenged the Minister in respect of certain matters affecting special schools, asking whether he had consulted any group of parents representing such children. It was obvious that he had consulted none of them.
  Mrs. Fyfe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that the Minister failed to consult relevant bodies representing children with special needs. However, why should he bother to do so when he already ignores the needs and wishes of the Scottish electorate as a whole?
  It being half-past Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [3rd May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 266.

  Division No. 248]

  [5.30 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dixon, Don

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dobson, Frank

  Allen, Graham

  Doran, Frank

  Alton, David

  Douglas, Dick

  Anderson, Donald

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eadie, Alexander

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fatchett, Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Beckett, Margaret

  Flannery, Martin

  Beith, A. J.

  Flynn, Paul

  Bell, Stuart

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Derek

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

  Foulkes, George

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fraser, John

  Blair, Tony

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blunkett, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Boyes, Roland

  Galloway, George

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Buckley, George J.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caborn, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hardy, Peter

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clay, Bob

  Haynes, Frank

  Clelland, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, Bob

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howells, Geraint

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Illsley, Eric

  177

  Ingram, Adam

  Prescott, John

  Janner, Greville

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Kennedy, Charles

  Reid, Dr John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Richardson, Jo

  Lambie, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Leighton, Ron

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Litherland, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Livsey, Richard

  Salmond, Alex

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAllion, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McCartney, Ian

  Short, Clare

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Sillars, Jim

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mallon, Seamus

  Stott, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Strang, Gavin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maxton, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meale, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Wall, Pat

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliott

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wilson, Brian

  Murphy, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  O'Brien, William

  Wray, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Parry, Robert

  Patchett, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Boswell, Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Allason, Rupert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Amess, David

  Bowis, John

  Amos, Alan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Arbuthnot, James

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Graham

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, David

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

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Bendall, Vivian

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Burns, Simon

  Benyon, W.

  Burt, Alistair

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Butler, Chris

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  178

  Chope, Christopher

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Churchill, Mr

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Colvin, Michael

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Conway, Derek

  Knox, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lang, Ian

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Latham, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Couchman, James

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Critchley, Julian

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Curry, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lightbown, David

  Day, Stephen

  Lilley, Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Lord, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Dunn, Bob

  McCrindle, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Dykes, Hugh

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Maclean, David

  Evennett, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  Mans, Keith

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maples, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Marland, Paul

  Freeman, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fry, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mellor, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gregory, Conal

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Roger

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Harris, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mudd, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Neale, Gerrard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heddle, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Norris, Steve

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hill, James

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hind, Kenneth

  Page, Richard

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Price, Sir David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Renton, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irvine, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Irving, Charles

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Janman, Tim

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rost, Peter

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kilfedder, James

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  179

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tracey, Richard

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Tredinnick, David

  Sims, Roger

  Trippier, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Trotter, Neville

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Speed, Keith

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Speller, Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waller, Gary

  Squire, Robin

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ward, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stern, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Whitney, Ray

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Yeo, Tim

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thome, Neil

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Thurnham, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, up to the end of schedule 3.

Clause 3

  THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT AND THE ARTICLES OF CONSTITUTION
  Amendments made: No. 61, in page 2, line 24, leave out
  'of the same number as had the school board on the relevant date".
  No. 62, in page 2, line 28, leave out
  `of the same number as had the school board on that date'.
  No. 63, in page 2, line 32, leave out
  'of such number, greater than had the school board of co-opted members on that date, as shall be specified in the articles of constitution.'.
  No. 64, in page 2, line 34, leave out
  `subject to subsection (2) below.'
  No. 65, in page 2, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 47.
  No. 66, in page 3, line 3, leave out 'subsection (5)' and insert 'subsections (5) and (6)'.
  No. 67, page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
  '(6) The duty, under subsection (4) above, of an interim board of management shall be construed as a duty to ensure that the election of the parent and staff members who are to succeed them on the board of management takes place as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within three months after the incorporation date.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 1

  THE SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT
  Amendment made: No. 111, in page 50, line 11, leave out
  'and such specification shall accord with section 3(1) of this Act'
  and insert
  `so however that the first such specification in respect of the board shall require that—
  180

  (a) the parent members first elected shall be of greater number than had the school board on the relevant date;

  (b) the staff members first elected shall be of the same number as had the school board on that date; and

  (c) the appointed members ("appointed" not including persons deemed appointed by virtue of paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 4 to this Act) shall be of greater number than had the school board on that date.

  2A. In paragraph 2 above the reference to the relevant date is to the date immediately preceding the incorporation date; and for the purposes of that paragraph numbers shall be determined as if any vacancy in the membership of the school board were filled.'
  No. 112, in page 50, line 16, leave out
  ',or to be an appointed member'.
  No. 113, in page 50, line 18, leave out from 'person' to`; and' in line 22 and insert
  `who is eligible for election to the board of management shall not be eligible for appointment to the board'.
  No. 114, in page 50, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 4

  MEMBERS' TENURE OF OFFICE
  Amendments made: No. 68, in page 3, line 16, leave out `subsection' and insert 'subsections (2) and'.
  No. 69, in page 3, line 16, leave out from 'a' to 'shall' in line 18 and insert
  `member of a board of management'.
  No. 70, in page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  '(2) Where the parent members first elected to a board of management constitute—

  (a) an even number, half;

  (b) an odd number, the next whole number less than half,

  shall hold office for a term of two years only, the individuals whose term of office is affected by this subsection being determined (in the absence of the agreement of all such members as to who those individuals shall be) by the drawing of lots.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 7

  POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
  Amendments made: No. 71, in page 4, line 13, after `(b), insert
  `subject to subsection (2) below and to section (disposal of land by board of management) of this Act,'.
  No. 72, in page 4, line 47 at end insert—
  '—(5A) The board of management of a self-governing school shall, in the exercise of their functions, have regard to a need to make improvements in the provision which the school makes for pupils with special educational needs.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 13

  INITIATION OF PROCEDURE FOR ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS
  Amendments made: No. 25, in page 6, line 41, after 'are', insert—
  '(a) in a case other than that provided for in paragraph (b) below,'.
  No. 26 in page 6, line 42, leave out 'a number of and insert 'at least thirty'.
  No. 27, in page 6, line 43, after 'school', insert
  `and that the number of such parents so signing must be'.
  No. 28, in page 6, line 43, leave out 'parents' and insert `persons'.
  No. 29, in page 6, line 46, after 'maintained', insert
  `, in respect of the school,'.
  No. 30, in page 6, line 47, at end insert
  `; and
  (b) in a case where the names of fewer than sixty persons so appeared, that the request must be signed by such number of parents of pupils in attendance at the school as would constitute a simple majority of those parents were their total number equal to the number of persons whose names so appeared.'.
  No. 31, in page 7, line 2, leave out
  `parent had a child who was'
  and insert
  `person is the parent or.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 14

  BALLOT OF PARENTS ON QUESTION OF ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS
  Amendments made: No. 73, in page 8, line 2, after `section', insert —(a)'.
  No. 74, in page 8, line 3, leave out
  `the whole or any part of'.
  No. 75, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—
  `(not being expenses mentioned in paragraph (b) below); and
  (b) the education authority shall pay, or reimburse the school board in respect of, any expenses incurred in connection with, or in contemplation of, legal proceedings (whether or not instituted) arising out of—

  (i) the holding of the ballot; or

  (ii) the publication under section 16(2) of this Act, following the determination of the result of the ballot, of proposals for acquisition of self-governing status for the school.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 3

  ARRANGEMENTS IN RESPECT OF BALLOT OF PARENTS REGARDING ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS
  Amendments made: No. 115, in page 56, line 1, after `(a)', insert
  `without prejudice to sub-paragraph (b) below,.'.
  No. 116, in page 56, line 5, leave out 'other'.
  No. 117, in page 56, line 6, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraph'.
  No. 118, in page 56, line 9, leave out 'required by a notice under' and insert 'held by virtue of.
  No. 119, in page 56, line 10, after 'which', insert
  `in the case of a ballot required by a notice under subsection (1) of that section'.
  No. 120, in page 56, line 21, after '4', insert '(a) and'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 15

  FRESH BALLOT
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 8, line 7, after '15', insert—'(1)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 77.
  No. 1, in clause 16, page 8, line 24 leave out 'simple' and insert 'two-thirds'.
  No. 5, in page 8, line 24 leave out 'simple' and insert '75 per cent.'.
  No. 39, in page 8, line 24 leave out 'simple' and insert 'two-thirds'.
  No. 59, in page 8, line 24, leave out 'simple' and insert `67 per cent'.
  Government amendment No. 78.
  No. 6, in page 8, line 24, at end insert,
  'provided that the majority represents at least two thirds of all parents eligible to vote.'.
  No. 2, in clause 28, page 17, line 41, leave out 'simple' and insert 'two-thirds'.
  No. 60, in page 17, line 41, leave out 'simple' and insert `67 per cent'.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously I accept your selection of amendments, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and I have put down our names to amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Will there be an opportunity for us to vote on those amendments, particularly amendment No. 1?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The timing of the guillotine poses a difficulty. This debate must end at 6.30; after that, only Government amendments can be taken. I hope that I have given the right hon. Gentleman enough information for him to be able to judge what he should do.
  Mr. Forsyth: These amendments take us over some very familiar territory. I feel that I should tell the House just how familiar it is to those of us who served on the Committee, where we discussed a similar group of amendments which had been tabled by the Opposition, providing that, when the turnout for the ballot was less than 50 per cent., there should be a second ballot. Other amendments proposed to replace the simple majority with various more or less sophisticated alternatives. The Opposition again moved that the simple majority be replaced by a two-thirds majority of parents eligible to vote. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) tabled an amendment that would have replaced the simple majority with a simple majority of those eligible to vote.
  We had a brief but constructive discussion, on the basis of which the Government took on board the substance of the Opposition's amendments which would make provision for a second ballot if fewer than 50 per cent. voted. On that basis, the Committee was content to let the amendments be withdrawn. The amendments that we are discussing today honour our commitment in full. I am slightly surprised that various alternative formulae have been brought in. The new proposals in today's amendments are all variations on a theme. We must keep the matter of the ballot in proportion. I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is essentially a test of opinion, carrying no Executive decision.
  The process of acquiring self-governing status involves several stages. First, there must be a decision to put the matter to a ballot. That is taken either by a resolution of the school board or by a request by a stated percentage of the parents involved. Then the ballot takes place. The question on which parents are asked to vote is not whether the school shall become self-governing; neither they nor the school board will have the power to decide that. They are asked simply whether they are content that proposals for self-governing status should be put forward. If they are not content, that is the end of the matter. If, however, they return a majority in favour, the school board first Las to

  183
  draw up—[Interruption.] I am smiling at the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who, having spent so many hours in Committee, seems only now to have realised what these very important provisions are all about. If parents are not content, nothing further can happen. If, however, they return a majority in favour, the school board first has to draw up and publish proposals for self-governing status.
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister said that, if the majority of parents are not in favour of self-governing status, nothing further can happen, yet the Secretary of State for Education and Science for England and Wales has allowed a school in Birmingham to opt out, although fewer than half the parents at that school voted for it.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for pointing out that, contrary to what his party has been saying, the proposals that we have put forward for the reform of education in Scotland are not carbon copies of those for south of the border. He is well aware of the provisions that we have included in the Bill. The amendments that I have tabled provide that, where fewer than half the parents participate in the ballot, there must be a second ballot.
  I was explaining the procedure that has to be followed. If the parents return a majority in favour, their school board has to draw up and publish proposals for self-governing status. These are to be sent to the education authority and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They will have to be published in newspapers and otherwise made publicly available. It will then be open to the whole world to make its views known on the proposals. Their representations are to be directed to the Secretary of State. He has to receive them and consider them all. Only in the light of all the representations does he make a decision on whether the school should become self-governing.
  It is quite clear that in practice the representations made to the Secretary of State will have to weigh with him; he is not bound to accept a positive ballot result. There will be cases where, notwithstanding the support of the majority in a ballot, the Secretary of State may decide, for good reasons, that the school is not to be allowed to become self governing. He may not be convinced that the school really has a future—for example, if its numbers are in decline. He will have to take those factors into account. He will also have to take account of representations that may be made by the education authority. It will want to apprise him of the full situation in the area—of the other schools and their pupil numbers, of its plans for them, of the implications for the education authority if the school in question should become self-governing. That, I hope, will begin to put the question of a ballot into some kind of perspective.
  It is also relevant to look at the kind of ballot results that may be expected, the kind of psychological effect that they may have and the relative weight which the Secretary of State might give to a given result. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has obviously been studying the question. As he knows, some experience of these matters is building up under the English legislaton. I understand that 64 ballots have already been held on grant-maintained status under the Education Reform Act 1988. Of these, 15 were negative—in some cases quite
  184
  decisively so—another 40 would have passed the two-thirds majority rule that is proposed by some of the amendments that are before us today. Of those, 36 would have passed the more stringent test of a 75 per cent. majority. It is quite clear that we may therefore expect that, whatever test is set, there will be a clear-cut result in the great majority of cases.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the opposition of certain Labour Members to these proposals is very strange? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) opted into the private sector when he was a teacher?
  Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is quite right. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) says that that is very old. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman also says that he, too, is very old. We believe in choice in education. We also think that the hon. Member for Cathcart was entitled to teach in the independent sector, if that was his wish. It is a free society.
  It is only on the other side of the House that, as we heard from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) the doctrine applies that if it is good enough for Henry McLeish's children it is good enough for everyone else's children. It is only the Opposition who seek to deny choice. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Fife, Central is mouthing, "Privilege." He has made several attacks on the assisted places scheme. He has denounced it as privilege. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is confirming that. Almost half the total number of pupils on the assisted places scheme come from families with an income of less than £8,500 a year. It is typical of the Labour party that it would limit choice and deny education of that sort to those who would otherwise be unable to afford it.
  Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend gave some interesting statistics, but is he able to say how many of the votes were cast in the face of the likely closure of the school?
  Mr. Forsyth: I cannot give my hon. Friend the precise figure, but he is mistaken if he believes that the majority of the schools were facing closure. During our discussion of the last set of amendments my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) pointed out that the majority of the schools were not facing closure. The first school in the United Kingdom to go for self-governing status, Skegness grammar school, was not in that position.
  I commend to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) a very interesting article in The Daily Telegraph some months ago. I shall send a copy of the article to him. It analysed the schools in England that have gone for self-governing status and the reasons for them doing so. It also gave an analysis of the schools that intended to go for self-governing status and showed that the proportion of schools that were not facing some kind of organisational upheaval, such as closure, had been reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said that the principal motivation would be the belief that, by taking decisions at local level, free of the education authority, schools would be more responsive to the needs of parents and would provide a better service.

  185
  That is why it is essential that parents in Scotland should have the same freedom and opportunity as is so clearly sought in England.
  It is a mark of the peculiarities of the Labour party in Scotland that it seems to take the view that there is something wrong with Scottish parents—that they are unable to exercise choice and bring about the kind of management of schools that appears to be working so successfully south of the border.
  Sir Hector Monro: I gave my hon. Friend the figures on Second Reading. Of the 37 schools which, by 6 March, had voted to opt out, 27 faced closure.
  Mr. Forsyth: I have not checked my hon. Friend's figures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] However, he knows now that the measure is even more popular than he might have imagined. He quoted a figure of 37, but there have now been 64 ballots. A proportionately larger number of those schools are not faced with closure. I have just told my hon. Friend that all the evidence from the survey carried out by The Daily Telegraph showed that, as more schools came forward for self-governing status, the proportion of schools that were facing some kind of catastrophe had been reduced. I do not believe that there is any difference between the figures that my hon. Friend quoted and the point that I have just made to the House.
  I am fairly certain that an opting-out ballot will, in almost all cases, be a matter of such acute interest that it will produce a high turnout and a decisive result. If there is a low turnout, our amendment, which picks up that tabled by the Opposition—I take it that the Oppposition tabled their amendment seriously and were committed to it—would give the board one more chance and that would have to be final. If the board failed to organise the second ballot, the matter would go no further, and rightly so. I understand that that has happened in one place in England.
  We are concerned about the minority of cases in which there is a positive result but with a smallish majority. The fact that a majority might be relatively slender would have to be taken seriously into account by the Secretary of State. He would have to find out what other evidence there was of genuine parental support for the school and a genuine understanding by the parents of the implications of self-governing status and a genuine will to take on that responsibility. The Secretary of State would need some assurance on these matters in any case, but the strongly positive ballot result would tend to confirm that there was a will and understanding among the parents—but even in that case it would not be absolutely conclusive. Where the majority is more narrow, the Secretary of State will naturally attach proportionately less weight to it.
  6 pm
  I return to the point that the ballot result itself in no way determines the Secretary of State's decision. In many cases it will be only marginally persuasive to him. A ballot is simply a test, taken at a very early stage, to find out whether the idea of self-governing status should be taken any further. It is only after the ballot result that the school board has to get down to working out full proposals.
  Against that background, the House should now consider what the reaction would be if the test were something higher than a simple majority. It would mean that a school might have a ballot in which there was a very high turnout and a majority of 60 per cent. Without
  186
  further ado, we would then have to say to parents at that school, "I am sorry, but you cannot even apply for self-governing status—your application cannot be considered." In such a case there would be an absolute outcry. People simply would not understand the logic of a law under which, despite a clear majority support in a ballot for the proposition, that proposition could not even reach the stage of being published for wider public views to be sought upon it. That would be perceived as a negation of democracy.
  Again, experience in England may be instructive. I am told that there have been nine ballots at which there was a majority for grant-maintained status of less than two thirds. Most of those cases are still pending, so I am not able to comment upon them. However, I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has rejected one and has approved two others. Are we to say that, when a school can bid for grant-maintained status in England and Wales on the basis of a 56 per cent. majority in a ballot, it can get approval—which is by no means automatic—from the Secretary of State, the same right should be denied to parents of children in schools in Scotland?
  Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend know of any instance in parliamentary or local government procedure which requires a two-thirds majority?
  Mr. Forsyth: Opposition Members are referring to constitutional arrangements, but my hon. Friend makes his point very well, and I support him.
  The figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was seeking have magically come into my possession. I can tell him that, at 9 June, of the 46 schools that have voted in favour of self-governing status, there were 26 to which no change was proposed. Only 10 were facing closure and 10 were facing other significant changes. That updates the information that my hon. Friend reported to the House on Second Reading.
  I know that there are fears that the legislation might be used by minority of parents to hijack a school into self-governing status. All such groups thrive on apathy. They rely on getting a vote pushed through when, so to speak, no one is noticing. In short, they rely on a low turnout. I am certainly not in favour of letting unrepresentative groups take control of a school. The best test of that is to see what number of supporters they can muster in a high turnout. That is why we have taken on board the concern expressed by the Opposition and provided the safety net that, where there is a turnout of less than 50 per cent. of those entitled to vote in the ballot, there must be a second ballot forthwith if the matter is to go any further.
  I am convinced that the amendments are sensible and are much readily intelligible to the public than any other formula. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said, people understand a simple majority and we should stick to it. I commend the Government amendments to the House.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at this stage of the debate. The House will agree that the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) relating to clauses 16 and 28 refer to crucial parts of the Bill. I shall be extremely brief, as I know that other Members wish to speak.

  187
  What my hon. Friend the Minister said is all right as far as it goes, and I welcome the change that he has made since Committee—that, in the case of a low turnout, there should be an opportunity to move to a second ballot. But my hon. Friend addressed only the problem of a small turnout. He is right to address that problem and I welcome it, but he has ignored two things: first, when there is a large turnout but only a small majority; secondly, when there is a small turnout on a second ballot. My hon. Friend dealt with neither of those possibilities.
  I am delighted that in England and Wales there has been evidence of a large turnout. If there is a large turnout, hopefully the problems will not be so great. However, if there is a small majority, there is the danger of a thoroughly divisive situation. My hon. Friend spoke of hijacking by small groups. That is one danger—if 51 per cent. were in favour and 49 per cent. were against, that would produce a divisive situation in the community served by that particular school. Equally, when there is a small turnout, it is even more important that it should be clear that a large percentage are in favour of the proposal.
  That is important in the decision whether to opt out, and it is equally important, if not more so, in any decision to change the character of the school. If a school opted out it might continue in a similar way under different management. I shall not go into all the arguments, but amendment No. 2 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries is even more relevant to any decision to change the character of a school.
  My hon. Friend the Minister tried to play all that down. He pointed out that we are only triggering off a procedure. I accept that, but he must recognise that the ballot is the last real, open test of public opinion. After that, everything happens not exactly behind closed doors, but at people's discretion to consider one factor or another or to consider representations. It is the last real test of public opinion, and to that extent the numbers voting and the percentage of the vote are absolutely critical in deciding whether a school opts out.
  My hon. Friend said that, if my amendment were accepted, and the vote were just below two thirds, it would be a negation of democracy if the proposals were turned down on that basis. That is nonsense. We are talking about a very big change, a total constitutional change as it affects a particular school, either in relation to opting out or in relation to the character of that school. It is not undemocratic to have a test higher than 51 per cent. in constitutional changes, whether they relate to public bodies or private organisations. It is nothing unusual, and it is certainly not a negation of democracy, to look for a test above 51 per cent.
  If it is proposed to change the status quo—this is a major change from the status quo in Scottish education—we need a much higher test. Although I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister proposes in relation to small turn outs, I do not believe that it addresses the main question. The ideal solution is my hon. Friend's amendments, which I welcome, and to have grafted into them the test of a two-thirds majority when the ballot takes place. Unless my hon. Friend the Minister can give some sign that he would be prepared to go further than he is tonight and write the two-thirds majority into the ballot, I shall certainly find it difficult to support it.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Hon. Members are in some difficulty because of the timetable motion. This is an important debate. The matter may have been well ventilated in Committee, but, for many hon. Members, it is the one, and unfortunately all too brief, opportunity to debate a central issue. It will be an embittering and unfortunate business if we cannot vote on the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). It would make a mockery of the procedures of the House and the way in which we conduct our business. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I can only have a very fast run at the arguments. I certainly cannot deploy the kind of case that I would normally wish to deploy in a matter of this importance.
  Of course I welcome amendments Nos. 76 and 77. After all, they were originally Opposition amendments in Committee, and they were redrafted for technical reasons and accepted in principle by the Government, and, in response to the Government's promises, they now appear on the Amendment Paper. I welcome them because they ensure a second ballot if less than 50 per cent. of all those eligible to vote are the majority in the first ballot. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must look beyond that and the two-thirds provision. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 do exactly that. It is simply common sense that, when something as fundamental and radical as opting out of the normal local authority system is suggested, there should be adequate safeguards to ensure a proper basis of support.
  It is well known that the Opposition oppose the concept of opting out. We regard it as a fragmentation of the school system. In its wake, it may bring changes in fundamental characteristics that are based on the perceived interests of a small group of children rather than the advantage of the majority. That we are opposed in principle to the opting-out clauses does not mean that safeguards should not be built in where possible, and we should look for sensible improvements. I do not have a great deal of confidence that the Minister will agree with us, but at least he should have the opportunity positively to respond, and the House should have an opportunity to make a considered decision.
  I was interested in what the Minister said. We hear a great deal about power to parents and trusting parents. Of course, the Minister is as capable of expediency as everyone else. When it comes to this argument, he hurries to tell us that the ballot is a triggering mechanism, that it does not matter very much and that the power does not lie with the parents, so we do not need to worry too much about how the ballot is conducted or what the safeguards are. He cannot have it both ways. The ballot is important, and it is essential that we get it right. I do not think that it would be safe to leave it as it is in the Bill at the moment, as a simple majority. That is why I support the two-thirds requirement proposed in amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
  To use what I understand to be a familiar word in the teaching profession now, we do not want a capricious result. We do not want a situation in which parents, under pressure or in particular circumstances—perhaps in haste, to repent later at leisure—take a decision for the wrong reasons. There has been a statistical argument about the number of schools that have shown interest in the opting-out procedure because of the threat of closure or some other radical change in their boundaries or catchment areas, but I will not bandy statistics.

  189
  When he replied to the Second Reading debate, the Minister rather derided my attempt to suggest that this was an important factor, and he produced figures to show that, out of 59 schools that had become, to use his phrase, involved in the process, about 33 were threatened by closure. The figures may have changed since then. No one can deny that that is the kind of situation that will suddenly make opting out look spuriously attractive in a particular set of circumstances.
  6.15 pm
  That underlines the dangers and the need to make sure that there is a proper basis of support among parents before we go down what we regard as an often dangerous road, and what we all agree is a significant road.
  Next there is the technical, perhaps, but important electoral argument. The presence of one child can give rise to a different and varying franchise. I admit to using a little ingenuity, but I am told that one can find cases in which one child can produce—if that is the right word—six votes in the ballot, and certainly not uncommonly three or four votes. Again, 50 per cent. or a simple majority of 50 per cent. plus one, on examination, might turn out to be very different indeed.
  I am sorry that I cannot put my argument rather more fully, but if we ignore the right hon. Gentleman's amendments Nos. 1 and 2, we will put an element of risk into the system, and that is unwise. I echo the slogan of another long-off, far-off, battle—there is certainly a case for full-hearted consent in these matters because of the tremendous implications of opting out for individual schools.
  Obviously, I did not serve on the Committee, but I can remember the exchanges on Second Reading. The Minister told us that we already have selection in local authority schools, and suggested that anyone who was worried about the introduction of selection because of opting out was jousting at windmills and raising false fears. The Minister went on to explain that what he meant by local authority selection was, for example, a school in my constituency, Knightswood, which has a specialist centre for dance. The more I thought about it, the more curious and odd I found the Minister's argument. The truth is that, in mainstream academic terms, the reintroduction of selection is a possibility further down the road, with an alteration in fundamental characteristics.
  That merely underlines the need to make sure that, if parents are to accept this and try to trigger the process, there is a genuine basis on which to proceed. Given all the variations and uncertainties, I do not believe that a simple majority adequately does that. For that reason alone, I commend amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to the House in the genuine hope that we can be sensible enough about the conduct of our business to ensure that the House has a chance to vote on them.
  Sir Hector Monro: I will add only a few words, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has clearly put his case and is supported by the Opposition. It is disappointing that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken only a tiny step forward to the position in which he should be, bearing in mind that the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, The Church of Scotland and a
  190
  MORI poll are all firmly in favour of the two-thirds majority. My hon. Friend the Minister might have moved a great deal closer towards us.
  I feel strongly about this matter. The Minister knows that I am not in favour of opting out. The present structure is perfectly adequate, and there is no need to introduce this measure. I agree with my right hon. Friend that, whatever my hon. Friend the Minister says about this being only a triggering mechanism, it is crucial. It is the key issue in respect of school views on opting out. As my right hon. Friend said, the character of schools is at risk—perhaps the denominational aspect, catchment areas or other issues. I refer in particular to primary school catchment areas, which my hon. Friend the Minister says will be taken into account by consultation. That is not good enough. One wants a clear-cut view. Do the schools actually want to opt out? The only way to get a firm opinion on such a crucial matter is to have a figure substantially above 50 per cent., and that is why my right hon. Friend and I have set two thirds as the required majority.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is on dangerous ground if he is suggesting that on all important constitutional changes, a two-thirds majority is required. For example, should we have a two-thirds majority in a referendum about a Scottish Parliament? He is also in difficulty in addressing his remarks to a situation where, say, six out of 10 parents have voted to govern their own school. He is saying, in effect, "No, under my amendment you cannot do that." My hon. Friend is putting himself in a difficult position.
  Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend may think that; I do not. I know where I stand, and we have had constitutional referendums with various percentages thrown in. My hon. Friend is not on to a good point, and I advise him to come to Scotland and speak to parents who want to opt out. As the Minister said, if they do not want to opt out, they need not do so. It is important that we have a substantial majority, far above 50 per cent., so that the true nature of the vote is brought home to those who must make these decisions.
  Mr. Bill Walker: While my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) may not be from Scotland, I am, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will appreciate that, while I respect his point of view, it is important for him to understand that there are others who hold a contrary point of view. When schools in my constituency can be closed or fundamentally changed on a simple majority in local government, I cannot see why my hon. Friend is making such an issue of this matter.
  Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend may have a point, but it is wrong in terms of what we are discussing. When, on a majority decision, it is decided to close a school, consider the position in which the Government find themselves in giving away the right for all school closures to be approved by the Secretary of State, albeit in this ease in denominational schools and schools in rural areas. Had the Secretary of State retained that right, he could have looked at the whole issue and prevented a school from closing if the parent did not want it to close. Certainly he would have been in a position to prevent more closures than will be the case as the clause is drafted, simply

  191
  because the option will not rest with him, except for denominational schools and special travelling arrangements applying to schools in rural areas.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: If my hon. Friend is arguing that a simple majority is all right for making closure decisions or changes to the character of schools where they are in the control of the education authority—on the basis that approval would be required by the Secretary of State—that is precisely what we have in the Bill for self-governing status, where a simple majority and the consent and approval of the Secretary of State is required. That is the position he is arguing should pertain in cases of school closures where a simple majority is required. There is nothing more fundamental to changing the character of a school than closing it.
  Sir Hector Monro: I am being accused of adopting a wrong philosophy. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred to a simple majority, and I presume he meant a simple majority among parents and in the education authority. I am saying that that whole issue need not have arisen had the Secretary of State retained the right to decide whether a school should or should not be closed, a right which he had until 1980, a right which I exercised frequently when I was a Minister. No school was closed except by the wish of the parents, which I do not think ever occurred.
  In other words, hon. Members have been raising issues that are irrelevant to opting out, which is a fundamental and voluntary decision. It is not an action taken under compulsion, like a local authority school closure. For that reason, it is essential that more than 50 per cent. of parents are seen to be in favour.
  I am disappointed that the Minister has not come a long way towards accepting the amendment. Unless he is willing to say that in another place he will go a great deal further, I shall not be able to support the Government in this matter.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I will not delay the House on this matter. I plead with the Minister to take seriously what the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said. The logic and force of the arguments that have been put by hon. Members have been powerful collectively and are important from the Minister's point of view if opting out is to be accepted in the community in which it occurs and is not to be regarded as divisive and narrow. I urge him to reconsider his attitude to the amendment.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I speak more in sorrow than in anger, having found disappointing the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I appreciate how strongly they feel about the issue, but I cannot understand how they can be seen to be supporting, and be supported by, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), because what he said this evening will be quoted back at him every time he speaks about any sort of assembly in Edinburgh—[Interruption.]—in relation to a two-thirds majority.
  Equally, I hope that, whenever Labour Members speak in future to Ministers about closure proposals or changes
  192
  to schools in their constituencies—changes proposed by a local authority based on a simple majority—they will remember the arguments that were adduced in this debate.
  We have been asked to consider what would happen if there was a 51 to 49 per cent. split. Such a vote would cause a division in the local community, it has been said. In fact, divisions in the local community will be caused either way; if it is 49 per cent. one way and 51 per cent. the other or the other way round, divisions will result.
  It is important to recognise that an issue such as this cannot be looked at in isolation. It must be viewed against all other activities stemming from legislation that has been passed by this and previous Governments in which we have not stated that, at local authority level, where major decisions are made—not just in education but in many other areas—other than a simple majority basis should apply. To say that there must be a majority of two thirds in all cases, especially at the local level, would require us to change virtually all other legislation, and I doubt whether that is what Labour Members are after.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the desire on both sides of the House to vote on amendments Nos. 1 and 2. That can happen only if he resumes his seat before 6.30 and allows that vote to take place. I hope he will do that.
  Mr. Walker: It is not my intention to do anything that would frustrate the wishes of the House, but having listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries speak on this issue, I do not want the people of Scotland, in particular my constituents, to think that they are the only Members with a view in Scotland on this matter. That is vital to me, because I fear that some Members think that the message coming from me and others is not the message that the people of Scotland want to hear. I want to be certain that my voice is heard and that nobody is left in doubt about where I stand on matters requiring a two-thirds majority.
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there nothing you can do to stop this deliberate filibuster—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. We are in the middle of a debate and the point that the hon. Member raises is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: It must be the first time that an hon. Member who has been speaking for only two or three minutes—I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—has been accused of filibustering. Will my hon. Friend agree that substantial support for the Bill comes from his and my constituents and from many others?
  Mr. Bill Walker: I want the House to understand that, if there is a division of views—obviously there is—those of us who support these measures must be seen to be supporting them and to be speaking up in support of them.
  Mr. Dewar: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would certainly not accuse the hon. Gentleman of filibustering. Like the House, he is the victim of circumstances. However, we are extremely anxious to have a vote on amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Is there any way in which you can help us in this matter?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Not unless I can now put the Question.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Canavan: Sit down and let us have the vote.
  Mr. Bill Walker: If there has been any filibustering, it has been caused by Opposition interventions. Opposition Members will not allow me even three minutes to speak on a matter about which I feel strongly. The issue of two thirds is important and fundamental, and not just to this piece of legislation because it affects all other legislation. That is why we must think carefully about what we are doing. It is interesting that a simple majority is sufficient in any Committee in this House and that a simple majority is sufficient—
  It being half-past six O'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [3rd May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am now required to put all the Questions on amendments moved by the Government up to the end of clause 75—
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Does any hon. Member wish to vote against any of those amendments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"] What are those amendments?
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman please number the amendments?
  Mr. Dewar: It would be useful if the Government amendments could be put individually because we shall certainly now vote against some of them.
  Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, up to the end of clause 75.
  Amendment made: No. 77, in page 8, line 21, at end insert—
  `(2) Where in a ballot held in accordance with section 14 or 28 of this Act (other than a ballot held by virtue of this subsection) the total number of votes cast by persons eligible to vote in the ballot is less than fifty per cent. of the persons so eligible, the board shall, in accordance with the said section 14 or as the case may be 28, hold a fresh ballot.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 16

  PROPOSALS FOR ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS
  Amendment made: No. 78, in page 8, line 24, at end insert
  '(no declaration having been made under subsection (1) of section 15 of this Act as regards the ballot and no fresh ballot being required by virtue of subsection (2) of that section)'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Amendment proposed, No. 79, in page 8, line 29, leave out 'by regulations'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 201.

  Division No. 249]

  [6.31 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Favell, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Allason, Rupert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Amess, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Amos, Alan

  French, Douglas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gill, Christopher

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Ashby, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Atkinson, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Gregory, Conal

  Batiste, Spencer

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hannam, John

  Benyon, W.

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

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Harris, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hayes, Jerry

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hayward, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Heddle, John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bowis, John

  Hill, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hind, Kenneth

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

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

  Bright, Graham

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

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

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Irvine, Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Irving, Charles

  Butterfill, John

  Jack, Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Janman, Tim

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jessel, Toby

  Carrington, Matthew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cash, William

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Chope, Christopher

  Key, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Kilfedder, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Colvin, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Conway, Derek

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Knox, David

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lang, Ian

  Couchman, James

  Latham, Michael

  Cran, James

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Critchley, Julian

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Curry, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lightbown, David

  Day, Stephen

  Lilley, Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Dicks, Terry

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lord, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  McCrindle, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Dykes, Hugh

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  195

  Maclean, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mans, Keith

  Speed, Keith

  Maples, John

  Speller, Tony

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Squire, Robin

  Mates, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Steen, Anthony

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stern, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Moate, Roger

  Stokes, Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Summerson, Hugo

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Thorne, Neil

  Mudd, David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Norris, Steve

  Trippier, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Trotter, Neville

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Page, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Paice, James

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Ward, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Price, Sir David

  Watts, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Redwood, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Renton, Tim

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wilshire, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wood, Timothy

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Yeo, Tim

  Rost, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mr. Michael Fallon and

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blunkett, David

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Boyes, Roland

  Alton, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Buckley, George J.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Caborn, Richard

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Battle, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beckett, Margaret

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Beith, A. J.

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clay, Bob

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clelland, David

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

  Cohen, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blair, Tony

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  196

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McLeish, Henry

  Cryer, Bob

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cummings, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McWilliam, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Madden, Max

  Darling, Alistair

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dixon, Don

  Martlew, Eric

  Dobson, Frank

  Maxton, John

  Doran, Frank

  Meale, Alan

  Douglas, Dick

  Michael, Alun

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morley, Elliott

  Fearn, Ronald

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Fisher, Mark

  Murphy, Paul

  Flannery, Martin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Flynn, Paul

  O'Brien, William

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foster, Derek

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foulkes, George

  Parry, Robert

  Fraser, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Pendry, Tom

  Galbraith, Sam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Galloway, George

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Prescott, John

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Radice, Giles

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Randall, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Redmond, Martin

  Graham, Thomas

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Reid, Dr John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Richardson, Jo

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hardy, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Haynes, Frank

  Ruddock, Joan

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Salmond, Alex

  Henderson, Doug

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Home Robertson, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Short, Clare

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Sillars, Jim

  Howells, Geraint

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Illsley, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Ingram, Adam

  Spearing, Nigel

  Janner, Greville

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Stott, Roger

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Straw, Jack

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Lambie, David

  Turner, Dennis

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Vaz, Keith

  Leighton, Ron

  Wall, Pat

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Wallace, James

  Litherland, Robert

  Walley, Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  McAllion, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Wigley, Dafydd

  McCartney, Ian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McFall, John

  Wilson, Brian

  McKelvey, William

  Winnick, David

  197

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Allen McKay

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 80, in page 8, line 37, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c).
  No. 81, in page 9, line 5, leave out 'and'.
  No. 82, in page 9, line 6, at end insert—
  '; and
  (g) give such other information as may be prescribed.'. No. 83, in page 9, line 15, leave out 'provision, if any' and insert 'range of provisions'.
  No. 84, in page 9, line 15, leave out 'makes' and insert 'has'.
  No. 85, in page 9, line 41, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 48 and insert—
  'persons who are members of the school board shall be constituted as an interim board of management on the school's becoming self-governing but that the interim board shall he succeeded, within three months after the incorporation date, by a board of management the parent members and staff members of which will be elected and on which the parent members will constitute an overall majority.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 18

  REJECTION OR APPROVAL OF PROPOSALS
  Amendments made: No. 86, in page 10, line 32, at end insert—
  `(initially an interim board of management)'.
  No. 87, in page 10, line 41, leave out 'initial'.
  No. 88, in page 10, line 42, after first 'of, insert 'interim'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 4

  INITIAL CONSTITUTION OF BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
  Amendments made: No. 121, in page 56, line 26, leave out 'Initial Constitution Of' and insert 'Interim'.
  No. 122, in page 56, line 27, leave out 'The' and insert 'An interim'.
  No. 123, in page 56, line 30, leave out 'Subject to section 3(1) of this Act'.
  No. 124, in page 56, line 32, after 'the', insert 'interim'.
  No. 125, in page 56, line 34, after 'the', insert 'interim'.
  No. 126, in page 56, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
  ';
  (c) co-opted members shall become members of the interim board of management being deemed appointed members thereof.'.
  No. 127, page 56, line 38, leave out 'sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b) of'.
  No. 128, in page 56, line 39, leave out 'for such period as' and insert—
  'until the interim board of management is succeeded by the first board of management to which members are elected, regardless of whether any period which,'.
  No. 129, in page 56, line 41, at end insert—
  'expires before the date of the relevant election'.
  No. 130, in page 56, line 42, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 and insert—
  '3. An interim board of management shall cease to exist on the fulfilment of their duty under section 3(4) of this Act and shall thereupon be succeeded as board of management by the parent members and staff members to whose election that
  198
  duty related, together with the person who is for the time being the head teacher of the school.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 5

  TRANSITION OF ELIGIBLE SCHOOLS TO SELF-GOVERNING STATUS
  Amendments made: No. 131, in page 57, line 41, leave out second 'and'.
  No. 132, in page 57, line 44, at end insert—
  'and
  (e) that without prejudice to the generality of section 10(1)(a) of the 1988 Act (information and reports) and even in so far as that section might not otherwise compel compliance, the education authority shall provide the school board with such information as the board may reasonably request under that section in respect of—

  (i) the administration of the school;

  (ii) the fabric of the school;

  (iii) the staff employed at the school;

  (iv) the pupils in attendance at the school; and

  (v) other children and young persons who would be expected to be pupils in attendance at the school within two years after the incorporation date and of whose existence the authority are aware.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 20

  EFFECT OF PENDING PROCEDURE FOR ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS ON PROPOSALS FOR ALTERATION ETC. OF SCHOOLS
  Amendment proposed: No. 89, in page 11, line 29, after 'proposal', insert 'shall be'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 193.

  Division No. 250]

  [6.46 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Brazier, Julian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bright, Graham

  Alexander, Richard

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Allason, Rupert

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Amess, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amos, Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Ashby, David

  Butler, Chris

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Benyon, W.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chope, Christopher

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, Mr

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Colvin, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Couchman, James

  Bowis, John

  Cran, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Critchley, Julian

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Curry, David

  199

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Devlin, Tim

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Dicks, Terry

  Maclean, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Durant, Tony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mans, Keith

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Maples, John

  Favell, Tony

  Marland, Paul

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mates, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gill, Christopher

  Mills, Iain

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Moate, Roger

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gregory, Conal

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hannam, John

  Moss, Malcolm

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

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Harris, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayward, Robert

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Heddle, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hill, James

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hind, Kenneth

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Price, Sir David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Irvine, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Irving, Charles

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jack, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Janman, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jessel, Toby

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rost, Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Kilfedder, James

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Speed, Keith

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Speller, Tony

  Knox, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Squire, Robin

  Lang, Ian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Latham, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stern, Michael

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lightbown, David

  Stokes, Sir John

  Lilley, Peter

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lord, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  200

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thorne, Neil

  Whitney, Ray

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilkinson, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Trippier, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Trotter, Neville

  Wolfson, Mark

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wood, Timothy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Yeo, Tim

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Mr. Michael Fallon.

  Ward, John

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Flynn, Paul

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Foster, Derek

  Alton, David

  Foulkes, George

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fraser, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Galbraith, Sam

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Galloway, George

  Barron, Kevin

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Battle, John

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beith, A. J.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bell, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Graham, Thomas

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

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Blair, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blunkett, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Boateng, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boyes, Roland

  Haynes, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Home Robertson, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Buckley, George J.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Howells, Geraint

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clay, Bob

  Ingram, Adam

  Clelland, David

  Janner, Greville

  Cohen, Harry

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cryer, Bob

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cummings, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lambie, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Darling, Alistair

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dobson, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Doran, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Douglas, Dick

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Eadie, Alexander

  McFall, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McKelvey, William

  Fearn, Ronald

  McLeish, Henry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, Max

  201

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Short, Clare

  Maxton, John

  Sillars, Jim

  Meale, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Snape, Peter

  Morley, Elliott

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Stott, Roger

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Gavin

  Murphy, Paul

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Brien, William

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Vaz, Keith

  Parry, Robert

  Wall, Pat

  Patchett, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Pendry, Tom

  Walley, Joan

  Pike, Peter L.

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Prescott, John

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Radice, Giles

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Redmond, Martin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wilson, Brian

  Reid, Dr John

  Winnick, David

  Richardson, Jo

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 90, in page 11, line 30, leave out `shall be'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 6

  PROVISION OF BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR PUPILS AT SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOLS ETC.
  Amendment proposed: No. 133, in page 58, line 46, leave out 'and cleanliness'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 196.

  Division No. 251]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Allason, Rupert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Amos, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bowis, John

  Atkinson, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Brazier, Julian

  Beggs, Roy

  Bright, Graham

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  Bendall, Vivian

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Benyon, W.

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Burns, Simon

  202

  Burt, Alistair

  Jessel, Toby

  Butler, Chris

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Butterfill, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Carttiss, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  Kilfedder, James

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Chope, Christopher

  Knapman, Roger

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Colvin, Michael

  Knox, David

  Conway, Derek

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lang, Ian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Latham, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Cormack, Patrick

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Couchman, James

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Cran, James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lightbown, David

  Curry, David

  Lilley, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Day, Stephen

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Lord, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McCrindle, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Dunn, Bob

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Durant, Tony

  Maclean, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Favell, Tony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Mans, Keith

  Forman, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marland, Paul

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Freeman, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mills, Iain

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gregory, Conal

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

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

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Neubert, Michael

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heddle, John

  Norris, Steve

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Page, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Paice, James

  Hill, James

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hind, Kenneth

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Price, Sir David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Renton, Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irving, Charles

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Janman, Tim

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  203

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Tracey, Richard

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Tredinnick, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Trippier, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Sims, Roger

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waller, Gary

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Speed, Keith

  Ward, John

  Speller, Tony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Watts, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Stern, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Stevens, Lewis

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wilkinson, John

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Summerson, Hugo

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Yeo, Tim

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Thorne, Neil

  Mr. Michael Fallon.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dewar, Donald

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dixon, Don

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, Frank

  Alton, David

  Doran, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Douglas, Dick

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barron, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Battle, John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Beckett, Margaret

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beith, A. J.

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

  Bell, Stuart

  Fisher, Mark

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flannery, Martin

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

  Flynn, Paul

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Blair, Tony

  Foster, Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Foulkes, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Buckley, George J.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Caborn, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clay, Bob

  Hardy, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Haynes, Frank

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, Bob

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cummings, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howells, Geraint

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hoyle, Doug

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  204

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Radice, Giles

  Illsley, Eric

  Randall, Stuart

  Ingram, Adam

  Redmond, Martin

  Janner, Greville

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Richardson, Jo

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Robertson, George

  Kennedy, Charles

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lambie, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leighton, Ron

  Salmond, Alex

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, Clare

  McAllion, John

  Sillars, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum A.

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

  McFall, John

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  McKelvey, William

  Snape, Peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stott, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marek, Dr John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Wall, Pat

  Maxton, John

  Wallace, James

  Meale, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Michael, Alun

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, William

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Parry, Robert

  Patchett, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 25

  RECURRENT GRANT, CAPITAL GRANTS AND SPECIAL PURPOSE GRANT
  Amendment made: No. 91, in page 14, line 26, after `shall', insert
  `subject to section Recurrent grant in respect of provision for special educational needs of this Act,'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 28

  CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICSS OF SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOL
  Amendment made: No. 92, in page 17, line 27, leave out `they' and insert
  `other than an increase in the range of provisions which the school has for pupils with special educational needs, the board'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 7

  ARRANGEMENTS IN RESPECT OF BALLOT OF PARENTS REGARDING CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS OF SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOL
  Amendment made: No. 134, in page 60, line 9, leave out `concerning the ballot' and insert,
  including (without prejudice to the generality of this sub-paragraph) information—

  (i) about the ballot and about the procedure for changing the characteristics of a self-governing school; and

  (ii) in the case of a ballot held by virtue of section 15 of this Act, an explanation (which in the case of a ballot required by a notice under subsection (1) of that section shall repeat the reasons given in the notice by the Secretary of State for declaring the earlier ballot invalid or void) as to why a fresh ballot is to be held.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 29

  DISCONTINUANCE BY BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
  Amendment proposed: No. 93, in page 19, line 5, leave out
  `required by regulations made by the Secretary of State' and insert 'prescribed'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:-
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 196.

  Division No. 252]

  [7.13 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Burns, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Allason, Rupert

  Butter-fill, John

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Amos, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Chope, Christopher

  Atkinson, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Colvin, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Conway, Derek

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Benyon, W.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Couchman, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Curry, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Devlin Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Dicks, Terry

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Tony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dykes, Hugh

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fallon, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Farr, Sir John

  Bright, Graham

  Favell, Tony

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

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Forman, Nigel

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  206

  Freeman, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mills, Iain

  Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Roger

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

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

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Needham, Richard

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayward, Robert

  Neubert, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Norris, Steve

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, James

  Page, Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howard, Michael

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Price, Sir David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Renton, Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irving, Charles

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Janman, Tim

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rost, Peter

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kilfedder, James

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Knapman, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Speed, Keith

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Speller, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Latham, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Steen, Anthony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stern, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lightbown, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lilley, Peter

  Stokes, Sir John

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lord, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  McCrindle, Robert

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maclean, David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Tracey, Richard

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Mans, Keith

  Trippier, David

  Maples, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Marland, Paul

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  207

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Wilkinson, John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Wilshire, David

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Waller, Gary

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ward, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Yeo, Tim

  Warren, Kenneth

  Watts, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

  Whitney, Ray

  and Mr. Sidney Chapman.

  Widdecombe, Ann

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Allen, Graham

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Alton, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Graham, Thomas

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Barron, Kevin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Beith, A. J.

  Haynes, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Henderson, Doug

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Home Robertson, John

  Blair, Tony

  Hood, Jimmy

  Blunkett, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Boyes, Roland

  Howells, Geraint

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ingram, Adam

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Janner, Greville

  Canavan, Dennis

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Clay, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clelland, David

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cohen, Harry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Lambie, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cryer, Bob

  Leighton, Ron

  Cummings, John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Litherland, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Livsey, Richard

  Darling, Alistair

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dewar, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Dixon, Don

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dobson, Frank

  McCartney, Ian

  Doran, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Douglas, Dick

  McFall, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McKelvey, William

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McLeish, Henry

  Eadie, Alexander

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fearn, Ronald

  McWilliam, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Madden, Max

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fisher, Mark

  Marek, Dr John

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Flynn, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Martlew, Eric

  Foster, Derek

  Maxton, John

  Foulkes, George

  Meale, Alan

  Fraser, John

  Michael, Alun

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Galloway, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  208

  Morley, Elliott

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

  Mowlam, Marjorie

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Murphy, Paul

  Snape, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Brien, William

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stott, Roger

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Strang, Gavin

  Parry, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  Patchett, Terry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Turner, Dennis

  Prescott, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wall, Pat

  Radice, Giles

  Wallace, James

  Randall, Stuart

  Walley, Joan

  Redmond, Martin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Reid, Dr John

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Richardson, Jo

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Robertson, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Short, Clare

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Sillars, Jim

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 94, in page 19, line 6, leave out 'him' and insert 'the Secretary of State'.——[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 31

  WITHDRAWAL OF GRANT BY SECRETARY OF STATE
  Amendment made: No. 32, in page 20, line 20, after 'authority,' insert—
  '(iia) the parents of the pupils in attendance at the school; '.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 32

  TRANSFER OF LAND, MOVEABLE PROPERTY AND OBLIGATIONS TO BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
  Amendment made: No. 95, in page 22, line 34, at end insert—
  '(ba) any obligation or liability under a contract of employment relating to a person previously employed by the education authority to whom section 21 of this Act does not apply; or'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 8

  TRANSFER AND APPORTIONMENT OF ASSETS
  Amendments made: No. 135, in page 60, line 34, at end insert 'and'.
  No. 136, in page 62, line 26, at end insert 'and'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 9

  COMMISSIONERS FOR SCHOOL ASSETS
  Amendments made: No. 137, in page 64, line 15, after 'functions', insert 'of a commissioner'.
  No. 138, in page 64, line 19, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 5 and'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 35
  TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WHERE NO CERTIFICATE ISSUED
  Amendment made: No. 96, in page 24, line 8, leave out `become a party to' and insert 'raise or defend'. — [Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
Clause 37
  REDUCTION OF DISPOSALS OF PROPERTY BY EDUCATION AUTHORITY
  Amendment made: No. 97, in page 25, line 5, leave out `may' and insert `shall'— [Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
Clause 41
  COMMISSIONER FOR SCHOOL ASSETS' RIGHT OF ACTION FOR CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 38
  Amendment made: No. 98, in page 27, line 15, after 'may', insert 'seek to'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
Clause 45

  WINDING-UP ORDERS
  Amendments made: No. 99, in page 28, line 41, after 'may', insert
  'after consultation with the education authority and subject to subsection (2A) below,'.
  No. 100, in page 28, line 42, at end insert—
  '(2A) Where subsection (2)(a) of the said section 31 applies to a notice given under that section the Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section within 5 years of the date on which he gives the said notice.'.
  No. 101, in page 28, line 43, after '(2)' insert
  'Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above,'
  No. 102, in page 29, line 8, leave out 'or held'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 46

  DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY ON WINDING UP
  Amendments made: No. 103, in page 29, line 38, leave out 'or held'.
  No. 104, in page 30, line 2, leave out 'or held'.
  No. 105, in page 30, line 4, leave out 'which formerly maintained the school'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 47

  TRANSFER OF SCHOOL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW SCHOOL
  Amendment made: No. 106, in page 31, line 12, leave out
  'which was formerly responsible for the discontinued school'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 48

  DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS MONEY ON WINDING-UP
  Amendment made: No. 107, in page 32, leave out lines 3 to 6 and insert
  `shall be paid or, as the case may be, transferred to the Secretary of State, after—
  210

  (i) discharge of their liabilities (other than any not required to be discharged before the dissolution date is appointed); and

  (ii) payment of all expenses of the winding up.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 49

  ESTABLISHMENT OF COLLEGE COUNCILS
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 33, line 10, leave out 'industrial.'
  No. 8, in page 33, line 21, after first 'by', insert 'employers, or by'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 60

  POWER OF EDUCATION AUTHORITIES TO FORM COMPANIES TO MANAGE COLLEGES OF FURTHER EDUCATION
  Amendments made: No. 9, in page 40, line 9, leave out 'An education authority' and insert 'A college council'.
  No. 10, in page 40, line 9, after 'of,' insert—
  '(a) the education authority; and
  (b)'.
  No. 11, in page 40, line 11, leave out 'transferring' and insert
  'enabling the education authority to transfer.'
  No. 12, in page 40, line 33, after 'amend", insert 'or revoke'.
  No. 13, in page 40, line 38, at end insert—
  '(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the carrying on through a college of further education managed by a company formed by virtue of subsection (1) above of any commercial activities which are detrimental to The provision of further education at that college.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 62

  ABOLITION OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER PAY AND CONDITIONS OF TEACHING STAFF EMPLOYED IN PROVIDING FURTHER EDUCATION
  Amendments made: No. 14, in page 41, line 40, after first 'or', insert—
  ', as the case may be, an'.
  No. 15, in page 41, line 40, leave out
  'subsection (8) or, as the case may be, (9) of'.
  No. 16, in page 41, line 42, leave out 'it' and insert
  'the order, settlement, determination or award'.
  No. 17, in page 42, line 4, leave out 'or determination' and insert 'determination or award'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 65

  APPRAISAL OF TEACHERS
  Amendments made: No. 18, in page 44, leave out line 6 to 8 and insert—
  '(3) Subject to regulations made under this section, an employer may at any time vary or replace a scheme made in accordance with those regulations and, if such regulations so require, he shall—

  (a) before making, varying or replacing any such scheme, consult any body representing teaching staff who are to be affected by the scheme as proposed to be made, varied or replaced;

  (b) before proceedings with appraisal under any such scheme as so made, varied or replaced, submit it to the Secretary of State'.

  No. 19, in page 44, leave out lines 15 to 18.
  No. 20, in page 44, line 27, leave out 'any' and insert `each'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 72

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendments made: No. 108, in page 47, line 30, leave out 'and (2)'
  No. 109, in page 47, line 34, after 'Act', insert
  ('any such board constituted in accordance with Schedule 4 to this Act being referred to as an "interim board of management")'.
  —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 73
  COMMENCEMENT
  Amendment made: No. 110, in page 49, line 8, leave out '66,'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
Schedule 10

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendment made: No253. 21, in page 65, leave out lines 4 to 16 and insert—
  '1. In subsection (5) of section 5 of the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889 (which relates to the constitution of university courts), for the words "the principal" there shall be substituted the words "a vice-chairman elected by the Court from among all its members,".'.
  No. 48, in page 69, line 8, at end insert—
  `(7A) In section 49 (power of education authorities to assist persons to take advantage of educational facilities), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(2A) In subsection (2) above, references to attending school are to so attending not only where the school is in Scotland, but also where it is in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland ('school education' being construed accordingly).".
  (7B) In section 50 (education of pupils in exceptional circumstances)—
  (a) in subsection (1), for the words "an appropriate school or college" there shall be substituted the words—
  ", in any case falling under—

  (i) paragraph (a) of this subsection, an appropriate school; and

  (ii) paragraph (b) thereof, the particular school.";

  (b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(1A) In subsection (1) above, references to an appropriate school and to a particular school are references not only to schools in Scotland but also to schools in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland ('school education' being construed accordingly)."; and
  (c) in subsection (2)(a), for the words "section 51 of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (1) of section 51 of this Act (for the purposes of this paragraph, any reference in that section to a school being construed as a reference not only to a school in Scotland but also to a school in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland).".'.
  No. 22, in page 69, line 44, at end insert—
  '(16A) In paragraph (a) of section 97C (interpretation of sections 91 to 97B—

  (a) the words "(i)" and "(or)" and sub-paragraph (ii) shall cease to have effect;

  (b) after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words "from time to time"; and

  (c) after the word "determine;" there shall be inserted the words "and the provisions of those sections shall accordingly not apply in relation to such teachers or
  212
  other persons employed by education authorities in Scotland in, or in connection with, the provision of school education as are excluded from, the definition of "teaching staff' by such an order;".'. —[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 11

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 49, in page 71, line 39, after '(c);' insert 'and'.
  No. 50, in page 71, line 41, leave out 'and the words "or college".'.
  No. 23, in page 72, line 4, after 'both', insert 'other'.
  No. 24, in page 72, line 18, at end insert
  'In paragraph (a) of section 97C, the words "(i)" and "or", and sub-paragraph (ii);'. —[Mr. Maclean.]

New Clause 13

  FURTHER PROVISION AS TO APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS
  `After section 87 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following sections—
  Appointment of principal teachers
  87A. Where an education authority intends to fill a post, other than on an acting basis, of a principal teacher in a school, they shall advertise the post in such publications circulating throughout Scotland as they consider appropriate.
  Selection of teachers
  87B. Without prejudice to section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (which provides for the appointment of staff of local authorities to be made on merit) and to any requirement in any other enactment as to the considerations to which they may or may not have regard in making appointments, an education authority who are considering an appointment of a teacher shall not exclude any person from consideration for such an appointment on the ground that—

  (a) he is not employed by that education authority; or

  (b) he is or is not employed by a particular employer or class of employer; or

  (c) he is not currently employed as a teacher.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

  REMUNERATION OF CERTAIN PERSONS EMPLOYED IN PROVIDING SCHOOL EDUCATION
  '(1) This section applies to persons employed by education authorities in Scotland in, or in connection with, the provision of school education in relation to whose remuneration and terms and conditions of employment sections 91 to 97B of the 1980 Act have ceased, by virtue of an order made under section 97C(a) of that Act, to apply.
  (2) Where, in relation to the remuneration or terms and conditions of employment of any persons to whom this section applies—

  (a) an order made under section 92 of the 1980 Act (as originally enacted and not as substituted by the Education (Scotland) Act 1981); or

  (b) a settlement formulated under section 91(1) of the 1980 Act; or

  (c) a determination or, as the case may be, an award made under section 97B of the 1980 Act,

  is still in force on the date on which such an order as is mentioned in subsection (1) above comes into force, the order, settlement, determination or award shall, subject to subsection (3) below, remain in force after that date.
  (3) Where, after this enactment comes into force—

  213

  (a) any group of persons to whom this section applies and those employing them agree, whether expressly or impliedly, to an alteration of the remuneration payable to, or the terms and conditions of employment of, that group of persons; or

  (b) any such alteration as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above is arrived at in an agreed manner,

  that alteration shall, to the extent that it is concerned with the same matters, supersede any such order, settlement, determination or award as is referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) above.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

  EDUCATIONAL SERVICES: EXTENSION OF POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE GRANTS
  `In section 73(d) of the 1980 Act (power of Secretary of State to make grants to persons providing education or educational services other than education authorities, universities and managers of educational establishments)—

  (a) the word "for" shall be inserted before the words "providing education or educational services" and shall with those words constitute sub-paragraph (i); and

  (b) after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the word "or" and the following sub-paragraph—

  "(ii) in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of, or in connection with the provision (or proposed provision) of education or educational services.".'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second Time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

  REQUIREMENT FOR PROVISION BY EDUCATION AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES
  `(1) Without prejudice to section 1 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (power of local authority and public body to enter into agreement for certain purposes) the board of management of a self-governing school may require the education authority to provide them with any administrative, professional, technical or other services which the authority provide to or in respect of schools under the authority's management.

  (2) An education authority may make such charge as is reasonable for any services which they are required under subsection (1) above to provide; and they shall in determining what charge to make have regard both to the cost of providing the services and to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in respect of any such charge.

  (3) In the event of any dispute arising between the education authority and the board of management as regards the reasonableness of any such charge, the matter may be referred by either party to the Secretary of State, whose decision in that regard shall be final.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

  FUNCTIONS OF SCHOOL BOARD: APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF 1988 ACT
  '.—(1) In so far as the context admits, functions under this Act of a school board are, for the purposes of—

  (a) section 5 of the 1988 Act (advice to boards) matters within the competence of the board;

  214

  (b) sections 8(1) (exercise of functions of boards) and 19 (allowances for members) of that Act functions of the board;

  (c) section 13 (parents' meetings) of that Act activities of the board.

  (2) Subsection (1)(b) of section 17 of the 1988 Act (financing of boards) shall apply in relation to functions of a school board under this Act as it applies to such functions under that Act; and subsection (3) of that section shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Ballot expenses
  '.Subject to section 14(2) of this Act, an education authority who have received written notice under subsection (6) of section 13 of this Act from a school board shall neither pay any sum nor incur any expense, for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the ballot provided for by subsection (1) of the said section 16, in excess of such maximum amount as may be prescribed; and the school board may, for the purposes of the ballot, require the Secretary of State to make payment to them under this section of sums whose total does not exceed that amount in respect of such expenses as they may incur in promoting the acquisition of self-governing status by the school.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

  RECURRENT GRANT IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
  '.—(1) For each financial year, recurrent grant payable in respect of any self-governing school—

  (a) which is a special school; or

  (b) (in the case of a school which is not a special school) in so far as is attributable to expenditure for the purpose of making provision for pupils in attendance at the school who are persons whose needs are recorded by the education authority in implementation of the authority's duty under section 60(2)(b) of the 1980 Act (duty to keep record of needs).

  shall be determined having regard to the following provisions of this section.
  (2) The education authority and the board of management shall attempt to reach agreement as to—

  (a) in the case of a special school, what educational and other provision is to be made in the financial year for the pupils in attendance at the school, the estimated cost of that provision and the estimated expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purposes of the board's other functions under section 7(1) of this Act in that year;

  (b) in any other case, what provision is to be made in that year for such pupils as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above and the estimated cost of that provision.

  and any such agreement, or a failure to reach such agreement, shall be timeously intimated by the board of management to the Secretary of State.
  (3) If intimation under subsection (2) above is of a failure to reach agreement or if the Secretary of State does not accept any aspect of an intimated agreement, he shall himself determine the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) or as the case may be (b), of subsection (2) above in determining under section 25(2) of this Act the amount of recurrent grant payable in respect of the school; and his determination as to the said matters shall (without prejudice to the provision made by subsection (2) of section 25 of this Act as to revision) be final.
  (4) In determining under section 25(2) of this Act the amount of recurrent grant payable in respect of a school, the Secretary of State shall, where he does not make a determination under subsection (3) above, regard an agreement intimated under subsection (2) above as determining the matters to which it relates.

  215
  (5) Grant regulations may prescribe—

  (a) what information is to be—

  (i) exchanged between an education authority and a board of management for the purposes of their duty under subsection (2) above or for the purposes of subsection (6) below;

  (ii) provided to the Secretary of State by the authority and the board for the purposes of his considering any agreement intimated to him under that subsection or subsection (7) below or himself making a determination under subsection (3) above or a variation under subsection (8) below;

  (b) the dates by which, in respect of any financial year, such information as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above is to be provided;

  (c) the latest date by which, in respect of any financial year, any agreement, or failure to reach agreement, is to be intimated to the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above.

  (6) In a case where an amount of recurrent grant payable has been determined in accordance with subsection (4) above, during the course of the financial year the education authority and the board of management—

  (a) may agree; and

  (b) if the Secretary of State so requires, shall attempt to reach agreement as to, a variation of their agreement under subsection (2) above.

  (7) The board of management shall intimate to the Secretary of State any variation agreed, or any failure to reach an agreement, under subsection (6) above; and the Secretary of State shall, if he accepts any agreement reached, vary the amount of recurrent grant payable accordingly.
  (8) Where the Secretary of State does not accept an agreed variation intimated under subsection (7) above, or where he has imposed a requirement under subsection (6) above but the education authority and the board of management are unable to agree on a variation of their agreement under subsection (2) above, he may himself vary the amount of recurrent grant payable but he shall not otherwise vary that amount in a case such as is mentioned in subsection (6) above.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

  DISPOSAL OF LAND BY BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
  `. —(1) This section applies where a board of management seek the consent of the Secretary of State to the disposal of land which was—

  (a) transferred to the board under section 32 of this Act; or

  (b) acquired by the board, wholly or partly, with the proceeds of the sale of land which was transferred as mentioned in paragraph (a) above; or

  (c) acquired by the board, wholly or partly, with the proceeds of the sale of land which was acquired, wholly or partly—

  (i) as mentioned in paragraph (b) above; or

  (ii) with the proceeds of any subsequent sale of any such land.

  (2) Where the consent of the Secretary of State is sought as mentioned in subsection (1) above, he may—

  (a) require the board of management to transfer the land, or any part of it, to the education authority upon payment by the authority to the board of such consideration, if any, as he considers appropriate; or

  (b) except in a case where the land is being transferred to the education authority, require the board of management to pay to the authority all, or any part of, the consideration which they receive in respect of the disposal of the land.

  (3) Where any land such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above is compulsorily acquired from a board of management, they shall—

  (a) not require to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to such disposal; but

  (b) inform him that the land is being compulsorily acquired from them; and

  216

  (c) pay to the education authority the whole or such part of the compensation which they receive in respect of the compulsory acquisition as the Secretary of State may direct.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

  GENERAL ACADEMIC SELECTION
  `A self-governing school shall not introduce general academic selection whereby the admission of pupils to the school or rejection of pupils by the school is made by reference to levels of ability or aptitude.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Many concerns were voiced in Committee about the Bill, but none more so than the concern about academic selection. Clauses 16 and 28 seem to include provision for a self-governing school to admit pupils on the basis of academic selection.
  In Committee, the Government would not accept that definition of the words "aptitude and ability". But the Opposition clearly felt that aptitude and ability were an euphemism for admission on the basis of academic selection.
  Over the past 20 years in Scotland there has been a consensus on the need to build and develop comprehensive education. That has been one of the big success stories of Scottish education over the past 10 to 15 years. The Opposition are alarmed that, under the guise of self-governing status, any school could use academic criteria to admit pupils. As the Committee progressed, the Opposition became less assured of the Government's intent. The Government were keen to suggest that aptitude and ability meant that there could be special provision for the arts and for sports, but the Opposition clearly felt that there was a real threat of academic selection.
  7.30 pm
  There have been few studies on the impact of comprehensivisation on attainment in Scottish education. One is the work done by the Centre for Educational Sociology in Edinburgh. As usual, the Minister sighs with despair at the mention of that organisation, but it is a reputable, reliable and authoritative source on the benefits of comprehensivisation over the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) reminds me, the Scottish Office invests considerable sums of money in tapping its expertise.
  Comprehensivisation in Scotland has meant an improvement in overall standards and, equally important. an equalisation of attainment between children of different social backgrounds. That was one of the motivating forces behind the introduction of comprehensive education, not only in England and Wales, but in Scotland.
  The Centre for Educational Sociology has produced some interesting statistics on the impact of that change on the two areas of overall improvement and equalisation. In Committee there were few opportunities when the Government could resist the temptation to rubbish the work of the Centre for Educational Sociology, but they failed to provide any evidence to counter the representations that we were making, backed up by the welter of statistics on every educational indicator that we could find.

  217
  Clearly, comprehensivisation has been a success in Scotland, and the opposition are worried that that could be threatened by the back-door introduction of selection on the basis of academic criteria.
  Scotland has dwelt on the twin aspects of child development—equal worth and equal access. We know that that is anathema to many on the Right wing of the Conservative party who do not believe that a modern progressive education system should have such qualities. Conservative Members like to talk about competition and individual choice, but one of the overriding qualities that comprehensivisation has brought to Scottish education is that children have been treated equally, with access that is not determined at an early age by testing; nor is it dependent, for 98 per cent. of our Scottish schoolchildren, on the ability to pay.
  Those are laudable objectives, which the Opposition believe should be nurtured and further developed. But if a self-governing school seeks to introduce academic criteria for admission, not only will the educational clock be put back some 20 years, but it will be educationally divisive. The introduction of admission based on academic criteria would lead to a diminution of choice for the vast majority of Scottish schoolchildren. The wider danger, knowing the Government's track record, is that, at an early date, that very concept could, through legislation, be introduced in education authority schools.
  We are talking about more than merely academic selection being used in self-governing schools, but that is the thin edge of the educational wedge in satisfying the lust on the Government Benches in this new Right view of education where everything has to be competitive and children have to be failed at an early stage so that competition comes higher on the education agenda.
  That is not the path which other European countries are following. It is widely recognised in education and in training that the countries that are competitive and whose performance greatly outstrips us have a system of education in which all children can develop and take advantage of the education system until the age of 16 or after when they can specialise in training, vocational education and further education. That requires a non-selective system of education at the crucial time in a child's development within a community. That is why the Opposition have sought to make this a key priority in the debate. We have sought to ensure that something that is not wanted in Scotland is adequately dealt with in the House tonight.
  It is curious that we have a Bill which, by any stretch of the imagination, is uniquely objectionable to most Scots, and within which are even more objectionable aspects such as academic selection. At one time, when a Government brought legislation before the House, they would have evidence to justify or substantiate what they were seeking to do. The Government have nothing to justify the reintroduction of a method of selecting children for schools, which, as I have said, was smashed by the consensus which has emerged over the past 20 years.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Where does the Bill introduce academic selection, or selection of any kind? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Bill introduces two specific hurdles—the consent of the parents and the consent of the Secretary of State—to make such a change? Will he also confirm that education authority schools will be able to introduce academic selection on the basis of a simple vote
  218
  by the education committee? There are specific protections and it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House in the way that he has.
  Mr. McLeish: With the greatest respect to the Minister, it is he who is misleading the House. In Committee, he made great play of the fact that Scottish education authorities could at any time reintroduce academic selection. The real test is that they have no inclination to do so, and that applied when the Conservatives controlled some education authorities in Scotland—an event unlikely to be repeated in the near future. However, it is not true to say that that is a power that local authorities have and would wish to use.
  The Minister also asks where in the Bill there is a suggestion of academic selection. It is in clause 16, and there is a reference to aptitude and ability. We cannot accept for a minute that, after two obstacles have been overcome, we should trust the Secretary of State not to decide that a school can change its characteristics and allow academic selection.
  Mr. Bill Walker: When the hon. Gentleman gets round to reading the statement that he has just made, he may see the conflicting arguments that he has used to present his case. He accepts that it is on the statute book that local authorities can, if they wish, introduce selection, but they have not done so because they did not wish to do so. The Bill simply gives parents and school boards a similar opportunity.
  Mr. McLeish: I have some respect for the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but if he believes that the Bill is permissive and will merely lie on the shelf in schools throughout the country and not be used, he is being extremely naive. The Government introduced assisted places and school boards on the pretext that they would offer parental choice. In truth, they provided the base on which to build self-governing schools. The Bill also reintroduces standardised testing. It all fits together, to allow a school to pit child against child at a very early age. It is very naive of the hon. Member for Tayside, North to assume that the Bill simply provides further parental choice. That is not its purpose. If the hon. Gentleman read some of the Right-wing nonsense in which some of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and Back Benches indulge, he would be more wary of the Minister's overtures about the Bill being only permissive legislation.
  Why do the Government wish to see even self-governing schools return to a system that has been massively rejected by the Scottish people and by every other political party in Scotland, and which is repugnant to the majority of parents and educationalists? Even given the Government's comments about aptitude and ability, they must justify such an objectionable measure. In Committee, the Minister wriggled away from giving more precise definitions. I ask him to state tonight whether he believes that selection on the basis of academic ability should be reintroduced in the Scottish education system. I ask him whether he will allow that, as between the primary and comprehensive sector, and cause enormous damage to children?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: At the risk of irritating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), in Committee I made it clear that I am in favour of schools being selective in their intake. One example is pupils

  219
  wishing to join a school of dance, such as the Knightswood comprehensive school. In the case of the Douglas academy, selection would apply to children talented in music. In Committee, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) failed to say whether he was against such selection, and whether it was included in the term "general academic selection" in new clause 2.
  Mr. McLeish: There was nothing very original in that response. The Minister gave the wrong reply to the right question. Setting aside social skills, culture and sport, does the Minister want to see in existence soon the situation in which a self-governing school, after a change in its characteristics, will admit children only on the basis of tests relating to their academic ability at primary school level? Does the Minister support that concept, or will he give an assurance that such a system will not operate?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Bill allows a self-governing school to make a proposal which, if it receives the endorsement of parents, can go before the Secretary of State for him to take a view. The hon. Gentleman describes music as a social subject whereas it is really an academic subject requiring great skill. Is the hon. Gentleman against schools having specialist departments for music? Is he against specialist departments of classics because of the need for a broad intake to run a successful classics department? Will the hon. Gentleman, like his hon. Friend the Member of Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) duck the issue of whether there should be selective intake for those whose native language is Gaelic? My view is that such matters are best left to the judgment of parents and to the good sense of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman wants self-governing schools to be more restricted than education authority schools. He should be honest enough to answer the questions that have been asked of him.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. McLeish: Our worry is that, if the Minister were to be sitting in the Scottish Office considering requests from parents, and given that he is ideologically committed to academic selection, he would agree to a school changing its characteristics under the banner of aptitude and ability. The Minister again wriggles away from answering the real question. In Committee, other definitions of ability and aptitude were accepted. Tonight, I ask the Minister whether he wants to see a return to the situation that existed in Scottish schools 15 or 20 years ago, whereby the result of a test set to children in primary schools determined their whole futures. Is that what the Minister wants to achieve in Scottish education?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the answer to that question is no. In previous debates, we repeatedly gave assurances that the tests being introduced in primary schools will not be used for the purposes of selection and to rank children, but for giving parents information about their children's academic performance. They will not go as far as the tests run by education authorities such as that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. His new clause is not about that aspect but about preventing schools from doing what the Douglas academy and Knightswood in the comprehensive sector have done, which is to be selective about particular specialist intakes in meeting a particular specialist need. I
  220
  am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's own narrow-minded, ideological bigotry would prevent parents from having the option to vote for or against any change, when he is perfectly content for any education authority to effect changes without consulting parents, other than in the most cursory way.
  Mr. McLeish: I know that a number of my hon. Friends are keen to participate in the debate, and we are now going over ground that was covered in Committee. However, on a poll of Scottish parents, I know whom they would trust more, given a choice between the Secretary of State and the Minister, and the chairman and responsible members of an education authority.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman include and embrace in his new clause physical education and all that it implies? If he does, the hon. Gentleman, with his experience of and background in professional soccer, and one thing or another, must surely agree that parents may want their children to enter a particular school because its staff have a reputation for being particularly experienced in that area of activity.
  Mr. McLeish: I did not mind the hon. Gentleman's reference to my background in soccer, but his reference to "one thing or another" perplexed me. He follows the line of the Minister. Academic selection relates to admission on the basis of academic ability, which in turn suggests mental rather than physical aptitudes. The Minister nods his head in surprise, but that aspect was covered in Committee, and tonight we have tried to get the Minister to come clean and talk about general academic selection as it is generally interpreted. He has failed to do so. Instead we heard throwaway lines relating to music, dancing and other cultural subjects. My right hon. and hon. Friends will infer from that that the Minister is moving to admission on the basis of academic selection.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asked me to give additional examples, but why did his list ignore the examples of the classics and of Gaelic that I gave? He rode over music as though it were a social skill. Is the hon. Gentleman against schools providing specialist teaching in specialist subjects and being selective about intake? If so, he is against the apparent current practice in comprehensive schools in Strathclyde.
  Mr. McLeish: The Minister should read new clause 2, which refers to admission criteria on the basis of academic ability. The Minister clearly wishes to ignore our interpretation of that, but most Scots know what is meant by selection between primary and secondary schools. The Minister glibly ignores the reality. Beneath the guise of aptitude and ability, the criteria and characteristics of self-governing schools—established under clause 16—could change over a period, under clause 28. That could include admission on the basis of academic selection.
  Mr. Bill Walker: As the hon. Gentleman will know, my constituency contains a number of schools. What will he tell primary schools that teach Gaelic? What will he tell parents who wish their children to attend a secondary school that, under the present comprehensive system, offers Gaelic as a subject, if it becomes self-governing because that is wanted locally? Will he say that the school can no longer be selective?
  Mr. McLeish: I think that that point was covered earlier. Whether or not the Government understand the issue, the people of Scotland will understand it. Most of them fought for a long time to remove academic criteria from the face of Scottish education. Now, in the late 1980s, we see the possibility of a Government's wishing to return to that reactionary and regressive attitude to Scottish education.
  We are opposed to such criteria for admission, for the simple reason that we believe that comprehensivisation has shown that we want to invest in every child, with no artificial cut-off point in relation to maturity or ability at any specific age. We do not want to return to a system of investing in failure by rejecting children of 11—or, under this bizarre testing procedure, possibly even younger—when they could move into comprehensive education at the age of 12, 13, 14 or 15, maturing at different stages and combining either academic ability or vocational training with their talents. That is the light that we have tried to cast on the gloom that will surround the future of comprehensive and self-governing schools if the Bill is passed.
  We talked earlier about what we wished to do in the future, and I do not want to go into that now. Let me simply say that we see an odious practice seeping through the Bill. We hope that, if it is implemented, self-governing schools in particular will once again, at the earliest opportunity, see equal worth and equal access as an important priority. We ask the House to accept new clause 2, which we think will be widely welcomed in Scotland.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Let me briefly repeat some of the concerns that I had in Committee. I understand what lies behind new clause 2, although I suspect that some of the fears that prompted it are not as strong as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) makes out.
  I am, however, anxious that if any genuine element of selectivity were introduced it could have a dramatic effect on schools in rural areas. As I said in Committee, parents subjected to it might have had no say in the opting out of the secondary school to which their children's primary school was feeding pupils. That in itself is bad enough, but if the parents had no choice because children were being fed to a specific centre, the denial of access to the secondary school that was in the natural position for their area would create horrendous practical and physical problems of, for instance, travel. I freely admit that the problem might not arise in urban areas, as there would be other suitable secondary schools nearby.
  My hon. Friend the Minister gave me a strong assurance in Committee that in such circumstances the Secretary of State would on no account allow the introduction of selection on an academic basis. I very much hope that he will repeat that assurance tonight, as it has coloured my attitude to the new clause. I do not support the Bill in any case, but I want to be certain that when it becomes law it will not deny access to the geographically natural secondary school in a rural area because of action taken after the school has become self-governing.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I strongly agree with what the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has said. Nevertheless, he cannot say on the one hand, "I am not terribly worried about selectivity; I think that the Opposition are exaggerating," and on the
  222
  other hand, "Oh dear me, it might happen, and if it happens in a rural context it would be dreadful." The two are not compatible. I share his anxieties for practically the same reasons, however, and consider it entirely right for him to ask for certain assurances.
  I strongly support new clause 2, and compliment whoever devised it on the straightforward language in which it is couched: I know that such pellucid simplicity is anathema to the arcane minds of the Minister's advisers, who do not appear to be around at present. The Minister, too, has departed, but no doubt he will be advised by his friendly colleagues. In Committee, he provided a regrettable demonstration that he is the grammatical slave of the obscure and recondite mandarins who write our legislation, and I hope that he will not descend into such arguments this evening.
  Let me be more serious. I believe that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was entirely right in saying that the most important single worry of those of us who oppose the legislation is that it could provide a way of introducing selectivity covertly at an early stage. I thought that the 11-plus argument was long buried, but I fear that it is not.
  A long exchange between the hon. Member for Fife, Central and the Minister did not leave me much the wiser, but as I understand the new clause—perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, Central will confirm this—it is designed to prevent general exclusion on academic grounds, but not particular exclusion. For example, if a school wished to concentrate on the various subjects cited by the Minister—dance, classics or Gaelic—I do not think that anything in the new clause could prevent it from doing so.
  The new clause is designed to protect the slow developer. I am sorry to sound like an echo of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but I speak as a slow developer myself. I have in my possession a report card. It says that I was 26th in the class in one year and that three years later I was in first position. Some people do not develop as quickly as others, but they are capable of making progress and even becoming Members of Parliament. We want to ensure that this is not a covert way of preventing that happening.
  The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside is still very worried and his worries have led him to make the speech that he has just made. He is worried about the Bill being used to prevent people from developing at their own pace,. The new clause will not be used to prevent children from developing at their own pace, so I see no objection to its being accepted. It would not prevent schools from concentrating on the matters to which the Minister referred. That is perfectly proper, understandable and desirable.
  8 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: It is interesting to hear that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was No. 26 in one year and No. 1 the following year.
  Sir Russell Johnston: No, not in the following year.
  Mr. Walker: I am wondering whether he was with the same group of 26 students or whether the composition of the group had changed—that from being bottom of the class in one group he moved to another group where he was top of the class.

  223
  My concern about the new clause is the inclusion of the word "aptitude." I should have thought that the word "ability" was sufficient. Aptitude is latent and can be developed. For that reason I intervened on a number of occasions during the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). Degrees are now offered in a variety of disciplines, including what I believe to be variations on physical education. Certain schools employ teachers who are particularly good at coaching young people in football, rugby, sailing, skiing, hockey, netball, running and jumping.
  The aptitude of a child can be spotted at a fairly early age. If he is provided with the right coaching, he may reach the stage where he can take up a career in which he can use his particular skills. He might be prepared to take a degree of a kind that did not exist 10 or 20 years ago. I do not complain about that. It is right that degrees in other than academic or theoretical subjects are now awarded. Young people are now able to use their great talents and skills to their own advantage and to the advantage of the nation, provided that their aptitude is developed at a sufficiently early age. It would be nice if Scottish people could be seen to be competing with and beating the best simply because they had attended a school where music, dance or drama had been part of the curriculum, due to a member of the staff having the skill to train young people with those aptitudes. The new clause could be used to prevent that from happening.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that specialist schools such as he has described could function in sparsely populated rural areas? I can see that happening in urban areas where young people would not have to travel long distances, but it could not happen in sparsely populated areas where general provision has to be made.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman, who has a background in education, ought to know that there have been remarkable developments in some of our rural area schools. Specialist skills are being exercised and used in my area. Local authority schools are encouraging youngsters, even though they live outside the normal catchment area, to travel to them, because they are able to offer specialist training. If a school is fortunate enough to have on its staff individuals, or an individual, with the special talent of being able to develop young people's ability in music, drama, or physical education, it is not surprising that parents encourage their children to travel to that school. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as in mine, many children have to travel long distances. Some of them have to live in hostels.
  We spend a great deal of time talking about the problems of the inner cities, but we fail to understand the problems, challenges and opportunities that exist in rural schools. The schools in, say, Killiecrankie and the Bridge of Cally, where there is only one teacher, are good schools. Youngsters who are taught in one-teacher schools often excel because they receive tuition of a kind that is not available to youngsters in city schools. Even more important is the fact that they live in communities where learning and education are seen to be a way of improving one's lot and of getting out into the big world and doing things with one's life.
  224
  The teaching of Gaelic is growing. A number of schools specialise in the teaching of Gaelic and encourage young people to learn the language, but there is nothing mandatory about it; they learn it by choice. The new clause relates to self-governing schools. It does not relate to local authority schools. Why should schools and parents in my constituency, which covers 2,000 square miles of rural Scotland, be deprived of opportunities simply because at one time the parents and the school board decided that the school should become self-governing? Why should they be any different from secondary schools with vast catchment areas that have remained within local authority control? Why should a school not be able to accept and select pupils because it has become a self-governing school? That is my worry about new clause 2. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assessment of it. I believe that it would hit rural schools such as those in my constituency.
  I shall use one group of schools as an example as they provide the best illustration. The schools at Blair Atholl and Killiecrankie feed into Pitlochry school and Breadalbane academy, as do many other schools. I have selected those two deliberately because of certain geographical matters. Pitlochry school only goes up to the fourth year so any children wishing to remain in school have to transfer to or begin their secondary education at Breadalbane academy. Breadalbane academy accommodates pupils in the school dormitories, but anyone who has looked at a map of Perthshire will know that it is not the easiest of journeys from Blair Atholl to Breadalbane. One has to go down the A9 and across country to Aberfeldy. The journey from Killiecrankie is just as difficult. Pupils from a number of other schools face fairly tortuous routes.
  If Breadalbane academy decides to become a self-governing school, the parents and the school board decide to put forward that proposal and it receives the sanction of the Secretary of State, and if Breadalbane wants to continue to accept pupils to study Gaelic, although they are not from the catchment area, under new clause 2 it may not be able to do so, because it will have become a self-governing school.
  Sir Russell Johnston indicated dissent.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber shakes his head, but I believe that new clause 2 could have an impact on rural areas. I was impressed by what my hon. Friend the Minister said in earlier debates on the Bill. He drew attention to the fact that those of us representing rural areas would obviously be anxious that children living in the accepted catchment area for a secondary school in a rural area should not be excluded because that school has made a certain choice. My hon. Friend gave a clear assurance, which I am sure he will repeat tonight if necessary, that people will not be left with a lack of choice because of the geographical location of the secondary school. That would be unacceptable to all hon. Members who represent rural constituencies, but my hon. Friend has given his word and has reassured me.
  That is not what bothers me about new clause 2. I do not believe that new clause 2 would remove that possibility, but I believe that if it were accepted, it would prevent such a school from accepting from outside its normal catchment area pupils who had aptitudes in the disciplines that I mentioned earlier.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. If one removed from the new clause the phrase:
  "admission of pupils to the school"
  the clause would state:
  "A self-governing school shall not introduce general academic selection whereby the … rejection of pupils by the school is made by reference to levels of ability or aptitude."
  I am not particularly interested in preventing pupils from entering a school; I do not want to exclude people because of general matters or to create a situation in which schools are not allowed to accept pupils because of their aptitude.
  Mr. Walker: The new clause states:
  "whereby the admission of pupils to the school or rejection of pupils by the school"—
  there are two sides to the coin; I am dealing with the side that worries me—
  "is made by reference to levels of ability of aptitude."
  I thought that I said at the beginning of my remarks that if the clause is concerned only with academic ability the word "aptitude" is unnecessary. I may be wrong, but it is my judgment that the word "aptitude" embraces anything for which a child has an aptitude. That is why I drew attention to the special disciplines that have been developed in further education and the new degrees that are being offered.
  Mr. McAllion indicated dissent.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr McAllion) shakes his head.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. McAllion: I am shaking my head because I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is so silly as not to understand the wording of the new clause. If the new clause read, "A self-governing school shall not admit pupils to the school by reference to levels of ability or aptitude," I would understand his argument. But the new clause states that a school
  "shall not introduce general academic selection".
  That is all the new clause prohibits, so we have wasted about 15 minutes listening to a lot of nonsense about nothing.
  Mr. Walker: I advise the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber and look up the words "general", "academic" and "selection" in the Oxford English Dictionary. When he has done so he should come back here and tell me whether I am talking nonsense. The hon. Gentleman should remember that, if the new clause were accepted, it would be on the statute book and it would be judged in terms of law considering what each of those words means separately and collectively. The hon. Gentleman may believe something quite different, but that is what would happen if the new clause became a matter of dispute. We have to consider that when we debate new clause 2.
  I understood the argument of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). I doubt whether the way in which the new clause is phrased will produce what he intended. I understood that he objected to any overall assessment such as the 11-plus. He is afraid that youngsters will be selected at a certain age. I believe that the present wording of his new clause will not achieve that. In my view, the important word is "aptitude". I recommend that the hon. Member for Dundee, East should also look up the word "aptitude".
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman seems to be complaining about the wording of the new clause. What does he think about the principle of the new clause?
  Mr. Walker: I am not in favour of going back to the 11-plus or anything remotely like it, but that does not mean that I am not in favour of individuals with special talents being given the opportunity to attend schools that have facilities for developing those talents. I believe that that would be a sensible use of education. It is happening now in the comprehensive system and I make no complaint about that. It is wise and sensible. Not every school can offer specialist teachers with skills to develop youngsters in particular disciplines. Not every school, and certainly not every rural secondary school, can do so, but some schools today offer specialist skills. Youngsters in my constituency travel fairly long distances to schools that offer specialist disciplines and skills.
  That is happening under the existing system of comprehensive education, and it has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends say. I understand their concern, but the new clause does not achieve what they want to achieve. If it is accepted, it could frustrate schools that are presently able to offer specialist skills under the comprehensive regime. They would be frustrated by the new clause if they were to become self governing. I would have hardly thought that any hon. Member would wish children from within or outwith a catchment area to be excluded because they have an aptitude.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central said that, under the present system, schools can be made selective if the local education authority so wishes—that provision is on the statute book—but they do not do so because the local education authority does not wish it and, thus far, the schools have made no such bids.
  All that the Bill does is give self-governing schools the same opportunity as exists for local education authorities. Local education authorities are the final arbiters of these matters. If a local authority decides to make a school selective, the decision must be referred to the Secretary of State. A self-governing school cannot come into being unless the Secretary of State approves. That also is a fundamental change. Both fundamental changes are optional; they are not mandatory. There is no requirement for the education authority, the school board or the parents to decide that a school should become self-governing. No one will force them to do that. However, they have an option and a back-up, with the Secretary of State making the final decision. The case put by the hon. Member for Fife, Central is weakest on that point. Education authorities have had those powers, but they have chosen not to use them. If he is right and there is no demand, there will be no self-governing schools because the option will not be exercised.
  Mr. McLeish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain education authorities have the power to introduce selection on the basis of academic ability? However, over some years, that practice has fallen into disuse and it is unlikely that it will ever be used again. In relation to self-governing schools, there need have been no reference to student ability. Selection has rightly been removed from

  227
  Scottish education, and the possibility of its returning is advanced by clause 16 and the reference to entry on the basis of ability or aptitude.
  Mr. Walker: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, which he has repeated throughout the passage of the Bill, that there is no demand for self-governing schools in Scotland, that there will be no self-governing schools arid that, with the passage of time, they will fall into the same category of selection; local education authorities have not exercised their choice, and selection has fallen into disuse. If I am right, there will be some, but not many, self-governing schools, and my local education authority will respond with an understanding of the needs of rural schools.
  I have made my case in support of the Bill, and my objection to the new clause is based on what I regard as the likely impact on rural schools in my constituency. Those schools will receive from the local education authority much more sympathetic understanding and treatment of the kind that the parents want for their children. The Bill has already brought about changes in Strathclyde. When it becomes an Act, the Tayside region will be much more responsive and receptive and less oriented to Dundee's many needs. There will be more understanding of the quality of teaching staff in rural areas.
  The quality of life is one reason why teachers opt to live in rural areas. We often get good teachers in rural areas—it is true also of doctors and lawyers—and that is why we have high-calibre schools. However, they sometimes feel that the education authority does not fully understand their motivation and why people live in rural areas. The quality of life is probably the most important aspect in their decision to do so.
  It is important that, when we examine the Bill and consider what will happen, we should not be dominated by the needs and problems of Scotland's great cities. The Bill, like all the others that pass through this place, will affect rural areas. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, those areas must feel that their needs are being satisfied.
  I understand why the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is not present. She has made it clear how she feels about rural schools. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister would be wrong to accept the new clause. Its effect would not be the kind of effect that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for the Democrats —[Interruption.] I always think of the hon. Gentleman as being what a Liberal Member of Parliament should be. It is rather sad that not all his colleagues emulate him. His comments are always courteous and generous. He would be an ideal Liberal Member. I do not doubt his concern for rural schools in his constituency, but we have different assessments of what new clause 2 will do. However, our fears are not dissimilar. That is why it is good that we have had this opportunity to put our views on record. For the reasons that I have given, I hope that the Minister will reject the new clause.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I hope that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will forgive me if I do not agree with everything that he said. I will deal with the problems of children with learning difficulties and children with special needs. I support the new clause. As it stands, the Bill does a great disservice to those children. I
  228
  have read the Committee debates in some detail, and I have been greatly impressed, as I was this evening, by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish).
  The Government have failed to justify changes that they are attempting to introduce into the Scottish system. Comprehensive education is being turned aside, which means that the kind of elitism that the Scottish people have long since rejected is again being imposed on our educational system. That is bad for the majority of Scottish children, but it is particularly bad for children with special needs whose difficulties and circumstances the House will wish to take into account.
  8.30 pm
  I do not believe, and have never believed, that Scottish education for the majority of children has been the jewel in the crown of educational provision. Historically, prior to the introduction of comprehensive education, for a small minority it might have been said that we had a splendid system leading, for that small minority, to excellent achievement. But that was the realisation of Jean Brodie's creme de la creme and not of service to the majority of Scottish children.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the 200 years before the turn of this century, when Scotland's schools were run substantially by school boards, Scottish education was the envy of the rest of Europe?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I fear that, in line with my opening remarks, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that for the majority of Scottish children our education system has been the envy of anywhere. Certainly it has not been the envy of those of us who want to see all our children realising their full potential.
  I fear that, just as we are seeing an educational system in Scotland contrived so that we are not even having an increase in access to higher education for children from working-class backgrounds, so, once again, we are finding resources thinly spread, and indeed not being spread towards all our children, particularly those in special need.
  Access extends to many spheres. My hon. Friends will support my desire to promote the interests of children with special needs, especially as this is Scottish mental handicap week, when voluntary organisations in Scotland such as Barnardo's and the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped are arguing, in their posters and at exhibitions, that those children should be seen as part of our community and have access to good educational opportunities, good housing and a quality of life that has been denied to many of them.
  Conservative Members argue about what can be achieved by selection, and it cannot be denied that we are having selection. They speak of children with special aptitudes—for example, children with a special desire to develop their musical talents and so on—and we agree that that is excellent and that provision should be made so that their aptitudes can be reflected in results.
  But that type of provision should be widely shared. I have never understood why children who are good musicians should be sent away to special schools, whereas children who may not be so gifted are never able to hear them. Are they not entitled to access to good music, even to hear it, and should that not apply also to children with special needs? Sharing talents should not be in the

  229
  background of educational provision, but if we have the type of elitism over selection of which we are talking, that is where we will be heading. That seems a particularly selfish approach.
  On Second Reading, the Secretary of State, who I regret is temporarily not in his place, said:
  "I can state categorically and without equivocation that the Bill is not designed to reintroduce selectivity; nor is it designed to do anything other than to add to the opportunities available to Scottish youngsters and their parents in the educational system."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 625.]
  If that is the intention, it is heavily disguised in the drafting of the Bill, and the proposed new clause would do much to redress the balance—perhaps I should say the imbalance—of provision that the measure will introduce.
  With the kind of opting-out provisions that the Minister is recommending, it seems that those who will benefit least are children with special needs. Or are we to introduce elitism in that sphere, too? There was a time when it seemed that hon. Members on both sides of the House were aiming, not overnight but in due course, at integration for all our children. There was a time when I understood that it was felt that the education system and its comprehensive provisions might be made available to all.
  I think I see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary looking askance as I make that statement. He knows that I welcome the fact that he has been to the Peto institute and that elsewhere in the Bill he is making provision for local authorities to make use of that service. Although my support for what he has done in that respect is unqualified, I must tell him bluntly that, if he believes in educational provision, he must ask himself why such a service is not being made available today in Scotland. If he goes ahead with opting out, he must ask why the children of whom I speak are being left behind. If all of this should be based on market considerations, he must be wondering whether the Peto institute should exist. Has not the Minister been trying to impose restrictions in Scottish education through his approach?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman is contradicting himself. If he is arguing that integration and a move away from special schools should be the way forward, the opportunity for the development of particular techniques and approaches, of which the Peto institute is one, would be diminished. The whole point about allowing for self-governing status in the special needs area is precisely to allow the development of a diversity of approach which the hon. Gentleman and I would probably favour.
  Mr. Clarke: The Minister will find when he reads my speech that I have been consistent. I am arguing that in the kind of society in which we believe, the time will come when it will not be necessary—although I accept that it is necessary now—for our children to go to Hungary for that type of provision, because it will be available here. Nor will it be necesssary for children to go to schools which have opted out, because our mainstream educational system will be comprehensive enough to respond to their needs and demands.
  Mr. Forsyth: Yesterday I visited a special school and a number of parents told me that already some education authorities are saying that the powers which will be available to them will not be used by them because they do
  230
  not believe that the type of provision at the Peto institute is appropriate. The point of allowing for self-governing status for special schools is that it means that it is not then up to one education authority or to one education authority's committee to decide what will be the form of specialist provision; there is an allowance for diversity which follows parental preference.
  The hon. Gentleman and I share, on this narrow issue, much in common in terms of our views of the direction in which we should be going. I caution him against going too far down that road, because there are some who are dogmatic about what is right in special needs provision. This provision enables diversity of approach to be retained.
  Mr. Clarke: I am always prepared to listen carefully to the Minister. He worries about people being dogmatic. I am not sure whether he is the right person to give that sort of lecture, especially in the context of the Bill. Like him, I meet many parents of children with learning difficulties in the special educational sphere. I find even less enthusiasm among those parents for the principle of opting out than among parents of children in mainstream education. I look forward with interest to the development of that debate.
  In conclusion, my hon. Friends have established that the Government's departure not just from the principle of comprehensive education, which has already been shown to be successful, but towards, as they see it, embracing elitist education by introducing the principle of opting out, has clearly been rejected by the vast majority of parents in Scotland. The Government are doing a disservice not just to educational traditions—I have already made it clear that I do not believe that those traditions were necessarily in the best interests of all Scottish children—but to children with special needs.
  I am not saying that the Government are introducing a Dickensian approach—others might do so, but I am trying to be fair even to the Minister. However, their views are already outdated and are recognised as such by the people of Scotland. What I do say, as Charles Dickens said, is:
  "In the little world in which children have their existence, whomsoever brings them up, there is nothing so finely perceived or so finely felt as injustice."
  The Bill represents an injustice to the majority of Scotland's children, and especially to those with special needs. For that reason, I support the new clause.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I listened carefully to the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), in which he gave the game away. He implied that there will be tremendous parental demand to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill. The logic of the new clause is fundamentally flawed, because it clearly implies that there will be such an overwhelming parental demand to take advantage of the self-governing provisions that it is necessary to circumscribe them and to put restrictions into the Bill at every twist and turn. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee got used to such classic restrictions as this.
  Indeed, we come right back to where we started, with the Gainsborough question, which was posed early in our Committee proceedings by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). My hon. Friend the Minister consistently asked Opposition Members, whenever they made the sort of speeches that they did—I accept, for the best of intentions and reasons—what they were seeking to do. Throughout all the

  231
  speeches tonight and all those made in the Standing Committee, Opposition Members have given the game away. Although they know that there will be tremendous parental demand for these provisions they are trying to argue—they have done so tonight—that parents in Scotland will make no such demands. All the amendments and the new clauses—especially new clause 2—make it clear that the Opposition are terrified that there will be considerable demand for these provisions.
  I shall dwell first on the way in which I read the Bill and then, as on many previous occasions during the Bill's passage—I shall deal—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wish to intervene? He now has the opportunity of challenging directly "the most obnoxious hon. Member in the House"—to use his description. That is what he said about how I conducted myself in Committee. I hope that you Mr. Deputy Speaker, agree that I am taking this new clause seriously. I am speaking tonight in exactly the same way as I spoke in Standing Committee. I found it offensive for the hon. Member for Garscadden to say the things that he did during the guillotine debate about the way in which I conducted myself in Standing Committee. I took the trouble to turn up for virtually every sitting and to take all the debates seriously, whereas he dropped in for only an hour or two on one day of our two or three month-long Committee.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that that was born of frustration on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)? The hon. Gentleman had completely miscalculated. He had failed to take the lead for the Opposition and had to see my hon. Friend the Minister and the other Conservative Members make complete mincemeat of the Opposition with a measure that will utlimately be very popular with parents in Scotland.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I wonder what, if anything, we shall hear from the hon. Member for Garscadden if he should seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later on.
  I return to the way in which I interpret the Bill. I shall restate the important point made by my hon. Friend the Minister in Standing Committee at 11.15 pm on 18 April—it is well worth restating—to which the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has referred. The Bill itself introduces two hurdles for self-governing schools and their admissions policy, which do not exist under local education authorities in England, Wales and Scotland at the moment. It is possible for selection to be introduced in local authority schools on the vote of the local education authority committee. I should know because I live about eight miles from the border between—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members will be courteous enough to allow me to finish my sentence. We have heard about obnoxious Conservative Members, and Opposition Members should now allow Conservative Members simply to finish their sentences.
  I live just eight miles from the border between Humberside and Lincolnshire. The county of Lincolnshire has a selection policy. Children there can go to grammar or secondary modern schools and take the 11-plus
  232
  examination. Parents with jobs in my constituency often choose to live the other side of the county boundary so that their children are educated by the Lincolnshire education authority rather than the Humberside education authority. As the House may be aware, a proposal is currently before the Boundary Commission that south Humberside should go into Lincolnshire. I know that many of my constituents will look forward to the opportunities provided by the Lincolnshire education authority.
  Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that other factors might be involved in this mass exodus over the border? Those people might be running away from their Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Brown: If any are running away, they are certainly not my supporters, because at three successive general elections since 1979 my majority has increased from three figures, to four figures, to five figures. If people are running away, they are not Conservative supporters. Perhaps my political opponents have given up the ghost and are clearing off elsewhere.
  To return to the main provisions of the Bill, we need to take the new clause seriously although its logic is fundamentally flawed. The Bill does not alter the current position. All that it does is place two hurdles in the way of self-governing schools which, as I have already said, do not apply to education authority schools. One is the parental ballot and the other is the approval of the Secretary of State. No such hurdles are at present in the way of education authority schools in Scotland or, from my own experience, in England. Lincolnshire is the classic example. If Opposition Members are worried that selection might be introduced into the Scottish education system, they must believe that the vast majority of parents are waiting for self-governing status. Therefore, the wishes of Opposition Members are already protected.
  Perhaps I may bring to bear the experience of England. One advantage of having English Members on the Standing Committee was that we already have the Education Reform Act 1988 on the statute book for England; it is not dissimilar to the legislation that I hope will shortly be on the statute book for Scotland. We have had experience of the debate that is taking place in England. As English Members of Parliament, we have been following closely the way in which parents have been taking advantage of the provisions of the Education Reform Act.
  I can tell the House of my local experience, for it was just down the road in the seaside resort adjoining the one that I represent, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), that the parents of children at a school in Skegness voted overwhelmingly to take advantage of the provisions of the Education Reform Act. There is no evidence that the introduction of selection is the driving force behind a large number of cases south of the border where parents are voting with their feet very much in favour of self-governing status; in the majority of cases, it is happening where Labour education authorities are in control of education. I am sure that the position will be the same north of the border. We already have the example of Jordanhill school, which was referred to at great length by my hon. Friend the Minister and by a large number of hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who served on the Standing Committee.

  233
  The Opposition have deliberately misinterpreted the Bill, which seeks to increase educational opportunity and to raise the standards of education. Parents want their children to go to schools that get results.
  Mr. McLeish: In Scotland, most children are exposed to education where standards are high, and the standard of education is improving. Standards measured against any other criteria are also improving. What, then, is the problem?
  Mr. Brown: That is the complacency that we have come to expect of the hon. Gentleman. I remember reading an article by him just before we started our proceedings in Standing Committee. I think that it is worthy of repetition. We were told that what was good enough for Henry McLeish's children was good enough for everybody else. That has been the position taken by the hon. Gentleman from the time that he wrote that article all the way through the proceedings in Committee.
  On that basis, I might say that what is good enough for Michael Brown is good enough for everybody else. I failed my 11-plus. I went to a secondary modern school from the age of 11 to the age of 18, but I did not fail my A-levels. I got good grades through the teachers who taught me in that school. I got grade A in English literature, grade B in economics and grade C in history. I accept that I may have failed the 11-plus because I was lazy and probably more concerned with cricket and football.
  If I have a criticism of my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends the Ministers, it is that the Bill does not allow enough opportunity for school boards, parents and boards of management to consider their selection policy. It is already circumscribed, as the hon. Gentleman said when he quoted what the Secretary of State said on 6 March in the Second Reading debate in column 625. I believe that there is a case to be made for selection. If I have a small criticism of the Bill, it is that, because of the two hurdles, it circumscribes the opportunities for selection.
  If there is a valid criticism of my hon. Friends, it is that once again they have been modest, reasonable and not at all extreme. Once again, as usual, my hon. Friend is the modest Minister. I suggest that there is a case for not making those hurdles as stiff as he and the Secretary of State have made them. I accept the general thesis on where the Government want to be. The Government want to ensure that parents can send their children to schools that get results. I cannot accept the complacent attitude that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Fife, Central. I thought that he gave the game away very effectively. He seemed to suggest that there was nothing wrong anywhere, that every child in Scotland was getting the education he deserved and that there was no room for improvement. I do not accept that. It is always dangerous when politicians sit back complacently, saying that everything is marvellous and there is no need for change.
  If everything is marvellous, perhaps it is because of the 25 per cent. increase in expenditure in real terms by the Government on Scottish education in the last 10 years. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that everything in the garden is rosy, perhaps it is because of the tremendous resources that have been put into education. We cannot have it both ways. I am prepared to admit to the parents and children of Scotland, as I am prepared to admit to the parents and children of England, that, notwithstanding the massive increase in financial resources for the education system,
  234
  everything in the garden is not yet rosy, but I believe that the Education Reform Act in England and this Bill in Scotland will redress the position.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the complacency is made altogether worse when there is evidence of declining standards, as has become apparent from the assessment of achievement programme? The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has joined the somewhat irresponsible forces who argue that the evidence is suspect. They adopt a policy of shooting the messenger when they do not like the message.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. It is worth drawing to the attention of the House some words of the Minister in Committee. In regard to Scottish education he said that the position was like a school report—"Could do better". That is the right and healthy attitude that a Scottish Education Minister should take. It is a credit to my hon. Friend and to the Scottish Office that they recognise that, notwithstanding the massive resources that have been put into Scottish education, there comes a point when money alone does not solve the problem, and we have to raise the standards of education in Scotland.
  The purpose of the Bill is to do precisely that. I believe that the new clause would weaken the Bill, which is what the Opposition want to do. They do not want to see the improvements that the Government envisage as a result of the Bill. They want to wreck the Bill, and that is why they have put down such amendments.
  As I promised, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has covered the point.
  9 pm
  Mr. Brown: I am glad to have one satisfied customer from the Opposition.
  This may be the last opportunity that I may have to participate in the proceedings on the Bill.
  Mr. McAllion: I fervently hope so.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that he hopes that that is the case. I know that the Opposition have had a rough ride with regard to the English Members serving on the Committee. The Labour party—or it might have been the Scottish National party—
  Mr. Salmond: Be precise.
  Mr. Brown: I cannot remember. As far as I am concerned, they are all Socialists—they are all the same.
  One or other of the Opposition parties serving on the Committee issued a press release, even before the first sitting, saying what a disgrace it was that there were English Members serving on the Standing Committee. After the first sitting of the Standing Committee, all they did was sit there mute doing their constituency correspondence. From day one they got their comeuppance, because we have considered the proceedings on the Bill responsibly and seriously and we have read up—[Interruption] The problem for Opposition Members is that we have read too many of their articles. We have drawn too much public attention to some of the things that they have said. We have obtained speeches that have been made one day and press releases issued the next day, and we have drawn attention to the inconsistencies.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend also agree that we were rather more aware of the views of Councillor Charles Gray than were members of the Opposition?
  Mr. Brown: That is right. I was upbraided by an hon. Member opposite when I referred incorrectly to councillor Charles Gray as Sir Charles Gray, the chairman of the Strathclyde education committee. I went straight to The Times last Saturday to see whether Councillor Gray had been made a knight, because I believed that he should be knighted for his services to Scottish education. In the past few months, Councillor Gray and my hon. Friend the Scottish Education Minister have done a great deal for Scottish education. We are right to pay tribute to the work of Councillor Gray, who I hope will be a "sir" in the not too distant future. They have done a great deal of practical work to raise the standards of education.
  I have a shrewd suspicion that the one local councillor who will be waiting with bated breath for the royal assent to the Bill will be Councillor Charles Gray. From some of the statements he has already made, it appears that he actually regrets that the Bill is not yet on the statute book. If he were a Member of the House, he would not be supporting the new clause, because he wants to be where my hon. Friend the Minister is, but he wants to be there a little earlier. Some of the speeches we have heard of Councillor Gray in the press reports during the Committee stage of the Bill indicate that he cannot wait for the Bill to be enacted. We owe it to Councillor Gray—I hope that in the new year's honours list in 1990 he will be Sir Charles —to reject the new clause and to get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
  Mr. McAllion: It was obvious that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) had not read the new clause, because he made virtually no reference to it in 20 minutes of drivel similar to that which we heard from him in Committee. At one point the Minister intervened and said that people who did not like the message blamed the messenger. Of course, if anyone is guilty of that sentiment, it is the Minister and his friends in the Scottish Office, because, if they could not get the message last Thursday at the ballot box in Scotland about this Bill and the plans for the National Health Service, they will never get the message.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) failed to recognise that the Scottish people liked neither the message nor the messenger?
  Mr. McAllion: That is precisely the point to which I was coming. The Minister traipses around Scotland speaking to anyone who will listen to him from the media. He says that the doctors and the teachers do not understand the message. However, they understand the message and the messenger, which is why the majority of Scots are represented by Opposition parties.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: On the swing last Thursday, the Scottish National party would regain Dundee.
  Mr. McAllion: If the SNP regains Dundee, there will not have been a swing to the Left, which is what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) claimed in Glasgow, Central. If there is a swing to the Left, Labour will hold Dundee easily in the next election.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unwise for Conservative Members to refer to Glasgow, Central considering the pathetic result the Conservative party achieved?
  Mr. McAllion: That is true. The Tories obviously believe that saving deposits in elections in Scotland constitutes a good performance. It shows the depths to which they have sunk.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said that one of the advantages of English Members taking part in discussions on the Bill was that they were able to relate their experiences of English education legislation and inform other hon. Members who do not represent English constituencies. There is an element of truth in that, as long as the English Members tell us the truth about the English experience. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes talked about the grades he received in school but he did not receive a grade A in truth. He talked about Lincolnshire education authority being a classic example of how an authority provides choice for parents and encourages pupils to come into its area. However, he did not tell us about South Park high school in Lincoln in which 97 per cent. of parents voted in favour of self-governing status in an 88 per cent. turnout. The Secretary of State for Education and Science refused to allow the school to opt out on that basis.
  Mr. McFall: Does my hon. Friend agree that our objection to English Members is that they know nothing about Scottish education? The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) mentioned Charles Gray but he did not know whether he had been knighted or not. The hon. Gentleman knew nothing about the issue of the old qualifying examination in Scotland. The English Members were chosen for their ignorance of Scottish education. Many of them knew more about and had more sympathy with South Africa than they did about Scottish education.
  Mr. McAllion: That is a fair point.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science refused to allow the school in Lincolnshire to opt out because he said:
  "I must be satisfied that the school is likely to succeed."
  In Committee the Minister said:
  "We want only good candidates for self-governing status, not lame ducks. We want those schools to be the ones that succeed."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11 April 1989; c. 478.]
  If we break through the code in which Tories speak, that means that schools in working-class areas that are full of working-class kids will not have an opportunity to opt out. The Bill is not about giving parents greater choice but about allowing a small elite to opt out into grammar-type schools. That is why the Secretary of State is picking and choosing the schools that can opt out. That is what the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Minister want and that is why new clauses such as this are essential.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that he has a cheek to express such an argument when, in Committee, he argued that the Bill ought to be amended, as it was today, to allow for proper consultation with the education authority so that the decision is not taken solely by parents but that the Secretary of State will have other arguments and considerations to take into account? The hon. Gentleman is now condemning my

  237
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science because he has taken other factors into account. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He simply chooses whatever argument seems most effective to knock the Government. That is why he and his colleagues got into such a mess in Committee.
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister has made a weak intervention. The only person who decides whether a school may opt out is the Secretary of State. Others may be consulted but Scotland has had 10 years of being consulted by Secretaries of State who represent the Tory Government. They might listen but they do not act upon what they hear. They simply go through the formality of consulting and that is why the ballot procedure is not properly democratic. It does not really matter how the parents vote, it does not matter what the education authority or what the parents of children in the feeder primary schools might say because, ultimately, the Secretary of State makes up his own mind. He wants to wreck the comprehensive system in Scotland and allow schools to opt out if he thinks that they can form the backbone of a new grammar type-school so that such a provision can be put in place across Scotland. That is what the Bill is about. The Minister is not kidding anyone that the Bill is about increasing choice or allowing people to make up their own minds.
  It is important that the Minister gives a clear commitment that there will be no reintroduction of general academic selection to secondary schools. The Minister said that he has made the position clear, but nothing could be further from the truth. He has avoided giving anything like the commitment given by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Second Reading, when he categorically rejected the reintroduction of selectivity.
  The Minister was pressed time and again in Committee, and again today, to give that commitment, but he refused. He said that the Government had recognised special needs such as dance, music, Gaelic and the classics. He went all round the houses, but he would not give a commitment that there would be no reintroduction of general academic selection. Several Conservative Members suggested that the Minister had given a clear assurance in Committee that no rural schools would be allowed to reintroduce general academic selection that would keep out any children. The Minister did not give any such commitment for urban schools such as those in Dundee, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Until he gives such a commitment, there will be a deep suspicion that that is what the Bill is all about, no matter what he says.
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) made an honest contribution to our debates in Committee. He was quite open about wanting the reintroduction of general academic selection. He said that he wanted the return of grammar schools in Scotland, in the way that they are now returning in England and Wales. The Minister congratulated his hon. Friend on his effective speech, which he said he appreciated. He surely cannot say that he appreciates his hon. Friend's call for the return of grammar schools and at the same time pretend that the Government will not allow that to happen in Scotland. Either the Minister supports his hon. Friend or he does not. He certainly gave the impression of supporting his hon. Friend in Committee.
  The Minister used to belong to the No Turning Back group of Conservative Members, a number of whom are
  238
  present tonight. That group produced an education pamphlet that clearly attacked the comprehensive system and local authority schools and called for the reintroduction of grammar schools. The hon. Gentleman was not a Minister when he put his name to the pamphlet in 1986. He was careful to withdraw his name when he became a Minister, but he has never taken the opportunity to reject the pamphlet's proposals. I suspect that he still stands by them and awaits the opportunity to bring them into force. The Minister is nodding, so I assume that he intends to reintroduce academic selection.
  On 18 April the Minister cited an example from the independent sector, and said:
  "Let us consider the variety of schools in the independent sector. Some place a greater emphasis on academic achievement while others emphasise the expressive arts, sport and so on. Parents choose the schools which they believe will be most suited to their children. We wish to see that sort of diversity and choice in the state system and the Bill will deliver that."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 18 April 1987; c. 782.]
  There are certainly schools in the independent sector that concentrate on academic excellence, but they use selection by academic ability to admit pupils. The Minister was basically saying that he would replicate that system in the state sector. He is all over the place. He will not assure the House that he is opposed to the reintroduction of grammar schools—or senior secondary schools as they are called in Scotland.
  The uncertainty and ambiguity of the Minister's answers were reflected even in his description of the way in which a school that opts out will maintain its characteristics. The Minister explained that the school board would have to set out the proposed admissions policy if it was granted self-governing status. Within that policy, it would have to stress any special emphasis which it wanted to characterise the provision of education in the school. Once it had secured a majority in the ballot and gained the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the description of the admissions policy was a binding obligation on the board of management taking over the running of the school. As the Minister said, that would he a guarantee to parents of what the school would be like in future. That is fine, and everyone would support that idea. However, the Minister then, through clause 28, creates the mechanism by which that binding guarantee can be ripped up by the parents if they achieve a simple majority in a ballot.
  9.15 pm
  The binding agreement to ensure that the school stayed within the characteristics of its proposed admissions policy would be thrown out the window as soon as the board had the simple majority and the Secretary of State's approval to change the characteristic. The Minister said that that would be a significant change which would be of considerable importance to parents, neighbourhood schools and education authorities. That very important change is made possible in clauses 16 and 28. The Minister has studiously avoided any opportunity of saying that the Secretary of State will not allow anyone to use the mechanism to reintroduce general academic selection when a school opts out.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred to hurdles. The Secretary of State's permission is certainly

  239
  not a hurdle. At the moment, a Tory Secretary of State for Scotland would be keen to allow any break-up of the comprehensive system.
  The Minister has been very careful to restrict the people who are allowed to take part in the ballot of parents. He suggested in Committee that the parents of children in feeder primaries should be given the right to vote, but that was knocked on the head by the Tory majority on the Committee because they wanted to restrict the ballot only to parents who had children at the school. It was suggested that staff should be allowed to participate in the ballot. However, that was also knocked on the head. They will be forcibly transferred from one employer to another. They will have no chance to vote in the ballot. An amendment earlier today would have given adult users of a school the right to take part in a ballot, but the Minister made sure that that amendment was not passed.
  The purpose behind all this is to keep the ballot to an absolute minimum. That will create a community of people who might be tempted into voting for something on the basis that they might get something out of it at the expense of the local authority. If the number of people allowed to vote is small enough, they have a good chance of winning.
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made a disgraceful intervention earlier today. He deliberately filibustered on an important amendment which prevented a vote being taken on it. That amendment would have required a two-thirds majority. The Government were careful to ensure that only a simple majority is required to change the characteristics of the school.
  Mr. Bill Walker: It appears that the term "filibuster" now has a new meaning. A speech lasting less than five minutes is now a filibuster, even when that speech includes a number of lengthy interventions. When the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) reads Hansard, he will hardly be able to substantiate his charge. I stated very clearly why I supported my colleagues on the Government Front Bench and why I was against the proposal for a two thirds majority. I thought that the debate was very serious and that it was discussed fully and seriously. My constituents will understand why I took that position. It had nothing to do with filibustering.
  Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman visits the Library and consults the Oxford English Dictionary, he will see that filibustering does not necessarily mean talking for a long time. The hon. Gentleman knew that if he did not stop speaking before 6.30 pm, a vote on the amendment for a two-thirds majority would not be taken. He also was aware that he had made his points very clearly and was talking for no purpose other than to ensure that the vote was not taken. The Government Whip whispered to him and told him to ensure that the amendment was not reached so that the Government could secure the idea that the majority required in the ballots could involve fewer than half the parents voting in favour. The Secretary of State for Scotland agreed with that.
  If the hon. Member for Tayside, North doubts that, he should consider what happened last week in England. In a school to which the Minister referred, 56 per cent. of parents voted for opting out and the Secretary of State for
  240
  Education and Science allowed them to do that. What the Minister did not tell anyone was that the 56 per cent. of parents who voted were a minority of those who were entitled to vote. Therefore, that school was allowed to opt out of education authority control without gaining the support of even half the parents or children at that school for such a move. That is why the Opposition are opposed to the idea. The ballot is simply a hurdle that the Government can manipulate in order to make sure that they get their friends over. If the Secretary of State can achieve that, he will.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his allegation against my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). If he had sat down before half-past six, I would have made my contribution.
  Mr. McAllion: I saw the Government Whip whisper to the hon. Member for Tayside, North and then go round and whisper into the ear of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to make sure that, if the hon. Member for Tayside, North sat down early, the hon. Member for Eastwood would speak. Both hon. Members took part in a Government ploy and it is a disgrace that hon. Members should be prevented from voting on such an important issue.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he has just referred to decisions made with a two-thirds majority. He and I know that he was elected on considerably less than a 50 per cent. simple majority. But no one disputes—I do not—that he represents Dundee, East, and he does so most effectively. I hope that he continues to do so, but not if he continues to criticise the vote at the school to which he referred and the turnout there.
  Mr. McAllion: Again, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) dealt clearly with that problem. We are talking about a major institutional change whereby a school is taken out of the education authority's control and given direct funding under the Secretary of State for Scotland. The next step along may be the private sector. Such a decision cannot be taken lightly on the basis of a simple majority. No one would argue that such a decision should be made on a two-thirds majority. A Member of Parliament can be voted out at a general election, but once a school is taken out of the education authority sector it is not easy to return it. The Secretary of State for Scotland makes the decision, and if he says no, nothing can be done about it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is drawing a parallel that is wrong and makes no sense.
  I know exactly what the Minister is about. He is about wrecking the comprehensive system in Scotland—breaking up education authority schools. In Committee, I remember him describing the introduction of comprehensive education between 1969 and 1974. He said that it was the most fundamental change in the history of Scottish education up to that time and that it had been brought about by the Labour party. The problem is that the Minister and his friends have never accepted that fundamental change and have worked all their lives to reverse it. They started to do it with the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 and now they are moving on to the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. Leigh: So what?
  Mr. McAllion: I will tell the hon. Gentleman so what. Conservative Members should not give us the nonsense that this is all about parental choice. It is about destroying comprehensive education. It is the only thing that it has ever been about and that is why we are here tonight. If the Minister says that it is not about that he must accept the new clause that has been tabled in the name of my hon. Friends. If he does not, he does not have the same candour and honesty as the Secretary of State for Scotland, who at least says what he thinks. He says that he will not allow general selectivity to be reintroduced. The Minister will not allow those words to come out of his mouth and that is why the new clause is important.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) performed a service in Committee and has also done so on the Floor of the House. Yet again, he has drawn attention to the excellent work of the No Turning Back group, of which I am a member. We enjoyed that contribution of the hon. Gentleman and his earlier contributions to the formulation of English law when he dashed down the Committee Corridor to vote on some English matter. He has certainly played his part in our proceedings.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) ably pointed out that the Opposition's fears about selectivity were unfounded and that the Bill would open up the positive aspects of selectivity. My hon. Friend was right to reiterate the points made by my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee when, in response to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), he stated:
  "Nothing can prevent any education authority having a selective intake in any of its schools … The Bill does not alter the current position. All it does is to put two hurdles in the way of self-governing schools which do not apply to education authority schools. One is the parental ballot and the other is the approval of the Secretary of State … It is possible for selection to be introduced into local authority schools on the vote of the education committee. It will not be possible for selectivity to be introduced into self-governing schools on the vote of the board of management. That is the fundamental difference. It will be much harder to introduce selection into a self-governing school than into a local authority school."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 18 April 1989; c. 791–92]
  That makes the position clear.
  I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) in respect of local authority schools in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) also raised that matter. However, I cannot believe that in a ballot parents will exclude children for whom there is no alternative provision. I am sure that that would not be their wish.
  If Opposition Members are correct in saying that schools will not want to become self-governing, my right hon. Friend has no cause for concern. His point is well taken, but he overlooks the Bill's general purpose and why parents are likely to vote for self-governing status. I cannot believe that parents would vote to exclude a minority or even a large number of pupils because they fail to meet the criteria of academic ability, as that would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. If parents vote for self-government, it will not be to exclude less bright children but to create the ethos they want and which they feel the local education authority has not provided. That is genuine parental choice, and that is what the Bill is all about.
  242
  We believe that the Bill will provide parents with greater opportunities to have an input into the type of school that their children attend. It is not true to say that, where schools in England and Wales have voted to opt out, that has provided an opportunity for selectivity. The real reason is best illustrated by the example of Baverstock school in the Maypole area of Birmingham, where the headmaster said:
  "Out here, people thought that they had been abandoned"—
  and when not abandoned, meddled with. Parents at that school took the opportunity provided by the Government to be in charge of their own destiny. The introduction of selectivity did not enter into it.
  That school acquired a bad reputation, suffered from it, and became unpopular. Under the new headmaster and his team, the school was turned around. One of their innovations was to introduce a system whereby the staff are addressed as "Sir" or "Ma'am", uniform is compulsory, and every day begins with assembly. Such a regime was not offered by the local education authority but was wanted by the parents. They voted for self-governing status for that reason, not to introduce selectivity. They wanted to change and protect the ethos of the school in a way that the local education authority would not have permitted.
  Mr. Leigh: The point must be made that it is not just a matter of pumping more resources into schools. It is also a question of changing their ethos. When schools become self-governing, they may not necessarily be given more resources, but their ethos will alter.
  Mr. Howarth: That is true. Opposition Members underestimate the desire of parents to bring back some of the old-fashioned virtues and notions in schools where they have been almost driven out.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: Bring back flogging!
  Mr. Howarth: As one who was chastised with the cane at school, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although other things may have done me harm, that was not one of them. I was very conscious of the need to preserve the discipline of the school.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has been under considerable pressure to resist the idea that self-governing schools ought to be able to introduce an element of selectivity. I accept what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside about the problems in rural areas, but in densely populated urban areas containing a number of schools, diversity of educational provision could be an advantage. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) would keep quiet for a moment, he might learn something to his advantage.
  Mr. Foulkes: I doubt that very much, on the evidence that we have had so far.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has had too good a dinner; that is the trouble. As a Douglas from the borders, I am used to hearing the speeches of well-refreshed members of my family from time to time.
  It is wrong to suggest that parents now have unlimited choice, despite the parents' charter that the Government

  243
  introduced in Scotland. Throughout the United Kingdom—Scotland is not the only victim—there is rationing by catchment area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes pointed out, if people want to opt for the educational provision that exists in Lincolnshire, they must move house. People will often move to a particular area and buy a house there simply to be able to enter the catchment area of a certain school. It is wholly untrue that, in a great Socialist Valhalla, people have been provided with choice by benevolent Socialist councillors and their local education authorities.
  I do not see why a school should not be able to set academic criteria when there are alternative schools. To deny that possibility is to imply that academic attainment is all that counts, which is not so. Today sporting ability can lead not only to a fulfilling career but to an extremely lucrative one, and the same applies to artistic and creative abilities. The new clause therefore strikes me as unnecessary.
  I believe that, in some instances, academic selection could certainly be entertained by the Secretary of State. If Opposition Members fear that, they should bear it in mind that my right hon. and learned Friend has put it on the record categorically that he is against selection on the basis of academic ability. [Interruption.] He has said that; it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I am not sure that I ought to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but as I am in a generous mood I will do so.
  Mr. Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that the same Secretary of State made an absolute pledge that he would not introduce the provisions of this Bill? That shows how trustworthy his promises are.
  Mr. Howarth: I do not believe that that is true.
  Mr. Foulkes: It is true.
  Mr. Howarth: If it were true, and my right hon. and learned Friend had changed his mind, he must be the most sensible of men, and I am sure that the people of Scotland will be even more grateful for his flexibility of mind.
  The Opposition have completely failed to make a case for the amendment. The Bill provides hurdles to ensure that some of their worse fears are confounded. A very good case can be made for academic selection. The Bill does not destroy comprehensive education. Many people believe that a lot of our educational ills can be put down to Mrs. Shirley Williams who compulsorily made education comprehensive. However, this Bill is not the measure to change that.
  Mr. Salmond: I do not know why the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and other hon. Members are in difficulties about the wording of the new clause. It is a model of clarity, if it is compared with many of the amendments and new clauses.
  The phrase "general academic selection" is well understood. The hon. Member for Tayside, North agreed with the principle of the new clause but he said that he was worried about its wording. The Under-Secretary of State has it within his power to bring about an historic
  244
  compromise between the hon. Member for Tayside, North and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) by giving an assurance that he will introduce an appropriately worded amendment in the other place. Such an assurance would, I am sure, be received favourably by the hon. Member for Fife, Central. It would also show whether the Government are serious about not allowing selectivity to creep into Scottish education.
  The hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) often say what the Minister is thinking about educational questions. Both of them, drawing on their exhaustive knowledge of the Scottish education system, have supported academic selection. I have always thought that it is invidious to compare education systems. However, it is appropriate to compare the education system with which the hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes and for Cannock and Burntwood are familiar and the education system in Scotland.
  The English system is fragmented. It is partly selective and substantially private. Its achievements should be compared with the Scottish comprehensive system. In Scotland, 21 per cent. of our children gain the necessary qualifications for higher education. In England and Wales, only 15 per cent. of children gain those qualifications. I do not claim that 21 per cent. in Scotland is a remarkable achievement. It should be substantially higher than that.
  The hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes and for Cannock and Burntwood have offered us some lessons that they say we in Scotland should learn. They have used the power of their votes in Scottish Standing Committees to push through amendments that they favour, but they should base their offer of the lessons that Scotland should learn on the experience of better international education systems rather than on the experience of an education system that is substantially worse, according to a number of criteria, than the Scottish one.
  The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) referred to rural schools. I support his arguments. If selectivity were to be introduced in rural schools, pupils would have to be bussed substantial distances to other schools. The only alternative would be to establish in rural communities schools for pupils with lower attainments. Neither of those possibilities is attractive to any Scottish Member of Parliament who represents a rural constituency. There should be no exclusion on any grounds of a pupil from a rural community school. That view is strongly held by all Scottish Members of Parliament with rural constituencies.
  Conservative Members have consistently argued that it would be simpler for an education authority in Scotland to adopt the selective approach than it would be for a school that had opted out and that was awaiting the Secretary of State's decision. There is a fairly substantial difference. Scottish education authorities are democratically elected. They represent, one hopes, the local communities within their area. The same certainly cannot be claimed for the Secretary of State for Scotland. His views of Scottish education are certainly not representative of the Scottish community. Earlier this evening, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), said that he did not want an unrepresentative minority to grab control of a school in Scotland. The problem we face is that an unrepresentative minority has grabbed control, not

  245
  of a single school but of the entire education system in Scotland. That was supported by the English battalions in Committee and in the House tonight.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) suggested that the criterion for selecting English Members to serve on the Standing Committee was ignorance of the Scottish education system. I rather suspect that the criterion for selection was familiarity with the Minister responsible for Scottish education. It is clear from the interchange between the surviving members of the No Turning Back group—perhaps the Minister is still a member of such a group—that their purpose was to egg the Minister on to greater and more radical things. Unfortunately the greater and more radical things are not wanted by the vast majority of the Scottish community.
  Finally, we are told that we must accept the assurances of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said that he would be prepared to accept such assurances, but I remember the right hon. Gentleman telling the House on a previous occasion that during the last general election he specifically inquired about the possibility of opting out being introduced into Scottish education and had received an assurance from Conservative central office that there were no such plans. That is the credibility of assurances from the Secretary of State and from the Government Front Bench. Had those assurances proved valid in the past, we should not be discussing this legislation this evening.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have had an interesting debate on new clause 2. Time and again, opponents of our proposals for self-governing schools return to their claim that giving parents the right to seek greater involvement in the running of schools will bring about the return of senior secondary schools, complete with a qualifying examination.
  Those opponents claim to base their view on the existence of machinery in clause 28 designed to allow self-governing schools to respond flexibly to future developments by seeking to change their fundamental characteristics. By now they are well aware that any such change requires the support of parents voting in a ballot and the approval of the Secretary of State. The clause 28 machinery exists as a protection for the existing fundamental characteristics of a school that opts for self-governing status. We have deliberately made it difficult to alter those characteristics—more difficult than any parallel changes in an education authority school. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) argues that the difference is that local authorities are more democratic. He appears to believe that a local authority education committee is more representative of the wishes of parents.
  Mr. Foulkes: They are more representative than you are.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has returned from his dinner and has not listened carefully to the arguments in the 15 minutes for which he has graced us with his presence.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is seeking to argue that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is not representative of the parents, but although the decision to alter the characteristics of a school is taken by the Secretary of State, it can come to the Secretary of State only when a majority of the parents have voted for
  246
  it. The process is started by the parents. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to argue that the education authority committees are more representative of the wishes of parents than are the parents themselves.
  If we accept the view that self-governing schools will lead to a return of selective schools, our opponents must believe that enough Scottish parents are sufficiently dissatisfied with the present system of secondary schools to support a return to selective schools. What evidence do they have for that? Why do they continue to make those claims? In any secondary school a fair number of parents will have other children still at primary school. They at least are unlikely to be strong supporters of bringing back fully selective entry.
  In many parts of the country, a school that aimed to exclude large numbers by a selective entry test would simply find itself unable to attract sufficient pupils to remain viable, and any proposals under clause 28 require the consent of the Secretary of State. He will have regard to the viability of the particular school and any consequences for the wider provision of education for all pupils in the area. On Second Reading my right hon. and learned Friend made it quite clear that there was no question of a return to the selective secondary schools of the past.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked me to repeat the assurance that I gave in Committee that there would be no question of allowing selection in any community—rural or otherwise—where the effect would be that children were denied the opportunity of going to the only possible, practical school. I am happy to repeat the undertaking that I clearly gave in Committee.
  9.45 pm
  I am puzzled why the Opposition should be continually obsessed with that issue. In Committee I made it clear that one use of admission arrangements based on ability or aptitude could be in a school operating a specialist unit of one sort or another. The new clause carries the heading "general academic selection", with the suggestion, perhaps, that particular academic selection would be more acceptable.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) initiated a debate on the concept of giftedness. In the view of Opposition Members, specific provision for giftedness might be seen as acceptable. We still do not know the hon. Gentleman's view on that matter. It appears that the selection of children based on a gift for music or dance is entirely virtuous. We have established that. However, selection for specialist facilities relating to ability in classics or minority foreign languages seems to be a more difficult subject for Opposition Members. They recognise that that might be the most effective and perhaps the only sensible means of making such provision, but such arrangements were clearly coming too close to the bogy of general academic selection. Certainly, any form of selection based on a particular gift with mathematics or mainstream languages was to be ruled out.
  What are we to make of all of this? One clue is that Strathclyde regional council makes specialist provision for music at Douglas academy at Milngavie and for dance at Knightswood. By definition, those arrangements must be virtuous, and recognition of special ability in more academic subjects, however, is to be an absolutely no-go area.

  247
  The drafting of the new clause is less than certain. It is against academic selection in self-governing schools, but it appears to define academic selection by reference to any form of selection based on the ability and aptitude of pupils. I accept that Opposition Members do not intend to exclude the necessary judgments on specialist provision to be made for those with defined special educational needs. They probably did not intend to exclude selection for music or dance units, but the new clause certainly does that. Our view is that the Bill should not rule out such changes It should be open to schools to develop all sorts of specialist provision where they find it possible and valuable to do so. It is for parents in the first instance to vote on whether they consider proposals for such provision acceptable.
  Diversity is one of the main themes of our proposals. This new clause is against diversity, and I ask the House to reject it.
  Mr. Galbraith: The Minister was surprisingly brief in replying to the debate on the new clause.
  Mr. Forsyth: To enable the hon. Gentleman to have time to respond.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am grateful to the Minister for his consideration.
  I noticed also that the Minister stuck closely to his brief. For example, he did not stray from it to agree with the comments of, for example, his hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). Perhaps he thought that, had he strayed from it, he might have let slip the true intentions of the Bill, rather than remaining constrained because of the present political realities in the country.
  Although the Minister uttered words of reassurance to his hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) about rural schools, he did not reiterate the commitment given by the Secretary of State about not permitting this legislation to be used as a method of reintroducing selection into Scottish education. The Minister did not tonight give such an undertaking. I will resume my seat immediately if the hon. Gentleman wishes to rise to give that undertaking. He simply made a passing reference to the Secretary of State and said that there was no chance of returning to the selective education of the past.
  That is a different undertaking from saying that schools which opt out will not be able to reintroduce selection. I accept that not many schools, if any, will opt out, but we want to know—as I say, I will allow him to intervene immediately if he wishes to reassure us—whether those schools will not be able to reintroduce selection of the type that we know we are discussing. I am not talking about a general provision for Scottish education but about the schools in question.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. Friend gave a clear commitment on Second Reading. He is the Secretary of State. He declared the Government's policy. I support the Government's policy and the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House by seeking to look at nuances of differences of view which do not exist.
  Mr. Galbraith: The House will have noted that the Minister again failed to give the assurance for which I
  248
  asked. We are bound to be suspicious when it comes to selection, particularly following the contributions of the hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes, for Cannock and Burntwood and for Hexham (Mr. Amos), who is no longer in his place, in which they clearly said that in their view selection should be reintroduced into the Scottish education system and that that would be their intention if they had their way.
  We are now discussing the crux of the Bill. We have so far tonight discussed some important technicalities of the measure, such as ballots, majorities and special needs education. We now discuss what we regard as the main problem, that of the reintroduction of selection into the Scottish education system, a system that got rid of selection many years ago.
  We do not want that system reintroduced by the back door. In Committee there was much talk about the Government reintroducing such matters through the front or back doors. Our fear is that they wish to reintroduce selection through the back door. That is why we are totally opposed to the measure. The Minister spoke of hurdles, but they are not very high. Certainly any hurdles of which the Minister spoke would be extremely high if my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, (Mr. Dewar) were Secretary of State, as he will be soon.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: When the hon. Gentleman says that the hurdles are not very high, he should remember that the first hurdle is to secure the majority of parents in a school for this view. Are we to take it that he believes that there are large numbers of parents in schools in Scotland who will wish to vote for this principle? I do not believe that. If the hon. Gentleman describes that as a small hurdle, he must believe the opposite. Where is his evidence for that view?
  Mr. Galbraith: The Minister keeps arguing that there is no great demand for this change, that this is simply a piece of enabling legislation and that it will not be required much. Have we spent months listening to rubbish from Conservative Members, wasting the time of Parliament, for a piece of legislation that is irrelevant and that, in the view of the Minister, will hardly ever be used? It beggars belief to hear that sort of rubbish from the Government Benches—[Interruption.] One does not wait for murder to be committed before trying to prevent it. That is why we are anxious to deal with this issue properly at this stage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—I deliberately refer to him as my hon. Friend—talked about rural schools, as did a number of other hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman took us on a trip through the Tay valley, on to Killiecrankie and Blair Atholl, and I was waiting, as he moved on, to hear the Uist tramping song. He seemed to think that the trouble with the legislation was that, if one of his local rural schools opted out, it would not be able to offer certain subjects such as Gaelic or specialist sports. If I have misrepresented him, he will correct me.
  Mr. Bill Walker: My concern—my intervention gives me an opportunity to correct a misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—was that the new clause, if accepted, could mean that, if one of my local schools decided to become self-governing, it could not continue to offer the kind of opportunities for selection that are now offered, for

  249
  example, for Gaelic. In other words, I was concerned about the effect that the new clause could have on schools in my constituency.
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If rural schools have developed specialist interests in subjects and sports based on their locality, that will always be present.
  Mr. Walker: Again, the hon. Gentleman either has not heard or has not been listening. I am concerned that schools that become self-governing, which are now offering specialist subjects, for which children travel long distances beyond what would be considered the catchment area, might be prevented from offering such subjects if the new clause were accepted.
  Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that they would. However, the hon. Gentleman is again introducing a red herring. I do not believe that the new clause could do that technically. Kingussie high school, a rural school, offers shinty. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is not in his place. I do not believe that such things would be excluded on the basis of our new clause.
  If the hon. Gentleman was honest in saying that he did not wish to reintroduce selection and that the only reason that he was opposing the new clause was that he thought that it was technically unsound—
  Mr. Walker: I thought that I had made the position even clearer. I said that I had no wish to go back to the 11-plus, and I have not. I believe—I hope that my speech made this clear—that there is room for selection in specialist subjects for which the teachers have specialist aptitudes and abilities which they are offering now. I do not want that position to change.
  Mr. Galbraith: The more that we debate this—this is the value of debate in the House—the clearer the positions of other hon. Members become. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman wishes to reintroduce selection, although he does not want to reintroduce the 11-plus.
  Mr. Walker rose—
  Mr. Galbraith: Well, not in the terms that we are talking about.
  Mr. Walker: Selection already exists.
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman keeps shouting from a sedentary position that selection exists now, but it does not. That is what we are worried about.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made it clear that he wanted to reintroduce selection. I believe that I am correct in attributing that view to him. That worries us. He also said that the Opposition are complacent about Scottish education and believe that there is nothing wrong with it. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are all aware that most things in our society could be improved; education certainly could. However, not on Second Reading, in Committee or tonight on Report have we heard exactly how the Bill will improve Scottish education.
  We have to take the Minister's assertion and make an act of faith. We have to believe that, if a school is allowed to opt out, there is a de facto reason and some logic that somehow that school will be better. I cannot accept that. We need more and better assurances and some explanation, but they have been missing.
  250
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood made several contributions in Committee and spoke again tonight. We are worried because he said that he wished to reintroduce selection based on academic criteria. I believe that I am correct—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I said that I thought that a strong case could be made for academic selection. I was not specifically calling for it in Scotland. I was simply saying that a strong case could be made, and I should be happy if it could be reintroduced in England and Wales.
  Mr. Galbraith: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has said, "A strong case could be made." Is the hon. Gentleman simply making a debating point, because "a strong case could be made" either for or against? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not made his mind up either way, but I suspect that he believes in academic selection.
  The other interesting thing that I enjoyed hearing from the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood was that the whole purpose of the Bill—and the hon. Gentleman's solution to improve Scottish education—was for the pupils to start calling all teachers "Sir" or "Madam". Many educationists in Scotland will be grateful for that contribution.
  Opposition Members oppose the Bill for many reasons, but mainly because it is about introducing selection into the education system by the back door. Many of us remember the 11-plus and the divisions that were created in schools and societies. We remember the mornings when the exam results were made public and the division in classrooms where half the pupils were to go to the senior secondary and other half to the junior secondary, which, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, was the equivalent of a secondary modern school. We do not wish to return to that.
  The Minister says that that is not a problem because the sort of testing that he suggests reintroducing into Scottish education will not be used as a method of selection but that the results will be given only to the parents. Is the Minister trying to make us believe that, if a school opts out, he will not ask the parents what results the pupils got in the test? Are we to believe that, somehow, the results that are available from that test will be kept secret from the parents and that they will not be allowed to pass them on through the educational system? No—the results will be used, together with opting out, to damage the comprehensive system within Scottish education.
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order, [3rd May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 265.

  Division No. 253]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beith, A. J.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Alton, David

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Blair, Tony

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boateng, Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Boyes, Roland

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Battle, John

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  251

  Buckley, George J.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Caborn, Richard

  Leighton, Ron

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Litherland, Robert

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Livingstone, Ken

  Canavan, Dennis

  Livsey, Richard

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clay, Bob

  Loyden, Eddie

  Clelland, David

  McAllion, John

  Cohen, Harry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cousins, Jim

  McFall, John

  Cryer, Bob

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cummings, John

  McKelvey, William

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McLeish, Henry

  Dalyell, Tam

  McNamara, Kevin

  Darling, Alistair

  McWilliam, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Madden, Max

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Marek, Dr John

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dixon, Don

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dobson, Frank

  Martlew, Eric

  Doran, Frank

  Maxton, John

  Douglas, Dick

  Meale, Alan

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Michael, Alun

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Eastham, Ken

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morley, Elliott

  Fearn, Ronald

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Fisher, Mark

  Murphy, Paul

  Flannery, Martin

  Nellist, Dave

  Flynn, Paul

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  O'Brien, William

  Foster, Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fraser, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Pendry, Tom

  Galbraith, Sam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Galloway, George

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Prescott, John

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  George, Bruce

  Randall, Stuart

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Redmond, Martin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Reid, Dr John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Richardson, Jo

  Graham, Thomas

  Robertson, George

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Grocott, Bruce

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hardy, Peter

  Salmond, Alex

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Henderson, Doug

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hood, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Sillars, Jim

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

  Hoyle, Doug

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

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Snape, Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Illsley, Eric

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Ingram, Adam

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Janner, Greville

  Stott, Roger

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Straw, Jack

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Lambie. David

  Turner, Dennis

  252

  Vaz, Keith

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Wall, Pat

  Wilson, Brian

  Wallace, James

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Joan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dover, Den

  Alexander, Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Allason, Rupert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Amess, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Amos, Alan

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Farr, Sir John

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Favell, Tony

  Ashby, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkins, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Atkinson, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Gill, Christopher

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gregory, Conal

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Benyon, W.

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hannam, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hayes, Jerry

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hayward, Robert

  Bowis, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Heddle, John

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Brazier, Julian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bright, Graham

  Hill, James

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

  Hind, Kenneth

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Howard, Michael

  Burns, Simon

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

  Burt, Alistair

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Butcher, John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Butler, Chris

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Butterfill, John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Irvine, Michael

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Irving, Charles

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jackson, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Janman, Tim

  Colvin, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Conway, Derek

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Couchman, James

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  Kilfedder, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Curry, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dicks, Terry

  Knox, David

  253

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lang, Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Latham, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rost, Peter

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lightbown, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Speed, Keith

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Speller, Tony

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Squire, Robin

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maples, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mills, Iain

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trippier, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trotter, Neville

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Waller, Gary

  Nelson, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Watts, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wells, Bowen

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Whitney, Ray

  Page, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Paice, James

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wilkinson, John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wilshire, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Price, Sir David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wood, Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Renton, Tim

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Riddick, Graham

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12

  FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN UNIVERSITIES, POLYTECHNICS AND COLLEGES
  '.—(1) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to
  254
  ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.
  (2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) above includes (in particular) the duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with—

  (a) the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body; or

  (b) the policy or objectives of that body.

  (3) The governing body of every such establishment shall, with a view to facilitating the discharge of the duty imposed by subsection (1) above in relation to that establishment, issue and keep up to date a code of practice setting out—

  (a) the procedures to be followed by members, students and employees of the establishment in connection with the organisation—

  (i) of meetings which are to be held on premises of the establishment and which fall within any class of meeting specified in the code; and

  (ii) of other activities which are to take place on those premises and which fall within any class of activity so specified; and

  (b) the conduct required of such persons in connection with any such meeting or activity;

  and dealing with such other matters as the governing body consider appropriate.
  (4) The governing body of every such establishment shall not impose a charge for security on the organisers of any meeting. Any charge for the use of premises shall be in accordance with the established practice of the establishment and shall not in any event be at such a level as to effectively preclude the proposed meeting taking place.
  (5) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any such establishment shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable (including where appropriate the initiation of disciplinary measures) to secure that the requirements of the code of practice for that establishment, issued under subsection (3) above, are complied with.
  (6) The establishments to which this section applies are—

  (a) any university;

  (b) any grant-maintained college;

  (c) any college of further education; and

  (d) any institution for the provision of further education managed by a company formed by virtue of section 60(1) of this Act.

  (7) In this section—
  "governing body", in relation to any university, means the executive governing body which has responsibility for the management and administration of its revenue and property and the conduct of its affairs;
  "university" includes a university college and any college, or institution in the nature of a college, in a university.
  (8) Where any of the establishments to which this section applies is maintained by an education authority or authorities or is substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from an education authority or authorities, the education authority or authorities maintaining or (as the case may be) assisting the establishment shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken to be concerned in its government.
  (9) Where a students' union occupies premises which are not premises of the establishment in connection with which the union is constituted, any reference in this section to the premises of the establishment shall be taken to include a reference to the premises occupied by the students' union.' —[Mr. Nicholas Bennett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The purpose of the clause is to insert into the Bill section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 but with one new and important subsection which says:
  "The governing body of every such establishment shall not impose a charge for security on the organisers of any meeting. Any charge for the use of premises shall be in accordance with

  255
  the established practice of the establishment and shall not in any event be at such a level as to effectively preclude the proposed meeting taking place."
  10.15 pm
  During questions to Scottish Office Ministers on 7 June, my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Amos) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) asked whether our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would consider extending section 43 to Scotland. He replied:
  "It was decided in 1986 not to extend to Scotland the provisions in the 1986 Act which became section 43 as there was little evidence in Scotland of the problems that prompted the legislation south of the border. Since then there has been very little evidence of disruption of free speech in universities or colleges in Scotland."—[Official Report, 7 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 209.]
  An important matter of principle is involved. It is that freedom of speech that is enshrined in English and Welsh legislation should also be enshrined in Scottish legislation. I do not understand the Minister's attitude. Knowing his robust views, I cannot believe that he seriously expects the House to accept the principle of freedom of speech in England and Wales but not in Scotland.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that should a problem arise in a Scottish university to which those rules would apply, we would not be equipped to deal with it? Are we not denying Scottish students a fairly essential right?
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Scottish Office is basically saying that, if a fire occurs, it will then take out an insurance policy. I have always believed that the insurance policy should come first. It is not right to suggest that there have not been problems in Scottish universities. Only last year in Aberdeen the South African consul was shouted down—
  Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that Scottish Members—and, indeed, most hon. Members—would abhor any intervention in the principle of freedom of speech in Scotland? We would be appalled if some Right-wing Fascists tried to prevent the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) speaking in a university. We want to prevent that happening, which is why we want the same legislation for Scotland as for England and Wales. During the passage of the Bill, Opposition Members continually asked for harmonisation between Scotland and England, and we cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Minister refused that.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, race relations legislation is equally applicable to Scotland and England. We want to prevent the shouting down of people in an attempt to stop them expressing their views. The Government appear to be prepared to sit back complacently because Scotland has not suffered quite the same outrages as England.
  Mr. John Redwood: During debates on the community charge, many Scottish Members said that it was a great pity that Scotland had to be the first to experiment and that England would have it only after it had been proved successful. Do we not now have a marvellous opportunity to show even-handedness in that now, the 1986 Act has proved successful in England and Wales, it should be extended to Scotland?
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is right, but with one proviso, because a part of section 43 has not been successful.
  Mr. John Marshall: Speaking as a former lecturer at Aberdeen university, I wish to ask my Welsh colleague whether he agrees that two things threaten Scotland's reputation—first, the sedentary interventions of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and, secondly, the attempts by individuals to deny freedom of speech in universities? Do not such attempts bring universities into disrepute? My hon. Friend's new clause seeks to safeguard the reputation of Scottish education, which used to be the highest in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is right, but my new clause also seeks equality for Scotland with England and Wales. It would also help my hon. Friend the Minister because not so long ago he spoke at Stirling university and attempts were made to shout him down. Being of a robust nature, my hon. Friend managed to continue his speech despite the attempts of the Fascist left to prevent freedom of speech. That shows that there are problems in Scottish universities and it seems that the problems are likely to increase in future. It is important that there should be equality of opportunity and treatment between England, Wales and Scotland. However, Scottish Members have an opportunity to show the way forward to the Departments responsible for education in England and Wales to improve section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, because that section is not working at the moment.
  Mr. John Bowis: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), should be listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). Until now, Scotland has always held its head high as one of the leaders in education in the United Kingdom. However, we anticipate a faint-hearted response on this point from the Minister. Should not the Government be considering the problems encountered by England and Wales under the present law and try to go further for Scotland instead of restricting the provision in Scotland to below that applying in England?
  Mr. Bennett: I find it very difficult to understand the attitude of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on this. It cannot be in line with what he really believes. He must have been captured by the civil servants in the Scottish Office. If only he could be a free man and speak his mind, there would be a robust approach.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Is it not a great pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), present in the Chamber? He seems to have the backbone with regard to these matters. Can we not have some backbone in this issue?
  Mr. Bennett: I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is suitably chastened by the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and that he will take note of the strong views on this issue.
  I want to give examples of what has happened in England and Wales since the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 received its Royal Assent. These examples will illustrate the problem which exists in the English and Welsh

  257
  legislation which we hope to correct and amend in the Bill on student loans later this year. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has a golden opportunity to lead the way and accept this new clause, which surmounts the problem which exists in England and Wales.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Would the hon. Gentleman take an umbrella to the Sahara on the grounds that it might rain?
  Mr. Bennett: Of course, there is always the chance that it might rain. I would certainly take some water there.
  Mr. Bill Walker: For the information of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), I have been in the Sahara when it rained very heavily.
  Mr. Bennett: Looking at the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), it appears that he should take an umbrella because he is obviously suffering from sunstroke and an umbrella could protect him from the sun. The Liberals were soaked in the rain last Thursday and they need an umbrella to protect them, if only to try to show that they are green in some way.
  The Conservative Collegiate Forum, the new name given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to the Federation of Conservative Students, which confuses some of us who think it must have something to do with Army cadets in public schools, has examined 97 codes of practice in England and Wales. It considered 49 from universities, 29 from polytechnics and 19 from other places of higher education. Fifty-three of the codes throw on the student body the cost of stewarding the meeting and eight of them demand payments in advance or a deposit.
  Mr. Tim Janman: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a priority that we should take action to uphold freedom of speech in Scotland. Does he agree that we should be incorporating section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 in this Bill, but that that should be taken as a starting point to make the legislation more embracing in Scotland to prevent the problems that we have seen in England and Wales? The English and Welsh legislation should also be toughened.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has made a very good point which is the purpose of the new clause. I only regret that the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), about student unions, was not selected for debate. That new clause referred to students being cajoled into being members of student unions whether they wanted to or not which is something about which Conservative Members feel very strongly.
  Eight of the codes of practice demand payments in advance or deposits. Those codes mean that, before a meeting can be held, sums of up to £500 must be paid in case the Left wing come along and disrupt the meeting. The onus is not on the Left, who will break up the meeting and cause the damage, but on the organisers. Large sums are demanded by some universities. Aston university, advised by the police that its security barriers would not be sufficient, asked for specially toughened steel barriers and demanded £372·83 from the Conservative students and a further £110 for extra security staff. The Conservative
  258
  students did not have that sort of money, and there was a grave danger that the meeting would have to be cancelled. Luckily, part of the charge was waived.
  Mr. Michael Brown: How can speech be free if it costs £110?
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why we object to the way in which the English and Welsh legislation has been working.
  Nine codes of practice insist that any loss or damage should be made good not by those who caused it but by the organisers of the meeting. Four require the holders of the meeting to bear all or part of the cost of any extra insurance required. Another device used by at least 10 establishments is to limit the number of meetings at which a designated speaker is allowed to appear. Essex university demands six weeks' notice for a meeting. Details must include the name of the speaker, and if the speaker cancels for any reason within those six weeks, the authority can ban the meeting.
  Twenty-seven codes of practice state that the meeting may be cancelled if it incites those attending to criminal acts. That is an all-embracing umbrella clause if ever I heard one. I note that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, who raised umbrellas, has now left the Chamber. It seems that any univeristy can say to any association, "I am sorry, but your meeting cannot take place because it might incite the audience to acts of criminal activity." How can anyone guarantee that a meeting will not lead to someone trying to disrupt it or to commit a criminal act? It is an open invitation to a university authority to ban anything it wishes.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: If deposits must be paid, which can be lost in the event of trouble, is that not an open invitation to the Left to cause trouble so that those who organised the meeting will be penalised?
  Mr. Bennett: That is a valid point. It is all the more valid coming from a former Under-Secretary of State of Education and Science, who speaks with great experience of the matter.
  I am especially worried by the behaviour of the director of the polytechnic of north London. I gained my first degree at that polytechnic and was the founder and first chairman of its Conservative association in the troubled times of the early 1970s. To blow my own trumpet, I can say that, standing as the moderate candidate, I led the poll in a ballot for student union president against the Trotskyites. I know how insidious the Left's activities can be in polytechnics and universities and how Left-wing students can intimidate speakers and Conservative students. The director's behaviour is extremely reprehensible. He has demanded the right to vet the subject of the addresses by visiting speakers and to demand that they be changed. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford wished to speak at the north London polytechnic, as he did fairly recently when he was subject to much abuse, the director reserves the right to ask my right hon. Friend to change the subject of his address.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I fully share my hon. Friend's view that the students should not be asked to pay, but the universities fear that, if the students are not asked to pay, the money will have to come from the university's budget for providing education. The taxpayer

  259
  generally should pay. We do not tax people who have their houses burgled. The police should protect the freedom of speech at no cost to the universities.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a case that the cost of protecting free speech should be borne by the taxpayer generally. But if the student unions, which are usually the cause of the disruption and are usually controlled by the far Left, are seen to be organising the disruption, they should pay for it out of the student union budget, which is provided by the taxpayer.
  Mr. John Marshall: One problem is that the principals of universities are far too pusillanimous. They should discipline those who behave in an unacademic way and send them down.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Bernard Levin made the same point in an excellent article in The Times on 1 June. University chancellors and polytechnic directors have been very weak in dealing with student union activists and troublemakers who disrupt meetings. They prefer to ignore and turn their backs on the problem. They are quite happy that disruption should occur, provided that the speakers affected are Conservative or Right-wing.
  When Mr. Ray Honeyford was invited to speak at the north London polytechnic, its director felt it necessary to publish a leaflet at the polytechnic's, and therefore, at the taxpayers', expense inviting his students to attend alternative meetings that he organised. He defended his action in a letter to The Times recently, to which Mr. Philip Malcolm, national student director of the Conservative Collegiate Forum, responded asking whether the director had ever organised an alternative meeting to one addressed by a Left-wing, Fascist or Communist speaker. Of course he had not. The director of the north London polytechnic only organises alternative meetings to those of Conservative speakers, with whom he happens to disagree. I do not see it as part of the job of the polytechnic authorities to tell students, "We don't want you to listen to this dreadful man because you might be influenced by what he says."
  Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that, a week after my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) spoke, after a fashion, at north London polytechnic, I was invited by its Conservative student association to speak there. Accordingly, I wrote to the polytechnic's principal, Dr. Wagner, asking him to accompany me on the platform and to remain there for the duration of my speech. He refused to do so, presumably because he did not want to witness the abuse from his own students that I would doubtless receive and because he could not discipline them in his own college. He could not guarantee my safety or the freedom of speech that he was ostensibly allowing.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend draws attention to the kind of disgraceful behaviour that is exhibited. Although not all right hon. and hon. Members agree with the robust views of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on every occasion, I defend his right to
  260
  speak at any university or college in this country at which he is invited to speak and to express whatever views he likes, in however robust a manner he chooses. By doing so he upholds the principle of freedom of speech that all my right hon. and hon. Friends deem to be so important and which overrides all other considerations.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: One must be careful to distinguish—as my hon. Friend does, but he could easily be misinterpreted—between the great mass of university students who want quietly and decently to get on with their studies, and who are content to leave others to hold their own meetings and discussions in a proper and civilised manner, and the minority, whom we see everywhere, and who are mostly Red Fascists and people of that kind. As we know, Fascists are Left-wing, and there is little to distinguish between the National Front's economic policy and that of the Labour Left. We must be careful not to imply that students in Scotland or in any other part of the kingdom are in general of the same kind.
  My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise that university authorities are often to blame for disruption. The authorities at the north London polytechnic knowingly employed a man who has a conviction for a serious terrorist offence and placed him in a position of trust among impressionable young people, which is a disgraceful way to behave. If my hon. Friend's new clause would do anything to militate against such conduct by those who are supposed to lead young people, he is well advised to pursue it.
  Mr. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful intervention, based on his great experience of public speaking at universities and colleges throughout the country.
  I turn to the attitude of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
  Mr. McFall: Is it not a fact that the Minister did not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition at Scottish Question Time? The present arrangements are working perfectly well. Hon. Members may not take my word for it, but they should take the Minister's word. On 20 October last year, when he visited Glasgow college of technology, there was something of a fracas; after the meeting, however, he said that the students were to be commended and that he would introduce no legislation. I suggest that some Conservative Members know nothing about it. They come into the Chamber for a debate on Scottish education and filibuster just for the sake of it.
  Mr. Bennett: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got my hon. Friend's statement slightly wrong. For one thing, he did not preclude future legislation. What he said after that demonstration was that the vast majority of students would not wish to have anything to do with the minority who had caused it. I think that his remarks were indicative of the general Christian attitude that we have come to expect from him: he took a forgiving line.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I recently conducted a speaking tour of Scottish universities, and spoke at St. Andrews and Edinburgh. It was a very successful tour, and was not marked by the extremism that hon. Members have described.
  Let me say a word in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Most students in Scotland are, in my experience, very keen to get on with

  261
  their studies and pass their exams; they are not interested in extremism. Those students have nothing to fear from the new clause. Nor, I believe, have the Civil Service, the Scottish Office and our own Front Benches—especially the Opposition. There can be no reason for opposing the new clause, and I warmly support it.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Are not a number of student unions in Scottish universities affiliated to the National Union of Students? Is it not also true that that union still operates a no-platform policy, and that there is therefore an ever-present threat that a minority faction from some university might try to impose such a policy? Is that not why it is so important that the new clause is put on the statute book?
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. What concerns me is that, although there has not been the same level of disruption in Scottish universities—there have been problems at Aberdeen and Stirling—a number of issues have arisen in the past year that could lead to trouble. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I have just mentioned Stirling and Aberdeen. Hon. Members should open their ears.
  We have an opportunity to introduce in Scottish legislation an insurance policy already contained in English and Welsh legislation, so that action can be taken, in the event of disruption, to prevent the problems that we have seen in England and Wales from spreading to Scotland. That seems admirable to me. The principle of free speech ought to be defended.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I do not wish anyone to misunderstand. There is no doubt that in the past there have been problems at Scottish universities as serious as those that England has experienced. Those of us who have been speaking in Scotland for many decades know that there was a time when we were ashamed by activities that took place—even, in one instance, in the presence of the monarch. That should not be forgotten. I remind my hon. Friend that an umbrella may well be useful: even if it does not rain often, it does so occasionally, and when it does it can be pretty ghastly.
  Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) now wishes to intervene.
  Mr. David Davis: The hon. Member for Dumbarton raised the question whether there is a problem over freedom of speech in universities. When he and the Minister were at university, the "Red Fascists", as they were called by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), were very unsubtle: they shouted down psychologists, historians and—as we have heard—even the monarch. That was a very overt form of suppression of freedom of speech. The techniques described by my hon. Friend however, are much subtler and more difficult to detect. The Scottish Office seems to have enfeebled my hon. Friend the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Knowing him now and remembering him 10 years ago, I am quite sure that it has.
  The fact that the Scottish Office says that there is no evidence implies that it has investigated the rules that apply in universities to each Conservative association and to each Socialist society and Liberal society and has checked whether they prevent controversial speakers from being able to speak. I hope that my hon. Friend will ask
  262
  the Minister to justify the statement made by his Department that there has been no suppression of freedom of speech in Scotland and that the Minister will tell us that a positive investigation has taken place. I also hope that he will not reject the new clause.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. If there has been a survey of Scottish institutions by the Scottish Office, I hope that it was a damned sight better than the one carried out by the Department of Education and Science into the National Union of Students, which wrote the answers for all the constituent unions to send back to the Department.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) about the subtle way in which some of the pressures are applied? This does not apply just to political societies—for example, to the policy against Jewish societies by some pro-PLO students. It applies also to the misuse of public funds to finance political societies extravagantly and others in a very discriminatory way that prevents them from offering platforms to visiting speakers. As a former union official at a Scottish university, I have had experience of that.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend also makes a valid point. When it referred to the amount of money that it spends on political activities, the National Union of Students interestingly described it as about 0·5 per cent., by which it meant the amount of money spent by Conservative associations and the Communist and Socialist societies. However, it did not mention that most student union officers spend most of their time on politicking, that most student union newspapers are full of Left-wing politics, that most student union meetings spend all their time on Left-wing politics and that between 60 and 70 per cent. of student union funds, paid for by the taxpayer, are spent on Left-wing politics up and down the country.
  Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) made an interesting point about the change in style of the Fascist Left over the years. In the past it was a straightforward attack on those who wished to sing a different tune from that to which they were prepared to listen. Today, many of the vice-chancellors and principals give a lead because of their objection and their hostility to our philosophy. In institutions where vice-chancellors and principals have been prepared to back up freedom of speech, there has been less trouble than has occurred where vice-chancellors and principals have been prepared to give a lead to the trouble.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has made another valid point. He brings me back to the point that I was making a few minutes ago about the letter that all hon. Members have received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom, dated 2 June. Page 1 of the letter says:
  "there is no evidence of any institutions placing a limit on the number of meetings that may be organised."
  That is simply untrue.
  "There may be limitations imposed by virtue only of the unavailability"—
  that is an interesting word to use; it is not in my English dictionary—
  "of suitable venues at any particular time."
  Then it says:

  263
  "With only one or two exceptions, there is no support for the proposal that student unions should be made responsible for meeting security or other costs."
  What do we find in the survey by the Conservative Collegiate Forum? We find that 53 codes put an onus on the student bodies. The statements in that letter are untrue. The letter is misleading and covers up the fact that the vast majority of universities, colleges and polytechnics in this country are doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) said that they would do when he spoke during the Second Reading debate of the Education (No. 2) Bill in 1986. They are finding ways of getting round the code. The purpose of my new clause is to prevent that from happening.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Is there any reason why a student who, by reason of force or noise, denies freedom of speech to someone at or visiting a place of learning should remain a student?
  Mr. Bennett: There is absolutely no reason whatsover for that and there is absolutely no reason why the Scottish Office should not accept the new clause, which seeks not only to extend the law that applies to England and Wales to Scotland but to improve it and to give Scotland a lead.
  Mr. Leigh: Has my hon. Friend noticed that his characteristically able, but lengthy, speech has given rise to a considerable number of interventions from Conservative members who have shown an unprecedented degree of interest in these matters, which is matched only by an unprecedented lack of interest from Opposition Members? Should we not remember the wise words that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men should do nothing? If Scottish Office Ministers claim that there have been few incidents, they should recall that a lack of freedom anywhere diminishes all our freedom everywhere.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend quotes the words of Edmund Burke which are extremely valuable. They remind us that freedom is indivisible and that we must always defend free speech and not allow the Left to decide who should speak and who should not.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: The hon. Gentleman probably does not know that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) went to Durham university and became the president of the student union there; but he was not elected: he was appointed by himself. Is that freedom?
  Mr. Bennett: I find the hon. Gentleman's proposition so astounding that I must let my hon. Friend defend himself.
  Mr. Leigh: Many things are thrown at one in this House, but that is complete and utter fabrication. I was elected president of the Durham Union Society in a free and popular vote in a secret ballot.
  Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that the debate has to end at 11 o'clock and the Opposition are still not certain whether the Minister intends to accept the new clause, are we to be permitted to make a speech opposing the new clause or is this an example of the free speech to which Conservative Members pretend to adhere?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair has no control over the amount of time taken by an hon. Member who is moving a motion. This is a Chamber where free speech is allowed and it would be a good idea if other voices from other parts of the Chamber could be heard.
  Mr. Bennett: I cannot be accused of not giving way to hon. Members who wanted to intervene. I have certainly not restricted the free speech of Opposition Members. I have given way. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), but I want to conclude my speech and hear the Minister's response.
  Mr. Michael Irvine: I had the honour to serve with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on the Standing Committee considering the Electricity Bill. At regular intervals during the sittings of that Committee, the hon. Member for Ashfield threatened various Conservative Members that he would take them outside. What is more, it is on the record. Is that not exactly the extravagant behaviour from which university vice-chancellors need to be protected when they are standing forth in the name of freedom? Is that not another example of how important it is that the new clause is accepted tonight?
  Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I never threatened anybody on that Committee. All I did was ask somebody to come outside so that I could have a word with him, and he happened to be the Minister.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I wish that I was in the same position.
  Mr. Bennett: The deliberations of the Committee considering the Electricity Bill certainly sound more exciting than the debates in some of the Committees on which I have served. However, I wish to finish my speech.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that, the new clause is also about another principle—the principle of the citizens of the United Kingdom. It is quite clear from her intervention that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) believes that the rights of freedom of expression of students in England and Wales should not be extended to Scotland. Does he agree that, as the Conservative and Unionist party, we must reject that proposition tonight?
  Mr. Bennett: Absolutely.
  What possible excuse will my hon. Friend the Minister give from his Scottish Office brief for not accepting the new clause? I am minded to push the new clause to a vote unless we get from him an assurance that, even if he is not prepared to accept it tonight because he has a brief, he will take it away and allow his real principles and philosophy and what he really believes in to overcome the Civil Service belief.
  I finish by reminding my hon. Friend of what Voltaire said about freedom of speech. We have to defend people's views that we do not believe in and, even until death, defend their right to say it. I hope that my hon. Friend will support the new clause.
  Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For about 45 minutes, including interruptions,

  265
  we have listened to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who moved this new clause, yet he has no intention of pushing it to a vote. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Perhaps it might help the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) if I were to respond to her at this point, but I inform my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that I know what it must have been like to be the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) during our deliberations in Committee. I do not think that I have experienced anything quite like this in the 150 hours or so in which we considered the Bill. There seems to be some strength of feeling on the matter among my hon. Friends. I appreciate my hon. Friend's motives in tabling the new clause. My right hon. and learned Friend has carefully considered whether legislation is necessary for Scotland. I could go on to read the remainder of my speaking note, but I get the distinct impression that my hon. Friends would not find its content palatable.
  I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) that I questioned—
  Mr. Douglas: The Minister should address the House.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am addressing a point that was made in an intervention. If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he may learn something about what is going on in Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry asked what evidence there was for the view that had been expressed by the Scottish Office that there was no problem in Scotland. I asked the Conservative Collegiate Forum to provide me with some examples in Scotland, which it failed to do, apart from he examples that were mentioned by my hon. Friend. The basis of the view that was taken at the time of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986—that this was not a problem in Scotland and that, therefore, the law should not intervene—still stands.
  Mr. Tebbit: It might help if my hon. Friend the Minister came immediately to the point of whether he is saying that this new clause would be effective if there were those problems but that he does not think that there are those problems, or whether he is saying that this is not an effective clause to guard against such incidents if they should arise. Would he be quite clear about what he is saying?
  Mr. Forsyth: Yes, I am quite clear; I am saying both. Without getting into the merits of whether the backbone of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) is stronger than mine—my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) raised this point during the discussion—my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage is looking at the effectiveness of the provisions in the 1986 Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke said, there is considerable concern about the operation of those provisions.
  Although I had intended to say to the House that there was no prospect of introducing this measure in Scotland, because there has not been a problem, I could go some way towards helping my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke if I were to give an undertaking that we will look at this matter again on a rather more relaxed timetable in the light of my hon. Friend's review of the
  266
  operation of the provisions in England. I am sure that the House would not think it sensible for us to proceed a t a breakneck pace without having an opportunity to consult and to take up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry. There will be a United Kingdom legislative opportunity shortly to deal with the commitments that have been made in respect of student finance.
  Dame Jill Knight: The powerful argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has occasioned an echo of support from the Tory Back Benches. We feel concerned that, while he made an excellent case, the Minister in response simply says that the answers cannot be given because they are unpalatable. I for one would have liked to hear those answers.
  Mr. Forsyth: The answers are sound, but I do not think that they would meet the views that have been expressed. The argument is that, as there has been no problem in Scotland, it is not necessary to legislate. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) argued that higher education is organised on a United Kingdom basis and that guarantees of freedom of speech should apply on a United Kingdom basis. I am prepared to look at that argument, but only in the context of being certain that the provisions contained in the 1986 Act would be effective and would provide for the security about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) asked.
  Mr. Tebbit: The easy and straightforward course would be for the Minister to accept the new clause; then he would have the leisurely progress of the legislation through the other place to consider the matter. During that time, if it was found not to be quite right, it could be amended. He has not advanced any argument so far to show how it would be harmful. He merely says that he hopes it will never be necessary. I do, too, but it would be jolly good to be in ahead of the problem. If we had had the foresight to have this type of legislation in England and Wales, we would not have had the problems we have there. He owes it to the decent students of this kingdom to legislate in this way, unless he has good reason to show that the proposed clause is defective or in some way would be offensive.
  Mr. Forsyth: The bulk of the clause has applied in England and Wales and was embodied in the 1986 No. 2 Act. There is great unhappiness about it. I share the views that have been expressed about the imposition of charges on students who have attempted to run meetings, and that is one matter into which the Under-Secretary has looked. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke that I will look at the matter again in the light of the review which the Under-Secretary carried out into the operation of the Act and that we will consider whether the judgment that has been made by my right hon. Friend should apply in the future.
  Mr. Dewar: As we have the unusual spectacle of the Minister at bay—a boy standing on a burning deck—I would inform him that my hon. Friends and I feel that he is right in his initial reaction that what is proposed is unnecessary—[Interruption.] We know a little more about student life at Scottish universities than does the right hon. Member for Chingford. I hope the Minister will not

  267
  consider us to be handing him a poisoned chalice when I tell him that he should hold to his present stand of principle and that if he does, he will have our full support.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although I am surprised that he should regard that as a helpful intervention.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying and appreciate that he has thrown away his civil servants' brief, which is a considerable thing for a Minister to do. He is listening to what the House is saying on this issue. However, I am concerned about what my hon. Friend said about the timing and because my hon. Friend talked about "leisurely". Will my hon. Friend give us an undertaking that he will reconsider this matter, in conjunction with the English and Welsh Department of Education and Science, and that the review will take place within the next six to nine months and not within a "leisurely" timetable?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that undertaking and on that basis I hope that he will not feel inclined to press his new clause to the vote.
  Mr. John Carlisle: I believe that my hon. Friend should support the new clause because several of us have turned down invitations from Scottish universities because they do not offer the same so-called "protection" that is offered at English and Welsh universities. My hon. Friends and I who receive such invitations do not feel that we can accept them until we can go with the assurance that my hon. Friend and the Government are right behind us in terms of the provisions that apply in England and Wales.
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall look at that as part of the review and at the time that is taken—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the motion.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it your pleasure that the new clause be withdrawn?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Question put and negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  11 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The deliberations on the Bill have, from time to time, been lively, but none more so than the discussions that we have just had on the last of the new clauses.
  One interesting thing about the way in which the Opposition have chosen to oppose the legislation is that they have failed utterly to recognise that the part I provisions are permissive in nature. They simply set up an opportunity for the majority of parents to have the chance to run their schools in a way that meets their needs. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we are prepared to trust the parents and that the Opposition are not.
  It has been suggested that this legislation is unwanted in Scotland, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) repeatedly pointed out in Committee, the Opposition have refused to state the number of schools in Scotland that they expect to opt for self-governing status. Indeed, the hysteria with which they have greeted part I suggests that they believe that there will be a significant number.
  The effectiveness of the legislation, even before it reaches the statute book and before we reached Third Reading, was clear for all to see in the statements made by the secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland and by people such as the convenor of the education committee of Strathclyde, Malcolm Green. They are saying that the effect of the legislation will be that education authorities will have to take far more account of the wishes of parents and that education authorities will no longer simply be able to follow the view of education headquarters. In the revision of the planning of the delivery of education by authorities such as Strathclyde and others, one can see that even at this stage the legislation is having a salutary effect.
  Mrs. Fyfe: When confronted with one of his children not wanting to eat his or her dinner, does the Minister open the child's mouth and shove the dinner down that child's throat; and if he does not behave like that with his children, will he explain why he is behaving like that towards the adult electorate of Scotland?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her somewhat indelicate analogy. The analogy of forcing things down people's throats is probably better applied to the kind of policies that are pursued by Strathclyde regional council in closing successful schools such as Paisley grammar school and in deciding that single-sex education is anachronistic and a choice that should not be available to parents.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The Minister should answer my question.
  Mr. Forsyth: I have answered the hon. Lady's question. No school will become self-governing unless the parents vote for it and unless the Secretary is convinced that they will be able to carry it through. Indeed, the Opposition seem to have been converted during our deliberations in Committee and elsewhere. I was rather struck by the statement that was made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) to the press today claiming that the
  270
  Labour party would repeal some of these provisions. He said that they would be swept away. When we were discussing the matter in Committee he said:
  "Some parts of the Bill might remain: some parts of it might be popular. It would be foolish for anyone to commit any Government of any political party to what they will do in two or three years' time."—[0fficial Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 18 May 1989; c. 1501.]
  Yet the hon. Gentleman did precisely that today. When I questioned him about it earlier, he said that it was because of the election results in Scotland.
  The hon. Gentleman made his commitment in Committee on 18 May. On 19 May the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said on Scottish television:
  "We will sweep away for ever all the embittering experience of the last 10 years—the poll tax, the schools Bill which were introduced in the face and need and teeth of Scottish public opinion. I think we'll also have a very much stronger assembly".
  And so on. So on 18 May the hon. Member for Fife, Central was saying that anyone who made such promises was foolish and on 19 May the hon. Member for Garscadden was making exactly such foolish promises.
  The point about self-governing schools is that they break the local authority monopoly. [Interruption.] I do not think that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is in a position to throw bricks in any direction. The hon. Gentleman will recall the Liberal leader of Strathclyde writing to me, pleading for the powers that are contained in the Bill in order to save Our Lady and Saint Francis school at the same time as the hon. Gentleman was denouncing the principle. When I asked him about the difference in policy between him and the Liberal leader of Strathclyde regional council, he explained that he was speaking on national policy and that the leader of the Liberal group on Strathclyde council was speaking on local matters.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Obviously the election results were better for us than I thought, as the Minister feels the need to attack us. As he well knows, the argument that we put forward is that the Secretary of State would not have needed to introduce any Bill if he had retained his power to review any proposed school closure. That was the power that we wanted. It is reasonable for a local councillor to try to ensure that a school is not closed when he is caught between a Government and a Labour party who will not listen to the local people.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. The school in question was a denominational school where the Secretary of State retains his power. The difficulty in this case was that the hierarchy did not wish to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. Therefore, self-governing status was the option that was available to the school.
  Self-governing schools break the local authority monopoly, create an opportunity for change and have resulted in local authorities being more responsive to the demands and wishes of parents.
  The Bill extends choice by the introduction of powers to set up technology academies. Is it not amazing that the Labour party in Strathclyde would rather have school buildings empty in the Gorbals than have brand new, high-tech schools available for the people who voted for them in the Glasgow, Central by-election? I hope that everyone in Glasgow is aware that a brand-new school

  271
  could be available and that the only education cut that has been made in Glasgow was the cutting out of a brand-new school because of the ideology and fear that dominate the Labour party.
  One interesting thing about the progress of our discussions on the Bill is that the use of the word "Anglicisation" has almost disappeared. We do not hear about it any more. That is probably because we have had a succession of amendments from the hon. Member for Fife, Central desperately trying to bring the Bill into line with the legislation in England.
  We have had a good example of the transformation of the views of the Opposition as they have had to argue their case against my hon. Friends in Committee. I pay tribute to the effective way in which my hon. Friends conducted themselves in Committee. They astonished even the Glasgow Herald which has found it necessary to say that it got it wrong as regards the performance of my hon. Friends. Perhaps the most remarkable conversion of all was the suggestion that the Bill should be amended to create a parental majority for parents on the board of management. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who was a member of the Committee that considered the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, as it then was, condemned the Government for having a parental majority. He talked about the tyranny of the parental majority. By the time that the Bill that is before us began to be considered in Committee, the hon. Gentleman was arguing for a parental majority. We were happy to oblige the Opposition by introducing provisions for such a majority on Report.
  Mr. McAllion: Then why is the Minister criticising us?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am merely surprised that a party that puts so much effort into telling the people of Scotland that a parental majority would be tyranny and that it would be wrong that we should seek to amend the Bill to introduce such a majority.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked his colleagues not even to vote against the provisions in the Bill that allow for the introduction of national testing. It seemed that the Opposition accepted the principle of testing but were worried about how it would appear in practice. I was surprised to read the article in today's edition of the Glasgow Herald in which the hon. Gentleman stated:
  "The Opposition need to form a triple alliance of parents, professionals and politicians. We must develop alternatives to the deeply damaging testing and teaching appraisal proposals contained in the new legislation."
  If the testing proposals are so "deeply damaging", why did not the hon. Gentleman vote against them in Committee? He knows, as we all know, that parents want information about the performance of their children. They want that information communicated to them at home. In recognition of that, the Government have struck a popular blow.
  In the same article—this is especially touching for those of us who were members of the Committee—the hon. Gentleman states:
  "There is a sense of being out-manoeuvred yet no real alternative has emerged."
  The hon. Gentleman is there referring to the Labour party.
  He continues:
  "The forces of progressive education in Scotland must not only recapture the agenda and the initiative from the
  272
  Government. We must once again dominate educational thinking in addition to an effective delivery of the service on the ground."
  I have some advice for the hon. Gentleman: vote for the Bill's Third Reading and persuade the people of Scotland that the Opposition look to their interests and not to messages from the Educational Institute of Scotland. If he does that, he will make some progress in seeking to dominate the agenda.
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: There are only 11 Conservative Members left in Scotland.
  Mr. Forsyth: I was reading the words of the hon. Member for Fife, Central, who has admitted that the Government have set the agenda and have dominated it, and that the Labour party has lost it.
  The Bill provides for the introduction of appraisal. What profession should not be subject to scrutiny of performance? What profession is more important than teaching? Opposition Members have found it difficult to work out their position on appraisal, and perhaps that is because the teaching unions are split on the issue. The EIS is against it but the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, the Professional Association of Teachers and the other unions are supporting it. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill told us in Committee that the PAT is a union that no responsible teacher should join because it was not prepared to advise its members to go on strike. That says much about the attitude of Labour Members.
  The EIS is claiming to be the official opposition. Its leader boasted that that was a sign of how effective it had been. Even the Glasgow Herald endorsed that view in an editorial on 12 June. It stated:
  "If indeed the institute is the 'official' opposition, that says much for the tenacity and credibility of the union, its officials and members. But it doesn't say much for the performance of the Labour Party in Scotland."
  Anyone who was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill would have made that observation. The hon. Member for Garscadden would have done himself more credit if instead of attacking my hon. Friends for their performance he had been in Committee arguing the Opposition's case.
  Mr. Dewar: Like the Secretary of State!
  Mr. Forsyth: My right hon. Friend was a member of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman could have been there to argue his party's case. He was not, however, and his party lost.
  The Bill also provides for a major extension of the parents' charter which the hon. Member for Fife, Central told us his party now supports. His party opposed it when we proposed it, just as it opposed school boards, which it now supports. We look forward to Labour telling the people of Scotland in a year's time that it supports self-governing schools.
  We have also abolished section 88, which even the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities argued was anachronistic, but the Opposition have found it difficult to go along with that. We are liberating the employment of teachers through insistence on the advertising of all posts above principal, and the ending of ring-fencing around official appointments.
  The Bill is a major reforming piece of legislation. Much of its provisions have not been discussed in Scotland. Much of it has been presented in terms of the Opposition's myths. It will strengthen the parents' voice, it will

  273
  strengthen accountability, it will extend choice, it will increase competition and it will raise standards, and I commend it to the House.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. McLeish: We have heard a characteristic and highly personal speech from the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education. It is always a grand sight to see him get animated and excited. One of the ingredients that he tends to miss out in his perorations, however, is the fact that the Bill is universally despised in Scotland.
  There was no educational argument in the Minister's speech. Rather we had a rich mix of personal animosity and the ideology that we have come to expect from him and his erstwhile colleagues who were recruited on to the Committee to do the job that they enjoy most—being destructive and counter-productive rather than having a sensible debate about education in Scotland.
  It is remarkable that, despite suffering electoral casualties at every election in Scotland—we have a Tory MEP-free Scotland and there are only 10 Scottish Tory Members at Westminster—the one thing that the Government will not face is the view of Scottish electors as measured in district and regional council, general and European Parliament elections. I must ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I believe is beginning to tune into the fact that he faces a wipe-out of Conservative-held Scottish seats in 1991 or 1992, when he will get a grip on the continuing excesses of his Minister, who is projecting a form of education which is not liked.
  The Secretary of State laughs, but why can he go to Wales and suggest there that there should be a triple alliance? He seems to have been converted to regional policies again. He does not argue their case in the Cabinet, though. He goes to Wales and suggests that Wales, the north and Scotland should unite as a triple alliance against the forces of Thatcherism to try to reinstate some sensible regional policy.
  The Secretary of State has spoken about trying to put the Scottish scene back on a moderate footing. He has offered glasnost to COSLA. The most important thing that he can do tonight is to distance himself from the Bill and scrap it. At a stroke, that would help the Tories, possibly, to regain some lost ground in Scotland.
  The Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State would benefit from re-reading the letter that was sent to them by the Church of Scotland on 5 June. Its general assembly passed a motion which was highly critical of the opting-out provisions. On 5 June, Mr. Alasdair Morton, from the Church of Scotland's department of education, sent a letter to the Under-Secretary of State—I know that he does not like this, but I hope that he will listen—which ran:
  "Accordingly in the name of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland I must request the Government to delete Part 1 of the above Bill and to depart from the matters it contains."
  That is not an extreme group; it speaks on behalf of Scottish interests—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may be disparaging about the Church of Scotland, but it captured in a single sentence the feelings of Scots towards the Bill.
  The Under-Secretary spent two or three sessions in Committee attacking the Church of Scotland because it had the temerity to involve itself in political debate. The hon. Gentleman felt that it should concern itself with
  274
  religious education and religious observance and keep out of politics—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members may applaud that, but the Church of Scotland behaved responsibly and suggested that the Bill be scrapped.
  It is interesting that the Prime Minister visited Scotland and addressed the Perth conference on 12 May. She said about Scottish education:
  "Excellence has always been part of the Scottish tradition. And when it comes to the Glasgow Vets School, I'm with Malcolm—I support it all the way."
  I am sure that she was referring to the Glasgow vets school, not to Malcolm. She continued:
  "In a competitive world, Scottish children deserve to be given the very best education and the very best training."
  In her distinctive and characteristic style, she then said:
  "It's not enough to be just good enough. The Scots need to shine—to be way out in front. And under Conservative Government, they will have the freedom and opportunity to do just that."
  That is a rich, rich hypocrisy in view of the Bill and its potential impact on Scottish education during the next two or three years.
  The tragedy of the past three months and of tonight's debate is that the Bill is irrelevant to the real needs of Scottish education and to the challenges that Scotland will face in the 1990s with the single European market, the advent of technology and major demographic changes. What does Scotland get?—a Bill that will turn back the education clock 20, 30 or even 40 years. Few, if any, Scots want the Bill to reach the statute book.
  I listened to the Minister giving a brief résumé of the Committee stage. He can ignore us and treat us with contempt—that is one of his characteristics—but can he continue to treat the people of Scotland with the same contempt? I said earlier that the Secretary of State appeared to be distancing himself from the excesses arid extremism of certain members of the Government, both in the United Kingdom generally and in Scotland. We need some stability in Scottish education.
  The Bill, with its technology academies, opting out and testing measures, has the potential to tear Scottish education apart. In whose interests will that be? Will it be in the interests of the children, of the much-vaunted parents about whom the Minister constantly speaks, or of the future of education? The Bill is a miserable, mean and pathetic measure which has been dressed up under the guise of parental choice.
  The Scottish people have had no real say in drawing up the Bill. At the last election, from Lord Goold through to senior Ministers, and even the Prime Minister, they all said that there should be opting out for England and Wales but not yet for Scotland. The Bill is not only tragic: it is a total betrayal of what Scotland has been led to expect.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I would not wish the House to be misled any more than I wished the Committee to be misled. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked central office in Edinburgh about that matter. He was given an answer that was not in accordance with what I understood the position to be or with the platform on which I stood at the last election. Hon. Members must ask themselves why, then, my result improved. I made my views about this legislation clear—I wanted it, I worked for it and I look forward to its implementation. I said that during 44 speeches in my constituency.
  Mr. McLeish: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) will want to put on the record what was actually said in the telephone calls between him, the Scottish Office and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
  There is a betrayal here, and "betrayal" is one of the dirtiest words in politics. The Ministers here tonight have betrayed the people of Scotland. It was made quite clear in the general election campaign, even to the extent that the Government's principal spokesmen were paraded before The Scotsman, that the Government categorically denied that opting out would be on the agenda. However, that is history.
  The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside had an excellent piece in this morning's edition of The Scotsman. He gave advice to which the Secretary of State for Scotland should listen. It is clear that, after the debacle of the European elections and the impact of Thatcherism in Scotland, where the Tories were completely wiped out, the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside has made some excellent observations. He has offered the Secretary of State and the Conservatives some ideas on the way forward. He stated that, in education, most people regarded the schools opt-out legislation as an irrelevance and continued to be offended by attitudes towards the universities. Those were courageous comments, and it is not for the Opposition to exploit them further.
  There is compelling pressure on the Secretary of State for Scotland to listen to the Opposition, to the Scottish people and to the reasoned, rational sane voice of Scottish Conservative politics like that espoused by certain distinguished Tory Back Benchers. The Opposition are listening to those Tory Back Benchers. It is often asked: if that voice is good enough for the Opposition, why can it not be good enough for Conservative Members?
  The Government parade choice and parental power. However, this Bill, like education legislation in England, centralises power in a way that we have not seen in Scottish education for many years. For "choice" we should read centralised control. The Minister referred to standards, while my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) spoke about selection. The Bill is not about standards in Scottish education. Most of the Conservative Members who have spoken tonight know nothing about the standards in Scottish schools. All the evidence suggests that Scottish schools are doing extremely well, although they could be doing much better.
  We should also be concerned about parents. The involvement of parents was clearly the brainwave of the Minister and of the Prime Minister. They must have asked themselves how they could sell unpalatable policies throughout the length and breadth of the country. They decided to hi-jack parents. For parents we should of course read privatisation.
  Scots are not fools and very few Scots will be taken in by this parental nonsense. If the Government were serious about parental choice, they would give every parent the chance to be involved in schools instead of the rather selective situation which will ensue through the school boards, and the more selective approach through self-governing schools.
  Earlier in the debate, the Minister chided me for suggesting that we should not be making statements about future education policy. We were buoyed up by last week's results. It is clear that politics is about mood and morale. We look forward with increasing confidence to the day
  276
  when we can rid the Scottish Office of its present incumbents and bring some sanity back to Scottish education.
  The Minister may not like what was said about his precious assisted places scheme. That scheme may disappear on day one when the Opposition regain control of the Scottish Office, but much will have to be done in the rest of the week. The people of Scotland who are considering opting out, or technology academies, should be aware that the Opposition want to ensure that schools which opt out and any technology academies will be reintegrated into the education authority sector.
  The reason is simple: both those so-called innovations have nothing to do with extending choice or creating diversity. They are all to do with destroying, step by step, the comprehensive system of education that has been built up by Conservatives, Labour, Scottish nationalists and Liberals during the past few years. When we take office, we shall have none of this nonsense. We shall give back to Scotland investment in education and policies to strengthen the comprehensive system. In the interim, we shall ensure that there is constructive resistance to such education policies.
  It is a tragedy that a Bill which is so uniquely despised in Scotland has taken up so much time in the House. We had nearly two months in Committee. The Minister had the cheek to suggest that he had accepted 100 amendments in Committee. Without preaching Anglicisation, may I say that the sad fact is that this shabby Scottish Bill does not even have the safeguards that were included in the English Act. What the Secretary of State for Education and Science thought was good enough for English and Welsh people has not been accepted by the ideologue who is the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
  This is a disappointing day for Scottish education; but morale in education is high. There will be a struggle against this legislation, and I assure those taking part that the Labour party will be in the forefront of the struggle. I urge my colleagues to vote against Third Reading. This Bill does not deserve it.
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I need no advice from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on what I should do or where I may stand. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but I am perfectly happy to answer for myself. Nothing that has happened in the past few days has given me cause to change my views on this issue or on any others. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge that I have consistently been saying the same things about education in Scotland for the past two years.
  I am genuinely sad, as we come to the Third Reading of the Bill, that nothing has happened during our consideration of it to convince me that it has merits and should be supported. I still regard it as irrelevant. I do not believe that there is a serious demand for it in Scotland, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has repeatedly said, there is a demand in some areas. Those to whom I have talked have sensed some confusion over that demand. Is it being demanded for its own sake, or is it being demanded as a way out of problems such as a threatened closure? I acknowledge that

  277
  there is demand in some areas, but no one can contradict my assertion that there is no general demand for the Bill in Scotland.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have said to me several times, "If it is irrelevant, and if there is no general demand, why worry?" I worry because I believe that the Bill has deep implications for the structure and future development of education in Scotland. I ask them in return, "If it is irrelevant, as I believe it is, and if there is no evidence of great demand, why waste precious parliamentary time in this Session on a Bill which is unnecessary and which has created needless controversy?"
  The Bill will change the structure of education in Scotland because it contains the seeds of division for the system generally and, worst of all, for those communities where schools may consider opting out. There is scope in the Bill for extreme groups from any background to exploit problems. The Bill is not in the line of succession of our Scottish educational tradition.
  As I said at the outset, in recent years we have witnessed considerable changes in Scottish education—changes in the curriculum and in examinations, for example, and the introduction of school boards, which I supported once the original proposals had been moderated. The Government are imposing far too heavy a diet of change for no clear educational reason or advantage, and in doing that they are wrong. The Bill follows far too closely on the establishment of the school boards. Hon. Members will have addressed parent-teacher association meetings and other school meetings in their constituencies, and will know of the confusion in many people's minds about the establishment of the school boards, which I support, and the opting-out proposals, which follow so closely on it. The Government are doing a disservice to the successful establishment and operation of school boards by introducing the Bill so soon afterwards. The school boards should have been up and working before further change was contemplated.
  I am one who believes in evolution, not revolution—as all good Conservatives should. Nowhere in our national life is evolution more important than in education. I am sad that the Government should have proceeded in this way, and equally sad to say that I still cannot support the Bill.
  11.36 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has made a speech of clarity and courage. We all know that it is not easy to speak out against one's party, and that must be especially true given the difficult position of the Conservative party in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman made a straightforward speech, and I agreed with almost everything that he said, although our impression is that the school boards are not proving as acceptable as some claim. But let us leave the school boards aside because they are not the main issue tonight.
  The Minister has said that we are wrong to oppose the Bill because it is only permissive—people can choose to opt out or choose not to. We oppose the Bill because, as the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said, there is no demand for it in Scotland. It is worth repeating that it is passing strange that, while the Government at least accept that more than 50 per cent. of parents should
  278
  have to vote for opting-out before it can take place, the Bill stems from a Government with only 25 per cent. of support in Scotland.
  The Bill has been rejected throughout Scotland, and its rejection has been coupled with a lack of comprehension of the motivation behind it. People are asking why it is being introduced. As the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside asked, why have we spent all this time putting the Bill through the House?
  The Government say that the Bill is about increasing choice. The Scottish Consumer Council, on the other hand, argues:
  "Proposals to allow schools to 'opt-out' of education authority control are ill-timed and do not offer parents a significant extension of choice."
  The Church of Scotland's education committee says:
  "The exercise of powers being proposed by the Bill are likely to be to the disadvantage of children in the sections of the community already suffering most deprivation."
  The presbytery of Inverness education committee says
  "The committee is not convinced that the proposals in this paper … are to the best interests of Scottish Education."
  The great majority of those involved in education seem to be saying that the Bill is not relevant and will not expand educational opportunity. The Minister has attacked the Educational Institute of Scotland; in Committee he did so often. Far be it from me to say that the EIS is a perfect organisation, but its reason for existence is to advance the quality of education and that is what it strives to do. It makes no sense for the Minister responsible for education in Scotland to spend so much time attacking the EIS rather than discussing matters with it and trying to move forward.
  Many people feel that the Bill could represent a covert means or reintroducing selectivity, at least in certain areas. That was also in the mind of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside and it was certainly a view felt by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council which
  "believes that comprehensive education might well be compromised by these proposals and that it would have been more honest to have an open and informed debate about its successes and failures, rather than allowing it to be eroded as a consequence of this proposed legislation."
  Our view is that unnecessary legislation is being imposed on the people of Scotland by a minority. The Minister referred earlier to something being a travesty of democracy. This is a travesty of democracy in a country that is increasingly becoming the least democratic in the European Community.
  11.40 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: With the greatest respect, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is not in the strongest position to talk about electoral percentages, following the recent election results. I shall not extend that argument because I would not wish to add any further insult to the injuries that were inflicted upon the Social and Liberal Democrats by the electorate.
  I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on a masterly presentation of the Government's case throughout the long Committee stage. He was flexible where he felt that there was a case for changing the Government's position. For example, he was flexible on the issue of the chairmanship of the university courts and in providing for a second ballot before self-governing status could be achieved.
  It gives me particular pleasure to speak on Third Reading. I had the pleasure last year of tabling a new

  279
  clause to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill which would have provided for self-governing schools. I moved that new clause not because of ideology or any particular philosophical convictions but because of representations from constituents. That is my answer to all the nonsense about manifesto commitments and what was said and what was not said. During my election campaign I did not make a manifesto commitment to support opting out, but that was before the decisions by Strathclyde regional council which persuaded me as a constituency Member to raise this matter in the House. I am delighted that the Bill is to reach the statute book.
  In Committee, we heard an enormous amount of nonsense about what are described as Scotland's educational traditions. In the Glasgow Herald this morning, we read about what the Labour party believes Scottish educational traditions to be all about. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has described Scottish education in this way:
  "Before 1979 Education was used by successive Governments in an attempt to engineer a more egalitarian society."
  That is the kind of Scottish educational tradition in which the Labour party believes, and it should be rejected comprehensively by the Government.
  We heard also that the concept of technology academies is alien to Scotland's educational traditions. However, one of the proposed sites for a technology academy agreed by the leader of Strathclyde council and by the chairman of its education committee is Allan Glens. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Allan Glens knows that it was always envisaged as the location of a technology academy.
  There has been much discussion about the number of schools that may opt for self-governing status. I may tell my hon. Friend the Minister that he has already won, even before a single school chooses to be self governing, because he has changed the way in which education authorities react to parents' wishes. That is what the Bill is all about.
  I have referred, at excessive length in the view of Opposition Members, to the Neilston case and to others I know about. There is no doubt that when Scotland's education leaders take decisions in future, they will be aware of the importance of being responsive to parents, because parents will have the additional choice of opting for self-governing status. That is the key message that goes out from the House to the parents of Scotland.
  The Opposition's performance on the Bill has been subject to a certain amount of press comment, and I do not wish to deepen their wounds. However, by far the greatest tribute, if that is the right word, to their lack of performance was that of the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, who refers to the EIS providing Scotland's official opposition to the Bill. What does that say about the role played by the Labour party in Scotland? The Glasgow Herald article, commenting on Mr. Jim Martin, the EIS's new general secretary, stated:
  "He has been impressive, partly because he has usurped the political role of the Opposition."
  In his surprisingly honest article in the Glasgow Herald, the hon. Member for Fife, Central writes:
  "There is a sense of being outmanoeuvred, yet no real alternative has emerged."
  280
  There can be no better description of the Opposition's performance during the passage of the Bill. That is their epitaph, and they wrote it themselves.
  11.47 pm
  Mrs. Fyfe: When the Scottish public realise tomorrow morning that about 50 Conservative Members wasted a whole hour of the precious little time left for debate to urge freedom for Conservative students, the National Front, contra generals, and the like, and then revealed, by not pressing new clause 12, that they really wanted to store up their views for a future debate, that public will be bitterly angry.
  In debates lasting seven hours, no opportunity has been given to debate the needs of adult learners attending schools or colleges of further education, student rectors, Gaelic speakers, trade union rights, negotiating machinery, and the low wages of school workers. The subject of further education received only a brief mention on Second Reading and in Committee, and none at all tonight. Numerous other topics relating to the Bill—it would take too long to mention them all—have not been aired tonight, because Conservative Members thought that it would be more fun to create a diversion for an hour. That is how seriously they treat Scottish legislation, and that is why they are treated with such contempt by the Scottish electorate.
  During the recent by-election I spoke at several public meetings on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson). With my colleagues I knocked on doors every day for three weeks, and not once did I find anyone who was in favour of the Bill. The local electorate also knew that Allan Glen's school was in Townhead and not in the Gorbals, thereby demonstrating the superiority of their knowledge of education in Glasgow to that of the Minister. Not only did no one ask anything about the Bill, but when I raised it at public meetings not a single member of the audience professed to be in favour of it.
  Hon. Members have talked of testing. It is clear that the Tories have failed every electoral test in Scotland, again and again. I remind them that someone with more wisdom than Robert the Bruce said, "If you try, try, try again and still do not succeed, quit: no need to be a damn fool about it!"
  11.50 pm
  Mr. McFall: It gives me great pleasure to speak against the Bill, whose hallmark has been a complete lack of consultation with teachers, education managers or parents in Scotland. There has been more consultation with English Back Benchers than with anyone in Scotland.
  For 35 minutes the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) wittered on, encouraging interventions: yet Scottish Members who were on the Committee, scrutinising the legislation line by line, can get in only two or three minutes at the end of the night. There is something wrong with the system: that is why the frustrations are building up in Scotland, and the Government are so blind that they cannot even see it. The conduct of this Bill shows how out of touch they are with Scottish education, and the narrowness of their view as put forward by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Is it the view of the Secretary of State? My interpretation is that Scottish education at present is dictated by a leak in the Glasgow

  281
  Herald and by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has more power now than he has ever had: he is the Dirty Harry of Scottish politics. Whenever he says anything, it is put forward as education legislation.
  I said at the outset of the proceedings on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill 1988 that a two-stage process was involved. I was departing from the view of my Front Bench, which had stated that the Bill represented a climbdown by the Government: my view was that the Bill had been set up to level the playing field between Scotland and England so that the legislation available to England could be introduced. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in this very Chamber that the Secretary of State for Education and Science was frit, because he would not go further and completely privatise English education. It was the real Parliamentary Under-Secretary who stood up then, but tonight, in the freedom of speech debate, we did not see him. But we see him in Scotland, however, each and every day, as do the electorate: we see him for all that he is not worth.
  Many aspects of the Bill are reprehensible—indeed, every aspect, not least that of academic selection. On Monday 6 March the Secretary of State said that the Bill was not about selectivity. If I were not in the Chamber, I would describe that as a gross mendacity; I am in the Chamber, however, so I shall not. Writ large in the Bill is that it is about academic selection: it is about taking Scottish education back 100 years, and putting it in a Victorian political time warp in which the minority will be satisfied and the majority rejected. The Bill will destroy public education. Some say that it will Anglicise education in Scotland. That is nonsense. It only gives succour to the Scottish National party and others. [Interruption.] I am quite happy to say that.
  Mr. Salmond: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Educational Institute of Scotland that said that the Bill would Anglicise Scottish education.
  Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. As a consequence I went to the Educational Institute of Scotland's offices in Edinburgh and told them where it had gone wrong. It cannot be said too often that the Bill is about the destruction of public education in Scotland. It will loosen the links between local education authorities and the electorate. The Under-Secretary of State is loosening the links because for many years Labour-controlled local education authorities have been too successful. This is a naked political attempt to make a breach between electorates and councillors. The Under-Secretary of State knows that. I have asked him about it two or three times and each time he has smiled or smirked at me.
  The Minister and the Conservative party in Scotland are ideologues. They have both public and private aspirations. The public aspiration is that the Bill will provide greater choice and freedom. The private aspiration was revealed when the Under-Secretary of State lowered his guard. It is about greed—about cheque-book education. At a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh the Under-Secretary of State said that for him education was about people using their cheque books in the way that they want. Education, for him, is a rejection of all that has been good in Scottish education during the last 100 years—an education system which has provided choice and diversity.
  282
  The Conservative party has not briefed its candidates or its officers in Scotland. I was on a public platform with a certain Michael Hirst, who used to be a Member of Parliament, but he was rejected by the electors in Strathkelvin and Bearsden. He said that the electorate would be able to get rid of individuals who do not come up to the mark as school board members or officers after four years. But four years is far too long. Scottish education will be destroyed within one or two years. The Minister was clever enough to see that, because he wants to destroy it within a year or two.
  The evolution of education in Scotland during the last 100 years has been a painful process. We stand for an egalitarian system and for equality of opportunity for boys and girls. That is why most of the Scottish electorate are behind us. That is why the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) are behind us. That is why 40 per cent. of Scottish Tory Back Benchers are against the Bill. They are listening to their constituents. They are not listening, as is the Under-Secretary of State, to the No Turning Back group.
  Mr. McAllion: Will my hon. Friend comment on what was said by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)—that, like all decent Scottish Tories, he believed in evolution rather than revolution? Yet in Committee on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill the Minister boasted that he was a revolutionary. Might that not explain the very bad results for the Conservative party last Thursday?
  Mr. McFall: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside remarked that the legislation has appeared out of the blue. It is on record in Hansard that during the last general election in 1987 the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside phoned Conservative Central Office in Edinburgh and asked, "Is opting-out on the Tory agenda for this election?" He was told loud and clear, "No, there is no such thing as opting-out coming on to the agenda so you can be reassured and you can tell your electorate that we have no such thing on the agenda." But the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside did not consider the hon. Member for Eastwood or the Prime Minister's Private Office—
  It being Twelve o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order [3rd May] and the Resolution this day to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 191.

  Division No. 254]

  [12 midnight

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bellingham, Henry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alexander, Richard

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Allason, Rupert

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Amess, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Amos, Alan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arbuthnot, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkins, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Atkinson, David

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bowis, John

  283

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Jackson, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Janman, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Bright, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Burns, Simon

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Burt, Alistair

  Key, Robert

  Butcher, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Butler, Chris

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Butterfill, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Knox, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Cash, William

  Lang, Ian

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Latham, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Chope, Christopher

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Churchill, Mr

  Lightbown, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Lilley, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Colvin, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Conway, Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Cormack, Patrick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Couchman, James

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Cran, James

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Mans, Keith

  Curry, David

  Maples, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Marland, Paul

  Day, Stephen

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Dicks, Terry

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mates, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Dunn, Bob

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Durant, Tony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Favell, Tony

  Mills, Iain

  Forman, Nigel

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Freeman, Roger

  Moate, Roger

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Gregory, Conal

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hannam, John

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Page, Richard

  Hayward, Robert

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heddle, John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Price, Sir David

  Hill, James

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hind, Kenneth

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Redwood, John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Renton, Tim

  Howard, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

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

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rost, Peter

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jack, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  284

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Trippier, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Trotter, Neville

  Sims, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Speller, Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Ward, John

  Squire, Robin

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Steen, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stevens, Lewis

  Whitney, Ray

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wood, Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. David Maclean and

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Michael Fallon.

  Tredinnick, David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dixon, Don

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dobson, Frank

  Allen, Graham

  Doran, Frank

  Alton, David

  Douglas, Dick

  Anderson, Donald

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eadie, Alexander

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Eastham, Ken

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Battle, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beckett, Margaret

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

  Beith, A. J.

  Fisher, Mark

  Bell, Stuart

  Flannery, Martin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flynn, Paul

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

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foster, Derek

  Blair, Tony

  Foulkes, George

  Blunkett, David

  Fraser, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boyes, Roland

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  George, Bruce

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Buckley, George J.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Caborn, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clay, Bob

  Hardy, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Howells, Geraint

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoyle, Doug

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Adam

  Dewar, Donald

  Janner, Greville

  285

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Randall, Stuart

  Kennedy, Charles

  Redmond, Martin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lambie, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Richardson, Jo

  Leighton, Ron

  Robertson, George

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Rowlands, Ted

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAllion, John

  Salmond, Alex

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Short, Clare

  McLeish, Henry

  Sillars, Jim

  McNamara, Kevin

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Madden, Max

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Marek, Dr John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Strang, Gavin

  Maxton, John

  Straw, Jack

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michael, Alun

  Turner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Vaz, Keith

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wall, Pat

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wallace, James

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Walley, Joan

  Morley, Elliott

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Nellist, Dave

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Brien, William

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Prescott, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Immigration
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise what I regard as a most serious matter. A document prepared by the head of the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office has been leaked. By arranging an early morning debate on DNA and immigration rule changes, the Government are, according to the leaked Home Office report, seeking to avoid
  "two separate rows about immigration issues in quick succession".
  Although in his statement last Wednesday the Home Secretary implied that no decision had been taken about the funding of a centrally organised DNA scheme, the document also makes it clear that the Government have made a decision about how they intend to fund a centrally organised DNA scheme. They will do so by a flat-rate increase across all the entry clearance applications. The document also makes it clear that the Government do not intend to allow the House of Commons—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order and I must respond to it. I hope that the House will understand that, but I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that a point of order has to be addressed to the Chair, to be within the Chair's responsibility and to be something that the Chair can answer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order immediately.
  Mr. Madden: I am sure that, as the guardian of Back Benchers' rights, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be concerned that senior Government officials have been advising the Home Secretary and other Ministers, with the knowledge of the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister, that this House should be denied the opportunity of discussing either the principle or the detail of how entry clearance fees are to be increased to pay for a centrally organised DNA scheme.
  Lastly, the document also makes it clear that a controversial DNA announcement with the immigration—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. What has this to do with the Chair? [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a point which should be made in the debate, the time of which he is now usurping. If he is wise, he may catch my eye. I suggest that he raises his points during the debate.
  Mr. Madden: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The document makes it clear that the Government's intention in combining a debate on DNA with the immigration rule change is to divert attention from the fact that the Government have no new provisions or promises to make to the people of Hong Kong.
  In conclusion—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair must, of course, be open and ready to listen to points of order, and I am tolerant. However, the hon. Gentleman is now abusing the Chair and this House. I ask him to come immediately to his point of order, which must be a matter for the Chair, and something that I can answer.
  Mr. Madden: Indeed. I therefore ask that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, urgently allow the Patronage Secretary,

  287
  who is in his place, to make it clear that, in view of the revelations made in this document, the Government will do what they should have done in the first place, which is to make a statement about the DNA testing scheme and provide a debate at an earlier hour than this to enable the House to debate the scheme. The Government should abandon this debate on immigration changes and provide another debate, but at an earlier hour.
  That is my request and in the interests of democracy, of Back Benchers and of the general public, having been found out, the Government should now—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These are matters which must be raised in debate.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a fresh point of order? I have already dealt with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).
  Mr. Dalyell: It is a fresh point of order. It concerns the abuse of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) showed me the document, which is signed by a senior civil servant. The point of order for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is this. Is it right that a senior civil servant, in this case Mr. Stadlen, should produce documents that go into detail about how the House of Commons should be handled? No one quarrels with him producing documents about the substance of the issue, but surely the handling of the House of Commons is not a matter for senior civil servants. It is a matter for the Chair.
  In these circumstances, may I make a suggestion, Madam Deputy Speaker? The hour is late. These documents are a disgrace. I suggest that you ask that the document be put before Mr. Speaker and that Mr. Speaker make a ruling at 3.30 pm tomorrow on the propriety towards the House of Commons of this kind of document being produced by a senior civil servant. Some of us think that it is entirely improper.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: These are matters that should be properly raised in debate. I can assure the hon. Member that Mr. Speaker will certainly read the points of order in the Official Report.
  12.20 am
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move,
  That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 388), which was laid before this House on 14th June, be disapproved.
  The rules are a reflection of the Government's attitude towards a large number of citizens in this country. They further restrict the ability of people from selected countries to enter the United Kingdom. Sex discrimination persists in the case of female students. No changes are proposed that would facilitate family reunion. Double standards and double-talk are applied throughout the rules and the explanatory memorandum issued by the Home Office. Indeed, the whole thing is summed up by the ridiculous hour at which the House is being invited to discuss this crucial matter—in the early hours of the morning.
  288
  The mind of the Government is revealed in the internal memorandum that has already been referred to by my hon. Friends. That memorandum, which has been made available to us, should also have been published alongside the Home Office rules, because it makes it clear what the Government are really about. The rules and the explanatory memorandum are in many ways grossly misleading. I shall refer to the internal memorandum, because it makes clear a number of points of which the House and the public should be aware.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he withdraws his remark about the ridiculous hour? These new immigration rules were laid last week. They were prayed against by the Opposition, as is the Opposition's right. The debate could have taken place any time within the next 40 days but was purposely arranged, at the request of the Opposition, at an early time so that it could take place before the imposition of visas on Turkey this coming Friday. That is why the debate is taking place today.
  Mr. Darling: With respect, I took the opportunity of consulting the Opposition Whips to find out exactly what happened. I would not have made my remarks without first checking the position. It is not the case that the Opposition said that they would accept a debate at this ridiculous hour of the morning. I understand that it was put to the Opposition Whips that we might use Opposition time, but this is Government business and ought to be discussed in Government time. Indeed, the memorandum that has been referred to makes it clear that the Government were keen that there should be a debate earlier than the imposition of visas on Turkey simply to deflect the otherwise understandable opposition if there had been no debate.
  Mr. Renton rose—
  Mr. Darling: I will give way once more on the point, but I do not think that the House wishes to be detained on this argument when the substance of the rules is far more important.
  Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman please accept that we were willing to have the debate yesterday at a reasonable hour? It was at the insistence of the Opposition that it is taking place at an unreasonable hour tonight. Why is it this week rather than next week or the week after? It is because the Opposition wanted to have the debate before the imposition of visas on Turkey this Friday.
  Mr. Darling: The Minister should know that the Government regulate the business timetable. If the Government had wanted to discuss Government business yesterday, they could have done so. It is disgraceful that they did not want to do so.
  The internal Home Office memorandum makes clear what is in the Government's mind. When it refers to the merits of the immigration rules, it refers also to problems facing the Government about an announcement on the future arrangements for citizens within Hong Kong. It talks about the timing of the announcement of the immigration rules. The postponement of tonight's debate was discussed within the Home Office team. The document states:
  "postponement would arouse expectations which we cannot at this stage be sure of meeting, leading to possible

  289
  presentational problems later on. Proceeding with the rules now, by contrast, enables us to say that they have been in the pipe line for some time and are being introduced without prejudice."
  It observes—how accurate this is—that new rules
  "and a potentially controversial DNA announcement, are quite a handful without the Hong Kong dimension." It is no wonder that the Government are trying to roll into the one debate the question of DNA and immigration rules.
  The document continues:
  "The Home Secretary will wish to consider how far he should volunteer to break surface more publicly on Hong Kong: should it be mentioned in the arranged Rules PQ, the Press Notice and the letter to Mr. Darling?"
  It was not mentioned in the letter sent to me. We wait to see when it will be mentioned.
  The attention that the public have focused on Hong Kong, quite understandably, demonstrates the problems faced by many other people. The Times thundered:
  "People from Hong Kong should be admitted to this country as a matter of honour."
  What about the British men and women who wish to be united with their children or elderly parents, or those who are refused leave to be joined by their spouses because of the primary purpose rule? We read recently of a blatant attempt by the Government to influence the immigration appeals tribunal system against granting admission. The people to whom I have referred want unity with their families like all other citizens. When we consider matters of honour, we should consider those people.
  Mr. Tim Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I shall not give way now. I have been delayed, and I know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Janman rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has made it clear that he is not giving way now.
  Mr. Darling: We have responsibilities also to the east African Asian voucher holders. The Government say that they want to be flexible about Hong Kong. What is to happen? The internal memorandum states:
  "As agreed, however, we have set aside for the time being the intention to increase the minimum financial resources required of business men and persons of independent means because of the potential effect that it might have on Hong Kong."
  Note the passage
  "set aside for the time being".
  Does that mean that index-linked compassion is to be limited to Hong Kong? Perhaps it means that the limits are to be raised, but at a less sensitive time—for example, when Parliament has risen for the summer recess. Why is it that the Government are contemplating allowing rich people to buy a place in Britain when the great majority will not have that sort of money, and will apparently be excluded? That solution for the elite is no solution.
  Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman has implied that the Government wish to allow only rich people to leave Hong Kong to come to Britain. Will he tell the House whether the Labour party believes that no one should be allowed in or that everybody should be allowed in?
  Mr. Darling: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. We think that it is thoroughly offensive that a rule should be made for those who are rich, who have assets of more than £150,000, that is different from the rules that will apply to others. The Labour party's position on Hong Kong is clear. We have said that we do not feel able to make promises that we would not be able to fulfil. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made that clear time and time again.
  The double standards to which I have referred—
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: No, I shall not.
  The double standards—
  Mr. Renton: I must take up what the hon. Gentleman has just said. In the Labour party's policy review document, which was published a few weeks ago, the following statement appears:
  "We shall hold discussions with the Governments of Malaysia and Hong Kong with the object of providing them with an effective Nationality with the right of abode."
  How does that fit in with the hon. Gentleman's remarks?
  Mr. Darling: The policy review document refers to the 10,000 people, in Hong Kong, in particular, who have no nationality whatever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] It does say that. With respect, as I am one of the authors, I know what it says. With due respect, the Minister is trying to muddy the water. What he says has nothing to do with the point at issue.
  The double standards that persist throughout the rules are nowhere more clearly illustrated than in the Government's attitude towards the provision of DNA testing. The Government had an opportunity to end the injustices that have been suffered by many people who have been wrongly refused leave to join their families. The Government, instead of abolishing the arbitrary, and frequently wrong, decision-making process based on subjective tests, have elected to allow DNA testing only after the same tests are applied and the entry clearance officer is still not satisfied that relationship exists. As a result, applicants will still have to go through bureaucratic, time-consuming and expensive interviews and be faced with the test if the entry clearance officer is not satisfied. The Government had an opportunity to do away with that red tape and those bureaucratic controls and to introduce a simple test that would prove, once and for all, and quickly, whether people were related.
  In this statement, the Government imply that they have not yet reached a decision on costs, yet it is clear from the Home Office memorandum that that is not the case. The Government say in their internal memorandum that the statement
  "does not indicate how the scheme will be financed, beyond reiterating that the cost will not be met by the taxpayer. The intention is to make a separate announcement on the funding arrangements shortly before the scheme comes into effect, to avoid a rush of applications aimed at beating the associated increase in settlement fee."
  In other words, it is abundantly clear that the Government have already decided to increase settlement fees and that a statement will be made at some quiet time, perhaps during the parliamentary recess.

  291
  Will the Minister tell us what he proposes with regard to cost? We have a right to know what is being proposed. The Government know. If the Minister has any respect for the House, he will tell us what the arrangement is to be.
  It is no better for applicants who, it now transpires, were wrongly refused permission to come to Britain. The Government have said that they are prepared to consider their cases provided that they pass several subjective hurdles that have been erected in their way. Again the memorandum makes it abundantly clear how limited the Government's compassion is to be. It says:
  "we are looking for compassionate features which distinguish the particular case from the generality of average reapplicants. It would be crucial to hold this line to ensure that the concession remains the exception rather than the norm in cases involving overage reapplicants."
  In other words, most applicants are effectively being told, "Don't bother. You need not apply because we will not exercise any compassion." These are people who have been wrongly refused as a result of the process that we have set up. They have been denied the right to come and live with their families. If it were happening to white people or anyone else, it would not be tolerated. The Government say one thing in public and another in private.
  The double standards that are employed to impose restrictions on people who want to study in the United Kingdom illustrate the point. Under the proposed changes to the immigration rules, visa nationals cannot switch from visitor to student status. Again the memorandum makes interesting reading. It says:
  "the changes on admission for study are directed at bogus students, mainly from West Africa."
  How on earth can any rational person make such a generalisation? Where is the evidence? Why can a United States visitor decide to study in the United Kingdom when a Nigerian national may not, no matter how powerful his or her case is? Are they not two individuals whose cases ought to be considered on merit rather than on their race? Has a United States visitor never abused the rules?
  The same double standards are applied to the visa changes. Visas are now to be imposed against Haiti because, we are told, it is the Government's policy to harmonise visa restrictions in the European Community. Since when? No public announcement has ever been made about it. We know about it because, thanks to some helpful source, we know that the Government have discussed, in secret, with our EC partners the harmonisation of procedures and the erection of a ring fence around Europe. Yet there has been no public announcement; private discussions are the order of the day.
  Which country is next? Will it be Jamaica? Jamaican nationals are now experiencing the same problems as were experienced by those countries that now need visas, with increasing numbers of people being refused leave to come to this country. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is to be Jamaica. The Government should think about the hardship caused by visas to those who wish to visit this country for a wedding or a funeral, but are told to come back and reapply at some future date. That is not an option for most people.
  Turkey is to be added to the countries requiring visas. What will happen to the Kurdish refugees who are leaving Turkey in growing numbers? The Government look on refugees as a problem, but if they stop them coming to this
  292
  country they will think that there is no longer a problem. Is it really the case that a man in fear of his life is expected to go to the British embassy in Turkey and queue for a visa in the full view of those he fears? That is not an option, and the Government know it.
  The rules are discriminatory and riddled with double standards. The memorandum should leave no one in any doubt that the Government are prepared to treat many of our citizens in a second-class way. It shows that the Government have no scruples. A cynical attempt has been made to mislead the public and hon. Members. To the Government the rules are a matter of presentation, but to parents separated from their children and to husbands separated from their wives it is a matter of decency. That is why we will oppose them in the Lobby tonight.
  12.36 am
  Mr. Tim Janman: I hope to keep my comments brief because I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the rule changes, especially that which will prevent people from coming to this country on the false basis of a genuine short-term visit and then switching status to become students on temporary courses. They do one course, complete that, move to another, complete that and so on until they have been here for seven years, after which they can remain permanently. That has happened with large numbers of people. It is morally illegal immigration on a technically legal basis. My hon. Friend is right to introduce changes to close that loophole.
  The point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) about the changes being applied to west Africans but not to Americans was ludicrous. We do not have vast numbers of Americans entering this country on a false basis to secure permanent residency. The whole point of this legislative change is to direct it at where the problem lies—people from west Africa, not from America.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the introduction of visa requirements for Turkish nationals. Many Conservative Members are well aware of the problem of illegal immigration of Turkish nationals. However what will my hon. Friend do in the next decade if Turkey's application to join the European Community is accepted? That would make it difficult to prevent the influx of unrequired, unwanted and unneeded immigration from Turkey that could ensue.
  My hon. Friend is also right to make changes in DNA testing. That testing is vital to establish that there is a proper and bona fide relationship between the person wishing to come to this country and the rest of the family who are already here. I cannot for the life of me understand why that testing is not mandatory. It is the only real and genuine way of firmly and scientifically establishing the evidence necessary to prove that there is a bona fide relationship. I cannot understand why it is carried out on a voluntary basis.
  As we are debating immigration rule changes, it is appropriate that I should state in this debate that the vast majority of the British people see no need for immigration rule changes vis-à-vis Hong Kong. The British Government's first duty is to the people of this country, not to the people of Hong Kong.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: When I went to Hong Kong a few years ago, I asked vast numbers of people whether they thought of themselves as Chinese or British. They told me

  293
  with an overwhelming voice that they wished to be Chinese. They wished to follow a Chinese culture, be part of the Chinese community and be part of China. Would it not be ludicrous in those circumstances for the Government to take into this country 3·2 million people who have no wish to be British, no wish to abide by British customs and no wish to be part of our country?
  Mr. Janman: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) has made is absolutely right. He reinforces the point that I was making. The danger of making any immigration rule change to accommodate more than 3 million people in Hong Kong is that we might write a blank cheque. If that change were made in the belief that only a few thousand would take it up, we would be powerless in law to prevent the other hundreds of thousands or millions from taking it up if they so wished. The Government would be extremely foolish to write that blank cheque and it seems to be clear from comments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that that blank cheque will not be written, and that is absolutely right.
  Mr. John Carlisle: The siren voices from the Opposition Benches about the continuance of Labour's open-door policy—which seems now to extend to 3·25 million Hong Kong Chinese—will not have escaped my hon. Friend's attention. Does he agree that if such a policy were followed the British Government would have an equal duty to tell the 800,000 or so white South Africans that they also have similar rights of abode in this country? With regard to exemptions, is it not interesting to note that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) refused to take an intervention asking him whether Labour would impose visas on South Africans? If a policy is applied to the 3·25 million people in Hong Kong, a similar policy must apply to white South Africans and people in other countries.
  Mr. Janman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very interesting tangential point. His logic and rationale are irrefutable and the House will have taken note of his comments.
  When I intervened earlier in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, he was totally incapable of telling the House what the Opposition's view was on the Hong Kong issue, and whether they were in favour of writing a blank cheque or of taking a more illiberal and tighter view of who should be allowed into this country than that taken by the Government. We are still waiting for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central to clarify the Opposition's position. I am sure that the electorate is also waiting to hear the Opposition's views.
  Good though the changes are, they are too late. The door is being shut after the immigrants have bolted in. I shall give the House some figures, not from the Home Office but from the National Ethnic Research market research company—a Caribbean company which has done extensive research, for commercial reasons, into the ethnic population of Britain. The figure is not the 2·4 million that the Home Office trots out; it is probably much nearer 4·2 million. The company, which is run by a member of the ethnic community, has produced figures to show that one in three children born in London today is of ethnic origin. Its definition of ethnic origin does not include the Arabs and the Turks: it relates only to Indian, Pakistani, Caribbean and African people.
  294
  That is a frightening concept for the country to come to terms with. We have already seen the problems of massive Moslem immigration, with the recent events in Parliament square and in Bradford—[Interruption.] I am willing to give way to any hon. Member who stands up and wishes to intervene, but if no one wishes to do so, I suggest that Opposition Members remain silent. That figure of one in three children is true not just of London, but of Leicester, Nottingham, Bradford and many other cities.
  I welcome the changes, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that unless we want to create major problems in the decades or the century ahead, we must not only stop immigration but must move to voluntary resettlement to reduce the immigrant population.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I fail to understand how my hon. Friend can make a differentiation on the basis of the colour of someone's skin between one person who is British and another person who is British. To do so is patently racist.
  Mr. Janman: I have made no differentiation. We have not had mass immigration from Canada, Germany or the United States. What we have had, and what many British people, and I suspect the majority of my hon. Friend's constituents, object to, is mass immigration from countries which he knows have caused the immigration—India, Pakistan and the Caribbean. It is fatuous to suggest that we are talking simply about colour. We are talking about country of origin, culture and religion. Those factor; are important, and they cause great anxiety to our constituents.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening closely to the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). Is it in order for an hon. Member to address the House in such overtly racist terms?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have a strong impression that the hon. Gentleman is about to finish.
  Mr. Janman: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would have finished by now had it not been for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes).
  Those people who defend mass immigration and who are not prepared to find a civilised and practical method of reducing the immigrant population are courting massive civil strife in years to come.
  12.49 am
  Mr. John Fraser: We have just heard expressed a vicious streak of racism that hon. Members on both sides of the House had hoped was buried some years ago, for the sake of this country.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it grossly offensive that Opposition Members should seek to make such a point, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was speaking from his heart and in the interests of his constituents—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This subject arouses strong emotions on both sides of the House, but I hope that we shall debate it quietly.
  Mr. Fraser: In answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), may I say that that vicious streak of racism to which I referred may be sincere but that that does not excuse it.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fraser: No, I—
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fraser: I was about to say that I believed that many Conservative Members would wish that streak of racism to be buried. It is regrettable that it should have reared its head tonight.
  I have only one good thing to say for the Minister. Having pressed him for some time to consolidate the immigration rules, I am glad that he has taken the opportunity to do so. Instead of nine or 10 instruments, we now have a single cat-o'-nine-tails with which to control those who wish to come to the United Kingdom. We thank the Minister, therefore, for the comprehensive nature of the rules, although certainly not for their content.
  I suppose that there is a further tribute that one could pay the Minister because under his presidency there has undoubtedly been an increase in the efficiency—and to some extent the courtesy and responsiveness—of Lunar house, not least as a result of the pressure that the Opposition exerted on Ministers last time we debated the immigration rules. That is a good thing, because efficient immigration control is effective immigration control. I do not think that anyone makes any great complaint about that; indeed, long delays and inefficiency can place people in a hopeless position.
  What is now happening, however, is that that efficiency, which I welcomed, has gone a stage further, to the point at which it has become a ruthless and summary execution of harsh immigration laws. Immigration officers are using administrative custody to cow prisoners into abandoning their rights and making so-called supervised departures. The Home Office is using methods that attempt to avoid the supervision of judges and magistrates that follows on the bare-faced abrogation of the facilities of Members of Parliament to approach the Minister or his Office. I am surprised that a Minister, who is a Queen's Counsel, should mastermind a policy intended to have the effect of bludgeoning people into leaving the country without access to a judicial system—except by way of judicial review, and that is not easy—or even an immigration appeals system.
  The bludgeoning is done by administrative imprisonment—literally detention without trial. One must conclude that the use of detention without trial under the immigration system is a concerted and deliberate Government—directed practice. Let me give two examples of detention without trial. The first involves the use of the notice of intention to deport. Suppose that an immigrant—usually a student—is working part-time. The Government seem to want all the other students to work part-time but not immigrant students. An immigrant student who is found working part-time—a perfectly honourable tradition—[Interruption.] Can the hon. Member who has been making a noise return to the bar, Mr. Deputy Speaker? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  That immigrant will not be charged with any offence. He will not have access to a magistrates' court. Instead, a deportation order will be made with considerable rapidity
  296
  and he will be detained in administrative custody. The Immigration Act 1988 will then be applied to him. He will be told that he will have no appeal on the merits of the deportation order but only on the power of the Minister to make that order. He will be given the choice between custody and an unwinnable appeal or what is known, under the immigration rules, as a supervised departure. That is what I describe as a use of administrative custody and detention without trial.
  The use of custody in connection with deportation orders should be used only rarely. Before any deportation order is made, full consideration should be given to representations made by the person who is affected. Deportation matters should be treated mercifully and understandably.
  Deportation is being used not as a form of immigration control but as a hugely disproportionate—
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fraser: No, I will not. It is being used as a hugely disproportionate, non-judicial and virtually unappealable punishment and sentence. That practice must stop.
  The second form of detention without trial is the use of removal powers, as opposed to deportation, where there is at least the possibility of appeal to an immigration adjudicator. An example is of someone who comes here on a visit and then asks to stay as a student. That is common. Indeed, it has been institutionalised by the changes in the rules. If an immigration officer can get some kind of stated intention from that immigrant that at the back of his mind he thought that he would study when he came here, the leave to enter as a visitor is revoked, irrespective of the merits of the situation. The person is then kept in administrative custody and is removed from this country without any form of appeal, except access to the Divisional Court by way of judicial review. That is an abuse of the powers of removal.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: That is an excellent point. Is not the position worse than that? Is there not an opportunity for entrapment? The immigration officer may ask, "Would you like to study?" The immigrant may reply, "Yes, I would. I would not mind if I had the chance." That person is trapped, whether he intended to study or not.
  Mr. Fraser: That is exactly what happens.
  Recently, I came across the case of a person who was supposed to have made an admission that false representations had been made. When I spoke to the immigrant, it was clear that the command of English was not adequate and the conversation was conducted in Yoruba. Because of that conversation in Yoruba, it became clear that the admissions that were supposed to have been made to the immigration officer in English were unsustainable. If there had not been an intervention on that occasion, the system of supervised departure would have been used and the issue of administrative custody—detention without trial—would have been raised. The system is deliberately geared so that where there has been even a minor criminal offence, no charge is brought because, if it were, the immigrant would at least have access to a magistrates court and an application could be made for bail.
  I condemn the heartless and brutal refusal of temporary admission by the Minister of State, except in what he calls exceptional compassionate circumstances. A family in my

  297
  constituency may have saved for a lifetime to spend thousands of pounds to bring two or three members of the family to this country for a two or three-week holiday. Those people may not be admitted on a temporary basis because the immigration officers say that there are no exceptional compassionate circumstances. That shows heartlessness. In recent changes, the Minister has prevented us, as Members of Parliament, from making direct representations on such matters.
  I condemn the failure to humanise the operation of the primary purpose marriage rule, which creates an absurdity. If a spouse wants to remain in the United Kingdom, he or she cannot do so, but if they do not want to remain in the United Kingdom, they can do so. That is the absurdity of the primary purpose rule. The judges cannot make sense of it, and seem to lack the courage to expose its absurdity. However, when Mr. Justice Henry recently eroded the harshness of the primary purpose rule, the Home Office immediately sought to undermine his judgment by writing to the president of the immigration appeal tribunal.
  It is clear from the cases now before the courts and the tribunal that incontestably genuine love-match marriages—[Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House happen to believe that love in marriage should not be the subject of scorn, though it might be the subject of consideration by a future chairman of the Conservative party. Genuine love matches are being frustrated by the artificial residence test. The rules are harsh and increasingly are being heartlessly applied. I shall vote against the motion.
  1.1 am
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) in the hope that he would clear up some of the anomalies and confusions surrounding Labour's immigration policy. We know that Labour are pledged to repeal the legislation that they themselves enforced when in power, when the number of immigrants entering this country was as high as 80,000 per year. However, he neither did so nor answered the questions that were asked of him.
  The remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central contrast with the Government's action in enforcing existing legislation and with the positive rule changes that are the subject of the debate—which I welcome, and which will reduce abuses and allow genuine applicants to enter the country under a fair and firm policy.
  I shall give three examples, two from my own constituency, that demonstrate Government policy in action. I believe that I was the first Member of Parliament to organise the entry into this country of a constituent's son by use of DNA testing. I inherited from my opponent in the 1983 general election a large file on a constituent named Mr. G. M. V. Patel and his son Ishaq. Despite exhaustive inquiries in my constituent's home village in India, no evidence could be found to allow his son's entry to Britain, although Mr. Patel was adamant that he was a true son of the family.
  I visited the Home Office and discussed the case at great length with the then Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), but no decision to enter could
  298
  be reached. I then read about the work of Professor Jeffries at Leicester university, and after I wrote to him the Patel family arranged for Ishaq to undergo DNA testing. There was a long wait while the Home Office evaluated the long odds that were arrived at by Professor Jeffries, and then great joy when it was announced on 24 August 1986 that, although Ishaq was over age, he would be allowed entry. I am grateful for the Home Office's handling of that case, which illustrates that it applies policy in a firm and fair way. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which other cases have been similarly dealt with.
  Although I have had no personal experience of Kurds wishing to enter this country from Turkey, the grandson of one of my constituents, an Iranian, was imprisoned in Turkey. My constituent came to see me because her grandson was about to be returned to Iran, where he would face immediate execution. Less than 30 days remained to deal with that case, but with the help of Prisoners Abroad, whose present director is a former hon. Member of the House, Mr. Keith Best, the case was put to the Home Office sufficiently well to allow that individual to enter Britain and to escape the almost certain execution that would have been his fate in Iran. That is another example of the way that the Home Office implements existing legislation fairly and firmly, and allows entry in genuine cases.
  My last example is rather different: it concerns Hong Kong, which must be very much in our minds. We must do all in our power to press for Hong Kong's plight to be treated as an international problem, and urge the international community to bring all possible force to bear on China both to improve its internal policies and to respect the treaty drawn up in 1984. We must, however, adopt towards Hong Kong the same policies that we adopt towards all other aspects of immigration, and keep our minds open to the genuine needs of genuine cases.
  I have just received a letter from some people whom I visited when I was in Hong Kong two years ago, at a remarkable establishment known as the Home of Loving Faithfulness Fellowship. It is run by two ladies, Wendy and Valerie, who had set up a home to care for severely handicapped Chinese children whose families were unable to look after them. They had arranged for a number of adoptions so that children could leave Hong Kong and find homes elsewhere. The letter says how worried they are about the present situation. Although they have British passports, they feel guilty about that distinguishing them from others with whom they work. One of them has been away for 27 years, and they feel that they have no home in the United Kingdom.
  The letter ends:
  "Our own plans are just to go on doing what we have been doing for 24 years here … in this beautiful little place called Hong Kong."
  I ask my hon. Friend to see that as an example of the need to keep an open mind about what is happening in Hong Kong and to put maximum pressure on all other members of the international community to make the Chinese understand exactly how we feel about their domestic situation, and about the importance of their respecting every line of the 1984 treaty.
  1.6 am
  Mr. Pat Wall: First, let me join in the protest made at the beginning of the debate about the DNA issue—which has been the subject of much

  299
  discussion between many of us and the Minister of State—being lumped in with a general discussion on immigration rules. I think that DNA deserves a separate debate apart from the Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has obtained for the early hours of Thursday, and I hope that that can be arranged.
  The rule changes that we are discussing mark, in most instances, a further tightening of the screw—a process that began with the introduction of visas for five countries and continued with the provisions of the Immigration Act 1988. Now we see a complete ban on nationals of visa countries switching from temporary admission—mainly as visitors—to student status, which further reduces their rights as against those of non-visa nationals. We also see rules aimed at preventing Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin from obtaining asylum in Britain, although, having been nerve-gassed by Iraq and hounded by Iran and Turkey, they are among the most persecuted peoples in the world, and the most deserving of the right of asylum. Under the rules, only Turkish Kurds who escape to a third country can be considered for asylum in Britain, and that must be a tiny handful of those who need it.
  I feel that we have a right to relate these rules to our constituency experience, and I wish to raise two specific issues with the Minister. First—although I feel that the issue of Hong Kong should, and undoubtedly will, be debated separately—let me say that we can have little faith in the Government's ability to deal with the problems of three and a third million Chinese in Hong Kong when a woman in Pakistan can obtain neither consistency, compassion nor speed in her application for a visa to visit a grandchild born in Bradford.
  The first of the issues with which I want to deal relates to asylum for Sri Lankan Tamils. Last Wednesday my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the following question:
  "Is the Minister aware that three out of five Tamil refugees who were forcibly returned to Colombo in February 1988 have been tortured? What do the Government intend to do about that?"
  The Minister replied:
  "I am sure that if the hon. Lady can substantiate her assertion we will draw it to the attention of the Sri Lankan Government."—[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 890.]
  It is proper to draw the matter to the attention of the Sri Lankan Government, but is it not time that it received the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office? Are we to believe that they are unaware of the circumstances of the case?
  Are the Government unaware of the fact that the five male Tamils arrived separately in the first half of 1987, that all five were refused the right of asylum and the right of appeal, that while awaiting deportation their case was taken to judicial review in the High Court on 25 September 1987 and that their appeal was rejected, that on 12 October 1987 their appeal against that decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal but that it was again reversed on 16 December in the House of Lords? The five were then deported. Under the ridiculous rules that now apply, after their deportation they had the right to appeal against the refusal of asylum in this country.
  300
  This case—the first of its type—was heard on 16, 17 and 18 January of this year. The appeal of all five was upheld, but they have still not been given the right by the Home Office to come to this country and take up their asylum. The Minister is aware of the fact that Amnesty International has produced conclusive proof that three of the five were tortured. The Government sent them back to Sri Lanka. They would not allow them to appeal here. They are responsible for the torture of those people.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we do not accept the decision of the adjudicator. We have been give permission to apply for a judicial review of the matter. That is taking place. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes detailed allegations and comments upon the case without waiting for the final decision of the court.
  Mr. Wall: I am sure that the three Tamils who were tortured in the gaols of Sri Lanka will be as reassured by the Minister's comments as he hopes that hon. Members will be, but I am sure that they have not been reassured.
  In a recent judgment Mr. Justice McCowan found that the Home Office had unfairly treated Miss Amarasingham. Mr. Justice McCowan therefore asked the Home Office to review her case. I hope that the same decision—to continue fighting the case until this girl is deported—will not be taken in her case.
  One of the most quoted remarks of Karl Marx is that
  "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."
  I am afraid that I must refer to a farcical case in my constituency. A well-known cricket club in my constituency, Undercliffe cricket club, runs an exchange scheme with Australia and New Zealand and brings over to this country young cricketers from those two countries. The scheme is run by three prominent local business men who are connected with the Undercliffe cricket club. They invite teenage youngsters from Australia and New Zealand to Bradford. They stay with them at their expense and play cricket for that club, at a level depending on their ability on arrival.
  In April this year they invited an 18-year-old man called Schofield Hewitt from Barbados. Schofield did not understand that he did not need a visas, so went to the consulate in Barbados, and asked for a visa. When he was told that he did not need a visa he became a little uptight and an official stamped his passport, "Visa not granted". When he arrived at Manchester airport, quite reasonably the immigration officer questioned the stamp on his passport. One of the three Bradford business men was called in as Schofield's sponsor. He explained the situation and, quite reasonably, the immigration officer at Manchester airport agreed to grant temporary admission and transferred the case to Leeds-Bradford airport.
  Leeds-Bradford airport claimed that he needed a work permit. He is not Leary Constantine, Manny Martindale or Ernest Achone—all West Indian Test cricketers who made the Bradford league, brought enormous pleasure to Bradford people and raised the level of Yorkshire cricket. By bringing young Schofield Hewitt to Bradford, we were only repaying our debt to West Indian cricket. He did not need a work permit and he was deported, despite the fact that he had a return ticket and did not need a visa and despite the fact that Australian and New Zealand youngsters who were white and came from richer backgrounds were allowed to play for the Undercliffe cricket club.
  Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me for the second time. I do not want to delay the House, but it is a very great pity that he did not apply to the Department of Employment for a work permit or come to me for advice. Cricketers coming to Britain temporarily need work permits and are given work permits. We deal with them all the time at the beginning of the cricketing season without any problem.
  Mr. Wall: My experience as a Member of Parliament was that when I phoned the Home Office and asked for a stop on the case I was told that it was not urgent or important enough. I wrote to the Minister on 25 April and I am still waiting for a reply. When a young, white New Zealander playing rugby for Bradford and Bingley rugby club overstayed, he was told he could stay on without a work permit because he was playing rugby union and he was white.
  The case is a mirror of the unfairness of the Home Department and of the completely inefficient way in which it operates. Young Schofield Hewitt was taken to Manchester airport by one of the three members of the Undercliffe cricket club. He was told when to get there and he arrived with his sponsor 10 minutes early, obeying the laws of the land, to discover that the plane had left two hours earlier. That is typical of the way in which the Home Department is run, its inhumanity and its inefficiency.
  1.17 am
  Mr. Gary Waller: First, it is welcome that a consolidated version of the rules has been published. It is difficult for practitioners to work with rules which have been amended, sometimes in a quite complicated way, nine separate times. I hope that consolidated rules will be published more often.
  I wish to say a few words about over-age applicants and the use of discretion by my hon. Friend. Many applicants who are now over age still reside in Bangladesh. Some of the applicants are over age essentially because their applications were turned down 10 or more years ago. In almost every case, their applications were turned down for reasons of family relationships. As the House knows, documentation in Bangladesh is sparse. To some extent, some applicants or their sponsors brought the problem on themselves because there were false claims for tax purposes for families who did not exist.
  Be that as it may, because of DNA testing, it is now possible to prove once and for all whether applications at that time were justified. I understand that, of the DNA tests that have been carried out, 86 per cent. have proved conclusively that the applicants were related as claimed.
  It is a matter of natural justice, if a claim failed for that and for no other reason, that those applications should be processed as speedily as possible. In some cases, applicants have waited a long time—many years—for their cases to go through. Even since the DNA test was carried out, they have had to wait a considerable period. Applications should be dealt with in such a way that there is a presumption that discretion will be exercised in their favour unless there are clear reasons why that should not be the case.
  I hope, therefore, that, although this matter is not spelt out in the rules, my hon. Friend the Minister will exercise his discretion fairly. I would find it difficult to explain to my constituents why, if a claim failed many years ago because of the lack of DNA testing at that time, they
  302
  should still be turned down now that it is available. I hope that, when considering such cases in future, my hon. Friend will deal with them compassionately and speedily.
  1.19 am
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The debate has been redeemed by the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and by the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). One of the most unpleasant aspects of this measure is the way that it brings to the surface all that is basest in our country, and no baser speech could have been made tonight than that by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). It was vile and venomous in every respect. To suggest for one moment that the birth of a black child in this country is somehow a cause of concern is contemptible beyond belief. The Minister must reflect on the emotions and attitudes that measures such as this cause to rise to the surface. It is a squalid and unnecessary measure, and it has been introduced in a shroud of subterfuge from the Home Office.
  Two aspects of the changes in the immigration rules give rise to particular concern. The first relates to students and the terms and conditions on which they may enter and remain in this country and the proposals that are contained in the rules in respect of them. It is worth looking at them in some detail. Underlying the thought that seems to have gone into this measure, particularly this aspect of it, is a common misconception by the Government and the Home Office, which is that the whole world is just dying to converge on the United Kingdom and that every black, brown and yellow person wants nothing so much as to live in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] One can see from the instant recognition by Conservative Members that that is seriously what they believe. [Interruption.] They honestly believe that we are going to be swamped. That phrase is resonant, because it was with that phrase that, at a stroke, the Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) sought to capitalise on the racist vote back in 1979. Ever since, we have been living with the legacy of that. Every so often, with an unerring and knee-jerk reaction, the Home Office feels the need to expel from its bowels measures of this nature. It is particularly unpleasant.
  I am glad to see the Minister's nose curl up in distaste. My nose and those of many hon. Members curl up in distaste whenever we have to deal with the immigration rules. That happens whenever we are obliged to deal with the Minister and his officials because all these rules stink and the racism behind them stinks. We have good cause to turn up our noses in the way that we do.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The hon. Gentleman talks about the racist Government since 1979. He must admit that since 1979, over 500,000 people have been given permanent settlement in this country, the majority of whom have come from the Indian sub-continent, from the West Indies and from other parts of Asia and Africa, and there have been 30,000 refugees. Is that not a record of which we should be proud? If we were a racist Government, nothing like half a million people would have been allowed permanent settlement since 1979.
  Mr. Boateng: Our record, sadly, is not one of which we are entitled to be proud. We have cause to be ashamed of

  303
  it in terms of our standing in the world. We must redeem it as a matter of urgency, which is why my hon. Friends and I oppose these rules.
  Let us consider the issue of students and the change of status. We say that what is proposed is unfair because of the way in which it discriminates between visa nationals and non-visa nationals. The Government have not produced a shred of evidence to show that there is more likely to be abuse from visa nationals than from non-visa nationals. If there were such evidence, they would be in a position to produce it.
  The Minister must know what the impact of these measures will be on genuine students. They will have to leave Britain and return to their countries of origin before being able to apply for entry clearance. They must be aware of the temptation to overstay that that will cause. They must also appreciate the disincentive that measures such as this, being unjust and oppressive, will provide to genuine students to come to this country.
  I do not take any heart from the fact that it will be more difficult for students from west Africa and from the Indian sub-continent to come here to study, because all experience—one need only consider the commercial and diplomatic links between our country and those countries, in particular since the movement for colonial freedom began—shows that Britain benefits from students coming here. Despite that, we have imposed a series of increasingly restrictive immigration rules on them, and we have imposed charges in the form of overseas fees that are unconscionable and cause great hardship.
  Why have we done that? We have done it to keep out a few—the Home Office does not have the figures—would-be overstayers, a handful of those who would undoubtedly abuse their right and permission for entry. Consider the cost to us of that policy in terms of our reputation overseas, our moral standing and our self-interest resulting from fostering links between students which in turn benefits our commerce and international relations. There is nothing in these measures in relation to students that is in any way warranted. Indeed, the honest student is penalised by the rules. They represent disincentives to comply with them and they are harmful in every way.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the position of honest students who want to come here to study has been prejudiced by those—however few they may be, and I accept what he says about that—who overstay? Will he further agree from his constituency experience, which by now must be considerable, that some stay on and claim to be students, thereby prejudicing the chances of genuine students who want to come here?
  Mr. Boateng: I do not demur from that in any way, save to say that the scale of the abuse does not warrant the measure and that the measure goes over the top and is not merited by the problem that is faced.
  In perpetuating a discriminatory measure between visa and non-visa countries, the Government are identifying certain countries in west Africa and the Indian sub-continent—and everybody who comes from those countries—as a problem. Hon. Members of all parties must have noticed that as a result of that discriminatory tendency more and more countries that are not
  304
  visa-national countries are becoming tainted in the same way. In my constituency experience, I have noticed that those who come from Jamaica are treated as though they are visa nationals. There is therefore a quickening of discrimination and disadvantage in the way in which the rules are administered.
  I should like a clear undertaking and assurance from the Minister of State that he will look into the experience of Jamaican nationals currently seeking to come to this country, because there is evidence that they are being treated in a discriminatory way by the immigration service and by the Home Office generally.
  Another most important matter is the question of the imposition of a visa requirement on people from Turkey.
  Ms. Clare Short: On the subject of students, has my hon. Friend noticed that the new rules contain a provision that male students are allowed to bring their wives and children to this country, provided that they can all maintain themselves, but that female students are not? Does he agree that it is outrageous that talented women from around the world might win scholarships to our country, but that they are not allowed to live with their spouses and children when men are allowed to do so? Does my hon. Friend not suspect that that is illegal under the European convention on human rights?
  Mr. Boateng: It is outrageous, sexist and seemingly in contravention of international law. We look forward to hearing from the Minister of State the advice that he has received so that he can assure the House that we are complying with international law in these rules which seem to fly in the face of the relevant convention.
  The imposition of visas on people from Turkey has a particular impact on asylum seekers because—this reality is disguised in the Home Office press statement—it is no comfort for people to be told in the statement that
  "the imposition of a visa requirement will not stop any Turkish national who qualifies for admission under the Immigration Rules from entering the United Kingdom"
  because, as the Minister of State knows, asylum seekers from abroad are not covered by the immigration rules which make no provision for disputed asylum claims other than those made within the United Kingdom.
  I see that the Minister of State is anxious to reply to the points that have been made in the debate so perhaps he will answer this one. One has very much in mind the advice that the Minister has received from his officials that he should seek to speak at the end of the debate. That advice was given to let the Minister off the hook. Well, we do not intend to allow him off the hook so easily.
  In conclusion, perhaps the Minister will get his mind around the edition of Echo Sounding, the newsletter that is circulated to all entry clearance staff overseas, which dealt with the position of refugees and asylum seekers, and tell us in what circumstances it will be possible for someone coming from Turkey successfully to obtain asylum in this country. While he is at it, will he also tell us why all callers to Latchmere house today, who were seeking information about Kurdish asylum seekers, were told that the office was not able to give any information and why they had their queries referred to the press office at the Home Office? Will he make a statement about what Kurdish asylum seekers are experiencing at this time, which their lawyers

  305
  and friends may not be told? Perhaps he would tell us. It is no use the Minister nodding and smiling benignly because we know what lies behind that face.
  In relation to the Hong Kong potential refugees whose fate has been ensnared in the debate, in the past few days Dame Lydia Dunn has said:
  "I believe that the British people will wish their Government to do the honourable thing."
  I have no doubt that that is what the British people wish their Government to do, but in this measure, as in so much else, the Government have failed to do so.
  1.35 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has left me extraordinarily little time in which to answer either his questions or those asked by other hon. Members. In the eight or nine minutes available to me, I shall do my best to answer the serious questions raised in the debate.
  I start by saying that it has been a strange debate. From the protestations of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and Brent, South one would have thought that we were introducing earthshaking changes in the immigration rules; we are not. The rule changes that we have laid before the House are modest. They include two extensions of the visa requirement, to Turkey and to Haiti, and two main changes of general application. One represents a tightening of our immigration control—the prohibition on visitors from visa countries switching to being students after entry.
  The other change is a relaxation of our immigration control. Needless to say, that has not been mentioned by any Opposition Member in the debate. I refer, of course, to the fact that we are now enabling a woman working here to be joined by her spouse and children under 18, just as wives and children can already come to join a man working in the United Kingdom.
  The rule changes that we are introducing in the new consolidated rules will maintain the effectiveness of our immigration control. They are consistent with our policy of operating a system that is both firm and fair.
  Doubtless the Opposition will vote against the improvements just as they have voted against all the improvements of the last two years. What then would be their course of action? We now know from the Labour policy review what Labour immigration policy would look like. It would he unfair. It would be full of loopholes. It would encourage bogus applications. It would give comfort to those who are acting illegally and it would lead—
  Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is speaking, as I understand it, by leave of the House for a second time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The Minister is speaking for the first time.
  Mr. Renton: That goes to show the total ignorance on these matters. We have wasting of time through filibustering by the Opposition.
  Mr. Dobson: Is it not the case that the Minister, in reply to the debate, is supposed to be dealing strictly with the
  306
  rules and should not be taking up valuable time that other hon. Members could have used by talking about Labour party policy? He is supposed to be dealing with the rules.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has very little time. I think that we had better get on.
  Mr. Renton: This is a disgraceful filibuster by Opposition Members. They know that their immigration policy is full of holes. It would lead to a substantial increase in immigration and they do not want it discussed.
  I should like to thank my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) for his support for our immigration rule changes, although he would like them to go further than I would at present.
  Mr. Darling rose—
  Mr. Renton: I will not give way. I have only six more minutes to speak and I wish to speak about the rule changes.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his kind remarks about cases that we have dealt with in the Home Office. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for his remarks, particularly about the DNA tests. We shall be debating DNA testing tomorrow night in an Adjournment debate that has been initiated by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). As the issue does not arise in the rule changes, and as time is short, I propose to leave my remarks about it for tomorrow night.
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Renton: I want to talk about our intention to introduce—
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is outrageous that the Minister is saying that he is leaving his remarks on the DNA testing scheme, which the Government deliberately made part of this debate, for an Adjournment debate that I shall introduce tomorrow night.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Renton: It would seem—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it is expecting a ministerial reply to the debate. The Minister has little time left.
  Mr. Renton: I have come to the conclusion that the opposition are interested only in wasting time on immigration. They are not prepared seriously to discuss immigration changes. The hon. Member for Bradford, West is the worst offender. He will introduce an Adjournment debate tomorrow on DNA testing and yet he is insisting on talking about matters that are not in the rule changes that are before the House.
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has made a good case for the Government providing further time to debate the DNA testing scheme. The matter is part of this debate—it was deliberately made so by the Government—and the Minister has not responded to the remarks which have been made about the scheme. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consult. Mr.

  307
  Speaker and to arrange a separate debate at a reasonable hour so that hon. Members can comment on the proposed scheme.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Renton: What a disgraceful waste of time by the hon. Gentleman. There is no mention of DNA testing in the rule changes, and he knows it.
  As for our intention to introduce a visa requirement for nationals of Turkey, I must tell the House—
  Mr. Darling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House. These are not genuine points of order. The debate can continue for only a few more minutes. I hope that in the limited time that is available to it the House will listen to the Minister's reply.
  Mr. Darling: I would not make a spurious point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the start of the debate it was said that Mr. Speaker would read Hansard's report of the debate and would note that serious allegations were made by the Opposition about the true intentions of the Government as revealed in the confidential internal memorandum, which dealt, among other things, with the Government's proposals for charging for DNA testing. The memorandum makes it clear that a Minister intended tonight to deal with this matter. These matters are crucial—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are matters for debate. At the beginning of the debate the hon. Gentleman raised a point of order. I doubt whether it is a matter for Mr. Speaker, but the occupant of the Chair at the time undertook to report to Mr. Speaker what he had said.
  Mr. Renton: The need for introducing visas for Turks has arisen primarily for operational reasons. The number and proportion of Turkish passengers refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom have been rising for several years and have now reached significant levels. We have experienced a sharp rise in the number of Turks claiming asylum at the ports of entry. Today alone we had 243 applications for political asylum by Turks at our airports. That, in one day, is four times the total for 1987.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Renton: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Among the applicants there may be some genuine refugees. Every one of them has to be given a detailed interview, and that takes a great deal of time. Without doubt there are some economic migrants among the new and large total and there is a possibility that the genuine refugees will not have a chance of being examined and interviewed nearly quickly enough.
  There are those who say that we should not talk about economic migrants. Since 1 May—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business)
  The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 170.

  Division No. 255]

  [1.45 am

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Loyden, Eddie

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  McAllion, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McFall, John

  Barron, Kevin

  McKelvey, William

  Battle, John

  McWilliam, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Madden, Max

  Beith, A. J.

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Marek, Dr John

  Blair, Tony

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Boateng, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Boyes, Roland

  Meale, Alan

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Michael, Alun

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Clay, Bob

  Morley, Elliott

  Clelland, David

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Cohen, Harry

  Mullin, Chris

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Murphy, Paul

  Cousins, Jim

  Nellist, Dave

  Cryer, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

  Cummings, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Pike, Peter L.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Darling, Alistair

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Redmond, Martin

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

  Rooker, Jeff

  Dixon, Don

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Dobson, Frank

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Eastham, Ken

  Salmond, Alex

  Fatchett, Derek

  Sedgemore, Brian

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

  Sheerman, Barry

  Fisher, Mark

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Short, Clare

  Foster, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fraser, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Fyfe, Maria

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

  Galbraith, Sam

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  George, Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Strang, Gavin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Straw, Jack

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Turner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Vaz, Keith

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Wall, Pat

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wallace, James

  Illsley, Eric

  Walley, Joan

  Ingram, Adam

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Janner, Greville

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Leighton, Ron

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Allason, Rupert

  Bowis, John

  Amess, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Amos, Alan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bright, Graham

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Burns, Simon

  Ashby, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, David

  Butcher, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butler, Chris

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butterfill, John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cash, William

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  309

  Chapman, Sydney

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Chope, Christopher

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Churchill, Mr

  Moate, Roger

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cormack, Patrick

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Couchman, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Cran, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Norris, Steve

  Day, Stephen

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Page, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Paice, James

  Durant, Tony

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Fallon, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Forman, Nigel

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Redwood, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Renton, Tim

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Gregory, Conal

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

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

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Harris, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Speed, Keith

  Hayes, Jerry

  Speller, Tony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Heddle, John

  Squire, Robin

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Stern, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Howard, Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

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

  Stokes, Sir John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Irvine, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Jack, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Jessel, Toby

  Tracey, Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Tredinnick, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Trippier, David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Knapman, Roger

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Waller, Gary

  Latham, Michael

  Ward, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Lightbown, David

  Watts, John

  Lilley, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Whitney, Ray

  Lord, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Maclean, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mans, Keith

  Wolfson, Mark

  Maples, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Mills, Iain

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  NHS Reform
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  1.54 am
  Sir Peter Hordern: During the past 20 years there have been two reforms of the National Health Service—in its administration rather than in its substance. When the Government's proposals for the present reforms were produced, they deserved more serious consideration than they have subsequently received. Judging by some of the hysterical reaction to the Government's proposals, one would think that the Government were out to dismember the NHS completely.
  I very much regret the tone as well as the substance of some of the reactions. However, those who are in the front line of the reforms have reacted somewhat differently. A substantial number of hospitals and large practices have expressed interest in going it alone and in accepting proposals. When the nature of the proposals is known and the propaganda has blown over, the proposed reforms will be judged on their merits and found acceptable.
  Because the NHS is a national service free at the point of delivery, many people think that it is wrong to attempt reform, because reform represents some kind of threat to the principle of the NHS. However, the shortcomings of the NHS are there for all to see. There are long waiting lists for operations, there are shabby practices and hospitals and overworked general practitioners and hospital doctors. We have only to consider the outcry whenever it is proposed to close an old hospital—even if it is out of date and inefficient—and to open a new one in its place to understand how hard it is to win acceptance for any reform of the NHS which involves change. The general impression seems to be that there is nothing wrong with the system which a lot more money would not put right. That impression is fostered not simply by the Labour party, as we might expect, but by the British Medical Association, which is a professional body manned by professionals.
  It is a mistake to expect too much of any trade union which exists for the benefit of its members. However, until I saw its recent advertisement, I had thought that the BMA would conduct itself in a professional manner. Of course, history is against any such hope. We need only remember that the BMA was wholly opposed to the NHS when it was founded. However, by listening to it now, we might think that it had invented it.
  Every doctor must take the Hippocratic oath, the most serious professional pledge in existence and one which all doctors aspire to live up to. What was Hippocrates like? Harvey's Oxford Companion to Classical Literature says this of him:
  "Hippocrates supported a true scientific spirit, insisted on the permanence of the relation of cause to effect and the necessity of careful observation of medical facts. He was regarded by his contemporaries and successors as a perfect type of physician, learned, humane, calm, pure of mind, grave and reticent."
  I do not think that any of those adjectives could be applied to the BMA today.
  The BMA's advertisement which appeared in The Observer of 4 June states that the Government want the general practitioners' practices with more than 11,000 patients to take over budgets, including the purchase of hospital treatment. It states that GPs would have to

  311
  negotiate contracts with hospitals, shop around for the best buys and plan their budgets accordingly. The BMA would not have published that advertisement unless it meant people to think that doctors would be forced to take over budgets and negotiate contracts. Nowhere is there any suggestion that it is entirely up to large practices to run their own practices. Similarly, there is no suggestion that, having done so, they cannot do otherwise. I have never heard of the freedom to adopt an alternative course described as having to negotiate contracts, as though the freedom to escape a centrally controlled system was a challenge to the state.
  Perhaps one should dismiss all this talk as hyperbole, but there is worse. The advertisement said:
  "Since there is no new money in the system, GPs will be expected to take on the burden of rationing the scarce resources."
  That raises a different issue, for there are no qualifying words about real increases, allowing for increases in inflation—just a simple statement that there is no new money in the system.
  The House should take this seriously. What is the truth? The public expenditure White Paper states in paragraph 9 on page 5:
  "Public expenditure on the NHS is planned to increase in 1989–90 by £1·3 billion compared with the estimated outturn for 1988–89. When the effects of reduced employer's superannuation contributions are taken into account this amounts to a cash increase of nearly £1·6 billion. In addition health authorities' new cost improvement plans are expected to provide a further £25 million. The total increase in resources will thereby amount to some £1·8 billion, equivalent to a cash increase of 9½ per cent."
  Paragraph 12 tells us that further increases are planned in 1990–91 and 1991–92, increasing the NHS total gross expenditure to more than £23 billion—an expected 44 per cent. real terms increase on 1978–79. That is all that I need to quote to demolish what the BMA said about there being no increase in cash.
  What conclusion can one draw from that deceitful advertisement—for that is what it is? We should remember that the Government have no money of their own. Increases in spending can be made only through increases in revenue from taxation, and that can come only through the hard work and enterprise of the British people. So when the BMA says "no new money" it diminishes us all because it is an especially damaging untruth.
  The BMA says that our general practitioners are under pressure and that our young hospital doctors are having to work unreasonably long hours, but that has always been the case. Are there not enough people in the NHS? It is worth reminding ourselves of the progress that has been made. In 1961, 575,000 people were employed in the NHS; in 1988, the figure was 1·22 million. One in 18 families in the land has someone who works for the Health Service. That is a very large figure, and makes the Health Service the largest employer in the western world. We may not have enough general practitioners, but we have 25,000 now compared with 21,000 10 years ago—an increase of nearly 20 per cent. The average list that doctors must manage has decreased from 2,312 to 2,020, which is a 12 per cent. reduction. Last year in our hospitals, 5·3 million patients were treated, which is 1 million more than in 1978. Last year we treated 7·6 million out-patients, as compared with 6·7 million in 1978. On any test, whether immunisation uptake or the continued fall in the
  312
  standardised mortality ratio for a wide variety of potentially avoidable causes of death, there has been an improvement over the position of 10 years ago.
  All the evidence shows a substantial improvement in the services of the NHS. It does not show some of the faults of the system which are inevitable in an organisation as large as the NHS. Although it may be the largest service in the western world, it probably has the longest waiting lists. I speak from the experience of some years as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I cannot recall a year when the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the National Audit Office did not discover an outstanding example of waste. Until recently, the Department had no idea how many people were recruited for the Health Service or what they did until two years after the event. I can remember an occasion after the review and reform of 1973 when 50,000 administrators were taken on in the space of 18 months, but that was not discovered until two years later.
  The National Audit Office's recent reports show that 28 per cent. of operating theatres available during weekdays were unstaffed—23 per cent. because of cancelled sessions. There were wide variations between districts, but when the districts were taken together it was found that only 50 to 60 per cent. of available theatre time was used. Had the theatre time been properly used in the five authorities examined, another 11,000 operations could have taken place. In another report, 20 per cent. of districts confirmed that at least 40 per cent. of the land that they owned could have been disposed of. Another report on the need to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical care showed that there were marked variations between health authorities in the number of deaths due to avoidable factors.
  Such faults are inevitable in any large system. They show the need for greater autonomy within the system and greater responsibility, too. I do not believe that anyone reading and understanding those reports could believe that the Health Service is not ripe for review. I deeply regret the fact that the reviews have not been treated as seriously as they should have been, by the BMA in particular.
  One has only to consider the cost of drugs, which has increased from £805 million in 1978–79 to £2,167 million in 1987–88—about 10 per cent. of the National Health Service budget. Yet the doctors may not even know the cost of the drugs that they prescribe, which is why prescription costs vary by as much as 50 per cent. from one practice to another. How can that be right? Under the Government's proposals, the district health authorities and the larger practices will be able to make contracts with health authorities outside their own areas, which will make the hospitals increasingly customer-orientated, rather than producer-orientated as they are at present.
  It might be better still if GPs could refer their patients wherever they want, but that is less important than the other considerations that I have mentioned.
  It is never right to accept waste, especially in a service as large and important as the National Health Service. Yet waste is endemic in the system. The reason why it makes sense to allow some competition for services and to set benchmarks is not that that will save money—because there will be more money—but because it will ensure that the money is spent to better effect. Advances in medicine and the growing number of elderly people will continue to place increasing demands on the Health Service and we must meet those demands as best we can.

  313
  We in this House have a duty to ensure that public money is properly spent for the benefit of the public. Forty years after the foundation of the Health Service, it is clear that waste and inefficiency have occurred too often and on too great a scale to allow them to continue unchecked. That is why the Government's proposals should be supported, and the BMA's campaign rejected.
  In a day or two, the council of the BMA is to decide whether to accept the proposals for the doctors' contracts. I wish that the decision could have been reached in an atmosphere of calm study of the proposals, rather than being the victim of a thoroughly salacious and disgraceful advertising campaign.
  2.8 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The House owes a great debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) for introducing such an excellent debate. The record will show that, at 2 o'clock in the morning, the House was unusually full for an Adjournment debate, because of the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)—he has now left the Chamber—and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), whom I take for granted! This is a sign of how strongly the House feels about this subject.
  I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. Much misunderstanding has been created about "Working for Patients". I agree that some of it has been deliberately created and that it is unhelpful to a constructive and rational discussion of our proposals.
  It may help my hon. Friends if I dwell on five basic misunderstandings about the White Paper, two of which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. The first is the false claim put about that doctors will have less time to deal with their patients. That cannot be mathematically true in total. There is a fixed number of patients. It seems likely, given the number of doctors in training, that the number of doctors in general practice will increase in the coming years. As my hon. Friend said, there has been a significant increase in the number of doctors. That must mean that, rather than increasing, the average list size may decrease. The implication is that doctors will not have less time on average to deal with patients but will perhaps have a little more. Some doctors will choose to gain more patients and, because of their energy, performance and reputation, will gain more at the margin. That must mean that other doctors in the locality will lose patients. That is right. The contract will soon be discussed by the Conference of Local Medical Committees and it is important that it carefully consider the general principle running through the contract, that we intend to reward hard work and performance in a common aim, which is shared with the Government—better treatment of patients.
  Secondly, it is said by some that patients will be sent around the country in search of operations. A member of the British Medical Association used a colourful phrase—he said that patients would be sent around the country in their pyjamas with cheques pinned to their breast pockets: that would be money following the patient. It is nonsense. It is important to change the funding
  314
  mechanism and the flow of money in the system in such a way that money can follow sensible patient referrals. In other words, the doctor, patient, district health authority and receiving hospital all agree that it is in the best interests of a patient for elective surgery or cold surgery—for example, a hip replacement or operations on varicose veins or a hernia—if that patient is sent a little further than the district general hospital to get the operation done more quickly. We have no intention of sending patients against their will all over the country or excessive distances for urgent operations. This measure in the White Paper is designed to reduce the disparity in waiting times throughout the country and to help patients.
  Thirdly, it has been said that patients will be denied drugs that they need from their general practitioner, not only in month 11 or 12 but in month one. That is untrue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it plain that we have no intention of cash-limiting general practitioners, either individually or collectively. We will introduce what we call indicative drug budgets. They will provide a guideline for general practitioners as to how much they should prescribe. Our proposals for indicative drug budgets are a sensible way, in co-operation with the general practitioner, of exercising better control, because over-prescribing—particularly of tranquillisers—is not in the best interests of patients.
  Fourthly, it is suggested that hospitals will opt out of the Health Service and that the Government are about to dismember the NHS. That too is absolutely untrue. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it plain that we are not about to privatise the Health Service. It will remain free at the point of delivery and financed mainly by taxation. Hospitals will not opt out by choosing self-governing status but will simply have delegated to them greater responsibility for managing their own affairs.
  Earlier today, I attended together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister a successful conference at Church house, Westminster, for those interested in self-government. The large audience was drawn from the 200 hospitals and other units that expressed interest in self-government. The conference was designed to allow my right hon. and learned Friend an opportunity to explain his ideas in more detail.
  Our proposals are not about opting out or about dismantling the Health Service but concern delegating to those who work most closely with patients, responsibility for employment, pay, and the further development of the service. That must be in the patient's interest. As self-governing hospitals will no longer be subject to interference from regional health authorities or from the Government, they will have no one but themselves to blame if a mistake is made. We want them to develop a sense of responsibility and pride in running their own hospitals. We will finance them with a fair share of taxpayers' money, but we want them to bring their services closer to the community in every sense.
  Fifthly, it has been suggested that the Health Service will go in search only of what are called profitable patients, and that unprofitable patients—whatever that might mean—will be denied care by general practitioners or hospitals. That too is nonsense. We are not moving to the American system of cash passing between the patient and the provider of health care. We have set our face against that. As far as the patient is concerned, ours is a cashless system,

  315
  free at the point of delivery and financed from general taxation. Therefore, the concept of a profitable or unprofitable patient is not one that we recognise.
  Let me briefly explain why it is nonsense to claim that "unprofitable patients" will be denied proper care. We are so changing the capitation fees payable to general practitioners for providing services to patients that they will rise with the age of the patient. That will encourage GPs to add to their lists and to care for the elderly. Also, the indicative drug budgets, which will affect the majority of general practitioners—those who do not choose to control their own practice budgets—will be specifically tailored to reflect the age profile of the patient list, the relative health of the patients on that list, and their special drug needs and requirements.
  Therefore, how can it be claimed that doctors will in any way have a disincentive to take on patients and a real incentive to deny care to those with special health needs? Such a claim is nonsense and a calumny against the medical profession whose own ethics, as my hon. Friend clearly stated, compel the doctor to care for any patient, whatever his or her condition.
  As to hospitals, our critics fail to understand or to take on board the exciting concept of dividing responsibility between the purchaser of health care—the district health authority or the general practitioner's practice budget—and the health care provider, which is the hospital. The district health authority, as the guardian of the health requirements of all existing and prospective patients living within its province, will be responsible for the care of every individual. It will be the responsibility of the health authority—properly funded, under our new system of resource allocation—to ensure that hospital care is available locally for the core services that we shall define more carefully and closely in the months to come.
  Let me list the issues on which I hope the medical profession and the Department of Health are agreed. First, I hope that we are all agreed on one aim in the reform of the Health Service—which, after all, has not enjoyed as
  316
  radical a series of necessary reforms as that which we propose in 40 years. We have a common aim: to improve patient information and choice. We shall do that by giving doctors the right to advertise, ensuring that GPs provide existing and prospective patients with more information and enabling patients to change doctors more easily.
  Secondly, we want to improve the quantity and quality of health care. We want to improve the quantity by continuing the rate of growth in real expenditure on the Health Service. My hon. Friend rightly said that the Government had increased expenditure by some 40 per cent., which was reflected in the number of doctors and front-line staff, and the Government will continue to increase the amount of real resources.
  Quality is also vitally important. I hope that the medical profession agrees with us that medical audit—and, indeed, the use of contracts between the purchaser and the provider of health care, stipulating the minimum standards required—will serve the patient's interests.
  Finally, I hope that the medical profession agrees with our desire for a drive for even greater efficiency, at the same time as an increase in resources. We have a relatively efficient health-care system compared with many other western European nations: we devote a slightly smaller proportion of our GDP to our Health Service than some of those countries devote to theirs, but we provide a good service. We can and should do better, however, and one of the key elements of an improved performance is the delegation of responsibility to self-governing hospitals, GP practice budget-holders and the reformed, slimline, business-like district health authorities and family practitioner committees.
  I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that cooler heads and reason will prevail, and that we will all work together —both sides of the House, the medical profession and the Department of Health—to achieve our long-term and most important aim: to put patients first, and to improve the quantity and quality of health care.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail hostels for women will be established in the next three years; and where they will be located.

  Mr. John Patten
  To date we have agreed proposals to provide a total of 32 additional places in approved hostels for women on bail by April 1990. These will be at hostels in Basildon, Birmingham, Brighton, Cardiff and inner London. Plans for the following two years have not yet been agreed.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates at present serving a life sentence in England and Wales are over the age of 60 years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  According to records held centrally on 31 May 1989, 81 males and three females aged over 60 years were serving life sentences in prison service establishments in England and Wales.

  Deportation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of people deported from the United Kingdom during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Renton
  Information on the number of persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process in the years 1984 to 1988 is published in table 24 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1987" (Cm. 415) and in table 14 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 10/89 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Fourth Quarter and Year 1988", copies of both of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of persons(a) detained by the Metropolitan police on suspicion of being an illegal entrant and (b) subsequently not charged for 1988 and in each month in 1989 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Renton
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the numbers of illegal entrants to the United Kingdom detected in each quarter in 1988 and in each month in 1989 to the nearest available date;
  64
  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, of 6 June, Official Report, column 51, if he will list the total number of notices of intention to deport issued between 1986 and 1988 and in each month in 1989 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Renton
  Information for 1986 to 1988 on the number of notices of intention to deport issued and the number of persons against whom action was commenced as illegal entrants are published in tables 13 and 14, respectively, of Home Office statistical bulletin issue 10/89 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Fourth Quarter and Year 1988", a copy of which is in the Library. The next issue of the bulletin giving information for the first quarter of 1989 will be published around the end of the month.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are applied in determining whether a notice of intention to deport should be considered and signed by a member of the immigration and nationality department or by a member of the immigration service.

  Mr. Renton
  The issue of a notice of intention to deport may be authorised by designated members of the immigration service not below the rank of inspector in cases where an officer of the service, in the course of carrying out his duties, discovers a person who is liable to deportation under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 as an overstayer or for working in breach of conditions. The issue of a notice in all other circumstances is authorised by members of the deportation section of the immigration and nationality department.

  Prison Visitors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to increase the allowance that can be paid to members of the prison board of visitors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Allowances for travelling expenses for board members were increased on 1 January 1989, and they will shortly be notified that allowances for loss of earnings have been increased with effect from 15 May 1989. These rates are tied to those paid to justices of the peace.

  Members of boards of visitors who serve on local review committees receive travelling expenses in line with Civil Service mileage allowances, which were increased with effect from 1 July 1987.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received with regard to allowing female overseas students to be joined by their husbands for the duration of their studies in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Two representations have been received recently on this subject: replies have been sent to both.

  Although the rules make no formal provision for husbands to accompany or join their wives who are studying in the United Kingdom, entry clearance may be granted for this purpose where there are compassionate circumstances. We have considered whether the rules ought to go further, but have concluded that they should

  65
  not. One of the basic purposes of immigration control is to restrict the numbers coming to live or take employment in this country. Changing the rules so that they allowed female students to be accompanied by their husbands would represent a considerable relaxation in the control, which could result in substantial additional numbers coming to work in the United Kingdom.

  Representations of wrongful conviction and consequent references to the Court of Appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

  Period

  Number of representations considered

  Number of cases referred to the Court of Appeal

  Appeals allowed by the Court of Appeal

  Appeals dismissed by the Court of Appeal

  1 October 1984 to 30 September 1985

  770

  2

  1

  1

  1 October 1985 to 30 September 1986

  773

  4

  1

  3

  1 October 1986 to 30 September 1987

  784

  6

  3

  3

  1 October 1987 to 31 March 1988

  274

  23

  —

  2

  1 April 19881 to 31 March 1989

  536

  32

  1

  —

  1 The method of collecting statistics was revised in April 1988.

  2 One case awaiting determination at 31 March 1989.

  3 One case awaiting determination at 31 March 1989

  In other cases free pardons were granted and relevant figures are given in a reply today to another question from the hon. Member.

  In the other cases considered it was decided that there were no grounds in the information available for intervention in the conviction.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal convictions, disregarding motoring offences, were quashed by him without reference to the Court of Appeal for each year since 1980.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has no power to quash a conviction. In addition to his powers under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to refer a case to the Court of Appeal, he may, in exceptional circumstances, recommend to Her Majesty the Queen that a free pardon should be granted. This course is normally followed in respect of summary convictions where there is no power to refer the case back to the courts for their consideration.

  The following free pardons have been granted in the years 1980–88 (excluding motoring offences):

  Number

  1980

  15

  1981

  14

  1982

  10

  1983

  11

  1984

  16

  1985

  6

  1986

  7

  1987

  13

  1988

  9

  Mr. Wai Man Chung
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why 19 days after notifying the constituent of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West,

  Criminal Convictions
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of alleged miscarriage of criminal justice were considered by the C3 department of the Home Office for each year from 1980; how many of these were referred to the courts; how many of these were rejected; how many were dealt with in other ways; and how many convictions were quashed.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information in the form requested is available only from 1 October 1984, as follows:

  Mr. Wai Man Chung, that entry clearance to United Kingdom from China had been granted to his wife, Mrs. Shi Jian Chung, his Department had not notified the visa section at the Foreign Office of its decision, so that it could notify the embassy in Peking.

  Mr. Renton
  A letter authorising the issue of a visa to Mrs. Chung was sent to the migration and visa department of the Foreign Office on 26 May—the same day that Mr. Chung was notified of the decision. The migration and visa department has confirmed that instructions to issue Mrs. Chung with a visa were sent to Peking on 16 June.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authority Contracts (Tenders)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that private sector companies tendering for local authority contracts maintain the existing employment conditions of local authority employees.

  Mr. Gummer
  None. Companies which are successful in winning local authority contracts under the compulsory competition regime will no doubt consider whether it is advantageous to employ all or some of the authority's relevant work force, but they are under no obligation to do so.

  New Towns (Developments)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that a copy of the section 7(1) submission submitted to him concerning possible housing development at High Warren, Appleton is made available to the Member for Warrington, South.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have not received a submission under section 7(1) of the New Towns Act 1981 for housing
  67
  development at High Warren, Appleton. I have however asked new town development corporations to ensure that they have satisfactory arrangements in place for informing hon. Members with a constituency interest of section 7(1) applications in which they have expressed an interest.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he intends to make to ensure that hon. Members whose constituencies were affected by new town section 7(1) submissions receive copies of such submissions as a matter of course from new town development corporations.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have asked new towns development corporations to ensure that they have satisfactory arrangements in place for informing hon. Members with a constituency interest of section 7(1) applications under the New Towns Act 1981 in which they have expressed an interest.

  Illuminated Advertisements
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from environmental organisations about his proposed relaxation of controls over illuminated advertisements; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Chope
  Joint representations opposing the introduction of "deemed consent" provisions for illuminated advertisements were made on 29 March by the Association of Conservation Officers, on behalf of 11 local authority, professional and conservation organisations. The Georgian group subsequently supported these representations. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my reply.

  Council Housing (Tenant Initiatives)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements his Department has made to consult local authorities over grant funding of secondary housing co-operatives to promote tenant management co-operatives in council housing under section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986; what consultation there has been over which organisations receive such funding and at what level and what steps his Department has taken to consult local authorities to co-ordinate funding on tenants' intiatives in council housing.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are no existing formal arrangements for consulting local authorities over section 16 grant funding of secondary agencies. Where necessary, the Department will discuss applications with the relevant authority.

  Local authorities were invited to submit evidence on matters, including section 16, to the recent housing co-operatives review. The Government are now considering the review committee's report.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much money the Housing Corporation allocated in 1989–90 for the construction of wheelchair housing(a) in total cash terms, and (b) as a percentage of the total budget each year for the last six years;
  68
  (2) how much money was allocated by the Housing Corporation, to housing associations to adapt properties occupied by disabled tenants for each of the last six financial years, and how many housing associations in each of those years received money for this purpose.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not held by the Department. The distribution of public funds to individual housing associatons and projects is largely a matter for the Housing Corporation to determine within the broad policy framework established annually in discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have therefore asked the Housing Corporation to respond to my hon. Friend direct.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of local authority housing built in 1989–90 and in each of the last six previous financial years is wheelchair housing.

  Mr. Trippier
  New wheelchair dwellings completed by English local authorities as a percentage of their total new housebuilding completions are as follows:

  Percentage

  1983–84

  1·0

  1984–85

  1·4

  1985–86

  1·0

  1986–87

  1·3

  1987–88

  1·3

  1988–89

  1·5

  Information for 1989–90 is not available.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce a scheme to convert council house rents into mortgages along the lines of that announced by the Scottish Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. The Scottish scheme will entail voluntary sales to tenants of Scottish Homes. There is no organisation in England equivalent to Scottish Homes for these purposes.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals were lodged with his Department in 1974, 1979, 1984 and the last full year for which figures are available; and, for each year, how many were allowed.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Appeals Received

  Appeals Allowed

  1974

  13,324

  2,715

  1979

  12,990

  2,602

  1984

  16,192

  3,773

  1988–89

  28,659

  7,734

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is in a position to give further details of the share offer arrangements for employees of the privatised water authorities.
  69
  Mr. Howard
  The Government welcome the opportunity which privatisation of the water authorities provides for employees to become shareholders in the new plcs. I can now announce the following special arrangements for eligible employees of the new water plcs and their wholly owned subsidiaries:

  (i) employees will be offered free shares worth around £70 at the offer price plus about £2 of shares for every year of continuous service with their new company and the predecessor water authority up to a date close to flotation. In addition, people who were employed by the predecessor water authority on 1 April 1974, when the authority took over from bodies previously responsible for water supply and sewerage services, will be treated as having an additional five years' entitlement;

  (ii) employees will also be offered two free shares for each one bought at the full offer price on a matching basis up to a maximum of £400 worth of free shares; under this element of the package, if an employee bought shares worth £200 at the offer price he would receive shares worth in total £600;

  (iii) employees will be able to buy up to a maximum of £2,350 worth of additional shares at a discount of 10 per cent. from the full offer price;

  (iv) employees applying for shares will be treated on a priority basis over the general public, up to an individual limit of shares worth £12,000 at the offer price; this is in addition to the free, matching and discount shares.

  The free and matching shares will be available to employees who satisfy certain minimum qualification periods on length of employment and hours worked per week. The discount and priority shares will be available to all employees at a date close to the flotation date.

  We have also decided that pensioners of a new water plc, its wholly owned subsidiaries or its predecessor water authority should be able to apply on a priority basis, over the general public, for shares up to an individual limit of £12,000 at the offer price.

  Property Services Agency (Vacant Buildings)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those buildings which are rented, leased or owned by the Property Services Agency which have lain vacant for more than the last 12 months.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: Yes. The list is as follows.

  Schedule of buildings rented, leased or owned by the PSA which have been vacant for more than 12 months as at 9 June 1989

  Property

  Local authority area

  UBO Palmers Green, N13

  Enfield

  Dale House, Cardinal Road, Feltham

  Hounslow

  87 Burlington Road, New Malden, Surrey

  Kingston upon Thames

  Alpine Avenue Standard Office Buildings, Tolworth

  Kingston upon Thames

  29 Abbotsbury Road, Morden

  Merton

  17 Victoria Road, Strechford

  Birmingham

  58–72 John Bright Street, Birmingham

  Birmingham

  Britannia House, Station Street, Burton on Trent

  East Staffordshire

  County Court Offices, Bank Place, Nottingham

  Nottingham

  CG Lookout, Spurn Point, Humberside

  Holderness

  Storage Depot, Tyne Mills, Hexham

  Tynedale

  22 and 29 The Springs, Wakefield

  Wakefield

  Longworth Road, Horwich

  Bolton

  Storage Depot, Hob Lane, Dunham Hill

  Chester

  Storage Depot, Meadowview, Mickle Trafford

  Chester

  Magowan House, 11A West Street, Portadown

  County Armagh

  116A Bradshawgate, Leigh

  Wigan

  224–226 Queens Road, Aberdeen

  City of Aberdeen

  70

  Property

  Local authority area

  Sheriff Court House, Castle Street, Aberdeen

  City of Aberdeen

  276 Old Rutherglen Road, Glasgow

  City of Glasgow

  65–87 Cowlairs Road, Glasgow

  City of Glasgow

  Norfolk House, 15 Princes Square, East Kilbride

  East Kilbride

  C and E Offices, Grange Dock North, Grangemouth

  Falkirk

  163–165 Bank Street, Coatbridge

  Monklands

  146–156 Main Street, Coatbridge

  Monklands

  Virginia Buildings, High Street, Buckie

  Moray

  Land at Yardie, Buckie

  Moray

  Windsor Street, Shotts

  Motherwell

  69–73 Crossgate, Cupar

  North East Fife

  Gremista, Lerwick

  Shetland Islands

  Storage Depot, 270 Kirkintilloch Road, Bishopbriggs

  Strathkelvin

  CG Lookout, Helmsdale

  Sutherland

  Hut Number 3, Chaucer Barracks, Canterbury

  Canterbury

  41 Medina Villas, Hove

  Hove

  Park House, Barrier Road, Chatham

  Medway

  CG Hut, Rye Harbour, Rye

  Rother

  Drakewalls, Gunnislake

  Caradon

  CG Building, South Esplanade, Burnham-on-Sea

  Sedgemoor

  Shire Hall, Shuttern, Taunton

  Taunton Deane

  Telford House, Park Gardens, Yeovil

  Yeovil

  Cold Store Depot, New Pond Road, Guildford

  Guildford

  Part Building No. 71, Bletchley Park, Bletchley

  Milton Keynes

  Stores, Shirburn Road, Watlington

  South Oxfordshire

  35, 36, 38 and 39 Castle Street, Swansea

  Swansea

  These 44 buildings represent less than 1 per cent. of the total stock held by PSA. Thirty-four of the properties have been declared surplus and are in the process of disposal and the remainder are undergoing, or being considered, for refurbishment or redevelopment to allow reoccupation by a Government Department.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of his Department's leaflet "The Community Charge (The So-called 'Poll Tax'): How It Will Work For You" have been mailed to addresses in Scotland; what was the cost of distributing this material outside England; and if he will now write to those households in Scotland which received the leaflet to explain the error.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) yesterday. I naturally regret the fact that a comparatively few leaflets were wrongly delivered to Scottish households, but I do not think it necessary to write to each household concerned. The mailing house concerned has apologised for the mistake.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications have been made to date in respect of land on which set-aside payments are being made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and, of these applications, how many have been successful.
  71
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: Only a small proportion of set-aside proposals will need planning permission. The Department does not collect information from local planning authorities in the form requested, and I understand it is not included in the records of applications for set-aside payments kept by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Water Quality
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the letter written by officials in his Department and sent to water authorities on 14 February giving advice on how to deal with the EC directive on water quality.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: No. The letter referred to was a working document on the assumptions to be made in compiling expenditure projections for the purpose of k setting (k is the initial limit on price increases to be contained in companies instruments of appointment under the Water Bill). The letter made it clear that these assumptions would be subject to review until the end of the k setting process. We will state the assumptions underlying ks once they are determined.

  We have made it clear to water authorities and companies that expenditure arising from any obligations left out of initial k, for example because the costs are too uncertain for inclusion, and expenditure arising from new obligations imposed after ks are set, will be eligible for consideration in reviews of charges by the Director General of Water Services.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his current estimate is for complying with EC directive 80/778/EEC in each of the water authority areas.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: The Government are fully committed to compliance with the EC drinking water directive as quickly as possible, taking account of practicalities. Water undertakers in England and Wales have drawn up improvement programmes for supplies which regularly or intermittently fail to comply with the directive in certain respects. Only when these programmes have been thoroughly assessed will it be possible to estimate the time scale for compliance with the directive.

  Environmental Assessments
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, further to his replies of 4 May,Official Report, columns 247–50, with regard to environmental assessment, he will (a) list those matters taken into account when determining whether environmental assessment is required, (b) give details of the methodology used, (c) specify what criteria and thresholds are used, (d) indicate why some extensions of mineral workings required environmental assessments and others did not, (e) indicate why environment assessment was required in the case of one shopping complex and not in the case of other shopping complexes and retail parks, (f) give details of what information was given to the relevant local authorities following these directions and (g) indicate what information has been given to other local authorities
  72
  subsequent to these directions in order to help them apply the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 consistently.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, environmental assessment is required of all projects of the types listed in schedule 1 to the regulations and of any project of a type listed in schedule 2 which is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location. Guidance on which projects are likely to have significant environmental effects so as to require environmental assessment is given in DOE circular 15/88, which also sets out indicative thresholds and criteria to which the Secretary of State has regard when considering whether to direct that assessment is required. Decisions on the need for environmental assessment turn on the facts of individual cases, and locational considerations may lead to different conclusions in respect of similar types of development. The regulations require the Secretary of State to give reasons when he directs that environmental assessment is required. Copies of decision letters are sent to the applicant and to the local planning authority, which is required to make a copy available for public inspection in the place where the planning register is kept. We are considering how best this information can be made more widely available to assist both developers and local planning authorities in the application of these regulations.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish Enterprise proposals.

  Mr. Lang
  We are currently reassessing the proposals in the Scottish Enterprise White Paper in the light of all the responses received and will announce our detailed decisions in due course.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his Department's estimates for the numbers of people aged 65 to 74 years, 75 to 79 years and over 80 years in the years 2000 and 2020 in Scotland; and what percentage increase this represents in each category over the actual figures for the last year in which they are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table.

  Year 2000

  Year 2020

  Age group

  Projected population

  Percentage change from 1988 mid-year estimate

  Projected population

  Percentage change from 1988 mid-year estimate

  65–74

  427,703

  -1·6

  500,785

  15·2

  75–79

  160,311

  1·4

  161,124

  1·9

  80 and over

  188,592

  16·4

  213,814

  32·0

  Surgeries (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional funds he is making available to health boards to enable practice surgeries in rural areas to meet the requirements of the new contract.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 June 1989]: Funding for general medical services following the introduction of the new contract for GPs will be determined in the course of the Government's public expenditure survey 1989. The funds will take full account of the new contract, including those aspects which relate to rural practices.

  At present public expenditure on family practitioner services generally is planned to increase from £496 million in 1988–89 to £610 million in 1991–92, an increase of 23 per cent.

DEFENCE

  Fylingdales (Equipment)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the primary purpose of the new radar equipment at Fylingdales.

  Mr. Neubert
  The modernised radar system at RAF Fylingdales will perform the same functions as the present system, which is to provide early warning of strategic ballistic missile attack.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the cost of installing the new early warning radar equipment at Fylingdales comes from United Kingdom sources.

  Mr. Neubert
  The modernised radar system itself will be constructed by an American company, at United States Government expense. British companies will carry out all the work to be undertaken in the United Kingdom on the infrastructure for the facility, at British Government expense. This infrastructure work, for which contracts are shortly to be awarded, will amount to some 27 per cent. of the total.

  Military Communications
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programmes are under way to develop protection for United Kingdom military communications satellites from anti-satellite systems.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The potential threat to United Kingdom military communications satellites from such systems is kept under constant review.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programmes are under way to develop the use of satellite-laser systems for communications with submarines(a) in co-operation with the United States of America and (b) by the United Kingdom alone.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our practice to comment on operational matters of this kind.

  Anti-Satellite Weapons
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is currently under way concerning the development of an anti-satellite weapon programme.
  74
  Mr. Sainsbury
  No such research is carried out by the United Kingdom.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about low flying were received by his Department in 1988 from addresses in the Cunninghame, North constituency.

  Mr. Neubert
  In 1988 the Ministry of Defence received a total of four complaints or inquiries about military low flying from addresses in the Cunninghame, North constituency.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he has any information on military helicopters authorised to operate at low level in Scotland on 5 May 1988, additional to that given in his reply to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North on 27 May 1988,Official Report, column 391;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North of 22 December 1988, Official Report, column 368, whether the times of movements given for Army Air Corps Gazelle helicopter serial number XZ328 near Dalmally and at HMS Gannet on 5 May 1988 were expressed in Greenwich mean time or British summer time;

  (3) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North of 22 December 1988, Official Report, column 368, what was the point of origin of the flight to HMS Gannet by Army Air Corps Gazelle helicopter, serial number XZ328, on 5 May 1988; what route was flown by this aircraft through Argyll; and what was the purpose of the flight.

  Mr. Neubert
  Timings given for the movements of the Army Air Corps helicopter were expressed in British summer time. This helicopter, which began its sortie from RAF Leuchars, was carrying out a navigation exercise. I have nothing further to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 22 December 1988, at column 368, or to my letter of 24 February 1989 to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North of 22 December 1988,Official Report, column 368, if he will state the reasons for not listing medical establishments over which military low flying is prohibited.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have nothing further to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 22 December, at column 368.

  ELF Transmitter
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the notice of proposed development relating to the proposed trial ELF transmitter at Glengarry forest to be submitted to the Highland regional council.

  Mr. Neubert
  Preparation of the notice of proposed development continues, but completion will take some time and it is not possible to say precisely when it will be submitted.

  Commissions (Sale)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any proposals for reviving the sale of commissions as part of the Government's programme of privatisation.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Historic Aircraft Collection (RAF St. Athan)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates of movement and final destinations of any aircraft from the collection of historic aircraft at RAF St. Athan which have been(a) sold, (b) scrapped and (c) moved to other locations since 1987; and what were the reasons for any such moves.

  Mr. Neubert
  A review of the RAF's policy on historic and non-flying display aircraft resulted in a decision in early 1988 to disband the RAF St. Athan regional collection of historic aircraft. Transfers effected to date are as follows.

  The remaining aircraft will be disposed of progressively over the next few months. It is not intended to scrap any, but those not required elsewhere within the service will be sold.

  Disbandment of the RAF St. Athan regional collection of historic aircraft

  Transfers effected up to 21 June 1989

  Year and aircraft

  1988

  Messerschmitt Me 163B

  Gifted to the German Air Force

  Auster T7

  Transferred to the regional collection at RAF Cosford, for display

  1989

  Kawasaki

  Transferred to the regional collection at RAF Cosford, for display

  Messerschmitt Me 262A

  Transferred to the regional collection at RAF Cosford, for display

  Mitsubishi

  Transferred to the regional collection at RAF Cosford, for display

  Fiesler Storch

  Transferred to the regional collection at RAF Cosford, for display

  Percival Proctor

  Transferred to the RAF museum at Hendon for display

  Swift

  Transferred to the RAF museum at Hendon for display

  Meteor F8

  Transferred to RAF Finningley as a gate guardian

  Spitfire Mk9E

  Transferred to RAF Abingdon as a reserve for the battle of Britain memorial flight

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is intended to maintain a collection of historic aircraft at RAF St. Athan.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessments were made of(a) current and (b)
  76
  projected peacetime loss rates of the Tornado F2 and F3 in RAF service prior to the decision to order an additional attrition replacement batch in 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No Tornado F2s or F3s have been lost to date. The predicted peacetime attrition rate is classified.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given to the placing of further attrition replacement orders for(a) air defence Tornados and (b) strike/attack/reconnaissance Tornados.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The need for additional attrition aircraft is kept under review.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what projected peacetime attrition rate was assumed for the Tornado air defence variant in calculating the size of the original order for 165 aircraft for the Royal Air Force;

  (2) what proportion of the original order of 165 Tornado air defence variants for the Royal Air Force was made up of attrition replacement aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is classified.

  Service Cars (Argyll)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the presence of(a) Army and (b) Royal Navy Ford Escort estate staff cars in Argyll on 5 May 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is not readily available and could not be provided without disproportionate effort and cost.

  Aircraft Losses
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the total number of Buccaneer aircraft procured for the Royal Air Force have been lost in accidents so far.

  Mr. Neubert
  Of the total number of Buccaneer aircraft taken into RAF service, 19·17 per cent. have been lost in accidents.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the total number of Hunter aircraft procured for the Royal Air Force have been lost in accidents over the aircraft's service life so far.

  Mr. Neubert
  Of the total number of Hunter aircraft taken into RAF service, 32·36 per cent. have been lost in accidents.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the total number of Jaguar aircraft procured for the Royal Air Force have been lost in accidents so far.

  Mr. Neubert
  Of the total number of Jaguar aircraft taken into RAF service, 23·76 per cent. have been lost in accidents.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the total number of Lightning aircraft procured for the Royal Air Force were lost in accidents over the aircraft's service life.
  77
  Mr. Neubert
  Of the total number of Lightning aircraft taken into RAF service, 45·58 per cent. have been lost in accidents.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the total number of Phantom aircraft procured for the Royal Air Force have been lost in accidents so far.

  Mr. Neubert
  Of the total number of Phantom aircraft taken into RAF service, 22·54 per cent. have been lost in accidents.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the written guidance issued to armed service units in respect of poll tax payment.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have placed copies in the Library of the House.

  Howitzers
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is now able to make a statement on the procurement of 155 mm self-propelled howitzers for the Army.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In my reply on 8 June 1988, at column 586, to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), I announced the award of a contract to Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited (VSEL), worth some £4 million, for further work on its AS90 self-propelled howitzer. This was to enable it to demonstrate more fully the performance of its design against the British Army's specification and to secure option prices for any subsequent production orders. In the interim period we have also closely followed the development in the United States of the M 109 howitzer improvement programme.

  Following a very careful and detailed evaluation of the two systems, and subject to the agreement of satisfactory terms, I have decided to place a contract with VSEL for the completion of development and a production order for 179 AS90 self-propelled howitzers. This contract, with initial spares and support, is worth some £300 million. I have also arranged an option for a further quantity of howitzers which may be exercised during the next two years.

  The new weapon will replace our 105 mm Abbot guns and will significantly enhance artillery firepower. Its introduction will mark a further step in our planned programme to ensure that the armed services are equipped with up-to-date and highly capable equipment.

  Rosyth Dockyard
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is in a position to use a golden share over any takeover of Rosyth dockyard and under what condition.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: No takeover of Rosyth dockyard is proposed. The special share held by Secretary of State is in the Rosyth Royal Dockyard plc and not the Dockyard Management Company, in which Thorn EMI currently holds a 35 per cent. shareholding. Any change in the share ownership of the management company must receive the prior written approval of the Secretary of State.

Prime Minister

  Tropical Rain Forests
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what action she is taking to provide United Kingdom research into the alternatives to products of tropical rain forests.

  The Prime Minister
  The Forestry Commission has an active programme of research into the cultivation of native trees which are capable of producing wood that can be used in place of tropical timber.

  World Environment
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the world environment.

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly receive representations about the many major environmental initiatives which this Government have taken at both the national and international level. Most recently, many nations have supported our call in the United Nations for an international framework convention on global climate change.

  China
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding recent events in China.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding recent events in China.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding recent events in China.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes, I have received many representations expressing shock and outrage at recent events in China. These are of course sentiments that I and the Government share.

  EC (Voting Procedures)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the issue of the procedures adopted in determining which directives are subject to majority vote or unanimity; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies to him of 6 and 15 June.

  Developing Countries (Debt)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy for solving the crisis of debt repayment for developing countries.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government support the internationally agreed strategy which was reaffirmed and extended at the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on 3 and 4 April.

  Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Bradford.

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

  Shipyards (EC Funding)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to seek a revision to the list of United Kingdom shipyards with access to the European Community shipbuilding intervention fund; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  As the hon. Member will be aware, the intervention fund is not an EC fund but a subsidy arrangement operated by Her Majesty's Government within the term of the EC sixth directive on aids to shipbuilding. We have no plans to revise current arrangements governing access to intervention fund by individual yards.

  Electoral Registration Advertising
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East on 12 June,Official Report, column 265, if she will give the amounts spent on electoral registration advertising for each of the past seven years at current prices.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on electoral registration advertising over the last seven years, revalued at 1989 prices, has been as follows:

  £

  1982–83

  123,762

  1983–84

  153,631

  1984–85

  163,240

  1985–86

  184,243

  1986–87

  356,494

  1987–88

  294,190

  1988–89

  322,833

  Engagements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Government Information Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response her press secretary made to the Institute of Professional Civil Servants when it asked him to support a proposed code of ethics for the Government information service.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my usual practice to publish exchanges of this kind.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list those gifts received in her official capacity over the last 80
  year while on foreign visits and during visits of foreign dignitaries to Britain which have required an import licence under the CITES.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: In the last year I have received three items of silver and ivory jewellery from my visit to Zimbabwe. These items have all been deposited with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. In view of the ban on ivory imports announced by the Government on Friday 9 June, I have decided that these items should be retained by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. Information on gifts given by foreign dignitaries during visits to Britain is a matter for them, but I am not aware of any such gifts which I have received in an official capacity which have required an import licence under the CITES.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Water Power Rights
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report those water power rights which have been acquired by the Government as a consequence of the activities of the drainage division of the Department of Agriculture, indicating how many have been wholly and how many partially acquired.

  Mr. Viggers
  In the course of drainage division activities the Government wholly acquired water rights on two occasions, once in the upper main drainage scheme and once in Broughshane flood protection scheme. In both cases the right was expunged by removal of a weir and infill of a millrace.

  Turbines (Rivers)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what requirement he has to determine the mean, low water and maximum flow of a river at the sites of water mills, and the capacity of any water turbine, pelton wheel, or waterwheel being installed.

  Mr. Viggers
  There is no statutory requirement to determine the mean, low water and maximum flow of any watercourse.

  It may be necessary when consenting to a new installation to establish the capacity of any water turbine, pelton wheel or waterwheel being installed to ensure that it does not adversely affect the flow of water in a watercourse. It is usually the case that an existing weir or dam is used as a source of power, leaving the regime of the watercourse unchanged.

  Employment
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department is taking to increase employment opportunities in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Department of Economic Development, and its two industrial development agencies, the Industrial Development Board and Local Enterprise Development Unit undertake a wide range of programmes to assist the private sector to create new employment in Northern Ireland. In the year to 31 March 1989 the two agencies made financial offers to companies
  81
  which could lead to the creation of 10,234 jobs. A wide range of advisory, training and other services is also available to assist firms to develop and to become more competitive. In addition it is planned to provide in the present financial year 12,400 work experience and training places to assist the long-term unemployed to re-enter the labour market and to provide 13,800 places for youth training.

  Tourism
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the number of new jobs created in the tourist industry in Northern Ireland in the last five years.

  Mr. Viggers
  Information on tourism-related employment as a whole is estimated only at national level. The available information for regions relates specifically to employees in employment in the hotels and catering industry. Employment in this sector in Northern Ireland increased by 1,810 (or 12 per cent.) over the last five years, to March 1989.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing (a) how many void dwellings there are in the area covered by each district office of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive as at the latest available date, (b) how many dwellings in each such area have been void for more than three months and (c) the reasons for such voids or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am advised by the chairman of the Housing Executive that at 1 May 1989 the number of void dwellings, that is dwellings on which the executive is not seeking to collect rent, in each district office and the number void for more than 13 weeks in each such area is as follows:

  District

  Total number voids

  Total number voids vacant more than 13 weeks

  Belfast 1

  110

  101

  Belfast 2

  396

  333

  Belfast 3

  299

  245

  Belfast 4

  525

  468

  Belfast 5

  726

  639

  Belfast 6

  264

  218

  Belfast 7

  250

  224

  Belfast Total

  2,2570

  2,228

  Bangor

  52

  30

  Newtownards 1

  76

  54

  Newtownards 2

  24

  10

  Castlereagh 1

  58

  25

  Castlereagh 2

  12

  5

  Lisburn 1

  94

  47

  Lisburn 2

  30

  21

  Lisburn 3

  8

  4

  Downpatrick

  178

  116

  South East Total

  532

  312

  Banbridge

  69

  50

  Newry 1

  136

  83

  Newry 2

  49

  24

  Kilkeel

  14

  11

  Armagh

  87

  65

  82

  District

  Total number voids

  Total number voids vacant more than 13 weeks

  Brownlow

  346

  285

  Lurgan

  75

  32

  Portadown

  89

  70

  South Total

  865

  620

  Ballymena

  148

  93

  Antrim

  553

  473

  Newtownabbey 1

  262

  172

  Newtownabbey 2

  89

  66

  Carrick

  82

  34

  Larne

  156

  111

  Ballycastle

  5

  1

  Ballymoney

  31

  22

  North East Total

  1,326

  972

  Derry 1

  232

  205

  Derry 2

  167

  146

  Derry 3

  22

  12

  Limavady

  33

  14

  Coleraine

  244

  201

  Magherafelt

  14

  5

  Strabane

  38

  31

  North West Total

  750

  614

  Omagh

  39

  21

  Cookstown

  28

  13

  Dungannon

  106

  62

  Fermanagh

  89

  41

  West Total

  262

  137

  Northern Ireland Total

  6,305

  4,883

  Of the total of 6,305 void properties (3·6 per cent. of total stock):
  837 are temporarily vacant awaiting allocation or have no tenant available;
  1,207 are bricked up due to/or to avoid vandalism;
  452 are awaiting improvements which will be completed within 12 months;
  520 are bricked up and are awaiting improvements which will not be carried out within 12 months;
  487 are bricked up for sale/or homesteading;
  1,776 are awaiting demolition in redevelopment areas; and
  1,026 are void for a variety of reasons such as decanting or security reasons.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Namibia
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent representations he has received from the leader of the Kwanyamas tribe on behalf of eight other Namibian tribes about the role of the Namibian Council of Churches as the sole and authentic agent of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the administration of the returning South West Africa People's Organisation refugees to Namibia; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent representations he has received from the leader of the Kwanyamas tribe on behalf of eight other Namibian tribes about the intimidatory actions of the NANSO student organisation; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what recent representations he has received from the leader of the Kwanyamas tribe on behalf of eight other Namibian tribes about the protection of citizens in the northern and eastern territories of Namibia from the

  83
  People's Liberation Army of Namibia following the demobilisation of the South West Africa Territory Force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Mr. Gabriel Kautuima, senior headman of the Kwanyama tribe, met an official of the FCO on 16 June and handed over a copy of a petition submitted to the United Nations special representative for Namibia and the Administrator General of Namibia on the matters referred to in my hon. Friend's questions. Mr. Kautuima was assured of our continued commitment to the United Nations plan for Namibian independence and our support for the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General and his staff to ensure that the best possible conditions prevail for the holding of free and fair elections in Namibia.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Russian Language
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals his Department has(a) to promote school exchanges with the Soviet Union and (b) to promote the learning of the Russian language in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend visited the Soviet Union last October and concluded an agreement with the Soviet chairman of the State Committee for Public Education which envisaged a programme of up to 50 school exchanges on each side by the end of the 1991–92 academic year. In this, the first year of the programme, 10 school exchanges on each side have been arranged and are under way. In the next academic year, 1989–90, it is proposed that 20 school exchanges can be arranged, rising to 35 exchanges in academic year 1990–91 and 50 exchanges in academic year 1991–92. At that stage up to 2,000 pupils from each country will be involved.

  The aim of the programme is to use the medium of school-to-school twinning to promote a greater degree of mutual understanding among young people of both countries through a wide programme of exchange of schoolchildren and teachers, letters, photographs, tapes and project work, for example in mathematics, science and computing. Language-based exchanges will be a significant component, but the intention is to include also the study of subjects in which the practical elements can be shared.

  The national curriculum will include a modern foreign language as a foundation subject at secondary level to be studied by all pupils between the ages of 11 and 16. Russian is among those modern foreign languages specified in the Education (National Curriculum) (Modern Foreign Languages) Order 1989 as eligible to be taught as a national curriculum foundation subject. Within this framework, my right hon. Friend is encouraging schools to offer a greater diversity of languages, including Russian, and we are providing education support grants for pilot projects in some local education authorities in England to promote the preparation and implementation of plans for language diversification.

  Teachers
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing teacher 84
  vacancies by region in January 1989, distinguishing between vacancies in (a) nursery and primary schools and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  Full information on the number of teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England in January 1989 is not yet available. Figures for those regions where the data are complete are as follows:

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  North

  92

  62

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  200

  155

  North West

  307

  219

  East Midlands

  145

  145

  West Midlands

  222

  262

  East Anglia

  47

  59

  Greater London

  n/y/a

  n/y/a

  Other South East

  617

  542

  South West

  181

  161

  n/y/a=Not yet available.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many teachers have resigned during the academic year 1988–89;

  (2) what steps he takes to monitor the number of resignations of teachers.

  Mr. Butcher
  Information on the number of teachers resigning during the academic year 1988–89 is not yet available.

  Detailed annual returns of teachers in service are made by local education authorities at 31 March, together with information on those entering and leaving service during the previous year. The returns from some authorities are subject to considerable delay, and the most recent period for which complete data are available is the year ending March 1987. The number of teachers leaving full-time service in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in England in that year was 28,960, of which 2,840 were aged 60 or over.

  Following a recent report by the management consultants Logica, a number of proposals are being pursued to improve the flow of teacher information to the Department. These include measures to improve the timeliness of the annual returns and the completeness of termly appointment and withdrawal notifications.

  Training Grants Scheme
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to introduce legislation to amend the Education Acts to bring all unpaid workers in voluntary organisations within the scope of the training grants scheme.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  All aspects of the scheme are under regular review.

  Design and Technology
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects his proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study in design and technology 5 to 16 to be published for consultation.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have now formulated our
  85
  proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study for design and technology for pupils aged five to 16 in the light of the report from the national curriculum design and technology working group. We are very grateful to the working group for its prompt and helpful report.

  I have today referred our proposals to the National Curriculum Council to start the consultations in England required by the Education Reform Act. My right hon. Friend will be initiating consultations as required by the Act in Wales. I have asked the council to report to me on the outcome of the consultations, with advice and recommendations, by 3 November 1989. I have placed a copy of our proposals and of the working group's report, with my letter to the council, in the Library.

WALES

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many planning appeals were lodged with his office in 1974, 1979, 1984 and the latest full year for which figures are available; and, for each year, how many were allowed.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Section 36 planning appeals

  Year

  Lodged

  Allowed

  1974

  676

  127

  1979

  844

  164

  1984

  806

  229

  1988

  1,133

  325

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions during the past five years he has called in planning decisions for a final decision.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend and his predecessor have, since June 1984, called in for their own determination 17 applications for planning permission.

  Preventive Medicine
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has taken to promote the cause of preventive medicine in Wales, in particular in relation to the high incidence of heart disease in the Principality.

  Mr. Grist
  The promotion of good health and the prevention of ill health has been one of the Government's major priorities for the health services in Wales for some years. Within the drive for better health we established the Welsh Health Promotion Authority in 1987 to have specific responsibility for the subject, including the operation of the Welsh heart programme—"Heartbeat Wales". This was to augment the work already being carried out by district health authorities and primary care services. Their priorities in relation to health promotion, which include action to combat heart disease, were set out in the corporate management programme for the Health Service in Wales, issued by the Department last year.

  Compact Schemes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the companies taking part in compact schemes with schools in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Many schools in Wales have links with business and industry, some of which may be along the lines of a compact, but information is not held centrally on which companies are involved.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number and location of community hospitals which have been built or adapted in Clwyd and Gwynedd since 1974.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows:

  Clwyd

  Chirk Community Hospital

  Colwyn Bay Hospital

  Denbigh Community Hospital

  Mold Community Hospital

  Prestatyn Community Hospital

  Royal Alexandra Hospital, Rhyl

  Ruthin Community Hospital

  Gwynedd

  Bryn beryl Hospital, Pwllheli

  Dolgellau Hospital

  Tywyn Hospital

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of those companies in Gwynedd which have been invited to participate in training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Copies of the TEC prospectus have been sent to all employers with a work force of 20 or more. I understand that a number of different interest groups have started discussions about TECs in Gwynedd but no bid has yet been received.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the names of people from Gwynedd whom he has appointed to public and statutory bodies since June 1987.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  We do not collect information on where public appointees come from, but as an example the hon. Gentleman may know that the current chairman of the Welsh Development Agency came from Gwynedd.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his Department's estimates for the numbers of people aged 65 to 74 years, 75 to 79 years and over 80 years in the years 2000 and 2020 in Wales; and what percentage increase this represents in each category over the actual figures for the last year in which they are available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Current estimates and the most recent projected figures for the age groups requested are shown in the following table:
  87

  Elderly Population of Wales

  Thousand

  Projected Population2

  Year 2020

  Year 2020

  Ages

  1988 mid-year estimate1

  Number

  Percentage change1988–2000

  Number

  Percentage change 1988–2020

  65–74

  271·7

  260

  -4·3

  317

  +16·8

  75–79

  96·6

  108

  +11·9

  +11·1

  +14·6

  80 and over

  102·3

  127

  +24·4

  144

  +41·0

  1 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  2 Government Actuary's Department 1987 based population projection.

  Supermarket, Holyhead
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to be able to publish the results of the application for assistance under the urban development programme in respect of a supermarket development at Holyhead.

  Mr. Grist
  Applications for urban investment grant are treated in confidence. An application for urban investment grant support towards development at Holyhead has not been made to the Department. Decisions on full appraisal of UIG grant applications are made within 10 weeks of all the appropriate information being received by the Welsh Office.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now provide the information required by the European Commission for the multi-annual guidance programme, in order to unlock the grants approved for construction of new beam trawlers and other fishing vessels.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Commission will continue to suspend construction aid for United Kingdom fishing vessels until we can demonstrate sufficient progress towards meeting our programme targets. We are currently considering with the industry various options for reducing fleet capacity.

  Food Irradiation
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what research has been undertaken into the effect of food irradiation on the nutritional content of food; and with what results.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the report on the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated foods by the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1986, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Chapter 7 and appendix E refer.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Book Publishing
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimates he has of the proportion of the United Kingdom-based book publishing industry which is American owned.
  88
  Mr. Atkins
  There are a number of measures of publishers' output, none of which is readily available by the nationality of the publisher. The information necessary to make an estimate could be assembled only at disproportionate cost and would be subject to qualifications.

  Merger Policy
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in the Council of Ministers in relation to the proposed directive on merger policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The proposed EC merger control regulation was most recently discussed in the Council of Ministers on 3 May and there was a brief follow-up discussion at the June Council. It was concluded that further consideration was needed, particularly of thresholds, criteria and the relationship of a regulation to articles 85 and 86 (EEC).

  Frag-12
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether an application has been made for a manufacturing patent for a weapon described as Frag-12.

  Mr. Forth
  An application for a patent for Frag-12 has been made, but the application has not yet been published.

  EC Technical Committees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the technical committees of the European standardisation committee, indicating in each case the country of the European Economic Community that provides the secretariat, and also the number of technical committee secretariats held by each country of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest information available is as follows:

  List of CEN technical committees as at 2 May 1989

  Number

  Total number of CEN technical committees (TCs)

  138

  Secretariats:

  West Germany (DIN)

  51

  United Kingdom (BSI)

  29

  France (AFNOR)

  24

  Italy (UNI)

  8

  Denmark (DS)

  7

  Belgium (IBN)

  7

  Netherlands (NNI)

  4

  89

  Number

  Sweden (SIS)

  3

  Austria (ON)

  1

  Portugal (IPQ)

  1

  Norway (NSF)

  1

  Ireland (NSAI)

  1

  To be allocated (TBA)

  1

  CEN/TC

  Title

  Secretariat

  ADHOC-WG

  Acoustics

  DS

  TC10

  Passenger, goods and service lifts

  AFNOR

  TC121

  Hoses and hose couplings for petroleum products, equipment for petroleum industry

  AFNOR

  TC15

  Inland navigation equipment

  DIN

  TC19

  Test methods and specifications for petroleum products

  NNI

  TC33

  Doors, Windows, shutters and building hardware

  AFNOR

  TC38

  Durability of wood and related materials

  AFNOR

  TC43

  Office furniture

  AFNOR

  TC44

  Household refrigerating appliances

  UNI

  TC461

  oil Stoves

  DIN

  TC47

  Atomizing oil burners and their components—function—safety—testing

  DIN

  TC48

  Domestic gas-fired water heaters etc.

  AFNOR

  TC49

  Gas cooking appliances

  AFNOR

  TC50

  Lighting columns and spigots

  BSI

  TC51

  Cement and building limes

  IBN

  TC52

  Safety of toys

  DS

  TC53

  Scaffolds, falsework and mobile access towers

  DIN

  TC54

  Simple unfired pressure vessels

  BSI

  TC55

  Dental products

  DIN

  TC57

  Central heating boilers

  DIN

  TC58

  Safety and control devices for gas burners etc.

  BSI

  TC62

  Independent gas fired space heaters

  BSI

  TC631

  Packages for washing and cleaning powders

  DIN

  TC65

  Portable grinding machines—mechanical safety

  DIN

  TC661

  Tests on glass fibre reinforced plastics

  IPQ

  TC67

  Ceramic tiles

  UNI

  TC68

  Building hoists for passenger and/or materials

  AFNOR

  TC70

  Portable fire extinguishers

  IBN

  TC72

  Automatic fire detection systems

  BSI

  TC741

  Flanges

  DIN

  TC781

  Capacities of glass jars for preserved fruit, vegetables and similar products

  DIN

  TC79

  Respiratory protective devices and diving apparatus

  DIN

  TC811

  Capacities of metal cans for fruit, vegetables and similar products

  DIN

  TC85

  Eye protective equipment

  AFNOR

  TC871

  Gas fuelled smokers' lighters

  AFNOR

  TC88

  Thermal insulating materials and products

  DIN

  TC89

  Thermal performance of buildings and building components

  SIS

  TC92

  Cold water meters

  AFNOR

  TC93

  Ladders

  DIN

  TC94

  Ready-mixed concrete production and delivery

  DIN

  TC95

  Technical safety requirements for the construction of injection moulding machines for plastics and rubber

  DIN

  TC98

  Mobile elevating work platforms

  DIN

  TC99

  Wallcoverings

  BSI

  TC100

  Tactile danger warnings on packaging

  DS

  90

  CEN/TC

  Title

  Secretariat

  TC101

  Steel drums

  DIN

  TC102

  Sterilizers for medical purposes

  DIN

  TC103

  Adhesives for wood and derived timber products

  BSI

  TC104

  Concrete (performance production, placing and compliance criteria)

  DIN

  TC105

  Valves and fittings to equip radiators

  DS

  TC106

  Large kitchen appliances using gaseous fuels

  AFNOR

  TC107

  Pre-fabricated district heating pipe systems

  DS

  TC108

  Homogeneous elastomers for static seals

  NNI

  TC109

  Gas-fired central heating boilers

  IBN

  TC110

  Heat exchangers

  SIS

  TC111

  Propellants for commercial ammunition

  IBH

  TC112

  Wood based panels

  DIN

  TC113

  Heat pumps and room air conditioning units

  DIN

  TC114

  Safety of machines

  DIN

  TC115

  European first aid box

  DIN

  TC116

  Bitumen sheeting

  DIN

  TC117

  Plastic and rubber sheeting for roofing and sealing

  IBN

  TC118

  Technical safety requirements for compression moulding machines for plastics and rubber

  BSI

  TC119

  Swap bodies for combined goods transport road/rail

  DIN

  TC120

  Sacks for food transport

  AFNOR

  TC121

  Welding

  DS

  TC122

  Ergonomics

  DIN

  TC123

  Lasers and laser related equipment

  DIN

  TC124

  Timber structures

  DS

  TC125

  Masonry

  BSI

  TC126

  Acoustics properties of building products and of buildings

  AFNOR

  TC127

  Fire safety in buildings

  BSI

  TC128

  Roof covering products for discontinuous laying

  ON

  TC129

  Glass in building

  IBN

  TC130

  Space heating appliances without integral heat sources

  UNI

  TC131

  Gas burners using fans

  DIN

  TC132

  Aluminium and aluminium alloys

  AFNOR

  TC133

  Copper and copper alloys

  DIN

  TC134

  Resilient and textile floor coverings

  BSI

  TC135

  Steel structures

  NSF

  TC136

  Sports, playground and other recreational equipment

  DIN

  TC137

  Assessment of workplace exposure

  DIN

  TC138

  Non-destructive testing

  AFNOR

  TC139

  Paints and varnishes

  DIN

  TC140

  In vitro diagnostic systems

  DIN

  TC141

  Industrial indicator pressure gauges

  AFNOR

  TC142

  Wood working machines—Safety

  BSI

  TC143

  Cold metal working machines—Safety

  UNI

  TC144

  Agricultural and forestry machines —Safety

  AFNOR

  TC145

  Rubber and plastics machines—Safety

  DIN

  TC146

  Packaging machines—Safety

  UNI

  TC147

  Cranes—Safety

  BSI

  TC148

  Continuous mechanical handling equipment—Safety

  AFNOR

  TC149

  Rail dependent storage and retrieval equipment—Safety

  DIN

  TC150

  Industrial trucks—Safety

  BSI

  TC151

  Construction equipment and building material machines—Safety

  DIN

  TC152

  Leisure and recreational machines/equipment—Safety

  BSI

  TC153

  Food industry machines—Safety

  DIN

  TCI 54

  Aggregates

  BSI

  91

  CEN/TC

  Title

  Secretarial

  TC155

  Plastic pipes

  NNI

  TC156

  Ventilation systems for buildings

  BSI

  TC157

  Non-refillable containers for liquefied petroleum gases

  AFNOR

  TC158

  Head protection

  BSI

  TC159

  Hearing protection

  SIS

  TC160

  Protection against falls from height including working belt

  DIN

  TC161

  Foot and leg protection

  BSI

  TC162

  Protective clothing including hand and arm protection and life-jackets

  DIN

  TC163

  Sanitary appliances

  UNI

  TC164

  Water Supply

  AFNOR

  TC165

  Drainage and sewerage

  DIN

  TC166

  Chimneys

  UNI

  TC167

  Structural bearings

  UNI

  TC168

  Chains, ropes, webbing, slings and accessories

  BSI

  TC169

  Lighting applications technology

  DIN

  TC170

  Ophthalmic optics

  DIN

  TC171

  Heating cost instruments based on consumption

  DIN

  TC172

  Paper, board and pulp

  DIN

  TC173

  Brushes

  BSI

  TC174

  Fruit and vegetable juices—methods of analysis

  AFNOR

  TC175

  Sawn timber and sawnlogs

  AFNOR

  TC176

  Heat energy meters

  DS

  TC177

  Prefabricated components of reinforced aerated or non-fines light-weight concrete

  DIN

  TC178

  Small paving units and kerbs

  BSI

  TC179

  Gas-fired air heaters

  NNI

  TC180

  Gas-fired overhead radiant heaters

  BSI

  TC181

  Dedicated liquefied petroleum gas appliances

  NSAI

  TC182

  Refrigerating systems—safety and environment

  DIN

  TC183

  Garbage containers

  DIN

  TC184

  High performance ceramics

  BSI

  TC185

  Threaded and non-threaded mechanical fasteners and accessories

  DIN

  TC186

  Thermoprocessing technology

  DIN

  TC187

  Refractory products and materials

  BSI

  TC188

  Conveyor belting

  BSI

  TC189

  Geotextiles and related products

  IBN

  TC190

  Foundry technology

  DIN

  TC191

  Fixed fire extinguishing systems

  BSI

  TC192

  Fire brigade equipment

  BSI

  TC193

  Adhesives

  AFNOR

  TC194

  Culinary utensils

  BSI

  TBA

  Air filters for ventilation purposes

  TBA

  1 Denotes dormant committee.

  Cars (UK Content)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those makes of car which are 50 per cent. or more United Kingdom value.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: All cars manufactured in the United Kingdom by the volume producers have over 50 per cent. United Kingdom content by value. A list of specific models would serve little purpose, since in a number of cases the United Kingdom content of the same models sold here by the multinational producers (Ford, Vauxhall and Peugeot Talbot) will depend on whether they have been produced in this country or at the companies' plants elsewhere in Europe.

  China
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will discuss with his consultative committee colleagues the immediate tightening of the rules that apply to China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom will be discussing with its partners in the Co-ordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Control (COCOM) the implications of events in China for the present export control policy in COCOM towards China.

  Amendments to the COCOM control lists, which can be agreed only by consensus, are made on strategic rather than political grounds, following an assessment of the strategic threat posed by a given country to Western security. Decisions in COCOM, including any relating to China, will be based on this criterion.

ENERGY

  AGR Fuel Rods
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many spent AGR fuel rods have been reprocessed at Sellafield to date; and what is the expected capacity at Sellafield for reprocessing spent AGR fuel rods for each year from 1989 to 2000.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To date some 18 tonnes u of AGR fuel from the Windscale AGR has been reprocessed at Sellafield. This was carried out for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in the early 1970s in a facility that was shut down in 1973.

  The thermal oxide reprocessing plant is scheduled to begin reprocessing operations in late 1992. In its first 10 years of operation, BNFL has contracted to reprocess 6,000 tonnes u of fuel, of which 1,850 tonnes u is AGR fuel (some 40,000 AGR fuel assemblies) from the home generating boards and some 30 tonnes u of fuel from Windscale for the authority. It is expected that an additional 1,000 tonnes of capacity will be available during the first 10 years of the plant, so that additional capacity could be allocated to AGR fuel.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the problem of conversion of spent AGR fuel rods in storage under water at Sellafield; what proportion are corroded; after how many years under water corrosion becomes a problem; what problems are encountered in reprocessing badly corroded AGR fuel; and how much more expensive it is to reprocess.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  BNFL did experience problems with corrosion in one out of its three storage ponds some four years ago. The measures taken to deal with these were successful. The company estimated that only some 3·5 per cent. of the fuel pins housed there had suffered. Representative samples have been dismantled without any problems and reprocessing should proceed smoothly with no additional costs to be incurred by the generating boards.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc has carried out extensive research into the storage of AGR fuel under water. I am advised that all available evidence suggests that, for fuel

  93
  maintained in the correct water chemistry, no significant corrosion will occur for at least 10 years, and possibly longer.

  Nuclear Materials (Safeguards)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on how many occasions nuclear material has been withdrawn from safeguards under article 14 of the tripartite safeguards treaty between the United Kingdom, Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency; and if he will list those occasions by date, facility, amount of nuclear material involved and when the withdrawal constituted a temporary change of status for operational convenience rather than use of the material for national security reasons.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 15 June 1989, at column 486.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when it was agreed by(a) member states of the European Atomic Energy Community and (b) member states and the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that the principle of fungibility should apply to consignments of civil nuclear materials in regard to application of safeguards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised that the existing practice regarding fungibility was formally recognised by member states of the European Atomic Energy Community by a statement of interpretation upon the adoption of Regulation 3227/76 of 19 October 1976.

  Spent Fuel Rods
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many spent fuel rods from advanced gas-cooled reactors await reprocessing in Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  At 31 March 1989, some 895 tonnes u of spent AGR fuel (some 21,000 AGR fuel assemblies) and some 24 tonnes u of fuel (1,900 assemblies) from the Windscale AGR were held in storage ponds at Sellafield.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many spent Magnox fuel rods were reprocessed at Sellafield in each year from 1980.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Weights of individual magnox fuel rods vary considerably and it is the usual practice to give the quantities of magnox fuel reprocessed at Sellafield in tonnes u. On average there are 100 fuel rods per tonne. For the annual reprocessing tonnages from 1980, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 11 December 1985 at columns 638–39, and my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 1 February 1988 at columns 473–74. The figures for 1986–87 and 1987–88 were published by my Department as part of annual information on plutonium production placed in the Library of the House. The tonnage for 1988–89 was some 875 tonnes u.

  West Burton B (Power Station)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has discussed the failure to commence 94
  construction of a coal-fired power station at West Burton B with the Area Electricity Board or the chair of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on 15 May 1989 at column 4.

  Sizewell B PWR
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the outturn cost of the Sizewell B pressurised water reactor power station and as to whether the construction is on schedule.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB and I have asked the chairman to reply to the hon. Member.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the total amounts of(a) alpha and (b) beta radiation discharges from Sellafield in 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Radioactivity in liquid discharges to the Irish sea from Sellafield in 1978 and 1987 (the latest year for which figures are available) were as follows:

  Alpha(terabecquerels)

  Beta(terabecquerels)

  1978

  68·0

  7,124

  1987

  2·2

  89

  Coal Industry Productivity
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by what amount productivity in the coal industry has increased since 1974.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Coal's productivity, measured in terms of tonnes per manshift, has risen by nearly 93 per cent. from 1973–74 to 1988–89. Between 1973–74 and 1978–79 productivity rose by just over 4 per cent. Between 1978–79 and 1988–89 it rose by some 85 per cent.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total radioactivity in curies contained(a) within all nuclear reactors, (b) within all spent nuclear fuel cooling ponds at reactor sites and (c) low and intermediate level radioactive waste stored at each reactor site.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Details of radioactivity in reactors, spent fuel and wastes stored at reactor sites are management matter for the nuclear reactor operators.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what quantities of contained radioactive waste bearing plutonium traces are stored at(a) Sellafield, (b) Harwell and (c) Dounreay.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The quantities of plutonium-contaminated wastes stored at Sellafield, Harwell and
  95
  Dounreay are management matters for British Nuclear Fuels plc and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority respectively.

  Nuclear Installations
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the existing minimum emergency planning zones around nuclear installations; and if he has any plans to alter them.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The minimum emergency planning zones around nuclear installations within which detailed and pre-planned arrangements are required to ensure rapid evacuation vary from 1km and 2·4km depending on the type of installation. There are no plans to alter these minimum emergency planning zones. These arrangements also provide the basis for extending the response if required.

  Nuclear Emergencies
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive intend publishing their guidance on arrangements for responding to nuclear emergencies.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) booklet "Emergency Plans for Civil Nuclear Installations" which was published in 1982 is being revised and updated to describe current arrangements. The HSE intends to publish the revised booklet later this year.

  Offshore Safety
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he proposes to take to improve safety in the offshore oil and gas industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 March 1989, c. 412]: I have today laid before each House the Offshore Installations (Emergency Pipe-line Valve) Regulations 1989.

  Prior to the making of these regulations extensive consultations were carried out with organisations representing those persons within the offshore industry likely to be affected by them, including employers and the trade unions. They have been made on the advice of the Health and Safety Commission under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971. The regulations require emergency shutdown valves to be fitted on pipe-line risers serving offshore installations together with the periodic inspection and testing of these valves and their control systems. In addition an Order in Council was made on 13 June which has the effect of including these valves in the certification process of the installation.

  These regulations represent an important step forward in securing improvements in the safety of offshore pipeline systems. I shall in due course be laying further regulations to deal with subsea isolation systems.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Central Office of Information has been asked to assess the effectiveness of the original launch of the National Health Service review.
  96
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: COI has not been involved in what is largely a staff communications exercise.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agencies
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on whether there have been improvements in the delivery of service to the public and in labour relations in the civil service agencies established so far.

  Mr. Luce
  The main aim of the next steps initiative is to deliver Government services more efficiently and effectively, within available resources, for the benefit of taxpayers, customers and staff. Developments in service delivery and in industrial relations in individual agencies are matters for the Departments and agencies concerned, (in the light of responsibilities in each agency's framework document). Our overall policy is that each agency will account for its performance on an annual basis through a published report and accounts. We are also developing a policy evaluation framework for the initiative.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many vaccine damage payments were made in 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983; and if he will categorise these according to the age of the child when the vaccination took place, the year of vaccination and the nature of the vaccination.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of payments awarded under the provisions of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 in 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 were 255, 74, 43 and 42, respectively. I regret that the details requested are not available for any of those made in 1980 and only some of those made in 1981 and 1982. The details that are available are in the tables.

  Table 1

  Vaccine damage payments scheme: awards made in 1981 by age of child at date of vaccination; year of vaccination and type of vaccination

  Type of vaccination cited on the claim form

  Age at date of vaccination(months)

  Year vaccine was given

  1. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1966

  2. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1959

  3. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1973

  4. Triple/Smallpox

  0 to 3

  1955

  5. Triple/Polio

  12 to 15

  1970

  6. Triple

  9 to 12

  1967

  7. Diphtheria/Tetanus

  6 to 9

  1979

  8. Triple

  3 to 6

  1963

  9. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1968

  10. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1978

  11. Triple

  3 to 6

  1968

  12. Triple

  6 to 9

  1961

  13. Measles

  2 years

  1970

  14. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1979

  15. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1966

  16. Triple

  9 to 12

  1961

  17. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1964

  18. Diphtheria/Tetanus

  6 to 9

  1978

  97

  Type of vaccination cited on the claim form

  Age at date of vaccination(months)

  Year vaccine was given

  19. Diphtheria/Pertussis

  6 to 9

  1952

  20. Triple

  6 to 9

  1964

  21. Triple

  3 to 6

  1979

  22. Triple

  6 to 9

  1960

  23. Triple

  3 to 6

  1968

  24. Diphtheria/Pertussis

  6 to 9

  1951

  25. Triple

  6 to 9

  1979

  26. Smallpox

  2 years

  1963–64

  27. Tetanus/Diphtheria/Polio

  9 to 12

  1977

  28. Pertussis

  9 to 12

  1974

  29. Triple

  3 to 6

  1965

  30. Measles

  12 to 15

  1971

  31. Triple/Smallpox

  3 to 6

  1960

  32. Triple/Polio

  6 to 9

  1975

  Note: Details are not available for the remaining 42 awards made in 1981.

  Table 2

  Vaccine damage payments scheme: awards made in 1981 by age of child at date of vaccination; year of vaccination and type of vaccination

  Type of vaccination cited on the claim form

  Age at date of vaccination(months)

  Year vaccine was given

  1. Pertussis

  6 to 9

  1978

  2. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1973

  3. Polio

  9 to 12

  1960

  4. Triple

  9 to 12

  1970

  5. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1980

  6. Tetanus/Polio

  16 years

  1977

  7. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1981

  8. Measles

  15 to 18

  1979

  9. Measles

  3 to 6

  1981

  10. Triple/Polio

  6 to 9

  1976

  11. Polio

  32 years

  1979

  12. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1978

  13. Triple

  3 to 6

  1970

  14. Smallpox

  3 to 6

  1960

  15. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1978

  16. Pertussis

  6 to 9

  1971

  17. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1978

  18. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1980

  19. Triple/Polio

  6 to 9

  1976

  20. Smallpox

  0 to 3

  1961

  21. *

  3 to 6

  1965

  22. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1979

  23. Triple

  6 to 9

  1976

  24. Triple/Polio

  6 to 9

  1977

  25. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1972

  26. Triple/Polio

  9 to 12

  1968

  27. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1973

  28. Diphtheria/Tetanus/Polio

  2 years

  1971

  29. Diphtheria/Tetanus/Polio

  2 years

  1971

  30. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1973

  31. Triple/Polio

  6 to 9

  1978

  32. Triple

  3 to 6

  1972

  Note: Details are not available for the remaining 11 awards made in 1982.

  Table 3

  Vaccine damage payments scheme: awards made in 1981 by age of child at date of vaccination; year of vaccination and type of vaccination

  Type of vaccination cited on the claim form

  Age at date of vaccination(months)

  Year vaccine was given

  1. Triple/Polio

  6 to 9

  1979

  2. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1981

  3. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1980

  4. Triple

  9 to 12

  1971

  5. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1971

  6. Triple/Polio

  6 to 9

  1970

  7. Measles

  12 to 15

  1980

  98

  Type of vaccination cited on the claim form

  Age at date of vaccination (months)

  Year vaccine was given

  8. Triple/Polio/Measles

  6 to 9

  1976

  9. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1980

  10. Smallpox

  21 to 24

  1962

  11. Triple/Polio

  6 to 9

  1976

  12. Triple/Polio

  9 to 12

  1970

  13. Triple

  6 to 9

  1971

  14. Triple

  3 to 6

  1972

  15. Pertussis

  6 to 9

  1972

  16. Pertussis

  6 to 9

  1968

  17. Triple

  3 to 6

  1971

  18. Triple

  3 to 6

  1980

  19. Triple/Polio

  9 to 12

  1973

  20. Polio

  3 to 6

  1981

  21. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1982

  22. Triple/Polio

  3 to 6

  1968

  23. Pertussis

  6 to 9

  1971

  24. Pertussis

  6 to 9

  1973

  25. Measles

  2 years

  1971

  26. Pertussis

  9 to 12

  1978

  27. Pertussis

  6 to 9

  1968

  28. Polio

  12 to 15

  1959

  29. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1967

  30. Pertussis

  6 to 9

  1975

  31. Polio

  6 to 9

  1975

  32. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1980

  33. Measles/Triple

  3 to 6

  1981

  34. Triple

  3 to 6

  1972

  35. Triple/Polio

  6 to 9

  1969

  36. Triple/Polio

  6 to 9

  1975

  37. Pertussis

  6 to 9

  1972

  38. Triple/Polio

  6 to 9

  1965

  39. Diphtheria/Polio

  3 years

  1968

  40. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1980

  41. Pertussis

  3 to 6

  1981

  42. Pertussis

  9 to 12

  1978

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he can state the percentage of successful claimants at each of the following stages(a) the examining medical practitioner/adjudicating officer, (b) the medical board and (c) the medical appeal tribunal of (i) deaf-blind and (ii) mentally handicapped claimants of mobility allowance in the survey which is being carried out by his Department; and if he will clarify the methods being used to obtain these figures:

  (2) what progress has been made by his Department on the analysis that they are carrying out on a sample of deaf-blind and mentally handicapped claimants of mobility allowance; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when he expects the results of his Department's analysis of a sample of deaf-blind and mentally handicapped claimants of mobility allowance to be published.

  Mr. Scott
  Random samples of claims made by either mentally or visually handicapped people were examined, after the decision had been given, for each of the three stages of the medical adjudication system. The size of the samples and the outcome of the claims is shown as follows:
  99

  Adjudication stage for medical questions

  Sample size

  Percentage successful

  Mentally handicapped

  Adjudication Officer

  100

  36

  Medical Board

  100

  38

  Medical Appeal Tribunal

  100

  46

  Visually handicapped

  Adjudication Officer

  100

  32

  Medical Board

  75

  31

  Medical Appeal Tribunal

  25

  36

  The samples of cases have been analysed by the type of claim, the availability of additional evidence, and their outcome. Further analysis has been made of the nature of the findings on behavioural and balance problems, as appropriate. In practice it has proved difficult to isolate the effect of visual or mental handicap on the individual decisions about entitlement to mobility allowance, because of the frequent incidence of multiple handicap. The results must therefore be treated with caution. We do not therefore propose to publish detailed findings, but we shall use the information which has been collected when the guidance for examining doctors is being revised.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will amend paragraph 10 of schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 to extend entitlement to the higher pension premium to men aged 60 to 64 years who satisfy the condition of paragraph 12(1)(b) that they have provided evidence of incapacity for 28 weeks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to do so.

HEALTH

  Drugs
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the total cost of the drug bill for the family practitioners service for the years 1978 to 1988 and the amount deducted from chemists' remuneration in respect of discounts for the same period.

  Mr. Mellor
  The basic cost of prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies in England and Wales and the amounts deducted in respect of discounts for the years 1978 to 1988 were:

  Year

  Basic cost

  Deduction for discounts

  £ million

  £ million

  1978

  557·0

  15·0

  1979

  636·8

  18·3

  1980

  769·9

  12·0

  1981

  896·4

  33·9

  1982

  1,0489

  57·2

  1983

  1,176·2

  66·1

  1984

  1,266·7

  109·0

  11985

  343·2

  21·4

  1985–86

  1,340·8

  82·8

  1986–87

  1,505·7

  117·2

  1987–88

  1,703·3

  134·0

  1988–89

  1,885·0

  154·7

  1 1 January 1985 to 31 March 1985

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital wards in the Trent regional health authority are not in use; and if he will list the reasons why in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally. The hon. Member may care to write to the chairman of Trent regional health authority for the information he seeks.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details for the Trent regional health authority of each capital project costing more than £1 million(a) actually under construction and (b) at the proposal or planning stage; and if he will give the estimated date of completion for each project.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information held centrally is given in the table; estimated completion dates are not held for all the schemes at the planning stages.

  Concise 1—Developed by Department of Health Health Building Directorate

  Trent Regional Health Authority schemes £1 million and over

  Ref.

  Scheme

  Estimated completion

  Schemes under construction

  3.67

  Bassetlaw DGH Phase 2

  1 December 1989

  3.51

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary Phase 2 Pathology Laboratory

  16 June 1989

  3.15

  Glenfield DGH Phase 2

  7 April 1990

  3.41

  Kendray—Sub Phase 2B—Mental Illness Unit—ESMI

  7 August 1989

  3.23

  Kings Mill DGH Phase 3

  29 November 1991

  3.11

  Leicester Royal Infirmary Phase 4B

  1 July 1990

  3.76

  North Hykeham ESMI Facilities

  17 September 1989

  3.54

  Northern General Renal Unit

  9 October 1989

  3.70

  Notts City Replacement and Extension of X-Ray Department

  1 March 1991

  3.64

  St. George's ESMI Facilities

  16 October 1989

  Schemes at proposal or planning stage

  3.46

  Bassetlaw DGH Phase 3

  August 1995

  3.29

  Chesterfield and North Phase 3 Geriatric Provision

  September 1993

  3.114

  Derby City ESMI Day Unit

  July 1992

  3.112

  Derby City Hospital Mental Illness Unit

  June 1992

  3.47

  Derby City Hospital Paediatrics

  April 1994

  3.118

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary West End Redevelopment Phase 2

  October 1994

  3.115

  Dukeries Community Hospital

  August 1993

  3.84

  Fulwood ESMI Unit

  March 1993

  3.73

  Gedling/Eastern Local Hospital

  May 1993

  3.103

  Glenfield DGH MI Department Inc ESMI

  January 1994

  3.28

  Glenfield DGH Phase 3

  March 1995

  3.94

  Grantham and Kesteven—Phase 6 Mental Illness Department

  February 1994

  3.48

  Hallamshire Acute Unit for the Elderly

  November 1992

  3.108

  Highbury Local Hospital for the Elderly

  February 1994

  3.59

  Hincley Hospital Facilities for Elderly Phase 1

  December 1991

  3.92

  Hinkley Development Phases 2, 3 and 4

  July 1994

  3.116

  Kendray Phase 3 Mental Ilness

  February 1994

  3.96

  Kings Mill Phase 4 Acute Wards

  3.101

  Leicester Royal Infirmary Phase 4C Post Main Phase

  September 1992

  3.45

  Lincoln County Phase 3A

  June 1994

  101

  Ref.

  Scheme

  Estimated completion

  3.110

  Mansfield Victoria Community Hospital

  October 1993

  3.85

  Middlewood MI Rehabilitation-Community Centre

  November 1994

  3.82

  North East Unit L/S Facilities for the Elderly

  July 1993

  3.107

  Northern General Phase 3

  February 1996

  3.89

  Nottingham City Catering Department

  March 1991

  3.105

  Notts City ESMI Assessment Unit St. Francis Wing

  November 1991

  3.104

  Notts City Extension to Theatres

  2 October 1992

  3.97

  Notts City Medical Unit

  3.91

  Notts City Psychiatric Centre

  February 1993

  3.95

  Pilgrim Hospital—Phase 4 ESMI-Geriatric

  June 1992

  3.86

  Sheffield Genetics Etc. Department

  3.44

  Sheffield Obstetric-Gynaecology-Elderly Services

  3.117

  St. George's Local Community Hospital for Elderly

  January 1996

  3.88

  Walkley ESMI Unit

  3.93

  Bassetlaw DGH Phase 2A

  June 1992

  3.74

  Clay Cross Community Hospital

  November 1993

  3.106

  Commonside ESMI Unit Sheffield

  June 1992

  3.100

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary West End Development Phase 1

  October 1992

  3.98

  Leicester Health Authority Cook Chill Catering

  April 1990

  3.55

  Rotherham DGH Phase 3B—Geriatric Unit

  October 1994

  3.72

  Rushcliffe Hospital Development

  May 1992

  3.113

  Wharncliffe Long Stay Facilities for Elderly

  June 1992

  3.109

  Ashfield Community Hospital

  November 1991

  3.81

  Beighton Local Hospital for Elderly

  September 1991

  3.66

  Charles Clifford District Hospital New Extension

  3.25

  Derby City Phase 2 Geriatrics

  30 April 1991

  3.37

  Grantham and Kesteven Phase 5B

  August 1991

  3.26

  Lincoln County Phase 2

  October 1992

  3.27

  Loughborough Phase 1 Geriatric and ESMI Provision

  February 1992

  3.43

  Northern General Phase 2

  February 1992

  3.71

  Notts City Renal/Radiotherapy

  July 1992

  3.57

  Rotherham DGH Phase 3A

  15 March 1991

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now expects to lay before Parliament statutory instruments on standards of food hygiene.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970 already provide strict standards of food hygiene in food premises, and related regulations provide the same in respect of markets, stalls and delivery vehicles.

  We are currently considering amending the regulations so as to extend temperature controls to food intended for retail sale. We anticipate that these amending regulations will be laid before Parliament in the autumn of this year.

  Bio-Plan Ltd.
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the extra facilities provided by Bio-Plan Ltd. to the National Health Service patients of Leighton hospital with the date of their inception and the number of patients in the National Health Service who have had access to them.
  102
  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. The hon. Member may care to contact the chairman of the Crewe health authority.

  NHS Reform
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations will be held with(a) the staff and (b) the local authority representing the catchment area of any general district hospitals that apply to opt-out.

  Mr. Mellor
  Self-governing trusts will not opt out but will remain fully within the NHS. When a unit decides to submit an application, the RHA will seek the views of those with an interest, particularly the health authority concerned, staff at the hospital, GPs, CHCs and the local community. The Secretary of State will consider any responses alongside the application.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from general practitioners and others on the effects of the proposals in "Working for Patients" on rural practices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 June 19891: We have received a number of representations from doctors about the possible effects on rural practice of our proposal to increase to 60 per cent. the proportion of a GP's income represented by capitation payments.

  A number of features of the new contract will be of benefit to GPs serving rural areas, including the new payments linked to the provision of specific services such as health promotion clinics, minor surgery and child health surveillance and the higher level of night visit fee. The new weighting of basic practice allowance will also benefit GPs with small lists including GPs in rural areas. In particular, the inclusion of home visits in the 26 hours a week availability, and the scope for GPs to fulfil this requirement over four rather than five days where the fifth day is spent on health-related activities in the public sector, will be welcomed by such GPs.

  In recognition of the strength of feeling among rural GPs against our earlier proposal to introduce a new rural supplement, we agreed with the general medical services committee's negotiators on 4 May that the rural practice payments scheme will continue pending its revision by the central advisory committee on rural practice payments.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change in administrative arrangements he intends to introduce for those specialised regional units in teaching hospitals where a close working relationship between the basic scientific research and developing clinical practice is common practice.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government are still developing the details necessary for the implementation of "Working for Patients", but they recognise the value of the links between basic scientific research and developing clinical practice, and are taking these into account as their plans develop.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will detail those points where a substantial number of general practitioners are understood to support the National Health Service White Paper; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A substantial number of general practitioners support our proposals for:
  103
  retaining the principles on which the NHS was based; better management in the NHS and the greater involvement of doctors in it;
  clinically led medical audit;
  extending resource management and better information systems so that the costs and results of decisions can be taken fully into account and so that the health service, for the first time, knows what it is doing, why, at what cost and to what standards;
  the need for a comprehensive health service;
  the vital role of a high standard of medical education and of an effective research programme;
  the need to build on the excellent track record of the NHS to meet the changing demands of the coming decade; the principle of money following patients; and
  many general practitioners have expressed interest in practice budgets.

  We are continuing discussions with representatives of the medical profession on the implementation of these and our other proposals.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the trend in the number of general practitioners since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table gives the number of general medical practitioners in England for each year between 1979 and 1988 (the latest year for which figures are available). The figures show that the number of general medical practitioners in England has risen steadily since 1979, with an overall increase of nearly 19 per cent. between 1979 and 1988.

  Number of unrestricted principals (England)

  Year

  Number

  1979

  21,357

  1980

  21,812

  1981

  22,304

  1982

  22,786

  1983

  23,254

  1984

  23,640

  1985

  24,035

  1986

  24,460

  1987

  24,922

  1988

  125,322

  1 Provisional.

  NHS Scientists
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he intends to improve the pay and morale of medical physicists in the National Health Service;

  Population of England, thousands 1987-based projections

  Age group

  Mid-1987 estimates

  2000

  2020

  Per cent change projected

  1987–2000

  1987–2020

  65–74

  4,218

  4,007

  5,112

  –5

  21

  75–79

  1,555

  1,657

  1,716

  7

  10

  80 and over

  1,634

  2,038

  2,281

  25

  40

  BNFL, Sellafield
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has of health problems, in
  104
  (2) what action he intends to take to improve the pay and working conditions of scientists in the National Health Service;

  (3) what action he intends to take to reduce the loss of National Health Service scientists to the private sector.

  Mr. Mellor
  The pay of medical physicists, non-medical scientists and clinical psychologists is a matter for negotiation between the management side of the Scientific and Professional Staffs Council and the staff side representing scientists employed in the NHS. Negotiations are continuing on the staff side pay claim for 1989–90. The management side has set up a working party to investigate the recuitment and retention of scientists in the NHS and is currently considering its findings.

  Toxoplasmosis
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to publish and distribute, through the Health Education Authority, any information and advice for pregnant women about toxoplasmosis.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are currently giving consideration to the most effective ways in which messages about toxoplasmosis can be transmitted to pregnant women.

  Immunisation
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will publish in the Official Report any preliminary figures for the uptake of measles, mumps and rubella immunisation in each health authority in England during the first three months of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines being available.

  Mr. Freeman
  Uptake of the measles, mumps and rubella combined vaccine is being monitored monthly in selected district health authorities. Early reports suggest an increase in uptake of 10 per cent. compared to matching cohorts of children vaccinated with measles vaccine one year previously.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his Department's estimates for the numbers of people aged 65 to 74 years, 75 to 79 years and over 80 years in the years 2000 and 2020 in England; and what percentage increase this represents in each category over the actual figures for the last year in which they are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  The data requested are in the table.

  particular those related to tissue and blood cancers, among children living within 10 miles of the British Nuclear Fuels plc's Sellafield facility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the report of the independent advisory group, chaired by Sir Douglas
  105
  Black (1), and to the published results of the birth and school cohort studies, recommended by the group and funded by Government (2). The results of the associated case-control study are expected later this year. In addition, the report on cancer incidence and mortality in the vicinity of nuclear installations in England and Wales (3) is also relevant.

  (1) Investigation of the Possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumbria. Report of the Independent Advisory Group. (HMSO 1984).

  (2) Gardner, M. J., et al (1987). Follow up studies of children born to mothers resident in Seascale, and those born elsewhere but attending schools in Seascale. British Medical Journal 295, 822 and 819.

  (3) Cook-Mozaffari, P. J. et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in the vicinity of nuclear installations. England and Wales 1959–80. (Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys. Studies on Medical and Population Subjects No. 51 HMSO).

  Details of grants awarded to the NSPCC for each of the past 10 years

  Year

  Section 64 grants towards headquarters administrative expenditure

  Grants towards the cost of seconding NSPCC staff on to social work qualifying courses

  Total of columns (b) and (c)

  Totals in column (d) as percentage of NSPCC's total income

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  £

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  1979–80

  86,500

  —

  86,500

  2·22

  1980–81

  132,450

  25,000

  157,450

  3·18

  1981–82

  200,000

  25,000

  225,000

  4·06

  1982–83

  168,000

  25,000

  193,000

  3·14

  1983–84

  113,000

  35,000

  148,000

  13·9

  1984–85

  167,000

  35,000

  202,000

  1·84

  1985–86

  167,000

  35,000

  202,000

  1·38

  1986–87

  167,000

  35,000

  202,000

  1·10

  1987–88

  125,000

  35,000

  160,000

  0·82

  1988–89

  125,000

  —

  125,000

  1—

  1 Details of total income are not yet available.

  The NSPCC received from the Department of Health £5,300 in the year 1987–88 and £39,198 in 1988–89 for a project it is undertaking to develop child protection training materials for child abuse consultants in local health authorities.

  In addition the Prime Minister has announced that the Department of Health will be making a grant of £800,000 over three years towards the cost of the NSPCC's new national training centre in Leicester.

  Dangerous Food Products
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has notified the EC under the rapid notification scheme for dangerous food products about(a) salmonella in eggs, (b) bovine products and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, (c) listeria in cheese and (d) mineral hydrocarbons.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: Yes, where appropriate the Department has notified the EC. However, questions relating to bovine products and bovine spongiform encephalopathy and mineral hydrocarbons are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Tuberculosis Vaccine
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Evans Medical, the British supplier of tuberculosis vaccine, moved the production of this vaccine to a new site; what effect this transfer has had on the production of tuberculosis vaccine; and when he expects health authorities to be able to resume their routine school immunisation programmes.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: Evans Medical began production of tuberculosis vaccine at its

  NSPCC
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the sums of money given to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in each of the past 10 years; for what purpose these sums were provided by Her Majesty's Government; what percentage of the NSPCC's annual general income these sums represented; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what sums of money have been given to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children for the purposes of training NSPCC personnel in each of the past 10 years; how much money is to be provided to the society by Her Majesty's Government in each of the next three years for this purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: Details are provided in the table.

  new site in November 1988 and technical difficulties emerged earlier this year. Health authorities will be advised as soon as possible when regular supplies for the routine immunisation of schoolchildren can be resumed.

EMPLOYMENT

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the most recent total number of filled enterprise training places in the Greater Manchester area, by scheme type.

  Mr. Cope
  At the beginning of June there were 578 filled enterprise training places in the Greater Manchester area. This figure comprises 413 places via enterprise training within the employment training scheme and 165 places on the business enterprise programme, outside ET.

  Health and Safety Inspectors (Sunderland)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent visit of health and safety inspectors to employers in Sunderland.
  107
  Mr. Nicholls
  During the week commencing 5 June 1989 a team of inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive's north-east area office concentrated their efforts on a planned campaign of inspections to factories, construction sites and other workplaces in Sunderland. The aims were to raise employers' awareness of health and safety, to give advice to small firms, to publicise HSE's guidance and to identify firms with poor standards.

  The campaign was a success. Inspectors carried out 358 inspections, giving advice on a wide range of health and safety matters. Where necessary they used their formal enforcement powers to deal with serious health and safety risks, issuing 58 enforcement notices.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to monitor the efficiency of the training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Fowler
  Each of the training and enterprise councils will operate under a contract with my Department which will set out the specific targets that they are to achieve. Their progress in meeting these targets will be monitored by the Training Agency.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the role of training and enterprise councils in the provision of employment training.

  Mr. Cope
  Training and enterprise councils will deliver and develop employment training, YTS and other Government programmes and tailor these programmes to meet local needs. They will also stimulate enterprise and economic growth in the locality and provide practical help to local employers wishing to improve their own training efforts.

  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the role of training and enterprise councils in the provision of small business counselling.

  Mr. Cope
  As TECs are established in England they will contract with the Training Agency to take responsibility for the counselling currently provided through the Training Agency's small firms service along with the appropriate share of the counselling budget. Each TEC will decide whether counselling will be provided through direct contracts with counsellors or through local enterprise agencies or other appropriate organisations. In Wales counselling for small firms will continue to be provided by the Welsh Development Agency.

  Sir Marcus Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the role of training and enterprise councils in the provision of YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  Training and enterprise councils will have responsibility for the operation of YTS in their area, within the framework set out by the Secretary of State for Employment. The councils will deliver the Government's guarantee of a training place for all young people under the age of 18 who cannot find a job, and help to achieve the aim that every young person should have access to relevant education or training leading to higher levels of attainment, nationally recognised qualifications and to a job.
  108
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have been established; and what progress has been made in attracting two thirds board membership from the private sector.

  Mr. Cope
  Twenty-two applications have been received by the national training task force which is reviewing these proposals and will forward its recommendations to me. I will announce which TECs have been awarded development funding shortly thereafter.

  The response from private sector employers has been excellent.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the handbook for the training and enterprise councils will be published; and whether there will he an opportunity for the public to suggest amendments.

  Mr. Cope
  A training and enterprise council (TEC) prospectus was published in early March and circulated widely. A draft TEC operating manual for England and Wales was published in mid-April, aimed specifically at people intending to run a TEC, with the intention that it would be expanded and updated as TECs evolve. A copy of the manual was placed in the Library and copies are available to other interested parties on request. The Training Agency will take into account any comments received.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications he has received from parties interested in setting up training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which areas have put forward proposals for establishing training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will report on progress in establishing the first training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress being made in establishing training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many expressions of interest his Department has received from groups of employers wishing to form training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Twenty-two applications have been received by the national training task force, which is reviewing these proposals and will forward its recommendations to me. This is an excellent response. The table lists the areas from which applications have been received.

  List of TECS that have applied for development funding:

  Oldham

  Dorset

  Warwickshire

  Essex

  Rochdale

  Tyneside

  North West Midlands

  109

  Sheffield

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Teesside

  Kingston

  Devon and Cornwall

  Birmingham

  East Lancashire

  Walsall

  Milton Keynes

  Hertfordshire

  Isle of Wight

  Hampshire

  North, West and South Norfolk

  South and East Cheshire

  Cumbria

  Secondary Picketing
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about secondary picketing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government receive representations on many aspects of industrial relations. In the nine years since employers were given the freedom to restrain secondary picketing by the 1980 Employment Act representations on this subject have dwindled to nothing.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest youth unemployment figures for the Holloway travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Cope
  In the London travel-to-work area, of which Islington, North parliamentary constituency and Holloway are a part, there were about 54.500 unemployed claimants aged under 25 years.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest available unemployment figures for the United Kingdom and the comparable figures for 1979; and what they would have been without the changes in the method of counting unemployment.

  Mr. Cope
  In May 1989 the level of unemployment seasonally adjusted was 1,835,200, or 6·4 per cent. compared with 1,088,500 or 4·1 per cent in May 1979, on a consistent basis. It is not possible to estimate current unemployment on the basis prevailing in 1979.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the reduction in long-term unemployment over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much long-term unemployment has fallen over the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In April 1989, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for 12 months or more was 744,120 compared with 1,029,206 in April 1988, a fall of 285,086 or 27·7 per cent.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of persons unemployed in the Southend-on-Sea area; and what was the comparable total in 1979.
  110
  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1989 there were 3,602 unemployed claimants in Southend-on-Sea local authority area. Comparable figures are not available for 1979 on the same administrative basis and because of changes in the coverage of the count.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the figure for unemployment in 1979; and what is the present figure.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,835,200 or 6·4 per cent. compared with 1,088,500 or 4·1 per cent. in May 1979, on a consistent basis.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in which standard planning regions in the United Kingdom there have been(a) increases and (b) reductions in employment since June 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between June 1979 and June 1988 the civilian work force in employment(a) increased in the south-east (including London), East Anglia, south-west, west midlands, and east midlands, and (b) decreased in Yorkshire and Humberside, the north-west, north, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

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

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the fall in the unemployment rates over the past two years for the countries of the European Community. Over the past two years the rate of unemployment has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other EC country.

  Unemployment, latest month compared with two years earlier

  Country

  Latest month

  Percentage rate change

  United Kingdom1

  May 1989

  -318

  Belgium

  March 1989

  -2·6

  Ireland

  May 1989

  -1·6

  France

  March 1989

  -1·5

  Germany

  May 1989

  -0·9

  Portugal

  March 1989

  -0·7

  Netherlands

  December 1988

  -0·4

  Greece

  April 1989

  -0·3

  Luxembourg

  March 1989

  -0·3

  Denmark

  January 1989

  0·7

  Italy

  February 1989

  1·7

  1 Seasonally adjusted series consistent with current coverage.

  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people aged between 18 and 24 years were unemployed in April 1988 and April 1989, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In April 1989, the number of unemployed claimants aged 18 to 24 years in the United Kingdom, was 530,376 compared with 697,718 in April 1988, a fall of 167,342 or 24 per cent.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how many the total of persons out of work for five years or more has fallen during the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much the total out of work for five years or more has fallen since April last year; and if he will make a statement.
  111
  Mr. Nicholls
  In April 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for five years or more was 216,607 compared with 271,242 in April 1988, a fall of 54,635 or 20·1 per cent.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much the number of people in employment rose in 1988 in the United Kingdom and in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows, for the United Kingdom and the major OECD countries, the increase in civilian employment in the year to the fourth quarter of 1988. The United Kingdom had the largest percentage rise.

  Increases in civilian employment United Kingdom and major OECD countries

  Thousands

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  642

  2·5

  Canada

  288

  2·4

  United States of America

  2,386

  2·1

  Japan

  864

  1·5

  Germany (Federal Republic)

  159

  0·6

  Italy

  134

  0·6

  France

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = not available.

  Sources:

  United Kingdom: Department of Employment.

  Other countries: OECD Labour Force Statistics, 1989/1.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the fall in long-term unemployed in the three months to April.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1989, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom, who had been unemployed for 12 months or more, was 744,120 compared with 821,419 in January 1989, a fall of 77,299 or 9·4 per cent.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country has had the sharpest fall in the rate of unemployment over the past two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Over the past two years the unemployment rate has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major OECD country. The unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is now lower than the European Community average.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people employed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between March 1983 and December 1988 the work force in employment in the United Kingdom increased by 2,948,000 to 26,510,000, the highest level on record. This rising trend has now continued for more than five years. The figures have been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, Her Majesty's forces and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.
  112
  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,835,200 or 6·4 per cent. the lowest for more than eight years, on a consistent basis.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much long-term unemployment has fallen among the 18 to 24 age group in the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1989, the number of unemployed claimants aged 18 to 24 years in the United Kingdom, who had been unemployed for 12 months or more, was 119,160 compared with 179,938 in April 1988, a fall of 60,778 or 33·8 per cent.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects unemployment in the west midlands to fall to the level it was in 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  The Department does not forecast future levels of unemployment.

  Mr. Robert Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in the number of self-employed people in the United Kingdom since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in the number of self-employed people in work since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Between June 1979 and December 1988, the latest date for which estimates are available, there was an increase of 1,142,000, or 60 per cent., in the number of self-employed people in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that over 3 million people are now self-employed. Self-employed people now represent 11 per cent. of the work force in employment.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of males and females are in employment in each major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have the highest proportion of women in employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The latest comparative information relates to 1986 (except for Germany) and is given in the table. It shows the United Kingdom's percentage in employment to be significantly higher than those of our major European competitors, though lower than those of Japan and the United States. This country's relative position may well have become still better since 1986 as employment has increased more rapidly here than elsewhere.

  Percentage of those aged 15 to 64 in employment(including armed forces)

  Males

  Females

  Japan

  85

  56

  United States of America

  77

  60

  United Kingdom

  77

  56

  Canada

  76

  57

  Federal Republic of Germany1

  74

  46

  113

  Males

  Females

  Italy

  74

  35

  France

  70

  48

  1 1985 figures.

  Sources:

  United Kingdom: Department of Employment.

  Other countries: OECD Labour Force Statistics 1966 to 1986.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much the unemployment rate has fallen in the past two years in the United Kingdom and other European countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows falls in unemployment rates over the past two years for the United Kingdom and other European countries. Over the past two years unemployment has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major industrialised country.

  Unemployment,latest month compared with two years earlier

  Country

  Latest month

  Percentage rate change

  United Kingdom1

  May 1989

  -3·8

  Spain

  March 1989

  -2·8

  Belgium

  March 1989

  -2·6

  Austria

  March 1989

  -1·7

  Finland

  February 1989

  -1·7

  Ireland

  May 1989

  -1·6

  France

  March 1989

  -1·5

  Germany

  May 1989

  -0·9

  Sweden

  March 1989

  -0·9

  Portugal

  March 1989

  -0·7

  Netherlands

  December 1988

  -0·4

  Switzerland

  March 1989

  -0·3

  Greece

  April 1989

  -0·3

  Luxembourg

  March 1989

  -0·3

  Denmark

  January 1989

  0·7

  Italy

  February 1989

  1·7

  Norway

  March 1989

  2·5

  1 Seasonally adjusted series consistent with current coverage.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current youth unemployment rate in the United Kingdom and in other comparable European countries; and if he will make a statement.
  114
  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows harmonised unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, for those aged under 25 years, for March 1989 in the United Kingdom and other European Countries as published by the statistical office of the European Communities. The youth unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is about half the European Communities average.

  Under 25 year olds seasonally adjusted unemployment rate March 1989

  European country

  Total percentage rate

  Spain

  36·7

  Italy

  31·9

  Greece

  24·4

  Ireland

  22·8

  France

  21·4

  Belgium

  18·7

  Netherlands

  16·4

  Portugal

  12·2

  Denmark

  9·6

  Germany

  5·2

  Luxembourg

  4·1

  United Kingdom

  9·6

  EC average

  18·1

  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently self-employed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In December 1988, the latest date for which estimates are available, there were, 3,048,000 self-employed in the United Kingdom. The numbers of self-employed have increased by 60 per cent. since June 1979 and currently represent 11 per cent. of the work force in employment.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of people self-employed in April 1989 and April 1983, respectively.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available there were 3,048,000 self-employed people in the United Kingdom and in March 1983 there were 1,906,000.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training managers there are(a) nationally and (b) by standard region; and how many have been accredited with providing training of high and sustainable quality.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Nationally there are 1,251 training managers within employment training. All of them are at present undergoing examination for approved status.

  The regional breakdown by standard region is as follows:

  Number

  Scotland

  233

  Northern

  148

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  131

  North-West

  157

  West Midlands

  102

  East Midlands and Eastern

  106

  Wales

  131

  South-West

  69

  South-cast

  76

  London

  98

  National total

  1,251

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to enhance payments to employment training trainees(a) nationally and (b) regionally.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At present my right hon. Friend has no plans to enhance payments to employment training trainees. However, training allowances are linked to individual benefit entitlement and so are enhanced whenever benefits are uprated. For this reason, training allowances were increased in April 1989. In addition, the levels of other payments to trainees are kept under continuous review and travel payments to trainees have been increased very recently.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are on employment training in each Training Agency area; and what is the drop-out rate for each area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on the number of people on employment training in each area office is given in the following table. Information on the number of leavers is not available at the area level.

  Employment Training

  In-Training Figures at 2 June 1989

  Numbers

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  6,141

  Durham

  5,063

  North Tyne

  4,259

  South Tyne

  6,357

  Total

  21,820

  East Midlands

  Derby

  2,861

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  3,141

  Leicestershire and Northants

  2,782

  Lincolnshire

  1,361

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  1,699

  Nottinghamshire

  3,345

  116

  Numbers

  Total

  15,189

  North West

  Cheshire

  2,899

  Cumbria

  1,387

  Lancashire

  4,220

  Manchester Central

  4,022

  Manchester East

  2,590

  Manchester North

  2,624

  Merseyside

  8,672

  Total

  26,414

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  7,374

  Coventry

  2,682

  Dudley

  2,889

  Staffordshire

  3,629

  Marches

  2,654

  Wolverhampton

  3,144

  Total

  22,372

  South East Region

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  1,212

  Essex

  1,694

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1,992

  Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  1,672

  Kent

  1,963

  Surrey

  445

  Sussex

  1,761

  Total

  10,739

  London

  Inner South

  3,309

  North London

  3,553

  East London

  2,195

  South London

  1,685

  West London

  1,197

  Inner North

  5,815

  Total

  17,754

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Humberside

  5,253

  Leeds

  4,295

  Bradford

  4,540

  Wakefield

  5,332

  Sheffield

  5,342

  Total

  24,762

  South West

  Avon

  2,555

  Gloucester

  1,506

  Plymouth

  5,541

  Taunton

  1,868

  Total

  11,470

  Scotland

  Glasgow City

  4,525

  Lanarkshire

  2,534

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  2,682

  Ayr, Dumfries and Galloway

  2,991

  Lothian and Borders

  3,368

  Central and Fife

  2,852

  Grampian and Tayside

  2,583

  Highlands and Islands

  917

  Total

  22,452

  Wales

  Cardiff

  4,811

  Gwent

  2,235

  Swansea

  4,315

  Wrexham

  3,094

  117

  Numbers

  Total

  14,455

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently in employment training in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 2 June 1989, the latest date for which information is available, there were 9,083 people on employment training in South Yorkshire.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many extra staff have been employed by the Health and Safety Executive to monitor health and safety on employment training schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None. By virtue of the Health and Safety (Training for Employment) Regulations 1988, participants on employment training and similar training schemes at employers' premises are covered by the full range of statutory health, safety and welfare provisions applying to employed persons. Accordingly HSE inspectors do not, when examining conditions at workplaces, differentiate between trainees and employees.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many accidents have occurred on employment training schemes since their inception.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Since the inception of employment training on the 5 September 1988, 556 accidents to ET trainees have been reported to the Training Agency.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what specific measures are taken to monitor health and safety on employment training schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Health and safety arrangements for ET closely parallel those for YTS. Training managers have the prime responsibility for monitoring work placements, and they are obliged to ensure that premises are properly notified to the relevant enforcing authority, that proper insurance arrangements are available and that, in general, there is appropriate health and safety management and supervision. Training managers are also required to report and investigate accidents; to provide relevant literature, including the new booklet "Safety First in Employment Training", and to arrange for proper induction and training in health and safety matters.

  The Training Agency's own staff conduct monitoring of all these requirements, by sample visits to training managers to check records and documents. They also visit work experience premises on a sample basis.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on investigations carried out by the west midlands employment fraud investigators at the Birmingham convention centre and on Operation Enterprise.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 10 March 1989, investigators interviewed 450 building workers at the Birmingham convention site. As a result, 128 people withdrew their claims to benefit. The exercise yielded net benefit savings of approximately £98,000. Forty-four cases are being considered for prosecution.
  118
  Operation Enterprise investigated people registered with employment agencies. It commenced in July 1988 and finished in March 1989. Of the 2,350 investigations, 1,100 people withdrew their claims to benefit. The net benefit saving was approximately £800,000. A total of 147 cases are being considered for prosecution.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Operation Rag Trade carried out by employment service fraud operators in the east end of London.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Operation Rag Trade, which was carried out between October and November 1988, investigated possible benefit fraud among people engaged in the clothing industry in the east end of London. Over 1,150 investigations were undertaken with 173 people withdrawing their claims to benefit. This resulted in net benefit savings of £275,000 and five potential prosecution cases.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will report progress on tackling fraud among benefit claimants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will report on progress in tackling fraud among benefit claimants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  During the year April 1988 to March 1989, 435,969 investigations were carried out by investigators. This resulted in 86,895 claims to benefit being withdrawn with net benefit savings of £62·55 million. In addition, 4,045 people were prosecuted for social security offences.

  Ports
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he plans to meet the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union to discuss industrial relations in the ports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Industrial relations in scheme, and non-scheme ports are a matter for employers and their employees. The Government's proposals for the abolition of the dock labour scheme provides an opportunity for ports which evolve new arrangements to secure better industrial relations and fewer strikes.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many registered dockers under the dock labour scheme are currently on the temporary unattached register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  According to National Dock Labour Board registers for 30 May 1989 there were 130 registered dock workers then on the temporarily unattached register.

  The temporarily unattached register is a product of the dock labour scheme. It maintains registered dock workers on basic pay even though they are not working and is funded by a levy on employers in scheme ports. No other industry bears the cost of such a requirement. The Government are abolishing the scheme so that scheme ports can compete on equal terms.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what volume of Britain's overseas trade
  119
  is currently handled by dockers working in ports (a) covered by the dock labour scheme and (b) those outside the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Department of Transport port statistics for 1987 show that 51 scheme ports handled 59·73 per cent. of the volume of overseas trade, while 35 non-scheme ports handled 40·26 per cent.

  Ports which bear the costs of the dock labour scheme have lost a substantial share of trade to ports outside the scheme over the past 25 years. They have also lost jobs while jobs in non-scheme ports have grown. The Government are abolishing the scheme to allow all ports to compete on equal terms and win the business needed to sustain jobs.

  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current industrial dispute in the ports covered by the dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is a matter for the port employers to decide how they wish to respond to unofficial strikes by a minority of registered dock workers. I hope that dock workers will look to their future, and respond to the port employers offer to negotiate locally about arrangements to be established after the dock labour scheme is abolished.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to reintroduce casual labour into dock labour scheme ports after abolition of the statutory scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government believe that there is no evidence that there can be a return to widespread casual work. Modern ports have no need of it.

  Without the scheme's restrictions, non-scheme ports employ few casual workers and employers of 93 per cent. of dock workers in scheme ports have given assurances not to return to a system of casual work. They have indicated a willingness to examine this and other issues on the same port-by-port basis as already applies to other workers in scheme ports and to the one in three dock workers in ports outside the scheme.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for redundancy have been received from dock workers working in ports covered by the dock labour scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no means of knowing how many inquiries have been made to employers by registered dock workers about redundancy following the abolition of the dock labour scheme.

  The Dock Work Bill which abolishes the scheme provides for the Government to contribute 50 per cent. of payments of up to £35,000 for any registered dock worker who is made redundant in the 18 months following the abolition of the scheme, and 50 per cent. of payments of up to £20,000 in the 18 months thereafter. This will provide redundancy compensation of many times normal statutory requirements and will be in addition to entitlements to early retirement pensions available under the registered dock workers occupational pension scheme from the age of 50 onwards.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received 120
  about negotiations between dock workers and their employers in scheme ports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about port-by-port negotiations between dock workers and their employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the port-by-port negotiations between dock workers and the port employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 4 May the deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union wrote to my right hon. Friend urging negotiations with the employers about a national agreement to replace the scheme.

  It is for employers and employees to decide the form of negotiations which best meets their needs. The Government note that the Transport and General Workers Union negotiates locally about terms and conditions for all other workers in Britain's ports, in and outside the dock labour scheme, and that pay rates of registered dock workers in scheme ports are also determined locally. The union, therefore, recognises that local negotiations are an appropriate response to the widely differing requirements of our ports.

  The Government therefore hope that the union will lift its veto on similar local negotiations on conditions of employment for the minority of port workers who are registered dock workers.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to discuss dock labour schemes with the Employment Ministers of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no such plans.

  It is for member states to decide their own framework for employment in ports in accordance with national needs and Community policies to minimise distortions to competition.

  Foreign Firms
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of foreign firms plan to increase their employment in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Although the information requested is not available, I have no doubt that a strong economy and a productive work force will prove as attractive to overseas investors in the future as they have done in recent years.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new registrations for value added tax by small firms were made in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In 1987, the latest year for which figures have been published, the net increase in the number of VAT-registered businesses was 45,000, or nearly 900 a week on average. The indications are that the rate of increase during 1988 has been faster. The vast majority of VAT-registered businesses are small.

  Single Market
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to meet the training needs arising from the completion of the single European market.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government's plans for meeting future training needs, including those arising from the single European market, are set out in the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" Cm 540.

  Skills Training
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve skills training in the retail sector.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government hope that employers within the retail sector will work closely with training and enterprise councils as they are established, to examine the local labour market and assess key skill needs and the adequacy of existing training arrangements.

  The Government are also seeking to establish national vocational qualifications based on competence. The retail sector recently launched its new retail certificate in England and Wales and the certificate in retail distribution in Scotland. These qualifications set standards for trainees in the retail sector. The introduction of YTS and employment training into retailing provides trainees with a properly structured training programme leading to these qualifications.

  It was encouraging to see that the 1988 national training award winners included winners from the retail sector, for example B & Q and J. Sainsbury.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what help the senior management buy-out team of the Skills Training Agency have received either(a) financially or (b) professionally from his Department.

  Mr. Cope
  As I told the House on 13 March (Official Report, 13 March column 25), we shall provide financial assistance to the management buy-out team towards the costs of obtaining external professional advice. No professional help has been offered from within my Department.

  Tourism
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to make an announcement on the future of section 4 tourism grant funding.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend is still considering the future of section 4 funding in the light of the recent tourism review. He will make an announcement in due course.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received (a) in favour and (b) against the continuation of section 4 grants under the Development of Tourism Act 1969.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has received representations expressing a variety of views about the section 4 scheme and will be making an announcement on the future of the scheme in due course.
  122
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he is now in a position to make a further statement on the future of the section 4 scheme of financial assistance for tourism projects.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend is still considering the future of the section 4 scheme in the light of the recent tourism review. He will make an announcement in due course.

  Business Growth Training Programme
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to train the self-employed on the business growth training programme.

  Mr. Cope
  On 24 January I announced that business growth training would provide training for owners and managers of very small businesses in better management and business skills in order to help them run and develop their business (Official Report 24 January column 550]. This applies equally to the self-employed. Further information is available in the Library.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the proposals put forward by the European Commission for a social charter.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government firmly believe that there is a social dimension to the single European market; because it is directed at creating new jobs, reducing unemployment and improving real standards of living. The Government do not believe that a charter of the kind proposed can contribute to achieving those goals.

  International Youth Skill Olympics
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what support industry and Government are giving to the international youth skill olympics to be held at the national exhibition centre in August; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government welcome the staging of the international youth skill olympics in Birmingham. It provides a good showcase for British industry to show the skills of its young people to the rest of the world. High standards of skill through quality training are essential if we are to have continued success in the market place in the next decade.

  Financial support for the international youth skill olympics is being raised primarily from industry. Sponsorship, in the form of cash, loan of machinery and materials, is expected to raise in the region of £4,000,000.

  The Government, through the Training Agency, provide financial support each year to the event organisers, Skill UK Ltd. During 1988–89 this amounted to £120,000 and £60,000 has been allocated for 1989–90. A contribution has also been made towards the cost of renting the national exhibition centre.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young disabled people have been
  123
  accepted for a YTS place; what percentage of them were in severity categories 1 and 2; and what percentage were in severity category 5 and above.

  Mr. Cope
  The total number of young people with disabilities in training on YTS on 31 May 1989 was 12,001. There are no figures available on the percentage of young people with disabilities by severity category.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers fulfil their quota of 3 per cent. disabled people on their staffs.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 June 1988, the latest date for which information is available, 7,736 employers with 20 or more workers were employing their full quota of registered disabled people.

  Training
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will commission further research into the support that industry is prepared to give to non-statutory training organisations.

  Mr. Cope
  A review of the progress of non-statutory training organisations on a sector-by-sector basis is due to be undertaken early next year. The review will include consideration of industry's support for these organisations.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places have been taken on Government training schemes in the Merseyside area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 31 May the number of people participating in Government training schemes in the Merseyside area was as follows:

  Number

  YTS

  14,958

  Employment training

  8,701

  Business enterprise programme

  1236

  Business growth training

  1257

  1 Figures for those in training are not kept for these programmes.

  The figures given are for starts from 1 April to 31 May.

  Strikes
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in the first five months of(a) 1989 and (b) 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimate for May 1989 of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes is not yet available; but for the first four months of 1989 it is provisionally estimated that 256,000 working days were lost, compared with 7,591,000 working days lost for the corresponding period in 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to legalise sympathy strikes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment", published on 20 March, states that the Government propose to make it unlawful to induce industrial action by workers of an employer not party to a trade dispute except in the case of lawful picketing.
  124
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of working days lost through strikes in 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in 1988 is estimated at 3,702,000. This is about a third of the annual average over the previous 10-year period.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to publish his proposals to limit the incidence of unofficial trade union stoppages.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government are reviewing the law in relation to industrial action with a view to issuing a consultative document over the next couple of months and including proposals in legislation in the autumn.

  Council for Social Aid (Manchester)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement concerning the situation of the Council for Social Aid in Manchester.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Council for Social Aid operated as an ET training manager through a company called Manchester Diocesan Church of England Council for Social Aid Ltd.

  The directors of CSA Ltd. recently decided to put the company into voluntary liquidation when it became apparent that the company could not meet its financial obligations. The decision was a matter for the directors of the company and is not something in which I could intervene.

  My right hon. Friend's major concern was to ensure that everything possible was done to minimise the disruption for trainees so that they could continue to develop their skills and improve their job prospects.

  All the company's 1,011 trainees have been, or will shortly be, placed with alternative training managers.

  Picketing
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to change the law on picketing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment", published on 20 March, states that the Government propose no change to the law on picketing.

  Job Share Programme
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs are currently shared under the job share programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the year to 30 May 1989, 166 applications were accepted under the job share programme, as a result of which 220 people have gained employment. I believe that the programme can play a useful role in helping unemployed people and encouraging more flexible patterns of work, and my right hon. Friend is considering action to give it more publicity.

  Closed Shop
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has as to the number of
  125
  employees working in pre-entry closed shops; and what proportion this constitutes of the total number of employees currently working in closed shops.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Our Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment", which was published on 20 March, estimates the total number of people covered by all types of pre-entry closed shop arrangements in Great Britain as being of the order of 1·3 million. This constitutes half the total of around 2·6 million people estimated to be covered by all forms of closed shop arrangements. These estimates are derived from a specially commissioned survey carried out between 22 February and 6 March 1989, a summary of which has been placed in the Library.

  British Venture Capital
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Venture Capital to discuss the expansion of small firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) on 16 May,Official Report, column 175.

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current number of health and safety at work inspectors in post.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 June 1989, 1,209·5 inspectors were in post in the Health and Safety Executive. The executive plans to increase the total number of inspectors employed to 1,277 by 1 April 1990.

  Tyneside Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he now expects to make a decision on the Tyneside training and enterprise council submission.

  Mr. Cope
  I expect to make an announcement on the application for development funding from the Tyneside prospective training and enterprise council shortly.

  National Training Task Force
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the national training task force; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I last met the chairman of the national training task force on 22 May 1989 and we discussed progress on establishing training and enterprise councils. We are very encouraged by the progress made and are confident that we will have a number of high-quality TECs operational next year.

  Wages
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on minimum wages.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A national minimum wage would raise employers' costs and destroy jobs, including the jobs of those it was designed to help.

  Co-operative Enterprises
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make it his policy to provide adequate resources to enable the Co-operative Development Agency to consolidate and develop its work in promoting co-operative enterprises in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The Co-operative Development Agency is at present largely supported by my Department under the terms of the 1984 Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act. Under this Act Government funding was increased up to an overall limit of £3 million. At current rates of spending this limit will be reached in the financial year 1990–91. In January this year my Department wrote to organisations representing the interests of the co-operative movement and consulting them on a proposal that the agency's life should not be extended. The views received are now being carefully considered and I hope to announce our conclusions and intentions in the near future.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of wages councils.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A final decision on the council's future will be made later this year.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the proportion of foreign firms which believe that British industrial relations have improved significantly in recent years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Such information is not held by my Department. There is no doubt that the last 10 years have seen major improvements in industrial relations. This is illustrated by the decline in recorded stoppages which in 1988 were at the lowest level since 1935. New jobs and employment opportunities have followed this improvement.

  Tourism and Catering
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve skills training in the tourism and catering industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 16 May 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) at columns 149–50.

  "Perspective on the Future for Resorts"
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to take following the publication and submission to him by the British Resorts Association of the booklet. "Perspective on the Future for Resorts."

  Mr. Lee
  I welcome this initiative from the British Resorts Association. I am giving careful consideration to the issues raised and will be responding to the association in due course.

  Companies (Compact Schemes)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the companies taking part in compact schemes with schools in England.
  128
  Mr. Cope
  The number of companies taking part in compacts is growing rapidly. A list could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

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

Pit Closures: Creation of New Jobs
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What provision they are making to create new employment in areas affected by pit closures.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, it is for the private sector to create employment in areas affected by pit closures, as elsewhere. However, the Government have a wide range of instruments and measures which assist in this process including, for example, regional selective assistance, training measures, and help for new and small businesses. British Coal Enterprise has played a particularly valuable role in helping to create alternative job opportunities in traditional mining areas.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of what the Secretary of State has just said about British Coal Enterprise, will he ask that organisation to do two things? First, will he make a detailed examination of how British Coal Enterprise arrives at its statistics? Secondly, will he ask British Coal Enterprise to break down its statistics into travel-to-work areas? Is the Secretary of State aware that what is being said by British Coal Enterprise about the number of jobs being created bears no resemblance whatever to what is happening in areas where there have been pit closures?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the figures I have to date show that some £53·7 million of British Coal Enterprise money has been committed out of total funding of some £408 million. The additional money has been attracted from other sources like banks and local authorities. Some, indeed, has come from government grants; for example, regional development grants. That funding has helped to create 33,420 jobs to date. However, I hear what the noble Lord has to say. I shall make inquiries, although the matter is not my specific responsibility. I shall then write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the correspondence in the Library.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is not the Secretary of State aware that when European regional grants are afforded to offset unemployment created by pit closures, the Government reduce the British allocation to such regions accordingly? Is he not aware that we believe that the Brussels money should be in addition to our UK regional allocation; otherwise there is no net benefit? The Secretary of State is fully aware of the "additionality" arguments. But the Government are defeating the Common Market policy of lessening the disparity between the regions in the Common Market.
122
Further, when regional development grants were withdrawn and selective assistance introduced, we not only received less cash; it also became more difficult to attract companies to our area. Therefore, we were worse off in both respects. In South Yorkshire and Barnsley there is 12 per cent. unemployment. So there is need for a change in regional policy along the lines I have indicated.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is strange that the noble Lord should say that regional policy needs changing at a time when we have seen unemployment coming down fastest in the regions. The noble Lord is also under a misapprehension. When we abolished regional development grants we did not at that time introduce selective assistance. That was introduced, to my knowledge, in the early 1970s. We have ensured that the money that is given for development in the regions is only given where it makes a difference. That seems a sensible step that any prudent government would take.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will my noble friend say who initiates trading estates today? Is it the Government? Or are local authorities responsible for getting people started?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hope very much that it is the private sector. Individuals and organisations within the private sector have to get planning permission. There, the local authority has a role to play. If we were to depend only upon English Estates in creating factories in the North-East or the North-West, quite frankly it would not be able to cope. We wish to see a vigorous private sector building the factories and warehouses that are needed.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Lord be more specific as regards what special provisions are being made to adapt the Government's training arrangements to the needs of redundant miners in these areas?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Government have been working through British Coal Enterprise. I pay considerable tribute to the work of that organisation. It provides assistance by five main routes. If offers advice and guidance to facilitate business start-ups and expansions in coalfield areas; it offers loans to new businesses or firms wishing to relocate to those areas; and it offers support for any new or existing enterprise agencies. It also provides land and premises and identifies special training needs. However, one cannot provide training needs in the abstract. Training can only be provided when one knows the specific end purpose for which it is required.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, will my noble friend say how many small businesses have been set up?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. However, I can certainly make inquiries and find out. I am not sure whether statistics for coalfield areas as such exist, but I know that British Coal Enterprise has stated that it has helped to create some 33,420 jobs.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does not the Secretary of State agree that it is very important in areas where there have been closures of mines to ensure that alternative employment is provided of a kind that the manual workers who have been made redundant can perform? In South Wales when there were pit closures, the alternative work provided was often in light industry. The miners who had been made redundant were not able to take advantage of the light industrial work available because no training was made available and no other work was available for them in heavy industry.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if a mine is to close, the Government could not provide alternative work for miners in the same business as they were in before. We have seen in South Wales in particular an enormous regeneration of the economy. We have seen all kinds of new businesses go there. It is important to accept that the future is different from the past and that people have to adapt themselves to the world that will exist and not try to recreate the past.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that highly skilled men such as miners are perfectly capable of being trained for the new high technology jobs if the training is available? Does he agree that there is no need to keep them in traditional manual jobs?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that those who have gone into other jobs and those who are undergoing training are very grateful not to have to continue in the mines.
We must ensure that we provide the training that is required in the areas concerned when it is known what jobs are available. That is what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment does through the training agency.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the qualitative reports which concluded that the privatisation of electricity would lead to an influx of imported coal to the extent that an additional 50,000 miners in this country would be made redundant? Can he say what is the Government's reaction to that and what steps they propose to take to deal with the problems of the areas affected?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has raised a matter which is not only far from the Question but is also not within my knowledge at the moment. I shall certainly have a look at the report. However, almost every week I read authoritative reports which in the event are not borne out by the facts. I suspect that that will always be the case.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the fact that 75 per cent. of the Kent coalfield has closed down, the miners have shown admirable initiative in not only seeking but finding new employment to a very great effect?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am aware of that fact. I am concerned that we do not delude those people in industries whose time is past that the only employment available to them in the future is in similar industries. We have to encourage people to look for the opportunities that will exist in tomorrow's world. That has been the policy of this Government throughout this decade.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Secretary of State told me that 33,000 jobs had been created, largely by British Coal Enterprise. Is he aware that during the lifetime of this Government no fewer than 150,000 jobs have been lost in the mining industry, so there is still a long way to go? His noble friend talked about small businesses. Perhaps I may remind him that if a pit with 1,000 employees closes, it would take an awful lot of small businesses to make up that number.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I said that British Coal Enterprise had helped to create 33,420 jobs. The noble Lord must appreciate that never before in the entire history of the British Isles have so many men and women been in paid employment as there are today. No other country within the European Community has created 3 million new jobs, as this Government have done. This is a time to congratulate the Government on their efforts and not the time for carping criticism of one particular aspect.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify one point? Is he aware that the United Kingdom, through the Council of Ministers, has agreed to the EC principle of additionality? Is he aware that the current practice seems to be that, wherever a grant is made available from the EC, particularly for regional purposes, it is automatically deducted from the Treasury contribution that would otherwise have to be made? Will he come clean as to whether or not the Government accept the principle of additionality?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the point made by the noble Lord. If he is very concerned about it, I am happy to assure him that the Government accept the principle of additionality.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as one who for personal reasons continues to take an interest in the area concerned, I should like to ask whether there is a sphere of activity, rather outside the ambit of some of the questions which have been put, in which the Government can legitimately play a useful part in the restoration of areas in which employment is rendered difficult by reason of the closure of various industries, namely infrastructure. There are communications, airfields and ports, there are fields of higher and further education, and there is housing. There are many areas which can properly be made the subject of a survey and can be used as a source of further employment. Will my noble friend confirm that those are legitimate fields in which work can be done?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am glad to pay tribute to my noble and learned friend for the work that he did decades ago in the North-East. Probably as a result of that work we are seeing an amazing resurgence of the enterprise for which the North-East was once rightly famous. If my noble friend were to go to a town like Consett, which used to exist as a one-industry steel town, and see the enormous variety of employment there today and the hope that exists in that community, he would indeed feel very pleased.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister has told the House that the Government accepts the principle of additionality. Will he put his hand on his heart and say that the Government will act upon it?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that I will have a good look for my heart and I shall then put my hand on it.

Namibia: Uranium Coding
2.48 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek the consent of the appropriate authorities to change the codification of uranium obtained from Namibia from N to P.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, in compliance with the terms of the Euratom treaty, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to seek to change the coding placed on imported nuclear materials by the Euratom safeguards authorities.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness two questions. First, what do the British Government consider to be the supplying authority for the uranium which has been obtained by this country from Namibia? Is it South Africa or the Namibian junta? Secondly, is it not the case that if, as the noble Baroness has told me previously, the Government have no intention of using that uranium for defence purposes, they have full power—if they wish to take it—to ask Euratom to change that codification? That would be within the regulations of Euratom, as I have no doubt the noble Baroness is well aware.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that the supplying authorities, or the appropriate authorities, to which the noble Lord referred in his original Question are the Namibian authorities under the overall tutelage of South Africa. So far as concerns the import of uranium for defence purposes, I have assured the noble Lord previously that no uranium ore from any source has been delivered to the United Kingdom for defence purposes since 1973. As to any change of safeguards codings, it is not for the receiving country to change the restrictions under which the material is supplied. That is a matter for Euratom in accordance with the treaty arrangements.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, should the Rossing uranium mine in Namibia close, the future for that country would be very bleak indeed?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. I understand that to be the case.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that, on our last exchanges on the question of codification of uranium, she undertook to look into the matter of re-exports to the Soviet Union of fuel that has been reprocessed by British Nuclear Fuels plc? Are there such re-exports? Has she looked into the matter? What proportion of re-exports of British Nuclear Fuels' reprocessed fuel goes to the Soviet Union? Can the codification be changed?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, BNFL receives uranium from overseas customers for processing and re-export, as we have established previously. The origin of such material is a matter for its customers and such material is under safeguards while in this country—safeguards which cannot be changed by this country.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be good enough to tell us what the Question means? Does "N" to "P" mean "neutral to positive", or "Namibia to Pretoria"? I do not know what it is all about.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, "N" is the Euratom coding for "no end use restrictions". "P" is the coding that relates to peaceful use only.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness. I wonder whether she will answer my question. What proportion of re-exports of reprocessed fuel goes to the Soviet Union?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that that question does not relate directly to the Question on the Order Paper. I should therefore have to look into the matter before being able to give the noble Lord the facts for which he asks.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that implied request for sanctions, leading to unemployment and poverty of the blacks, would be against the wishes of the majority of the blacks in South Africa and Namibia and would be counter-productive to the ideal of creating black empowerment through their education, prosperity and ability to demand the sharing of responsibility?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the Security Council Resolutions 283 and 301, as a matter of law, our view is the same as that of successive British Governments. The Security Council cannot take decisions that are generally binding on member states unless there has been a determination of the existence of a threat to peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression. We therefore believe that it is up to us to decide what arrangements we make for trading with Namibia.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, do I take it that the answer from the noble Baroness to my first Question indicates that British atomic policy can be controlled by the South African Government? As she did not answer my second question, is it not the case that, although she has assured the House that the uranium already obtained from Namibia will not be used for defence purposes, the Government have full power and authority—if they wish—to change that coding from "N" to "P" so that it is within the civil use of uranium alone and cannot be used for defence purposes? Is it not the case that it is only the uranium that this country has obtained from Namibia which is codified as "N" and can therefore be used for defence purposes?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Euratom authorities which place the coding on the material that comes to this country are governed by the terms of the Euratom treaty. We in this country are bound by the terms of the UK-Euratom-IAEA safeguards agreement and our terms as treaty members. I can assure the noble Lord that the terms of both the treaty and the agreement are fully complied with. I can only say once again that it is not for the receiving country to change the coding placed upon imports by the Euratom authorities.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Baroness has still not answered my question. Do not the British Government have both the power and authority, if they wish, to ask for that code to be changed? If they did so, is it not already clear that the Euratom authorities would welcome that request?
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already answered that question twice.

Low-Cost Housing Provision Incentives
2.56 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
How this year's Budget will facilitate the provision of low-cost houses to buy and to rent.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the extension of relief from capital gains and inheritance taxes to transfers of land and buildings to all registered housing associations, so that, when land is given or sold at less than best price, tax will be based on the actual proceeds of the sale rather than the market value. That will encourage landowners to provide cheap land for development of rented and shared ownership housing.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that reply, will he say what other earlier measures are beginning to take effect and to provide extra low-cost housing? Will he perhaps tell
128
the House what number of low-cost houses to rent are likely to be completed in the next two or three years? There is a serious need for houses to rent and I hope that he will come forward urgently with satisfactory figures.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to say that there is a need for rented housing. It applies across the whole country. That is why we have undertaken a number of schemes. We have certainly taken action in the rural areas, where we have made three initiatives to produce low-cost housing which have been widely welcomed. There is the freeing of the private sector to take advantage of the new opportunities; there is the BES scheme, which has produced over £300 million already for assured tenancy lettings; and there is something that we must not forget—namely, that best use should be made of public sector dwellings both by central government and local government.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Question mentions low-cost houses to rent. Will the Minister tell us what he considers to be "low cost"? In the area where I live, the average cost of houses coming onto the market for rent is somewhere in excess of £150 per week. If one adds to that electricity, water, gas and the coming poll tax, housing costs themselves go above £200 per week. How does that help the thousands of people in bed and breakfast accommodation and the hundreds of thousands of homeless people who are waiting patiently for resources to be released to local authorities and housing associations to allow truly low-cost and affordable housing to be built?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are acutely conscious of the need to provide housing at rents that those on low incomes can afford. That is why we have specifically asked the Housing Corporation to allocate more resources in that area. We have given them more resources—an increase of 80 per cent. by 1991–92 to £1·3 billion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the increase in the help given to rural housing. Will he confirm that that help amounts to a total of 600 houses? Is that not a minuscule addition to the solution of the rural housing problem?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the help we are giving through the housing associations will soon be 1,000 units a year which is more than four times greater than a year ago. The noble Lord should not only be considering the subsidised housing through the housing associations. We have opened up a wide range of opportunities for local authorities to help in various ways as well as the private sector. One must not exclude those opportunities: I hope that advantage will be taken of them.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must be aware that we on this side of the House naturally support any initiative that the Government may take to provide more houses both to rent and to buy. However, is he aware that the Government's

129
own figures have lately shown a rather serious deterioration in house building in all sectors? Is he further aware that the main reason for that deterioration is the very high mortgage interest rates that are being levied at the present time? Does he not understand that unless the Government are prepared to do something to reduce those rates as quickly as possible the downward spiral will continue and that this will not be to the benefit of anyone? Does he not agree that the situation ought to be reviewed as quickly as possible in order to get house building going again?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord has covered two points. The first concerns the number of dwellings that come on to the market each year. Last year there was the highest number in total for 10 years; in the private sector the figure was the highest since 1973. That is very encouraging. Last year saw too the highest number of first-time buyers for 10 years—two-thirds more than the number we inherited in 1979. With regard to mortgage repossessions, as I am sure the noble Lord knows the total number is very tiny. It is less than one-third of 1 per cent. of all mortgages granted. The latest figures show a decline in repossessions.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to come back so quickly. I referred to the Government's figures from the noble Earl's own department. These show a dangerous downward turn in the first quarter of this year. Will he take that on board and not rest on his laurels in speaking of last year and comparing the figures with 1979?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not at all rest on my laurels. I appreciate that there is more to do. I gave the House some very useful figures showing where there had been enormous increases. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord. I believe that he was fully answered last week by my noble friend Lord Hesketh.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I understand and appreciate that the figures that have been given relate to last year. Surely, however, a fact that every Member of this House will know is that the housing market is stone dead, at least in the southern part of Britain. Is the Minister aware that even estate agents are complaining—and one has to be in trouble for that lot to complain—because property is being neither sold nor bought? Does he agree that there is only one answer—the fact that mortgage interest rates are very high? Will he tell the House of any plans that the Government have for the future?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I appreciate that the market is flat in certain areas and certainly not as buoyant as it has been over the past three years. That is not surprising. However, the mortgage interest rate fluctuates. Of prime importance to all those who rent or buy is that we control inflation. That is the most important point.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister revert to the question put by my noble friend Lord Stallard?
130
The average industrial wage is about £10,000 a year or £200 a week and the average rural wage considerably less. I gather it is regarded as reasonable that someone might spend perhaps one-quarter of his income on housing rental. Will the noble Earl tell the House whether there is private sector housing available at approximately £40 to £50 a week and if so where it can be found?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is private sector housing available, and increasingly so, I am glad to say, to relieve some of the stress areas. We have given the Housing Corporation extra funds specifically to deal with those areas where low cost housing is required. We have therefore varied the grant rates in order to bring in private finance to make the public sector money go further and therefore obtain more houses.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Minister say how many council houses have been sold under this Government and are therefore no longer available to rent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted by the sale of council houses. People rightly aspire to own their own house and should be able to do so where it is built with public funds. The noble Lord misinterprets the situation. A family who were paying rent may now have bought the property but it does not mean that that house is lost to the market.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Minister say how many have been sold under this Government?
The Earl of Caithness: I believe, my Lords, one million.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend consider whether extra money should be released from the sale of council houses to encourage those responsible councils which are trying to look ahead to the needs of their electorate to build more low cost council houses to rent? Should this policy not be re-examined? Many councils are under tremendous pressure from one-parent families. Other families with as many, if not more, children are shunted down the housing list while new single-parent families take absolute precedence. The council has no alternative but to carry out its obligations. That does not seem right for the future. It is very unfair that the more orthodox families whose new housing is constantly being postponed should find themselves very far down the housing queue.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. Some of the evidence that we have received in the course of our review on homelessness has shown that, because of the priority list created under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, those on the traditional—if I may call it that—council house waiting list find that the creation of a priority group means that other families in that group come in front of them on numerous occasions. Evidence has been brought to us to show that that creates some resentment. So far as new

131
houses are concerned, I re-emphasise the fact that we have given a substantial increase to the Housing Corporation and that we are encouraging local authorities to make better use of their existing stock.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government are to take the advice of the Audit Commission which, after all, is their own creation? That body advises that even 20 per cent. of the money to be released from council house sales put toward the repair of houses would mean that there would be many more houses available to rent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Audit Commission has made a number of very important points which we are assessing at the moment, as have a large number of other organisations. We are assessing that data and hope to come forward with our report as soon as possible.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in order to enable local authorities to make better use of present housing more money needs to be spent on repairs? Anyone who visits properties built just after the war will see that there is an urgent need to spend money on repairs to put them back into use. If the Government continue to cut back on local authority finance for housing, local authorities will never build more houses and will never be able to make repairs.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness misinterprets the situation. We are encouraging local authorities to improve their stock and capitalised repairs are not subject to any financial controls.

Computer Fraud
3.8 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have plans to introduce legislation to deter and penalise fraud and damage perpetrated with computers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, fraud and criminal damage are crimes. The Law Commission is considering the need for additional provisions specifically related to computers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I do not wish to suggest any more legislation than is clearly necessary, but is he aware that theft and wilful damage can be committed from a distance with impunity by sophisticated hacking?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for not encouraging the Government to produce more legislation. I am sure that that will strike a sympathetic chord among your Lordships. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that most cases of theft, fraud and criminal damage would be caught by the present law. However, there is a strong
132
argument for amending the Theft Act so that "deception" would include a machine responding to false representations when the person making them knows them to be false but acts as if they were true. There is also a case for putting completely beyond doubt that the damage done to a computer programme which is stored on a disc, tape or other physical medium constitutes the offence of criminal damage. We are awaiting the Law Commission's report and will consider what action to take when we have received it.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Dock Work Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Report stages of the Schizophrenia After-Care Bill and the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill will be taken.

Licensing (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Dock Work Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): 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 Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS SEROTA in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Abolition of Dock Labour Scheme]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("effect") to end of line and insert ("in respect of a registered employer on the date on which he satisfies the conditions of subsection(5) below").
The noble Lord said: We should like to take this amendment with Amendment No. 12 because the two amendments together link the abolition of the scheme to a set of agreements negotiated by employers and unions to safeguard the position of dock workers. The two amendments go together.
In opening this discussion this afternoon we should like to congratulate the Government on putting down no last-minute amendments. This is another example of the remarkable nature of this Bill. We have had hundreds of last-minute amendments on the Water Bill, the Social Security Bill and the Electricity Bill, but none on this Bill. We hope that that situation will prevail when we come to the next employment Bill.
We have put down these amendments today to meet the points raised in the Second Reading debate. Various noble Lords, among them the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said that there was no alternative in the Bill provided by the Government to the proposed total abolition of the scheme. That is quite right. The objective of this amendment and of most of our subsequent amendments is indeed to provide some alternative to the total abolition of the scheme—perhaps some period of time or in respect of certain aspects of the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said at col. 1092 of the Official Report at Second Reading on 9th June, that the Opposition had failed to propose,
"one single amendment and did not have one single … proposal".
We are therefore coming to the Committee this afternoon with a series of proposals. I hope that those who want some proposals will vote for at least some of them.
Broadly speaking, it is true, although not entirely so, that the heart and thrust of the Bill is in Clause 1. Therefore most of our amendments deal with Clause 1. It is true that we are seeking to amend this Bill in two different ways. Amendments Nos. 1 and 12 focus on the first. The first way forward is to facilitate the development of a collective bargaining alternative, jointly regulated, system to the statutory system of dock work regulations. This amendment does that. Other amendments, in particular Amendment No. 3 which I shall subsequently be moving, provide an alternative way, building on the Bill and trying to spread out the number of issues for which the board can be responsible during the transitional period. There are two ways of doing so. One can either amend the Bill through collective bargaining, encouraging and facilitating collective bargaining; or one can amend the Bill through some more modest form of statutory regulation that exists in the present scheme. If people say that one cannot do either of those things, then they must be committed to the total abolition of the scheme and to putting nothing in its place.
This set of amendments works in this way. Amendment No. 1 abolishes the scheme, and all the provisions of the scheme, for any employer who can show that he has met the terms of Amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 12 spells out what one needs to do in order to receive the benefits of Amendment No. 1. It spells out the three things that one has to do to qualify for abolition. First, one has to belong to, and abide by the agreements of, an employer's association which satisfies the rest of the amendment. Secondly, one has to be a party to agreements—either through an employer's association or in some other way—which cover terms and conditions, training, welfare, and accident provisions and arrangemments for engagement, termination and discipline of workers. On the face of our amendment, those agreements have to be not less favourable than those introduced at the time of the passing of the Act. Thirdly, and finally, one has to agree to certain procedures for resolving disputes that arise over those agreements. Again, we are going back to the fact that the existing set of industry-wide agreements has provision for agreed procedures.
134
Therefore if a set of agreements is to be not less favourable than those that exist at the passing of the Act, we have to put that provision into the Bill.
There are several factors that we should like to suggest in support of these amendments. Much has been said about the special conditions of the dock work regulation scheme. It is said that it gives a job for life. We have argued that that is not so. It is said that it provides a monopoly of dock work. We have argued that that is not so. Clause 10(3) of the 1967 Act allows for certain urgent work to be done outside the terms applying to the registered dock worker. Much is made of the fact that disciplinary provisions are undoubtedly significantly better—we make no apology for this—than the disciplinary provisions and protection provided by existing legislation. It is said that dock workers can obtain reinstatement whereas workers outside cannot; that when dock workers apply for reinstatement they win rather more times and proportionately rather more frequently than ordinary workers under the terms of the 1978 Act. We make no apology for that. In so far as the existing dock work scheme and the set of collective agreements that derive from the dock work scheme provide improved terms and conditions for the workers concerned we see no reason to apologise for that.
For example, there is no mystery about the fact that the dock workers wish to retain their present system of discipline. If, as the Government suggest, they went over to the existing system with no special provisions, then the burden of proof would be in favour of the employers as it is under the statutory scheme. The criteria of fair dismissal would be managerial as it is under the statutory scheme. There would be no effective right of reinstatement. Any case which was regarded as not absolutely conclusive would have to be the subject of a down payment; and anybody with less than two years' service—and that might apply to many people in the dock work industry—would have no statutory rights. Indeed, if they worked for small employers they would have no statutory rights.
Before the scheme is abolished we want the dock workers to have a set of terms and conditions not less favourable than those that exist at the time of the passing of the Act. We accept that such provision would give them terms and conditions with regard to discipline and, in some measure, job security which would be significantly better than those of many other workers in this country. We see nothing wrong in that. It would also give them a system of industry-wide job regulation and bargaining.
Much was made on Second Reading of the fact that if the employers wish to break up the present system, to go down to port-wide bargaining or even individual worker-employer bargaining, nothing should be done by this Committee or another place to stop them doing so. We do not accept that. We would argue, as would the union and until a few years ago most employers in the industry, that effective joint regulation of the industry requires collective bargaining above the level of the individual employer. Although in the industry there is a great deal of decentralisation in the collective bargaining process, there is also a framework of

135
national agreements which, under our amendment, must re-emerge under the general supervision of the national joint council. It deals with a range of issues which we believe can be effectively regulated and protected in such an industry only with the kind of existing industry-wide agreements on hours of work, overtime, holidays, sick pay and pensions that require local and national disputes machinery and so forth.
It is said that outside the regulated dock area the system of joint regulation is not a national system. We argue that it is safe for that system to exist while the national system exists within the National Dock Labour Scheme. However, in the circumstances in which the union now finds itself, where the employers will not allow any regulation for the industry above the level of the individual employer—and there are 200 employers in the docks industry which makes an average of 40 dockers per employer—we say that there is a need for something better.
When Mr. Todd, general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, attempted in negotiation to achieve the substance of our two amendments he asked the employers the following questions. "How, through collective bargaining, will you secure job security for dock workers? How will you ensure that all or any employers will operate mechanisms for registration of dock workers? Will you define dock work or leave it entirely to the individual employer? How will your members be expected to minimise excess labour shortages? What arrangements will be made for medical and welfare facilities? What will be the procedures for dealing with discipline? What will be the arrangements at local level for a measure of joint determination?" In reply Mr. Nicholas Finnery said to the general secretary, "Employers"—not even local port commmittees—"will be separately entering into discussions with all their employees, including registered dock workers, over the coming weeks and months to formulate suitable working arrangements to apply following the repeal of the dock labour scheme. This process is one which will be carried out at local level. The need for national discussions comes to an end with the demise of the dock labour scheme".
In other words, there could be individual wage bargaining among the small employers who dominate some ports. There could be plant bargaining among some employers. In some cases there might be port-wide bargaining. But there could be no system of national regulation; no system of minimum rates; no system of minimum hours; no system of minimum overtime premium.
We say that the whole history of the docks shows the need for a system of regulation above that of the individual employer. We say that essentially this is an industry which divides itself into a core of labour and a periphery of casual labour. We say that because that is the method of the industry—the intrinsic tendency of the industry not only in the United Kingdom but in many other countries—systems of decasualisation statutorily or jointly negotiated dominate in the industry. We say that in the past the country and successive
136
governments—not only Labour but also Conservative governments—have found that the endemic tendency in the industry to produce casualisation when unregulated by such a scheme is the root cause of the inefficiencies and restrictive practices about which the Government complain. We say that each step towards decasualisation—for example, those in the 1970s—was taken to remove restrictive practices. We say that the dock workers' record and that of the registered ports, which we have debated in this House since the time of effective decasualisation in the 1970s, shows that this is the way forward.
Finally, it will be said that the employers do not need this amendment and that the Committee does not need to pass it because the employers do not intend to worsen conditions. The Committee can have it one of two ways. If the employers do not intend to introduce casualisation or to reduce wages and terms of conditions, they cannot honestly and logically object to a process which stipulates that they can release themselves from the restrictions as they see them of the National Dock Labour Scheme if they first sign such agreements which guarantee that position. If on the other hand they intend to do so—and that would be the upshot—the case is made for passing these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The amendment vividly illuminates the difference of view between one side of the Committee and another. The purpose of the Bill is to abolish the National Dock Labour Scheme on the grounds that if it ever had much justification that has long since been eroded. On the other hand, the amendment proposes that an alternative and obviously highly complex scheme should be negotiated. It will involve individual employers in considerable commitments with a view to setting up an alternative to the scheme.
The philosophy behind the proposal is that, because over the past 30 or 40 years the dockers have enjoyed a privileged position on the labour market—if they be such they have had advantages of a statutory closed shop and a special position not provided for the rest of their fellow workers in this country—something of the same kind should be continued. It is the open purpose of the noble Lord—I pay tribute to the noble Lord that he does not conceal it—that this is an attempt to continue the scheme in a somewhat different form.
For that reason I hope that my noble friend will not support it. I hope that he will feel, as do I, that it will frustrate the whole working of the Bill. It would delay the transition to a more normal arrangement which the enactment of the Bill in its present form will produce.
The noble Lord repeatedly spoke of collective bargaining and negotiation. Of course we wish to see those in this industry. But again and again it has been made clear—for example, on Second Reading and earlier—that the sensible form of negotiation is on a local basis. The port employers have made perfectly clear their willingness to negotiate with union branches all over the country. They will negotiate proper and sensible arrangements to deal

137
with the changed situation flowing from the departure of the scheme. That appears to be the sensible line. Apparently, because Mr. Todd and his colleagues are vainly trying to preserve the existing scheme, he has wrongly, I believe, put a prohibition on his own people to negotiate locally.
There is every commonsense argument for negotiating locally. The difference in the size, scale and problems of the ports is enormous. What will be common sense at Tilbury or Liverpool is very unlikely to make sense at Weymouth or Felixstowe. Those who wish to see this industry settle down, without continuous disputes and the minimum damage done not only to the national economy but particularly to those who work in the industry want to see sensible local negotiations put in train. If the secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union persists in his veto on local negotiations, he is taking on a very serious responsibility and doing so, it seems to me, for a very wrong reason.
Certainly the Committee would not wish to give that attitude any encouragement by adopting amendments of this sort. It should be clear—and the sooner the better—that the old dock labour scheme is coming to an end and that sensible people are now concerned to put new and adequate machinery in its place. That machinery, undoubtedly in the first place and perhaps permanently, will be on a local basis. It is because this amendment flies in the face of all that and is still harking back to the past and the idea that dockers should have a privileged position in the labour market that I hope that after due discussion Members of the Committee will reject it.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mellish: Perhaps I may intervene to point out that so much of what the noble Lord has just said is not true. The idea that there is no local understanding or negotiations is rubbish. "National" is what is required by all the registered ports. However, they argue differently at a local level. It is quite correct to say that one cannot compare Tilbury with Merseyside and so on. Certain rates of pay for certain cargoes are dealt with locally and agreed by local officials. It really is nonsense to convey the impression that nothing is allowed to be discussed at a local level and that all is done nationally. That is just not right.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord appears not to be aware that the secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union has explicitly forbidden his members to enter into local negotiations which have been offered by the port employers. The noble Lord cannot talk himself out of that.
Lord Rochester: It may save the time of the Committee if I outline my general attitude to this amendment and indeed to a number of other amendments relating to Clause 1 of the Bill. Essentially it is that in keeping with subsection (1), the dock labour scheme should be brought to an end as soon as possible, and that means at the time that
138
the Bill is enacted. Amendments Nos. 1 and 12 propose that the scheme should end for a registered employer only when he has entered into a collective agreement which accords with registered dock workers' conditions of employment and that those conditions should be no less favourable than those that they presently enjoy. On that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has been quite open, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said.
However, some of those conditions involve monopolistic and restrictive practices, practices which I criticised strongly at Second Reading of the Bill as being harmful to the interests of others and damaging to this country's trade. I shall not weary the Committee by again rehearsing those arguments in detail.
Other conditions concern pay, pensions, hours of work, overtime, holidays and so on. One might think from this amendment that after abolition of the scheme those will all disappear. However, they will continue to be protected by contractual rights and will not be affected at all. I suggest that in the case of these amendments the basic question to which the Committee should address itself is whether in future certain outdated statutory regulations especially concerning employment protection and discipline should apply to registered dockworkers over and above the normal legal protection which is given to employees in other ports and indeed in other industries.
I do not believe that they should. Rather, it should be accepted that from now on all British ports should compete on an equal footing and people working there should be treated like everybody else in British industry. For those reasons I cannot accept this amendment and, indeed, if it is pressed to a Division, I shall feel obliged to vote against it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, explained, these amendments would allow employers of registered dock workers to escape the control of the scheme only when they had collective agreements and practices which guaranteed terms and conditions of employment, training and welfare arrangements, and arrangements for engagement, termination of employment and discipline no less favourable than under the scheme. The central arbitration committee, on a reference from either the employers or employees representatives, would have the last word on any disputed matters.
Members of the Committee who have tabled these amendments persist in wishing to impose upon employers of registered dock workers a unique statutory obligation which no other employers face. There is no justification for this. Any employer is required to respect contractual obligations to his employees to meet established terms and conditions of employment for employees until new terms and conditions are in existence, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Employers of registered dock workers are bound by that requirement whether or not the dock labour scheme exists and may be sued if they break any contractual obligation. There is no need to freeze existing terms and conditions in a collective agreement to achieve that.

139
We shall have the opportunity to debate health, safety and welfare provision separately so I shall not dwell on it now. But the central point is that proper health, safety and welfare provision is an obligation of employers in scheme ports, as elsewhere in industry, under the terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The docks regulations 1988 under that Act provide a comprehensive framework for all ports. As for training, employers in scheme ports will have greater incentive to equip their workforce with the skills needed to make them competitive and highly productive without the scheme's restrictions on the deployment of workers. The impressive training provision of non-scheme ports shows that those incentives provide effective stimulus for good training provision. There is no reason to take the provision as it has evolved under the scheme as a yardstick of what is "favourable" training for employers or employees.
Why should the scheme's procedures for engagement, termination of employment and discipline become enshrined in collective agreements following its abolition? Those procedures are at the heart of what is wrong with the scheme. Procedures for engagement have given employers no incentive to seek new recruits. That is one reason why the average age of workers in the industry is creeping up towards 50 years. The recruitment practices sustained by the scheme are themselves discriminatory.
Procedures for discipline and dismissal have helped to sustain the indiscipline and poor working practices to which scheme ports are prone. There are recorded cases of indiscipline, even criminal activity, which might well have led to disciplinary sanctions or dismissal were they subject to review by the independent industrial tribunals which apply to the rest of industry. Employers' and workers' actions should be judged by the same standards and through the same procedures as apply elsewhere. The noble Lord suggested that those disciplinary provisions within the scheme were good. However, as I pointed out, they have been abused and there have been decisions by the board to reinstate employees which no independent tribunal would have agreed to.
Procedures for terminating employment have contributed to the maintaining of labour surpluses by maintaining unrealistic guarantees of employment. For example, where a firm closes, other employers locally are obliged under the terms of the Aldington-Jones agreement to take on any workers who might otherwise be made redundant. Scheme ports, faced with the need for major reductions in the size of their workforce to take advantage of the new technology of cargo handling have simply been unable to achieve those reductions through voluntary severance, according to the requirements of the scheme, without huge support from the taxpayer.
These procedures, and the system of joint control through the national and local dock labour boards which underpins them, are precisely those which must change once the scheme is abolished if scheme ports are to be in a position to compete effectively
140
for business and investment. These amendments would not allow that to happen, even if the parties were to agree that this was in the interests of the industry and its workers. In that case, they would almost certainly be acting illegally by agreeing arrangements less favourable than those which existed under the scheme. That is an indication of the straitjacket on negotiations to which this amendment would give rise.
We believe, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that scheme ports deserve to be allowed to evolve terms and conditions of employment, health and safety procedures, training arrangements, and procedures for recruitment, discipline and termination of employment within exactly the same legal framework as applies throughout industry. This is what the Bill, unamended would allow. Tying scheme ports, as these amendments do, to arrangements as they have evolved under the scheme for registered dock workers, whether or not those arrangements respect the real needs of the industry and its workforce as a whole, reflects the preoccupation of those who have tabled them with preserving the past at any cost, rather than allowing the industry to develop relevant responses to the challenges it now faces.
On the point argued about national negotiations, 30,000 employees in our ports have their terms and conditions determined locally. Registered dock workers are the exception, not the rule. The Transport and General Workers' Union accepts that local arrangements are satisfactory for the 75 per cent. of workers in the industry whose terms are negotiated locally, and it represents most of them. There is no reason why similar principles should not apply to former registered dock workers, too. In fact, minimum rates of pay are already negotiated port by port within the scheme ports.
For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment; but, if he does, I must urge the Committee to reject it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mellish: I hope that my noble friend will press the amendment and I shall tell the Committee why. On Second Reading, one of the arguments —which was never denied by the Government—was that the tragedy of the whole matter is that there is no alternative; that the Government are scrapping the Bill with nothing to put in its place and that everything in the past has to be ignored. That is what made me feel vehement about the matter. It is a bad government that abolishes a Bill with no alternative whatever to put in its place. In other words, the Government are saying that they are not interested in the past, that they are not concerned if conditions go back to the past and that they are not going to allow anything now to improve the situation. That is why I am so genuinely upset about these Government proposals.
I do not want to make another Second Reading speech but again and again Government Front Bench spokesmen have said that there are no plans to abolish the National Dock Labour Scheme. That was said only a few weeks ago. That is not what I said but

141
what the Government Front Bench said. However, now, a few weeks later, the Government bring forward plans to abolish the scheme entirely. That is one aspect, but I want to deal with what appears to be the main thrust of the argument.
First there is the national argument. The scheme is national. It applies to registered ports. I remember the debates and the arguments when the scheme was introduced. Incidentally, how the Liberals have changed! No wonder that party has done so badly recently. In those days the Liberal Party was in the forefront of radical reform and change. The great Clement Davies very much supported the scheme, but today the Liberal Party could not give a twopenny damn about the past, and it is paying for that view.
I should like to say this. The scheme was decided nationally and supported nationally. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was a Member of the House of Commons when the Bill was passed. There was no opposition. I am not going over the past. I am not talking about what went on yesteryear, with casualisation and men being picked up like cattle. The scheme stopped all that and brought in what is known as decasualisation. For the first time men were given a sense of dignity, which they had never had before. Every decent Tory agreed that the time had come when that state of affairs should cease and the scheme was brought in.
The present Government have now decided to abolish the scheme. They give as a reason, first, that it gives dockers too many privileges—jobs for life is one. Well, it is the funniest "jobs for life" that I have ever seen. When the scheme was introduced nearly 60,000 workers were involved but today that figure is down to 9,000. What happened to the other 51,000? What happened to their jobs for life? Are they all dead? Of course many are but the truth is that most, like other workers, have finished with the industry and taken redundancy pay, as has happened in industry throughout the country. The claim that they had jobs for life is therefore a lot of nonsense.
The workforce is now down to 9,000 and for no reason at all the Government have decided that it is now opportune to allow the port employers to make even greater profits. When the scheme was introduced the arguments were based on economy. There was no humanity and no compassion. I said at the time that one of the weaknesses of the Government was that they had no time for people, that they had time only for theories: they are now paying a very heavy price for that. We should examine that in detail. I ask: What profits will be made as a result of the abolition of the scheme? It is a fair question. Are the registered ports losing money? Will the Minister get to his feet and say that they are? Of course he will not. He dare not. He knows that it is not true. Every one of the registered ports is making a profit. The question is, how much? I ask the Liberals, how much more profit do they want the registered ports to make? If the ports have been so badly restricted and are now to have this freedom one assumes they will make more profits. How much more profit is to be made? The Liberals cannot answer that because they do not know. The
142
truth is that there is only spite against what I believe is a universally accepted scheme.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord McCarthy has decided to put down this amendment to provide an alternative scheme. I support the amendment in principle and if there is a Division—and I hope there will be—I shall certainly vote for it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It is amazing how people who are at the same event have recollections which are entirely different. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said that no opposition was expressed from any side when this scheme was introduced to give exemption for life from the normal hazards of living and working. In fact, there was a considerable amount of opposition. There were some of us who felt at the time that for any government to pass legislation that gave exemption in perpetuity for advantages not allocated to everyone else was a mistake and that it could not and should not last. I do not think it right, in approaching these amendments, that we should look at the matter from the point of view that the Bill represents a drastic move away from a scheme that was universally accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is better informed than I because he lives among, and at one time represented, the dockers in a very intimate and effective way. He knows that this exemption for life was supposed to extend to the dockers' children. It was a hereditary principle. Not only were the workers given safeguards for their own lives but it was interpreted that everyone who happened to be in that profession at the time would, by convention, have this protection.
The only point of my intervention is to point out that the noble Lord was not giving the facts when he said that there was no opposition to the scheme. One or two of us foresaw the problems that would flow from it and we have now reached the stage where it should not be allowed to continue, now that we can see the real effect it is having on the rest of the industrial community.
Lord Scanlon: We do not have to go back to the days before the present legislation affecting the dockers was brought in. We need only go back to when this Chamber debated the Government's paper on law reform. Then we saw noble Lords opposite showing visible signs of apoplexy when it was suggested that their two professional organisations were trade unions. There are some of us who view those two organisations with a mixture of envy and admiration, tinged only with regret that we were never half as successful as they were. Where else can you get payment whether you do a good or a bad job? Where else can you get payment if you do not even turn up for your job? Where else can there be a situation where, if there is a complaint, you are judge and jury of that complaint? Yet faced with the situation where a group of workers are being denied the essentials that they have had for over 40 years, these noble Lords rise up as one and condemn as wrong the workers' simple attempts to preserve what they have got.
It may be that if we are talking about "coming straight" the Government should say what they

143
mean. They mean to seriously undermine the conditions that at present exist. If they do not mean that then why do they not permit national negotiations to see what may be forthcoming? Can there possibly be agreement between the two sides? In my view that is the test. I hope that my noble friend will press this amendment to a vote.
Lord McCarthy: I must try to answer some of the interventions made from the other side of the Committee though they cover virtually all the ground covered by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, comes to the centre of the issue when he says that we are seeking to protect a privileged position. That is his phraseology and not mine. He finds it characteristically difficult to accept that any position based on trade union influence can really be privileged because he then asks whether there are advantages. There are advantages. We do not deny that. We say they are modest ones.
There is a modest degree of protection against dismissal and in terms of job security. It cannot be absolute, and it certainly cannot extend in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls suggested; namely, to the sons of dockers and to the sons of sons of dockers. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said that the privilege has not extended to 90 per cent. of the dockers themselves because they lost their jobs. Nevertheless, it has been a modest degree of protection which has slowed down the rate of decline in the industry, and it has allowed the dockers to get modest degrees of compensation. We say that that modest degree of protection should continue.
In this respect the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, seems to agree with the Minister because, as I understand him, the Minister said that what cannot be accepted under any circumstances is a unique statutory obligation on employers. That is what is wrong. What is wrong under the scheme is that dock workers get certain limited protection at the expense of employers. That is what is wrong. Limited protection and special restrictions are perfectly all right for workers. As far as the Government are concerned, it is perfectly all right to take away the right of the workers at GCHQ to belong to a trade union. They are workers and that restriction is perfectly all right. It is perfectly all right to discriminate.
I do not say it is wrong that the police cannot strike though they can in certain other countries. It is perfectly all right for the Government to exclude anyone with less than two years service from protection against unfair dismissal. It is perfectly all right to say that workers who are unfortunate enough to work in small firms do not have protection. But you must not discriminate against employers. Bad employers drive out the good and that is the Government's principle. You have to reduce worker protection to the level given by the worst employers. That is the policy. It is wrong for an employer to be forced to give anything better than the worst employer, especially if he is forced to give it to trade unions and by a system of joint regulation backed by statute. The Minister says that that is quite impossible and the Government could not possibly agree with it.
144
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said how sensible it was not to follow our amendment and to have what he called local negotiations. As I have repeatedly said in this Committee, we do not know what the employers mean by local negotiations. They will not tell us. All they say is that they will not negotiate anything nationally. They say it is sensible to totally refuse to negotiate anything nationally and not to say why. It is not sensible to ask them what they want to negotiate locally and whether it will be done individually, on a port basis or with individual employers. If it is sensible they cannot answer.
So we have a fragmented system. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is saying that it is perfectly sensible for there to be 40 different schemes in 40 different ports with 200 or so employers and each one having a separate set of negotiations. Some of the very small ports employ few workers. Falmouth employs 118 and there are 351 in Workington. Is it seriously suggested that we can have minimum hours of work, minimum overtime premiums and minimum holidays regulated on this basis? If you have a nationally-regulated centre and heart of the industry, as there is under the dock workers' scheme, that will affect the general level of regulations. If it is all taken away the only defence is that it must be sensible, as the noble Lord says, because the employers say that it is sensible.
The next point I wish to raise has emerged before and no doubt it will occur again. The point needs to be answered once more. The Minister has referred many times to the tales of abuse under the scheme and particularly in the area of discipline. I wish that he would send out from the Despatch Box—he has got time—and ask for some concrete examples. I am fed up with generalisations about abuse. For example, he tells us that people who have criminal records or criminal charges brought against them cannot get the sack. I accept this. But here we have a very real contrast with the position under the national unfair dismissal provisions. Under these present provisions you can be dismissed for stealing. You can go before the magistrates and be declared innocent. But you cannot get your job back. There is no other country in Western Europe where that happens. Under our unfair dismissal provisions you can be declared innocent by the magistrates but you cannot get your job back. If the employer acted reasonably, even if he is wrong, that is all right. I admit that in that respect there is an abuse. That could not happen in the docks. That kind of abuse about which the Minister speaks I do not call abuse. I call it fair play. If there is an element of fair play in the present system we do not see why it should not continue. We intend to press this amendment to a Division.
3.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 148

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Birk, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

145

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mellish, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Saint Brides, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Scanlon, L.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Soper, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stallard, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Leatherland, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Listowel, E.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

White, B.

McCarthy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gridley, L.

Airedale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Halsbury, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hampton, L.

Alport, L.

Hanworth, V.

Amherst, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ampthill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Arran, E.

Harvington, L.

Auckland, L.

Hastings, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Havers, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Beloff, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Bessborough, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Blatch, B.

Hood, V.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hunt, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Brocket, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Butterworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Caithness, E.

Joseph, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Carnock, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Kimball, L.

Cayzer, L.

Kimberley, E.

Cockfield, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Colnbrook, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Layton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Cross, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Luke, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Donoughmore, E.

Manchester, D.

Dundee, E.

Marley, L.

Effingham, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Elles, B.

Merrivale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Morris, L.

Erne, E.

Mottistone, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Munster, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nelson, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gainford, L.

Orkney, E.

Gisborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Grantchester, L.

Grey, E.

Porritt, L.

146

Quinton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Raglan, L.

Swansea, L.

Reigate, L.

Terrington, L.

Renton, L.

Teviot, L.

Renwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rochester, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rodney, L.

Trafford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trumpington, B.

St. Davids, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Vernon, L.

Savile, L.

Walston, L.

Seear, B.

Whaddon, L.

Shannon, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Sharples, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Windlesham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Somers, L.

Young, B.

Strange, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Strathspey, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.7 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("and may during the transitional period administer any arrangements in accordance with any national or local agreements for the time being in force for the making of payments to registered dock workers (within the meaning of the Scheme) in respect of absence from work because of sickness or injury.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will be pleased to know that this amendment clears away a good many other amendments as I should like to take with it Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. They embody the alternative principle to the one I was suggesting to the Committee in the previous amendment. We have rejected the collective bargaining approach. There remains an extension of the approach advanced in the Bill to cover training and welfare.
For reasons upon which the Government have not elaborated, if indeed they have explained—we would be willing and pleased even at this moment to listen to an explanation—the Bill allows a transitional period during which the board is to continue in existence to deal with training and welfare. At the end of that transitional period it is assumed that training and welfare issues will be in some way privatised and handled in some other way to the way in which they are considered under the scheme. Clause 2 says that on such a date as the Secretary of State may specify, and as expeditiously as possible when the training and welfare provisions have been allowed for, the board will disappear and the scheme will disappear with it.
What we suggest is that the central idea of a transitional period during which the board will have certain residual responsibilities to see that the basic objectives of the scheme continue should be allowed to operate for areas other than training and welfare. Most of the amendments allow the board to administer for a transitional period the existing provisions in order as expeditiously as possible to set up alternatives. Thus in Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 we allow the board to administer and carry out the terms of collective agreements or absence payments, voluntary severance payments and

147
payments to employers for taking on surplus workers. Those are all powers which exist under the present scheme.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8, would give back to the board certain other responsibilities for the transitional period which they had under the existing scheme; they are similar to those for training and welfare. For example, they ensure regularity of employment and regularity of recruitment and they cover discipline and dismissal. Amendment No. 7 ensures,
"the full and proper utilisation of dock labour for the purpose of facilitating the rapid and economic turnround of vessels and the speedy transit of vessels through the port".
As I say, for the most part, these are provisions which exist under the present scheme.
Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 give the board a range of duties and provisions, part of which already exists in the present scheme and part of which arises out of the abolition of the scheme. For example, in Amendment No. 11, we suggest that for the transitional period alone there should be a general guarantee that no rates and conditions should be agreed, either between individual employers and individual workers or collectively, which are below the existing negotiated rate. That is an element of worker protection over terms and conditions.
If you take all those factors together—and they are open to the same objection which was raised as regards the previous amendment—you largely re-enact the powers of the board; but the difference is that you do so for the transitional period only. The rights of the Secretary of State under the present Bill to cancel such arrangements when he thinks that the time has arrived are left in place.
Presumably, whatever kind of consideration is given—we do not know much about this—the Secretary of State will take such matters into account when he decides that the board has in fact dealt with training and welfare. Such considerations will be used to decide whether there are provisions for no casualisation, no general deterioration in conditions, and so on. As I said, these are all matters which the employers have told us they want to see and matters which they say will take place. Their central argument is that, once the dock workers are released from the restrictions of this scheme, they will in fact be a lot better off than they are at present.
The second reason for this series of amendments is that the Government can if they wish give some indication—I hope that they will—in their answer to the first amendment, as to whether they feel mildly in favour of one or other of the amendments. Indeed, they may accept them, or perhaps come forward with an alternative at Report stage. Therefore they can, so to speak, shop around among these amendments. We are not saying that they must accept them all at once. That is why we have not put all the proposals in one amendment.
For example, if the Government rather like the look of Amendment No. 6, they could say, in relation to the idea of a general obligation upon the board at national level to attempt during the transitional period to guarantee some regularity of employment for dockers, that they will think about the proposal.
148
Alternatively, they would say they feel that Amendment No. 11, which seeks to protect the employer in the small port which may be threatened by de-unionisation and by a general lowering of standards, is worth further consideration. They could say that for the period of the transition, however short or long that may be, they would think about the matter. Therefore, there is an ability on the part of the Government—if they wish to pick it up—to discriminate between one amendment and another. That is why we have not put all the proposals together in one amendment.
The third reason for moving these amendments in this form, and the reason why, if you look at them closely, you will see that they take a similar form to another set of amendments which was moved in another place, is that we hope the Government will—as they have prior knowledge of the amendments; indeed, they have seen them before—make a rather better reply than the one Mr. Cope made in another place. His arguments seemed to be that there was no need for special protection, despite the many different types of amendment. But, in some way, he also seemed to be saying that in the case of training and welfare there was a need for a transitional period. We hope that the Government will take this opportunity to elaborate their case under the heading. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: The theme running through all these amendments is that provision should be made for arrangements now applicable to registered dock workers under national or local agreements to continue during the transitional period between the date of the passing of the Act and the date when the National Dock Labour Board is dissolved.
I recognise that Amendment No. 6 gives expression to a fear which I suppose only noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, can fully appreciate, because they have experienced it; namely, the fear of casual employment. Perhaps I may say in passing to the noble Lord that I enjoyed his swashbuckling speech, but I must assure him that the only reason why I am in favour of the dock labour scheme coming to an end as soon as possible is not, as he suggested, to put enormous profits into the coffers of employers; in my view, it is by ending certain quite unjustified restrictive practices that we shall improve this country's international competitiveness.
The industry has changed greatly since 1946. It is now capital intensive and requires people who are both skilled and employed on a regular basis. It is not therefore, as I see it, in the interests of the port employers to return to the system of old-style casual work. That is no doubt why for dockers working under normal employment legislation in ports outside the scheme there is now little or no casual work and why so many employers have already given assurances that there will be none in the future.
My understanding is that much of the small amount of irregular work which is done in non-scheme ports is not so much casual as part-time work which is welcomed by the people concerned. For the rest, I have no doubt that some of the work

149
is contracted out. However, that is something which applies in industry generally and I see no reason for a special exception to be made as regards dock work. I am sorry if that statement does not appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, but that is how I feel about the matter as a Member of this Committee.
In my view all these amendments suffer from the defect that they seek to extend the period during which, alone among industrial workers, exceptional treatment is sought for registered dock workers. I think that that privileged position should end as soon as possible.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The effect of Amendment No. 2, and of those amendments related to it, would of course be to prolong the agony of the dissolution of the scheme for a very considerable period. I very much doubt whether that is in the interests of any of those who work in the docks, or of the British economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Mellish—as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches—seems to think that the sole concern of those of us who want to abolish the scheme, and abolish it as quickly as possible, is to increase the profits; but I am not quite sure of whom. Surely the matter goes much deeper than that.
Noble Lords opposite must face the fact that the scheme ports have been declining substantially at a time when the non-scheme ports have been expanding and developing. It is not just chance or coincidence; the restrictive practices, of all kinds, imposed by the scheme have been damaging to the competitive position of the scheme ports and have undoubtedly driven away traffic.
A classically tragic case is that of the Port of London. This place having taken a decision on Second Reading, and on the previous amendment, that the scheme should go, there would seem little useful purpose in prolonging its departure for years. It rather reminds me of the medieval roué who once said by way of prayer:
"Lord, make me good, but not yet".
Lord Mellish: I have to intervene because I have been referred to on a number of occasions. I want to get the point on record. The idea that somehow dock workers are restrictive and not prepared to change or co-operate with different methods, and so on, is rubbish and nonsense. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to the PLA. The story of London docks is a straightforward one. In the last war the Germans heavily bombed the docks, but they did a poor job. They hardly hit the docks; they bombed the surrounding areas. Hundreds of my constituents were killed. Many of them never worked in the docks. When the war was over the difference between our docks and those of the Germans was incredible. When Bomber Harris went across to Germany towards the end of the war, he took the docks as his first objective and wiped them right out. I went there and I never saw a crane, a quay or anything. London never stopped. The moment the war was over London carried on as of nothing had happened.
150
Tooley Street, a part of the world in which I lived at that time, was a great wharfing area. It was built in the early days of Victoria. It was built for a horse and a cart only. From 1945 we were dealing with juggernauts. Lorries had to wait for an hour and a half. They had to park a long way off, they were called to come and collect their cargoes when they were ready. The decline had nothing to do with the dockers as such. I am talking about the London docks. I know nothing of Merseyside.
I put on record that I do not deny that some dockers were their own worst enemy. I remember the battles royal that I had with what was called the Blue Union, because it tried to keep that which was not relevant. It was impossible, for example, to say to the employers in the PLA, "We are not going to work after 5 o'clock. We will not work on Saturdays and Sundays", and so on. That was nonsense. I had a great interest in the PLA. It was fighting a losing battle. To argue that the docker is restrictive and that his practices somehow destroyed the London docks is nonsense. The whole of the London dock set up had to go. That is why Tilbury was built.
The PLA invested millions of pounds in building Tilbury because containerisation had been introduced in a big way. Every Member of the Committee will know what I mean by that. Cargoes loaded in big containers arrive by ship. They are dumped on the quay. London was not equipped to deal with them. The PLA therefore spent millions of pounds and built the new dock at Tilbury. I could see that coming.
First, St. Katherine's Dock fell. One should try to imagine ships getting through the estuaries and the small canals which were all part of the London makeup. It was not possible to sustain trade. The London docks fell because of their geography and nature. That had nothing to do with restrictive practices. That is the point that I wish to emphasise. I beg everyone to understand that point. It was not because the dockers were bad, bad men and refused to do certain things. It was the geography of the docks after the war which made it impossible for them to be used.
There was a complete contrast in Germany. From 1945 until 1950 the Germans had nothing. Then came Marshall Aid. What did the Germans do? I went back to see their docks. What a different story it was! They started from scratch. They built docks. They put in quays. Alongside the quays were railway lines. Alongside them were the cold stores. Alongside the cold stores were the motorways. The result was an efficient flow through of the sort that none of our docks was equipped to deal with. We could not compete. It was inevitable that the whole of the London dock industry would collapse until we could achieve ports something like those in Germany. That is the background.
The scheme was introduced. I will not go over the Second Reading speeches, I agree with what has been said. I beg everyone to understand that the scheme was introduced because the dock industry was in such an appalling condition. Its people were treated badly. It has been argued that that cannot happen today and that the employers will not return to yesteryear. I therefore ask this simple question which

151
my noble friend Lord McCarthy also asked: if that is so, why do not the employers put it in writing? Why do they not have a national agreement which says that they will never go back to how things were? "We recognise that those days were terrible. We recognise why the scheme was introduced. We will therefore put that in writing". Why do they not do that?
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the agreement should be reached locally. When we talk about the big things—pensions, the way of working and general standards—they are national matters. They cannot be left to one employer, who may be doing rather well this year, to sign a local agreement with a local set up while another employer who is not doing so well signs a different agreement. That cannot be right. I have always believed that national agreements should apply to the industry as a whole. I agree with local agreements where there are local rates and so on. There should be national agreements for pensions, and similar things. Although the amendments are an extension of what we said earlier, I support them in principle. I am bewildered as to why the Liberals have changed suddenly when they were such a progressive party.
Lord Underhill: I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, spoke in the way that he did. I am one of the Members of the Committee who sat throughout the whole of the Second Reading debate. We have had another Second Reading speech from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He talked about the necessity to retain our competitive position. Will he outline the position of the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and France, all of which have some form of dock scheme and would be appalled at the idea of adopting what is suggested in the Bill.
Is it not also a fact that 70 per cent. (in weight) of our sea trade is carried by the scheme ports? Will the Minister tell us what the productivity position has been in the scheme ports over the past six, seven or eight years? Those matters have been overlooked while we have had Second Reading speeches against what has been called the dockers' privileged position.
It is a pity that each amendment cannot be taken separately. The import of the speech made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy was that the amendments provide alternatives which the Government and the Dock Labour Board could take up if they wished. It is a pity that we must take all the amendments in one group and vote on the lot.
If Members of the Committee are going to repeat Second Reading speeches I hope that they will deal with the facts of the situation. Moreover, if we are talking about the competitive position, I challenge the Minister now: will he tell me how the passing of the Bill would change the competitive position of the scheme ports as they now exist?—because their position over the past few years shows that their productivity has been highly satisfactory.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: What an ingenious advocate the noble Lord, Lord Mellish is, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill! The technique
152
is as old as the hills. It consists of finding an argument upon which there can be very little disagreement and attaching to it something on which there is ground for a great deal of disagreement. Everyone agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that the way things turn out it seems that, industrially, it pays to lose a war. It looks as though it is a good thing not to win but to lose and to be bombed level so that you can start up afresh. He produced that as the reason for the grave discrepancies in the efficiency of our ports, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Mellish: I would simply like—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I wanted to make the noble Lord happy. I wanted to reassure him that there is no question either in this Committee or anywhere in the country of attacking individual dockers. There is nothing wrong with the dockers as individuals, or as a group under a union, taking advantage of a privileged position given them by legislation. That is what they have done; everybody does it. That is what is happening even with certain suggestions made from the Woolsack. The lawyers are reacting against their privileges being changed. My word, they react as though they are entitled to go on as they are for ever. The doctors are doing the same in regard to the health proposals. They were given certain privileges which have been the convention for years and they do not like to see that situation altered.
This privilege was given to the dockers openly and legitimately. Although the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that he did not agree with what my noble friend on the Front Bench said about the position under the last amendment, did he disagree with what his noble friend Lord Scanlon said? Who is in a better position than the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, as the trade union leader who really knew the inside of all these things, to describe the position of their being judges in their own court and having all the privileges to which he referred. I do not blame the dockers any more than I blame the lawyers or the doctors for wanting to fight hard to retain a position of privilege if they have it.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has decided that these amendments are going to be taken together. It was the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who seemed to be criticising that approach, not my noble friend on this side of the Committee. The noble Lord said that he had all these ideas which he wanted to put to the Government and they could take their pick. His argument would have had much more force had he been able to say that the transitional period which would be beneficial and fair was this or that rather than throwing out a whole load of suggestions and leaving somebody else to make a decision. It does not show much confidence in what the noble Lord has in mind.
I hope that my noble friend resists these amendments. That would be displaying much greater consistency and much greater faith. As the Government have said on Second Reading and since, the time has come to end this privileged position which has done harm to the docks and their future.

153
That is shown by all the evidence in front of us. Rather than drag it out over five years or any other transitional period we should end it now so that the docks and the dockers can get back to working a system which is genuinely competitive. That will be better at the end of the day for the wage packets of the dockers, for the certainty of their jobs and for our success as a trading nation.
Lord Underhill: I hoped very much that the noble Lord would give way at an earlier stage. The last thing I would wish to do is to criticise my noble friend Lord McCarthy on this matter. I think he is better informed than anyone else in this Chamber on these matters, particularly as concerns industrial law. I was not criticising my noble friend. I said it was a pity that we had to take all these 10 or 11 amendments together. It would have been good if we could have had a decision on each one, but that might have been abusing the time and the privilege of the Committee. The Government and the dock labour board are still free to pick up any suggestions that they wish if we agree to pass the first amendment.
Lord Mellish: I should just like to put on record that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is famous for distorting and twisting arguments. What he has said is absolute rubbish, but of course he is known for that. This is part of his world. I do not think that any one on the Committee could believe that I was saying that there is an advantage to losing a war. Only he could think of that. Does the noble Lord not realise that for six years of my life I was actually fighting to win the war? I am now told my argument is that I was keen to see us lose it. I was trying to make the obvious point—he is so thick-headed that he does not understand—that when a country like Germany has completely and utterly lost everything that she had it rebounds back on our own dock industry which was by and large (it shows the incompetence of the Germans) virtually untouched. Then, of course, with the advance of technology and the know-how of unloading ships faster these docks became useless. I wanted to get that on the record because I have never heard such a lot of rubbish. As for this other rubbish about the dockers being in a privileged position, I would ask: for what? To go to work? So far as I know, that is the only privilege they have. For the first time in their life they actually have the privilege that when they show up at 7.30 in the morning and again at half-past 12, if there is no work for them at least they are credited with having made themselves available. If they do not apply for work they do not get a penny. They have to get up very early in the morning so as to be there at half-past seven and say, "I'm here, guv'nor do you want me?" The employer will say, "No, I don't want you today, boy, but you are registered and you will get your retainer". That is a special privilege? You would think that we were throwing money at these layabouts in bed and paying them not to get up, not to work or do anything. That is the sort of rubbish we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I would ask your Lordships to ignore it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: No; it was not I who said that. It was the noble Lord's noble friend Lord Scanlon. He described vividly the privileges, not me. Of course, if the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, wants to disagree with him, that is another matter.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Will the noble Lord give way? Would he not agree that the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, was talking about the legal profession rather than the dockers?
Noble Lords: Of course he was!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I wonder whether we can get back to the point at issue. I think that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has quite enjoyed himself, perhaps at the expense of other noble Lords and perhaps at his own expense. I do not want to discuss why the dock labour scheme came into being: we have all recognised that. What I want to suggest is that with the kind of changes the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has described, it has become necessary to change working practice. If I might take Southampton as an example, it has been frustrated in its full development. Employers, whether engaged in cold storage in other motor-orientated activities, have found that even in a free port things have not worked properly because they have not had the opportunity to bring in their own labour and their own work practices. All that this whole series of amendments seems to do is to tack on a little bits and pieces to delay the abolition of the dock labour scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that he sought in the early amendments, as, I believe, he still seeks in these later ones, to provide that there shall be a national bargaining authority, a national pension regulatory authority and a national this or that. He did not deny that. He said that these were advantages which he sought for the industry. But he has not demonstrated in any way either in his earlier arguments or in relation to this present series of amendments why work people in this industry should have advantages over workpeople in other industries where adequate arrangements are made between employers and the workforce as regards pensions, redundancy and other matters. This is only a device to prolong in writhing agony the dock labour scheme. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will explain why we are not prepared to accept these delaying tactics, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said, and why we want to move swiftly on to a free enterprise system in the dock industry.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I do not believe that the intention of the amendment is to delay anything. It is merely an attempt to seek another way to resolve what has become an extremely difficult problem. I did not speak on Second Reading, and I did not attend the Second Reading debate. We did not decide on Second Reading to do anything with this Bill. We merely conformed with practice. The Second Reading debate was allowed to go through without a Division. Therefore, it is stupid to talk about this Chamber deciding the fate of the Bill.

155
What decided the fate of the Bill, as a Bill, was parliamentary custom. Do not let us hear this nonsensical, childhood theme that somehow or other in this majestic Chamber we decided the fate of the Bill. I wish to make a comment on the story that Bob Mellish told us about London—
Noble Lords: Lord Mellish!
Lord Sefton of Garston: I apologise. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, knows the extent to which I am sincere in that apology. The story in Liverpool at the moment is exactly the same as the story in London. Seven miles of dockland were built in Liverpool by employers who were concerned only with their own interest. The employers constructed narrow roads and terrible housing. That extended right up to the docks. Now we have literally had to—when I say "we", I mean the people of Liverpool—shift four of those seven miles of docks out of the town of Liverpool. The docks are no longer in Liverpool. To all intents and purposes, they are now in Bootle, which is part of Sefton. We did that with the co-operation of the dockers and the employers.
As regards productivity, the productivity at Seaforth over the years has been second to none in Europe. That productivity was achieved because the dock force in Liverpool, which has now been reduced to an abysmally low figure compared with that of previous years, co-operated with the National Dock Labour Board. Therefore, no one can talk to me about non-productivity in Liverpool. If the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, talks about non-productivity in Liverpool, he does not know what he is talking about.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I never mentioned Liverpool!
Lord Sefton of Garston: The Liverpool docks have achieved high productivity. People ask why dockers have privileges. The answer to that is that, historically, dockers have endured filthy conditions and bad treatment by the employing classes. That is why dockers have privileges. The nation realised that, without the introduction of some decency into labour relations in Britain's docklands, we should never have sustained our effort in the war, let alone have won it.
However, I am not asking the Chamber to take the advice of Bill Sefton, who was one of a family of seven and whose brothers, uncles and father all worked in the docks. I am not asking the Chamber to take my advice as regards handling this terrible problem. I am not asking the Chamber to take the advice of the trade unions, or even the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon. I advise the Chamber to take the advice of the employing classes in Merseyside and in Liverpool. What do the employers say about these amendments which seek a better way to introduce some changes into the National Dock Labour Board? Members of the Committee on the other side of the Chamber should know what they say. The Merseyside Chamber of Commerce has come out very firmly against any legislation which would remove the dock labour scheme. That body
156
has put it on record that the only decent thing to do, in recognition of the past history of the docks, is to resolve this matter not by compulsory legislation but by national negotiation.
Lord Mellish: The noble Lord, Lord Lucan—
Noble Lords: Not Lord Lucan!
Lord Mellish: The noble Lord, whoever he was, made a very interesting observation on the dock labour scheme. He said that he understood why the scheme exists, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. However, the noble Lord continued by saying that now we are in a different time and a different age and therefore the scheme is no longer relevant. He said that the unions, in particular, should co-operate and understand the position.
I rise to put on record the fact that, as I understand the matter—I am no longer officially attached to the unions—the unions are willing and prepared, and always have been, to discuss these matters with employers nationally in order to amend the scheme and to bring it up to date and make it applicable to modern methods. However, the employers have refused to meet them. The employers are saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wants them to say, that they are only prepared to discuss the matter at a local level, and not nationally. However, the unions say this is a national scheme, and they want to discuss it nationally. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for attributing an incorrect title to him.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had an interesting, if sometimes slightly historical debate, on this amendment. However, as the Committee will know, the Government believe that the dock labour scheme damages the business prospects of the ports to which it applies. It damages our national economic interests, which rely so heavily on the performance of our ports. The Government are supported in that view not only by employers in scheme ports but by the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and associations representing shipbrokers, warehouse operators and road haulage. All these organisations have an interest in successful ports able to create the wealth needed, in an increasingly competitive industry, to provide reasonable pay and conditions for its workers.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked what was wrong with the scheme ports' performance. As the noble Lord pointed out in his own speech, they have lost 30 per cent. of Britain's seaborne trade to ports outside the scheme.
Lord Underhill: Surely the noble Lord is not going to use that as an argument? The speech on Second Reading explained why some of the non-scheme ports developed their trade. That is partly because they are close to the Continent, and also because of the introduction of containerisation. The fact that should be a cause for boasting is that the scheme ports, despite all the criticism, still have 70 per cent. of our sea trade.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: One can hardly use that argument to explain why in the fishing industry, for example, Aberdeen has lost trade to Peterhead. Tilbury is a container port but it has lost trade to Felixstowe. Those ports are not very far away from each other, and both are on the east coast. The fact is that the constraints of the scheme have definitely shifted trade away from scheme ports to the non-scheme ports. Higher productivity in the scheme ports has been paid for with fewer jobs, not more business leading to more jobs. That is why dockers' jobs in the scheme ports have been lost at a rate of 8 per cent. a year over the past 20 years. That rate is almost the same as the improvement in productivity.
The scheme is also unnecessary because the industry has been transformed since its introduction in 1947. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, particularly, that things have changed since 1947. The industry is now capital intensive and needs skilled, permanently employed people. A return to casual work holds no attractions for the employers. That is demonstrated by the assurances port employers have given, and the terms and conditions of nearly one in three dock workers who are employed under normal employment laws in ports outside the scheme where there is little casual work.
Lord Mellish: Will the Minister be good enough to explain to me why it was that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham—I hope I have his title correct; I now know I should have referred to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, earlier—made it abundantly clear that he had no intention of abolishing the scheme as he thought there was nothing wrong with it? How is it that the noble Lord, Lord Young, said that a couple of months ago, but is now saying something different?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not certain that he said that he had no intention of abolishing the scheme. I expect that he said that he had no plans to do so at that time. I also doubt that he said that he found no fault with the scheme. I believe that the question may well have been asked by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
I return now to the assurances which have been given by the port employers. I understand that the employers have put in writing that they will not return to casualism. Those letters have been sent to Mr. Morris, the Deputy General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, so I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, would be able to see the letters if he wished to do so.
For all these reasons the scheme should be brought to an end quickly, and the Bill's provisions seek just that. That is why the board is given the duty of winding up its activities promptly while continuing to make provision only for training and welfare in the interim.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me why there was a transitional period for those two items and not for the rest. The Government's White Paper makes clear just how damaging are the main provisions of the scheme. The board has assets in the field of training and welfare which need to be disposed of sensibly. That is why the Bill provides
158
for the board to continue to provide those services until the relevant assets have been disposed of in a way which meets the needs of the industry.
The first nine amendments would postpone the abolition of the dock labour scheme until the board was dissolved at a date no earlier than five years from Royal Assent. During that period the scheme would function virtually as now.
Lord McCarthy: That is not quite right. They say that unless the Minister put it to the House it would last for five years. He could end it before then.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall come to some of the other points in the amendment shortly. As I said, the scheme would function virtually as now. The board and local boards would remain in being. Through them the unions would retain, for example, their powers to block decisions about the size of firms' labour forces and recruitment to and discharge from scheme ports. Local boards would retain their powers over disciplinary matters. In short, employers of registered dock workers would be no closer in practice to the goal of working within the same framework of employment law as other employers.
All of the amendments are therefore inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill, which is to remove as soon as practicable an unnecessary burden of restrictions and costs imposed by the scheme on the ports it covers. They are unnecessary to provide for the orderly wind-up of the board's activities and to provide the basis for reasonable terms and conditions of employment for dock workers, and they give rise to the new and unwelcome prospect of the extension of the scheme's damaging restrictions.
It is significant that while the wording of most of the amendments is taken directly from the 1967 scheme, the amendment relating to regularity of employment omits a telling phrase which was in the original scheme. The phrase is "efficient performance" of dock work. I understand that that phrase was omitted in a similar amendment at Committee stage in another place. We were assured then that this was an oversight. If so, there has been time to put it right; or is it that the Opposition fear a commitment to efficiency in scheme ports? Whatever the case, the amendments will undoubtedly lead to continued inefficiency in scheme ports.
A further extension of the scheme's restrictions is brought about by Amendment No. 11 which seeks to freeze national and local agreements as they stand at the passing of the Bill. At the moment local and national agreements encompass rates of remuneration, pensions, holiday, sick pay and overtime arrangements, manning levels, bonus arrangements and, most notably the guaranteed reallocation of redundant workers to other employers under the terms of the Aldington-Jones arrangements which date from 1972. Some of those agreements have sustained the chronic surpluses from which the industry has suffered, or unrealistic manning levels. Change is overdue.
The terms and conditions of individual dock workers will be protected on the passing of the Act

159
by the normal laws which govern contracts between employers and their employees. If those contracts are broken compensation can be sought. There is no case for giving existing collective agreements which cover registered dock workers statutory force in the way proposed by the amendment. Such provisions do not exist for other workers and, if I recall correctly, legally binding collective agreements which bind both parties have always been resisted by the Opposition. It would be most unwise to freeze the provisions of collective agreements as they have evolved under the scheme's restrictions at a time when employers and workers know full well that many of those provisions will have to change if scheme ports are to become more competitive.
What I find particularly depressing about this group of amendments is that all the evidence indicates that while the scheme exists unions representing dock workers have no incentive whatsoever to consider an alternative framework to statutory controls. In Committee in another place some Members of the Opposition admitted as much in attempting to explain the union's total intransigence over the years. The amendments, promising the extension of the scheme for an indefinite period, would reinforce that intransigence. These amendments, taken together, constitute an attempt to retain indefinitely the scheme and all its accompanying agreements. That is against every aim of the Bill. I therefore hope that the Committee will reject them.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Before the Minister sits down, will he make clear that his reference to the Association of Chambers of Commerce did not include the Merseyside Chamber of Commerce, which registered its opposition to the legislation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not have the facts with me to confirm or deny the statement of the noble Lord. I am sure that, if he says that that is the case, it is true.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Once again, the Minister has a very poor brief.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: With the greatest respect, I am not sure that my brief could be expected to encompass what the Merseyside Chamber of Commerce, one of hundreds of chambers of commerce, might have said about the Bill.
Lord Sefton of Garston: The Merseyside Chamber of Commerce is a damn sight nearer Liverpool than the one in the association in London.
Lord McCarthy: I am afraid that I cannot deal with all the points that have been raised but I shall try to deal with some of them before dealing with the unfortunate and sad reply by the Minister.
I thought for one moment that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was going to support us, at least a bit. He thought that he might like Amendment No. 8 on regularity, but he ended up by saying that he did not like it. As I understood his argument, he did not like it because he is in favour of part-time work
160
in the docks. We are not against part-time work. We are not dealing with part-time or full-time employment; we are dealing with casual work or regular work. There is nothing in the scheme which prevents regular part-time work in the docks. Nevertheless, the noble Lord does not like the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, began by arguing about Amendment No. 2. As I thought I had explained to the Committee, I did not move Amendment No. 2 because I thought that it was rather too general and too ambitious. As the noble Lord seemed to think my amendments in general to suggest, Amendment No. 2 suggests an indefinite extension of the Bill. The set of amendments which we are now discussing does not recommend an indefinite extension of any of the provisions of the scheme because the Minister could bring it to an end whenever he thought fit.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord permit me to respond? He has studied the Bill. Is it not perfectly clear that if Amendment No. 2 is not proposed all the others fall because there is nothing to make them effective?
5 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I do not think so. The Government have not said that. All the other amendments extend the functions of the board—which is to be kept in existence by the Government—for an indefinite period. That is what we are seeking. We accept that when the transition period comes to an end everything comes to an end. Perhaps if we had moved Amendment No. 2 that would not have been the case. However, we say now that if Amendments Nos. 3 to 11 were to find favour with the Committee, instead of the board simply looking after training and welfare during the transition period it could look after certain other things. That at least is the intention of the amendments.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that he could not agree with the set of amendments because the registered docks represented a declining part of dock work. That point has probably been answered by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. That is an allegation which Ministers and Members of the Committee opposite make continually. They say that all the so-called deficiencies of the registered dock ports are due to the restrictive practices of the registered dockers. We believe that most people who looked at it objectively would say that there is a whole range of reasons for different levels of development in different docks. It is partly a question of geography and partly of specialisation; it is partly the fact that the registered docks act as a sort of common carrier; and it is partly a question of facilities. It is a question of all the things that my noble friend Lord Mellish mentioned.
We asked again and again whether the Government would undertake a study before they produced the Bill in order to establish whether we are right or they are right. I suggested in this Chamber that they might make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Government say that they know the answers to those

161
questions. They follow inevitably from the fact that this is a statutory scheme. We say that that is dogma. We say, "Give us some evidence". The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the amendments reminded him of St. Augustine—I always like quotations—who said, "Make me good, but not yet".
I think that the noble Lord and Members opposite misunderstand our attitude. It is much more like that of Desdemona, who said to Othello:
"Kill me tomorrow: let me live tonight!".
We know that the Government will kill the regular scheme. We know that they will pick on the dockers, but we say, "Let's have a transitional period. Let it last for a little bit longer to see whether something can be sorted out. Kill them all tomorrow; let them live tonight".
Perhaps I may now turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I wish that he would read Hansard. I hope that, when he comes into the Chamber on a subsequent occasion during our proceedings on the Bill, he will admit that Hansard shows that, in his attacks, my noble friend Lord Scanlon—who has now arrived—was talking about lawyers. He was not talking about trade unionists at all. If that it the case, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that he has got us all wrong.
The noble Lord also raised another point with which I must deal. He got my noble friend Lord Underhill to his feet on the point. He asked why I did not put all the amendments in one great amendment and move them all together. I was trying to save the Committee's time. It seemed to me that the shortest way round would be if the Government were to indicate how they felt about the various items raised. We could either move the amendments or take them away and bring them back on Report, but, if that is not what the noble Lord wants, I shall bring them all back and move them separately on Report. I hope that he likes that.
I must now turn to the Minister's comments. I have several points to make. Let me turn first to what he said about the offers made by the employers. I hope that we can perhaps understand the matter between us. Frankly, we do not think that the letters that the employers write to the dockers are worth the paper that they are written on. We do not believe that, when they write to the Transport and General Workers' Union, that is any good either. The letters that they write to the TGWU are not legally enforceable. When they say to the T&G, "We do not intend to return to casual employment", it is not worth the paper that it is written on. We believe that the guarantees of anti-casual employment, regularity and minimum standards cannot be enforced without either legal regulation or collective bargaining at the industry-wide level. So it is no answer to claim that the employers say what they do because they will not do the minimum that the unions and the workers in the industry think is necessary.
The Minister talked about Amendment No. 10. He has not read it very carefully. The amendment states:
"The transitional period shall not end within five years of the date of the passing of this Act, other than by Order of the Secretary of State"—
162
in other words, he can end it; the period can be less than five years—
"a draft of which has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament. The Secretary of State shall not lay before Parliament the draft of such an Order unless he has consulted the Board about the contents of the draft".
We do not say that the period must last for five years. On the contrary, the sole thrust of the amendments is that we shall continue the transitional period no further than the Bill states that it shall be continued at the moment. We are merely saying that, during the transitional period, the board should be allowed to do things of the sort that it now does, other than those connected with welfare.
I wish to make one final point. The Minister tells me over and over again that he cannot accept these amendments—and no doubt other amendments —because of the low level of productivity and the high level of labour costs. At Second Reading he pointed me—I thank him for that; it was something that I had not read before—to the Transhipment Survey by Browne, Doganis and Bergstrand of the Central London Polytechnic. The Minister told me that the study showed that the cargo handling costs at Tilbury and Southampton were 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively more expensive than those of the non-dock scheme at Felixstowe.
I must tell the Minister that I have found the survey in the Library and read it but cannot find those references to Tilbury and Southampton. No doubt he can point them out to me. We are told that the report, which has been placed before us in all seriousness by a responsible Minister, contains the proof of the inefficiency and low productivity of the registered dock workers, but it has virtually nothing to do with the great bulk of cargo handling. It does not deal with 80 per cent. of the cargo. It deals only with transshipment. It does not make separate references to registered ports and non-registered ports. The policy implications that those writers draw from the report do not relate to the high cost of labour in the registered ports. They say nothing about that. They say mainly that the Government should spend more money on investment in both the registered and unregistered ports. That is the piece of evidence which, when challenged at Second Reading, the Government put before us to show why we cannot have modest amendments of this kind. We do not think that that is acceptable.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 12 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 13.
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall, as soon as may be possible after consultation with registered employers and their association and with registered dock workers and the appropriate trade union or unions, and before the dissolution of the National Dock Labour Board under section 2 of this Act, prepare in draft a new Scheme for the regulation of employment in the docks, which shall ensure the maintenance of secure and stable employment, high standards of training, welfare and safety and the efficient and profitable operation of ports. The draft shall provide for such matters to be determined jointly between the relevant employers and the appropriate union or unions. The draft shall be laid before Parliament and brought into force subject to approval by a resolution of each House.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to endeavour to set out what will follow as a result of the disappearance of the dock labour scheme. We have again heard this afternoon—we heard it during the Second Reading debate—that one of the most unacceptable features of the Bill and the Government's attitude is that they appear to be quite content for the scheme to disappear almost overnight and certainly very quickly. The Bill has proceeded with incredible speed, given the way in which Bills are usually dealt with in both Chambers. There has been no consultation, at least not with the employees through their unions. Apparently everything is to be left to the vagaries of local negotiations with local employers and to the good will, where it exists, of such employers.
I am surprised to hear the Government say that they are apparently so much in favour of local negotiations. The employers are in favour of local negotiations and no national forum. I can remember a time when employers in many industries were keen to have some kind of national agreement because they believed that it avoided leapfrogging in the industry. Certainly, if I were still a trade union official working in the docks, and the dock labour scheme disappeared and there was no national forum, I should be looking towards a possible campaign in the future of leapfrogging between the various ports. In that way one could ensure that terms and conditions were kept up to scratch. The better employers could then expect that there would be some action to bring the terms and conditions of the less good employers up to the level of the better employers.
However we on these Benches believe that such a scenario could be disastrous for the industry and those who work in it. The amendment provides for discussions with employers and unions with a view to arrangements being introduced to take the place of the scheme. As the Committee will know and has again heard this afternoon, these Benches do not accept many of the criticisms that have been made of the scheme. However, if the Government feel that the arrangements, which have been in operation for a very long time under the scheme, ought to be modernised and updated and the scheme generally reconsidered, this amendment will give them that opportunity. It is an opportunity to be exercised in consultation with the employers and the representatives of those who work in the industry.
The wording of the amendment envisages steps being taken in order to try to maintain secure and stable employment. This Chamber has repeatedly heard from those with a deep knowledge of the industry, and notably the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, how widespread is the concern that if the scheme disappears there will be a return to casualisation in the industry. The employers have said that such is not their intention. The Government have said that they do not believe that the dockers need have any fears on that score. But the fact remains that they do have fears.
That is why the wording in the amendment is so important. In no way does it envisage jobs for life,
164
which is how the Government view the scheme. No more is intended than that the kind of job security enjoyed by many workers, including those engaged in the non-manual field, should apply to the workers formerly covered by the dock work scheme. Surely the employees in such an important industry—and we know how important it is to us as an island and a trading nation—are entitled to some kind of job security.
I recently received a letter from a docker working in the industry in Grimsby. He says that he is a local representative and is writing on behalf of others as well as himself. It is quite clear from his letter that he is very worried indeed about the possible return to the docks of casualisation and nothing that the employers or the Government have said so far has reassured him; nor, I may say, has it reassured Members on these Benches.
The amendment mentions:
"high standards of training, welfare and safety".
On that score I hope that we can perhaps look for some support at least from the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and those on his Benches. I feel sure that everyone in this Chamber will agree about the need for training. Certainly the union involved in this industry is in favour of improved training. Part of the Transport and General Workers' Union's complaint against some employers is that they have not done enough in the training field. That is why younger workers have left the industry; they have better opportunities for training elsewhere.
There is also the matter of health and safety. This is still a hazardous industry despite improvements made over the years. Some working environments are inherently hazardous, no matter what is done about them. I believe that the dock industry is just such an industry. For example, I was told by the national official responsible for the dock industry in the Transport and General Workers' Union that there were seven fatalities last year in the London docks and there is still a lot of industrial injury. Clearly health and safety must be constantly monitored, and that is referred to in the amendment.
Finally, the thinking behind the amendment is unashamedly tripartite. The Government may not like it but they cannot ignore the fact that this industry is quite heavily unionised. Workers join unions so that their interests can be adequately protected and represented. Over the years the Transport and General Workers' Union has shown itself to be more than capable of representing employees' interests in this industry. However, it is itself committed to the idea of a profitable and efficient industry. As the Committee will recall, it has produced some remarkable leaders, among them Ernest Bevin and Jack Jones.
The union has a right to be consulted about its members' interests and, as the amendment says:
"for … matters to be determined jointly between the relevant employers and the … unions".
The Government need to play a role because this has been a statutory scheme. This is an industry whose proper functioning is vital to our well-being. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: On an earlier amendment the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite complained that speeches from this side of the House were Second Reading speeches. This type of amendment makes that quite inevitable. This is simply a proposal to reconstruct the dock labour scheme and put it in place of the one that the Bill abolishes. If one is to discuss it, it must be discussed in very much the same terms as was the original scheme.
This proposal has all the defects of the existing scheme. It would be utterly pointless to go through the procedure of abolishing the existing scheme and then put something of this kind in its place. With very great respect to the noble Baroness, there is not very much point in debating yet again this matter in this Chamber. There is a very real difference of view between the two sides. This amendment is simply one more attempt from the Opposition Front Bench to put the dock labour scheme under another name back on the rails. I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Lord Mellish: With geat respect to the noble Lord, that is not so. I have nothing but praise for the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. First of all she described what would happen if the intentions of the Government were fulfilled and that scheme were to be wiped right out. Nothing will be left other than some verbal assurances about safety, welfare and the regulations generally. It is for that reason that the noble Baroness wanted to put something in its place on the statute book. She wanted to try to safeguard at least the best part of that which had earlier been obtained under the national dock labour scheme. I saw her point.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has now given the game away. He admits that so far as he is concerned the whole of the scheme has to be wiped out and nothing should be put in its place. He says that assurances from individual employers will be enough. With great respect to him, it is not enough. I happen to know pretty well the dock employers and certainly I know dockers very well. Believe it or not I married a docker's daughter and, in the words of Winston Churchill, lived happily ever after. I must say that with all their faults the dockers' loyalty to each other is quite incredible and I believe that their loyalty to their country is far greater than that of those who live over in Chelsea—I speak of the dockers' instincts and immediate reactions. It is the kind of thing that I support. The dockers say, "It took us years to get this dock labour scheme"—this infamous scheme, as the Conservative Party now calls it, saying that it is unworkable—"and if you destroy that scheme, at least give us some assurances about some of the benefits that came from it and in particular with regard to training, welfare, safety and the efficient and profitable operation of ports".
I cannot resist saying again to the Liberals—after all we had a lot of old rubbish aired at Second Reading from the Liberal Party which was opposed to this Bill on principle but said that they wanted safety, efficiency and welfare—that here is their chance again. It would be interesting to hear what
166
the Liberals have to say about this amendment and, if there is a vote, how they vote. People are judged by what they do rather than what they say—at least that has been my attitude all through life. People are judged by what they do, and that is why this Government are in such trouble. They have lost the good will of the vast majority of the people because they do not trust them and do not explain their policies. They have not explained this measure except to say that the employers think that the scheme ought to go.
All my life I have worked alongside these people and know what they are like. I should like to put on record an experience which I have never forgotten and which has eaten into me. Hay's Wharf was doing very well and made pretty good profits of around 12 to 14 per cent. I did not know, indeed I had no idea, that Sir David Burnett, the chairman, had a private valuation carried out on how much his property would be worth if it were sold for development for offices and so on. He learnt that it was far better for him to sell that land. He would make on average about 10 to 15 years' profit in one fell swoop. He therefore sold the land and sacked 1,700 men—just like that. These were men who had done nothing except give from their hearts and work their guts out. He sacked 1,700 men—just like that—because he had a valuation of his property and it was worth a great deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, may say, "You cannot blame him for that." I do. My instincts are immediately to say, "That man, that firm, owed something to those people who worked there." If one employs anyone—a docker—one is responsible for the general welfare of his wife and family. They matter too. That is the attitude that people ought to have. The Tories say that it is nonsense. They do not want to listen to that. It is not relevant.
Let us see whether there has been any progress by the Liberal Party since the last debate. Are they prepared to support an amendment which gives some guarantee with regard to training, welfare, safety and so on? I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for the way she moved the amendment. It was very well done. I cannot wait to hear the noble Lord who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Party.
Lord Rochester: I shall endeavour not to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, too much. On the face of it, I accept that it is an amendment that merits sympathy.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Rochester: But wait my Lords. It is clearly an attempt to meet the criticism expressed by a number of noble Lords, of whom I was one, at Second Reading that it is one thing to do away with the dock labour scheme and another to put nothing in its place.
I said on Second Reading that we need a national strategy for our ports that takes account among other things of the impact of the Channel Tunnel in particular. Such a national strategy will not in some mysterious way emerge spontaneously from the operation of market forces. It needs to be initiated

167
by the Government. My difficulty today is that this amendment goes further. It requires the Secretary of State to prepare a new draft scheme for the regulation of employment conditions to be determined jointly by the relevant employers and the appropriate trade union or unions. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was correct to say that those conditions include training. It is certainly true to say—I adhere to what I said in this respect at Second Reading—that my noble friends and I are very keen that in the docks industry, as elsewhere, there should be adequate training arrangements.
I shall have more to say about training when we come to an amendment that deals specifically and exclusively with it. It is Amendment No. 15. Whether at that point the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, will be satisfied, remains to be seen.
There is a dilemma with this amendment. In the draft scheme that the Secretary of State is to prepare, such matters as training, welfare and safety are to be determined jointly between the relevant employers and the appropriate union or unions. However, the basic difficulty is that the port employers consider that negotiations between themselves and the Transport and General Workers' Union should take place at local level whereas the union wishes the negotiations to be conducted on a national basis to bring about uniform employment conditions in the docks.
The amendment appears to beg the question. However, I do not think that as legislators we should. Without agreement between the parties as to the basis on which negotiations should proceed, I do not see how employment conditions can be determined jointly. Therefore, this amendment is not a practicable proposition.
Lord Underhill: I am greatly encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has said. I only hope that he will go a little further. Having listened to many speeches of the noble Lord on the importance of industrial relations, I am certain that if he looks carefully at this amendment he could persuade his noble friends to support it.
We are told that the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, cannot advise his noble friends to support the amendment is because the National Association of Port Employers has said that it wants national negotiations. How can the national association instruct on what will happen at local negotiations? Each local negotiation will be separate. We want some stability in this industry after the scheme has been abolished. That can be determined only before the scheme is abolished.
I hope that the noble Lord will consider carefully the wording of this amendment. As my noble friend Lady Turner emphasised, it makes quite clear that it proposes a tripartite scheme. I am concerned that in the last paragraph in the White Paper the Government have stated that there is now opportunity for the unions, the port workers and the employers to get together. The Government want to absolve themselves of all responsibility. The amendment insists that there shall be a tripartite
168
scheme. The Secretary of State shall be called in; and there shall be discussions between the unions and the employers.
On the vital necessity for national negotiations to replace a national scheme, nothing is laid down as to the type of national scheme. If the Secretary of State wants advice he could go the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium or France and find out exactly what their port schemes are. There is no suggestion that they will abandon their schemes. No particular type of scheme is laid down. The measure merely suggests the issues that ought to be discussed and settled on a national basis.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The intention of Amendment No. 13 is to delay the abolition of the scheme, indefinitely if necessary, pending its replacement with a new scheme which need be no less restrictive than the present one and might well be more extensive.
I can think of no better illustration of the difference between the approach of those who proposed this amendment and our own than the wording of the amendment. It contains the telling passage that the new scheme
"shall ensure the maintenance of secure and stable employment, high standards of training, welfare and safety and the efficient and profitable operation of ports."
Noble Lords clearly have great faith in the scheme and have not learned from the lessons of the present one. That has certainly failed to ensure the maintenance of secure and stable employment, for all its pretensions.
The 80,000 registered dock workers of the 1950s are but 9,000 today, while employment in non-scheme ports has increased. Scheme ports are also manifestly less efficient than ports outside the scheme, to which they are continuing to lose business and jobs. Over time they have also been less profitable and what profitability there is has been subsidised by the taxpayer through £770 million of support for severance and for the ports of London and Liverpool.
The imposition of a system of joint determination over all these matters also fails to take account of the realities of experience under the scheme. The experience in scheme ports shows the damaging effect of joint determination. It has prevented scheme ports from adjusting to new technology as rapidly as non scheme ports; it has sustained costly labour surpluses; it has produced poor industrial relations; it has protected damaging restrictive practices; it has sustained discriminatory recruitment practices and disciplinary procedures which are out of step with those elsewhere in industry. Above all joint control has led dock workers to believe that their interests are served not by the success of the company in which they work but in the militancy of their union; and it sustains, through its registers, the artificial division between dock work and other work, which gives rise to the monopoly we are seeking to abolish.
Far from absorbing the lessons of the past the amendment goes further in the direction of regulation and bureaucratic control. It seeks to bring

169
profitability within the sphere of joint determination. And it appears to allow for the extension of the new scheme to employment of any type in ports, wherever they are and whether or not they are in the scheme at present.
In Committee in another place the Opposition's deputy spokesman confirmed that it would be logical to include all large ports at least in any new scheme. That seems to me an admission that such a scheme would inevitably impose a significant constraint on the ability of ports to compete on equal terms with ports outside its scope. Yet we have the evidence from ports outside the scheme that not only can they outstrip the scheme port competitors in terms of performance but also provide reasonable terms and conditions for their employees without recourse to widespread casual work. They have no need of schemes yet this amendment would provide the means to impose one on them and jeopardise their continuing success.
Good terms and conditions and stable employment are not the product of schemes. They are the product, instead, of competitive, successful businesses where managers can manage resources to serve business needs and employees have every incentive to perform more productively in the interests of the business which sustains their jobs. The rights and obligations of employees and their employers under general employment laws established by successive governments provide a sensible framework for successful employment arrangements. The Government will continue within that framework to encourage a variety of productive forms of voluntary participation between employers and their employees which are responsive to the individual needs of firms. The trend towards greater participation is well established.
But the dock labour scheme and further statutory schemes along the lines of that proposed in the amendment would enhance conflict and would do nothing to enable our ports to perform to their full potential. The lessons of the scheme are there for all to see.
Those ports covered by the dock labour scheme now need to be freed from burdens and controls which apply to no other productive industry in this country, and allowed to operate within the framework of laws which apply generally. I do not believe that the case for the retention of the scheme's controls for a capital intensive and skilled industry which now resembles most others has been made. Still less do I believe that successful ports should be brought within the scope of special statutory controls of employment which exist for no other industry.
Once more I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to draw on practical experience. Years ago I worked with a trans-shipping company which used to bring in grain from the River Plate. I then used to go down to the docks where the grain was unloaded by using giant hoovers. A man in the granary turned the wheel. Eight pipes were operated, with one and sometimes two dockers at each pipe. The docker at each pipe had nothing to do except spit into the
170
grain. Of course that employed the docker, but it was a false form of emloyment, because he had nothing to do.
I am all for full employment and training, but it would be unwise to have in an amendment the provision that a docker is guaranteeed employment for life no matter what he does in the docks. I remember instances in other companies which were importing meat. It always happened that 5 or 8 per cent. of the carcases did not appear. Apparently they went illegally to some dockers' benefit. I believe that the amendment goes too far.
Lord Mellish: I should like to put on record the fact that, having listened carefully to the Minister, I am now even more convinced that I was right to oppose the Government's Bill to abolish the present scheme. I am now sure of the reason why the Government did what they did. We return to the argument about Second Reading speeches. I said then, and repeat now, that one of the reasons why the Government are in trouble today is because they have forgotten people and are concerned only with principles. They are concerned only with economics and do not give a damn about ordinary people. If the Minister had wanted to accept the amendment he could have said, "It is too long and too wordy. However, I understand what is behind it so I shall look at it and at Report bring something back to put in its place".
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mellish: There need have been none of that rubbish about the Committee stage and the amendment being unworkable. The truth is that the Minister is determined to reject anything and everything said by the Opposition. I think that it is rather pathetic.
Only a few weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Young, made it abundantly clear that the Government had no intention of abolishing the scheme. That is what he said. In an Answer to a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, he said that the alleged troubles due to the scheme were non-existent in respect of the Question. He said that the Government had no intention of abolishing the scheme. I remember saying afterwards to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, "At any rate that clears the issue and we know where we stand". Here we are, a few weeks later, and the Government are making remarkable speeches about the evils of the scheme, that they were not going to bother with. It only goes to show what phonies they are.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have listened with interest to the remarks made by those on the Committee opposing the amendment. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that this is not an attempt to reconstitute the scheme. On the contrary, it gives the Government an opportunity to introduce something different. If it is felt that the present scheme has all kinds of difficulties, needs modernising and does not enable the industry to be profitable enough, here is the opportunity to produce something in consultation with both sides of the industry. In the final analysis the draft can be laid

171
before both Houses of Parliament so that it also has an input. It is an opportunity to clear the decks and produce something different and better.
I am amazed that in replying to my submissions the Minister simply trotted out all the old arguments which we heard on Second Reading and at every other stage of the Bill. They concerned the present scheme, all its alleged inefficiencies, the need to abolish it, the need to do something about restrictive practices and so forth. All those points are irrelevant to my amendment, as has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Underhill.
I was sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is unhappy about the amendment because I remember that he was keen on a national strategy. He said so on Second Reading and again this afternoon. We on these Benches are also in favour of a national strategy and believe it sensible for such an important industry. Moreover, as I said when I introduced the amendment, if you do away with any form of national forum for the industry you simply leave the way open for leap-frogging claims at the various ports at some time in the future. The employers will not like that after it has been in operation for some time.
In the amendment we are giving an opportunity to the Government and those on both sides of the industry to look at the whole situation afresh. Okay, the scheme has gone and we now have the opportunity to introduce something different which I hope will provide stable and secure employment. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that that does not mean guaranteed employment. Stable employment is not a system of guaranteed employment and no one suggests that any employees should have guaranteed employment. This amendment is not about jobs for life. For those reasons I commend it to the Committee, and I am afraid that it is my intention to test the feeling of the Committee.
5.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 117.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gregson, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jay, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

David, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Listowel, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Longford, E.

Ennals, L.

McCarthy, L.

Fitt, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Galpern, L.

Mellish, L.

Glenamara, L.

Mishcon, L.

172

Nicol, B.

Soper, L.

Northfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Peston, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rea, L.

White, B.

Shackleton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Shepherd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Holderness, L.

Addington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Airedale, L.

Hooper, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Auckland, L.

Joseph, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Layton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McNair, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Monson, L.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Onslow, E.

Colwyn, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Quinton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reigate, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Renton, L.

Croham, L.

Renwick, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Rochester, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dilhorne, V.

Savile, L.

Dundee, E.

Shannon, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sharples, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Slim, V.

Feversham, L.

Somers, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Terrington, L.

Gisborough, L.

Teviot, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trafford, L.

Greenway, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Grey, E.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Whaddon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hanworth, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Windlesham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Winstanley, L.

Harvington, L.

Wynford, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved No. 14:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("(5) On the date of the passing of this Act, every agreement, whether written or not, including any agreement for the

173
performance of personal services, to which the Board were a part immediately before the appointed day, shall have effect on and after that day as if each employer formerly registered under the Scheme had been a Party to it jointly and severally, and for any reference to the old Board there were substituted as respect anything falling to be done or occurring on or after that day, a reference to those employers.").
The noble Baroness said: To some extent this amendment follows on from the discussions we had on the previous amendment. I have already emphasised, as have a number of my noble friends, the feeling of insecurity which exists among dock workers generally as a result of the decision to do away with the dock labour scheme.
For years, if they were registered dock workers, they had some sense of job security. Now all that is to disappear and no one knows, apparently least of all the Government, what will happen next. However, of course, the individuals are covered by their existing contracts of employment
The Government say that negotiations in future will be local, despite the case that we have repeatedly made for some kind of national forum in this important industry which would involve the union as well as employers, possibly with an independent presence too. However, that apparently is not to be, judging by the Divisions we have had so far in Committee. Therefore, we are back with local negotiations because our previous amendments have not found favour with the Committee.
It seems therefore that some steps should be taken to give the people who work in the industry a sense of security. For that reason the amendment proposes that local employers should honour existing agreements. This in no way involves jobs for life or anything like that. Agreements can of course be renegotiated. This is a fairly minor amendment and it is possible that the Government may say that there is no need for it. However, there is a need to reassure people who work in the industry on their future prospects. They need to feel that they have some sort of security, even though, as indicated, it is still open to employers locally to renegotiate whatever agreements exist. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This amendment, as I understand it, would require employers formerly registered under the scheme to take over from the date of Royal Assent responsibility for agreements entered into by the board before that date. It would also substitute the employers for the board thereafter. The amendment would make the employers liable for funding the board's running costs and wind-up costs during the transitional period as well as any residual liabilities on dissolution. The financial memorandum estimates that those liabilities, after the sale of assets, might amount to £6 million.
I find the purpose of the amendment difficult to fathom. The agreements to which the amendment refers are agreements that the board has with its own staff for pay and conditions of service; commercial agreements concerning its assets, chiefly property holdings; and agreements with contractors for services (for example, its auditors). The board is not a party to agreements concerning dock work
174
employers and employees. Its own medical welfare and training services are not performed on the basis of agreements because they are requirements of the statutory scheme.
The effect of the amendment, therefore, would be to make all board staff employees of former registered dock work employers during the transitional period and to make those employers liable for any contractual obligations of the board before and after its dissolution. That sits very oddly with the degree of detachment required by staff who are servants of a board which will continue to be composed of equal numbers of employers' and employees' representatives during the transitional period.
The employers would be liable for the wind-up costs of the board during the transitional period because the Secretary of State's powers under Clause 4 of the Bill allow him to fund only expenses incurred by the board; and under the terms of the amendment the board would cease to be a party to any agreement concerning running costs. That would make the employers responsible for salaries of board staff and redundancy payments and running costs which we estimate at about £6 million after the sale of assets. Having abolished the scheme on Royal Assent the Government believe that it would be unfair to expect employers to shoulder the whole burden of funding the wind-up of a scheme for which they have already paid heavily. They will already be contributing through the sale of assets brought with levies which the scheme imposed on employers. It is right that the Government should contribute to ending this statutory scheme. The amendemnt would prevent that.
The amendment would also mean that employers would retain liability for the matters covered by those agreements after the dissolution of the board because they could not be transferred to the Secretary of State under the provisions of Clause 2(6) on its dissolution. Under those provisions only property, rights and liabilities of the board immediately before dissolution can be transferred; and under the provisions of the amendment any matter of agreement to which the board was a party would already be in the hands of the employers. Our objective in the Bill is to ensure that after the dissolution of the board, scheme port employers should have no residual liabilities arising from the scheme so that they are in the same position as other employers and bear no additional burdens. The amendment would frustrate that, to no good purpose.
The amendment is also difficult to reconcile with the duty given to the board—still composed of employers' and employees' representatives—during the transitional period. These include the disposal of its assets, at less than market value if need be, to ensure continued provision of services which meet the industry's needs. The amendment would have the curious, and potentially undesirable, effect of allowing assets already held collectively by employers to be transferred to individual employers on favourable terms.

175
I cannot conceive of a case for complicating the Bill's straightforward procedures for the wind-up of the board's activities in this way. Therefore, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Mellish: I rise to support my noble friend on this amendment. It comes about—does it not?—because the Government have decided to abolish the scheme entirely and put nothing at all in its place. Either the first scheme was a bad scheme and should never have been introduced or there should be an alternative to safeguard the position.
My understanding of my noble friend's argument, which is absolutely right, is that there is to be a transitional period. That is what the dock workers are worried sick about and why there is so much anxiety in the industry. What is to happen once the scheme is abolished? The Minister said that it would cost £6 million to introduce a new scheme. Of course we would not have had this problem if an alternative scheme were to be brought in which we could examine in detail and amend if necessary. However, there is nothing to replace the original scheme. We are left in the position that once the scheme is abolished the dock workers will be absolutely in the hands of individual employers; and whether or not they go back to the bad old days is irrelevant and not worth discussing. The Liberals could not care less anyway.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. It is not my intention to press this amendment. We shall later be discussing the disposal of assets and we shall be moving a number of amendments when we have some points to be made about the disposal of assets at market rates or not at market rates.
In the meantime, I agree with my noble friend Lord Mellish that it would not be necessary to table amendments of this kind if there were any indication before us of what should take the place of the scheme when it has been abolished. It is necessary to reassure a number of people in the industry—not just employees—as to the intentions on agreements for services. However, in view of what the Minister said, I shall reserve much of what I was going to say on assets to when we discuss the series of amendments under Clause 2. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("(5) The transitional period shall continue until satisfactory alternative arrangements to ensure adequate health and safety training and welfare provision in the Scheme ports shall have been concluded between the employers and the union or unions concerned.").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee as I intend to read out this amendment. It is not long. I suggests that we insert into Clause 1 the following subsection:
"The transitional period shall continue until satisfactory alternative arrangements to ensure adequate health and safety training and welfare provision in the Scheme ports shall have been concluded between the employers and the union or unions concerned".
176
I have quoted the amendment in order to get the Committee to move away from this persistent belief that we are still seeking to replace the scheme with another scheme that is more or less the same. We have abandoned that attempt. We are now trying to improve the face of the Bill as it stands. We accept that the Committee is not prepared to take an alternative scheme and we are trying to improve the Bill.
This provision to improve the Bill is extremely modest. We are suggesting that, if the Government say that they want to look after in particular training and welfare matters, they should have some way of keeping the powers of the board in existence until there is an alternative system for training and welfare which we can look at and which we can say is a reasonable alternative simply in the areas covered by the Bill.
I suppose the only possible objection that might be made to this modest amendment is that it in some way qualifies what is meant by a transitional period. If the transitional period is to have some specific obligation placed in it, that period might last rather longer than it would otherwise do. If that is the Government's problem then their action is quite simple. I ask the Minister to consider this very seriously. They could tell us what kind of period they envisage that the transitional period should cover and how they see themselves, without an amendment of this kind, ensuring that during the transition period adequate health and safety training and welfare provisions exist.
The Government in another place have been extremely reluctant to tell us what they mean by a transition period. The Committee will know that on the face of the Bill the only part of it that tells us how long the transition period might be is contained in Clause 2(1) which states,
"it shall be the duty of the Board to wind up its affairs as expeditiously as possible".
In another place on 11th May in Committee, Mr. Nicholls said at col. 435, that he had not looked up "expeditiously" in the Oxford English Dictionary but he thought that it meant,
"with all due but not unnecessary haste".
I did look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary. It does not say that. "Expeditiously" means "performed with expedition". If one then looks up "expedition", that means,
"with haste, speed; a sending out or setting forth for some definite purpose, especially a warlike enterprise".
So the problem is what purpose and who is at war with whom? Why "haste" and "speed"? What is the speed that the Government envisage might be appropriate for winding up the board and looking after health, safety training and welfare? There is another point raised by the Minister at col. 435. Asked directly how long the transition period would be he said:
"It is impossible to say how many weeks or months".
He never mentioned 12 months. Do "expeditiously" and "more or less immediately" mean less than 12 months? Are the Government telling us that they are going to take action—and, if so, what—to ensure that training and welfare will be carried out

177
effectively in the area where it is now regulated by legislation, in less than 12 months or perhaps less than one month? The Minister suggests a few weeks.
Would it not be better for the Government to accept this modest amendment that does not set out to provide an absolute date, but simply says,
"The transitional period shall continue until satisfactory alternative arrangements"
can be found. Another objection that the Government might make is that our amendment speaks about health and safety and not training and welfare. I do not believe that even this Government will tell us that they do not want to ensure that health and safety provisions are made at least reasonable before the scheme is wound up. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Like the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I am interested in the likely duration of the transitional period. I shall be very grateful if my noble friend on the Front Bench can give some indication of the Government's attitude. Where I differ from the noble Lord is that I hope the transitional period will be short. There is need to clear up all the uncertainty that has overhung this industry in recent months as speedily as possible and as expeditiously as possible, to use the words of the noble Lord. It is important and necessary to get the industry settled down on a new basis as soon as possible.
The only other comment I wish to make is that this is a very oddly drafted amendment. It provides, in the absence of agreement between the unions and the employers, that the transitional period shall just continue. That might be thought to give to the unions a particularly powerful bargaining position. They could hold out for some quite excessive demand knowing that by so doing they will prolong the transition period. It would be very unfortunate to take away from the Government the right to determine the end of the transition period and to leave it dependent on an agreement which might or might not take place. Perhaps that is the intention of the amendment.
Lord Rochester: The first thing I should say is that I appear to have misread the amendment for which I apologise. I shall read it out in the way that I thought it was written:
"The transitional period shall continue until satisfactory alternative arrangements to ensure adequate health and safety"
comma—
"training and welfare provision".
I realise that there is no comma and therefore it is my fault that I did not appreciate the full significance of the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, indicated in his last words, he feels that it might have been worded differently. That is for him to say. For my part I indicated earlier that I would have more to say about training as regards this amendment, believing that it related to training.
It would be a pity for me not to say what I wish to say about training in view of the number of times that I have been reminded by Members of the Committee of what I had to say on the subject at
178
Second Reading. At that stage I drew attention to the fact that no provision had been made in the Bill for the training and welfare of dockers after the expiry of the transitional period. I added that there seemed to be a strong case for amending the Bill to ensure that after that period adequate arrangements were made for training people who continued to be employed as dock workers and for retraining those who were made redundant.
However, this amendment does not seek to provide for the time after the expiry of the transitional period as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has made plain. Rather, it envisages postponement of the date on which the National Dock Labour Board is to be dissolved to ensure what the union regard as satisfactory alternative arrangements for training are made. I am wrong in all that because, as I have already indicated, the amendment does not refer to training. As drafted, concerning health and safety training, what I have just said is true.
Therefore, I am reluctant to acquiesce to the proposition that the absence of statutory measures providing for arrangements of the kind described in this amendment that I had thought included training is a sufficient reason for postponing the date on which the transitional period should end. I hope I have made that plain in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on the Government Front Bench. Had this amendment been concerned with training as such, I was going to say that it would help me to make up my mind about the subject if the Minister could add somewhat to the assurances that he gave me at Second Reading on this subject.
Despite the fact that this amendment relates to health and safety training rather than to training generally, I hope that he will be kind enough specifically to confirm that I am correct in understanding that the training agency has already initiated talks with port employers about establishing an industry-led body to develop training after the board has been dissolved. If the noble Lord could give further information, not only to me but to other Members of the Committee, which might help us at a subsequent stage of the Bill that would be better still.
Lord Mellish: It is not surprising that the Liberal Party finds difficulties with the amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List. We live in a free country. There is nothing to stop the Liberal Party putting down its own amendment. It could have put one down with all the dots and commas it wanted. It could have done so in such a way that the Liberal Party in moving its amendment could have made it clear why it is as concerned as I am and as we are on this side of the Committee about the abolition of the scheme and about the fact that nothing is being put in its place.
We have heard a good deal about the evil things that have come about with the scheme. I am glad to have the opportunity to say that there are also one or two good things about the scheme. The health and safety training and welfare provisions brought about by the National Dock Labour Board have all been taken for granted. Now it is to be abolished.

179
We shall no doubt hear from the Minister that it will be the desire of many progressive employers to see that these measures are carried on. I suppose that that will suit the Liberals. It does not suit me. I should like to see it in writing. I should like to see it written in an Act of Parliament.
I understand the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He is opposed to the scheme as such and to everything associated with it. He wants every port to be free. He wants no restrictions. He has been honest about that. That is his argument. At least that is logical. I do not agree with him. I think it is rubbish, but at least he is logical. However, the attitude of the Liberals is typical. They want bits of this and bits of that, but they do not put down their own amendment. If the Minister were to get up and say that he accepts the principle of the amendment and that at Report stage he would put it in his own words—I am sure he will not; talking to him is like punching a balloon—I would accept that. Go on, get up and say it!
6.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I fear that the noble Lord will once more be disappointed. The purpose of the Bill under consideration is to bring employment arrangements in scheme ports within the general legal framework which has evolved under successive governments since the scheme's inception. Those developments include a Health and Safety at Work Act in 1974 which placed specific obligations on employers to make adequate provision for health, safety and welfare. The Act also provides for proper participation by trade unions, at national and local level, in ensuring adequate arrangements. There are now also a range of training structures which industries may choose to participate in according to their own assessment of needs.
We take the view that, within this framework, it is for employers and employees in the industry to decide what suits them best, as is the case in any other industry. The amendment would impose on former scheme ports a special national structure covering welfare, training and medical facilities for which no case has been made and which does not exist in any other industry. That structure is unnecessary and would inhibit port employers' acceptance of full responsibility for their own training, health and welfare provision. It would also extend the transitional period, during which the board is under a duty to wind up its affairs, quite unnecessarily, and the cost of that extention would be borne by the taxpayer.
The abolition of the scheme will not change the basis of health and safety provision which applies to all ports, scheme or non-scheme. The 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act places an obligation to make proper health, safety and welfare provision on individual employers generally; not on the board and certainly not on any other body established to take its place. The 1988 Docks Regulations under that Act provide a comprehensive, up-to-date and detailed provision specifically for dock work: such a detailed provision is unusual for a specific industry. The regulations were proposed by the Health and
180
Safety Commission, which, I may remind noble Lords, includes trade union representatives, and agreed to by the Government. They cover welfare provision—for example, sanitary facilities and protective clothing—which the board currently supervises under the Docks and Harbours Act 1966 and in some respects, notably in connection with protective clothing, are more comprehensive than those provisions.
The board's medical provision predates that of the National Health Service and makes special arrangements for registered dock workers which may now duplicate existing services. The present provision consists of 20 small medical centres serving 18 ports. They provide treatment both related and unrelated to the needs of the workplace. Since 1982 all employers have been under an obligation to make adequate provision for first aid, consistent with the risks and needs of the industry in which they operate, in accordance with first aid regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work Act. Clause 2 of the Bill gives the board the opportunity to dispose of its assets including its medical centres in such a way as to encourage continued provision to meet the future needs of the industry and its legal requirements. The Bill therefore provides the opportunity for matching local needs to local medical provision for all dock workers.
Perhaps I may now turn to the wider subject of training, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred. I have to admit that I was under the impression that that subject was also a part of the amendment. Evidently it is not, but I am happy to respond to that point at the moment. We believe that training must respond to the needs of individual firms and that it is up to employers to make arrangements for training, individually or collectively. Modern, capital intensive port work requires a highly skilled workforce, so employers have every incentive to make proper training arrangements. The abolition of the scheme's restrictions on the deployment of dock workers means that investment in training will produce an even greater return.
Non-scheme ports manage, without the imposition of a national body, to train to meet their skill needs. Last year, Felixstowe, which has its own training school, spent about £775,000 on training, rather more than the National Dock Labour Board did on behalf of all scheme ports. Many other non-scheme ports, notably those run by Sealink, have full-time training officers. The board's training activities now amount to a mobile force of about 20 training instructors, without any training centres. The provision made in Clause 2 of the Bill for the disposal of the board's assets provides every opportunity for the industry to take over useful provision. There is no reason to believe, judging by the performance of non-scheme ports, that former scheme ports will not now take training very seriously indeed. For some time many ports have been discussing with the training agency the creation of a lead industry body to set standards for the industry as a whole. I hope that that will encourage the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.

181
This amendment gives no indication of where the funding of a replacement body for the board is to come from. Is the money to come from a levy on the industry, once again placing a burden on employers but giving them no control over the necessary allocation of resources? Are the financial arrangements of the transitional period to continue, so that the new body is funded by sums voted by Parliament and paid for by the taxpayer? This is unnecessary and unreasonable.
To sum up, the Bill provides for the board to wind itself up in a way which gives port employers and authorities every incentive to take over useful training and welfare facilities. The statutory requirements for health, safety and welfare, which apply to all ports, are comprehensive, but if there is need for development it should be within the framework of general health and safety provision. After abolition of the scheme, scheme ports will have every incentive to make proper provision for their skill needs. There is no reason to assume that a national body would help the industry to meet its needs more effectively.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked whether I could give a timescale for the winding up of the board. It is not realistic to set a timescale on the length of the transitional period and to the date of the dissolution of the board. The board has been given powers to arrange the transfer of necessary training, medical and welfare services because of its expertise and understanding of the needs of the industry. The board is equipped to protect and promote the interests of the industry in these respects during the transitional period.
At the same time the interests of the industry would not be best served if the board was not wound up so that the industry could make its own provision. The board has therefore been given a clear directive under Clause 2(1) to wind up its remaining functions as quickly as possible. I am afraid that I cannot be more specific than that. I hope that, with the explanation I have given that many of the points in the amendment are covered in different legislation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: We now see the Government turn to a familiar ploy: as our amendments become more modest, so they move further and further away from us. Indeed, instead of coming towards us as our demands become fewer and fewer, the Government become more and more obdurate. The Minister actually disappeared over the sky line in that speech. He has even taken away the very vague statement made by the Minister in another place which suggested that at least the transitional period might last a year. Now the noble Lord tells us that he cannot give us a time-scale. I think he is really saying that he cannot tell us what it is for.
I began by reading our amendment. However, I am afraid that I had to read what was said on the face of the Bill. I say that because on the face of the Bill in Clause 1(3) it says:
"Notwithstanding that Clause 3(1)(g) of the 1967 Scheme … is, by virtue of subsection (1), no longer to apply to the Board, the Board shall continue during the transitional period to have
182
power to make provision for the training and welfare of dock workers (within the meaning of the Scheme), including provision for port medical services".
I repeat:
"to have power to make provision for the training and welfare of dock workers".
I ask the Minister, for what purpose and for what period does this apply? Further, of all the functions of the scheme and of the board, why should we take training and welfare, give it transitionally to the National Dock Labour Board for less than a year—or, less than a month—and then say that there is some purpose in what is being done? We have been told this evening that nothing will follow. According to the Government it is not the object of this clause—as I thought it was—that the National Dock Labour Board may have some responsibility, concern and interest in what sort of welfare services or training provisions exist after the transitional period.
The Minister has made it very clear: the government are not in the least bothered about what happens after the transitional period. Further, since the transitional period lasts only a few weeks, what does it matter what are the provisions during that period? What is it there for? Why take this small part out of the scheme and keep it for an undisclosed period when there is no intention to do anything with it in any event?
By way of this amendment we are asking for something very modest; we are saying that the transitional period should continue until "satisfactory alternative arrangements" are made. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I take his point. There is no doubt that the amendment could have been drafted more satisfactorily. However, I should have thought that the question as to whether there are satisfactory alternative arrangements on the face of the Bill would be decided by the Minister. If the Minister thinks that the arrangements are satisfactory then he can dissolve the board and end the transitional period. It is a matter for the Minister.
If the noble Lord will follow us, if we come back to the matter on Report—and I must say that I admit his point—and make it absolutely clear that it is the responsibility of the Minister, and if he will also make it absolutely clear that if there is no collective agreement between the employers and the unions at that time the Minister is quite free, if he thinks that unions have been at fault in the matter, to adopt the employers' scheme, then perhaps the issue can be resolved on Report. I accept what the noble Lord said. However, having read what is on the face of the Bill, I should have thought that that is what the legislation is saying.
Whether that is true or not, the Government are saying for reasons that they do not make clear, that they are taking out of the scheme—a scheme which they will eventually destroy—one tiny aspect. That aspect will be kept in existence like some relic for an undisclosed period, and at the end of that time they do not give a damn what goes on in the industry. I find that fact quite shocking.
I turn now to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. If I follow him correctly, he is

183
quite right; indeed, there should be a comma in the wording. Moreover, if we bring the matter back at the next stage of the proceedings on the Bill there will be a comma in it. There are indeed drafting errors in the amendment, and I accept that fact.
However, I only wish that the Government could have found their way—as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, suggested—to say, "The amendment is disastrously drafted; but the lads and lasses have got a point. They should go away and think about it again; or, better still, we will take the matter away and think about it again." While the Government have not said anything like that, nevertheless, I shall go away and rethink the matter. I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage but return to the matter on Report with a better one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("(5) On the date of the passing of this Act, Her Majesty's Government shall become a signatory to Convention 137 of the International Labour Organisation and shall be bound by the terms of this treaty obligation as though the terms of the treaty were United Kingdom law.").
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment we return once again to the persistent question of casualisation. It is surely clear to everyone by now that this is one of the gravest fears of the rank and file docker; it is why there have been unofficial stoppages, although most of the members obeyed the call of their union and went back to work.
As we know, the union has been most anxious throughout the affair to stay within the law, even though I would say that the law is blatantly unfair to unions. Incidentally, I understand that this afternoon the Transport and General Workers' Union won its appeal.
Britain's dock industry is not unique. Other countries over the years have faced similar problems. Other workforces have objected to, and fought against, casualisation and the system that once obtained fairly widely. It is the kind of industry which lends itself to casual labour. It was because of this that it was felt appropriate back in 1973 to introduce the International Labour Office Convention No. 137. I have a copy of the document with me. It lays down objectives which must be met in the organisation of work in the docks.
It is interesting to note that those who drafted Convention No. 137 were familiar with, and foresaw, the changes that were then taking place in dock work. The convention says:
"Considering that important changes have taken place and are taking place in cargo-handling methods in docks—such as the adoption of unit loads, the introduction of roll-on roll-off techniques and the increase of mechanisation and automation—and in the pattern of movement of freight and that such changes are expected to become more widespread in the future, … and Considering that such changes also involve considerable repercussions on the level of employment in ports and on the conditions of work and life of dockworkers, and that measures should be adopted to prevent or reduce the problems consequent thereon"—
184
It then says in Article 2:
"It shall be national policy to encourage all concerned to provide permanent or regular employment for dockworkers in so far as [is] practicable".
I emphasise the words, "in so far as [is] practicable", because it shows that it is a fairly flexible provision. There are also other provisions which deal with health and safety, collective agreements, arbitration and so on.
It may well be that back in 1973 or 1974 it was not felt necessary in the United Kingdom to ratify this convention because we already had the dock labour scheme. That provided the safeguards referred to in the convention. Indeed, it may well have been thought there was no need to do anything about the ILO convention. After all, we had had for some years a kind of scheme which would satisfy the terms of the convention. However, the situation will now be much changed when there no longer is a dock labour scheme. People who work in the docks will look towards the Government to at least provide some level of protection against the evils of the past.
The convention has been signed by many European countries. Indeed, the total number of countries which have signed the convention currently stands at 21. However, in Europe France signed in 1977, Italy signed in 1981, the Netherlands signed in 1976, Spain signed as far back as 1975 and Portugal signed in 1981. Of course, the very successful port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands has signed the convention and the workers there are protected against casualisation. Nevertheless, despite that fact, as we have seen and heard, Rotterdam is one of the world's most successful ports.
If the Government are really concerned to reassure dockers about their and the employers' future intentions as regards casualisation, then they should ratify the covention. That would demonstrate to the workforce that the Government are not just doing the bidding of some very powerful employers and that they are not unconcerned about the future of dockers; that they want to ensure that we have an industry that is not only profitable but in which there is some degree of security for the people who work in it. With those remarks, I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As the noble Baroness has explained, the amendment would require the United Kingdom to ratify Convention 137 of the International Labour Office (ILO) on Royal Assent of the Bill. The convention was adopted by the general conference of the ILO in 1973 and came into effect in 1975. It sets out a number of requirements for those countries which ratify it concerning the employment of dock workers.
Chief among the convention's requirements is that there shall be a register of all dock workers. For that reason, successive British governments have been unable to ratify the convention. There has never been a register for non-scheme ports, nor is there one in Northern Ireland. The abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme will abolish the register for scheme ports so, as is the case now, there can be no question of the Government ratifying the convention.

185
Indeed of 158 ILO member states, the United Kingdom is one among 137 members states which have not ratified the convention. The majority of our community partners, including West Germany, Belgium and Denmark, have not done so; nor have the United States, Canada and Japan.
National registration schemes for dock workers are increasingly out of step with the efforts of many countries to produce a more efficient ports industry. Many countries already have arrangements which vary from port to port. New Zealand's labour Government have announced the abandonment of all special controls for dock work. Australia is seeking changes. Those countries, like ourselves, are islands and rely entirely on their ports for trade; but Community countries, which are generally less reliant on their ports, are also seeking greater flexibility. Italy is already taking steps to reduce statutory controls, and there is pressure for change in France.
In that context it is understandable that the majority of countries should be reluctant to sign up to a convention drawn up nearly 17 years ago when the ports industry had still to complete its transformation into the capital intensive, skilled industry we see today. Our non-scheme ports which employ nearly a third of all dock workers show that its objectives of reasonable terms and conditions for dock workers can be met without its controls. That is not to say that we could not accept some of the convention's requirements: the Docks Regulations 1988 under the Health and Safety at Work Act are designed to do just that; but while there is a requirement for an obligatory system of registration, the United Kingdom cannot ratify the convention. I therefore cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Underhill: Will the Minister answer the points made by my noble friend about the Community countries which have ratified the convention, in particular, the Netherlands which has the successful and thriving port of Rotterdam? Has he an answer for those points?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As I said, the majority of Community countries have not ratified the convention; that is to say, Germany, Denmark, the Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Greece and ourselves. France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands have, and I think that is all. Rotterdam is a successful port. It has some form of registration. We do not have registration in our most successful ports and so it is not possible for us to ratify.
Lord Mellish: It is inevitable, I suppose, with the abolition of these schemes that the Government would also finds reasons for not being associated with Convention 137. For years now the dock industry has been quiet, well behaved, efficient and productive. The noble Baroness said that legal decisions have been made today which will give the unions the right to make more difficulties in the docks over the abolition of the scheme. Is that what the Government want?
I am sick at the thought that the dock industry is once more going to be in turmoil. The Government
186
do not care. They are not interested. They are not bothered. They will just say some pious words about the men having to accept the decision of Parliament and that the scheme must go. Do they not understand that some dockers feel passionately about the scheme? I have one warning. Members on the other side can take comfort from the fact that the dockers have not been as united in the past few weeks as they normally are. However, the moment legal permission is given and they receive an instruction from their union, there will be unity. Unity among dockers is something one must understand and appreciate. It is almost indescribable.
I can remember instances of people going down the stairs at London Bridge at 7.30 in the morning and being told, "Do not attempt to look for work. There is a strike at Wilson's or Cotton's or Mark Brown's". Instead of saying, as one normally would, "What is the strike about?", they just turned around and got on the train and went home. That was enough. The brotherhood was there. The loyalty was there. One can sneer and jeer at it but one cannot take it away. That is why I say that if the union receives legal permission, which I gather from the noble Baroness is possible, and it writes to say that there is to be an official strike, the Government are asking for trouble. After last Thursday, things are going from bad to worse. When they have the chance, they do not even say that they will consider ratifying Convention 137. They say that it is a lot of rubbish and they do not want to know about it. They are not interested in the fact that the Netherlands, which has one of the biggest ports in the world, has signed it. The Government will not sign. Let the dockers do what they like! They are rubbish. Let them go. That is what this is all about.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The Minister's response was disappointing. As my noble friend Lord Mellish said, even if the Government did not accept the amendment it would have been possible for them to say that they would consider seriously what had been said with a view to introducing an amendment on Report which would help deal with the fears of the workforce about the re-emergence of casualisation. That is why I tabled the amendment about Convention 137. Many of the Minister's comments do not stand up because when Convention 137 was introduced those who drafted it were well aware of the changes taking place in the industry.
It was because of those changes that it was felt necessary to have some overall protection. That was the main reason for the introduction of the convention. As has already been said, the Netherlands, which has one of the most successful ports in the world, has ratified the convention. No doubt the reason some other countries have not ratified is that they already have in place systems which prevent casualisation and provide protection for dock workers. That is true, for example, in Hamburg, which is also a successful port. Where such protections already exist, ratification is not so necessary.
I do not intend to press the amendment. I should have thought that the Government could respond to

187
the genuine and sincere feelings of the workforce about the possibility of a return to casualisation, and would have taken the opportunity, although not accepting the amendment, to say that they intended seriously to consider the submissions that had been made with a view to introducing their own amendment at a later stage. I should still like the Government to think about doing that. I shall withdraw the amendment, but again I ask that further consideration should be given to this important question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall, at the date of the dissolution of the Board under section 2 of this Act, make a report to Parliament on how the following matters specified in this subsection shall fall to be determined in ports formerly within the scope of the Scheme—

(i) the establishment of dock workers' and dock employers' registers;

(ii) the obligations and rights of registered dock workers and other dock workers who, though not registered, do work which is classified;

(iii) the obligations and rights of dock employers in relation to dock workers and dock work;

(iv) the consequences of attending any breach of such obligation, or as the case may be, any denial of such rights;

(v) appeal in disciplinary matters;

(vi) termination and suspension of such registration;

(vii) recruitment of dock workers;

(viii) regulation of the means by which they are taken into employment and allocated to dock work;

(ix) termination of employment and rights and liabilities in respect of it;

(x) the following matters related to dock workers and their work—

(a) remuneration, hours of work (including weekly periods of rest) and holidays with pay, welfare and training;

(b) benefits for sickness and injury;

(c) pension schemes, contributions to such schemes by workers and employers and pension benefit to widows and dependants.").

The noble Baroness said: We come once again to what happens once the scheme has ceased. Less modest amendments have been voted down this afternoon by the Committee. We must now consider what next we might reasonably do to give some further protection and reassurance to the people who work in the industry.
This, again, is really an extremely modest amendment, because what it says is that the Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament on how certain specified matters have been dealt with or are going to be dealt with once the scheme ceases to exist. It refers of course to the establishment of dock workers' and dock employers' registers. We have heard from the Minister that the Government are against the introduction of registers. The amendment refers also to the obligations and rights of registered dock workers and of those who, although not registered, do work which is classified. It refers to the rights and obligations of dock employers in relation to dock workers and dock work
188
and to the consequences attending any breach of such an obligation or, as the case may be, of any denial of such rights.
The amendment deals with disciplinary matters, terminations and suspension, recruitment and regulation, together with the termination of employment and the rights and liabilities in respect of it, remuneration and various other things connected with employment. All this amendment does really is to ask that when there is no longer a dock labour scheme the Secretary of State should come to Parliament and report on what is being done to cover all those apsects which were formerly covered by the dock labour scheme but are no longer covered because that scheme will have ceased to exist. As we have repeatedly said from these Benches, we are talking about a national scheme, a statutory scheme. Therefore there is a public interest in what happens after the statutory scheme ceases to exist.
For these reasons we think it right and proper that Parliament should receive a report from the Secretary of State on those very important items which were once covered by the National Dock Labour Scheme. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before I reply to this amendment may I ask the noble Baroness whether she was also talking to Amendment No. 18 as well?
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes, they deal roughly with the same issue.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 17 to Clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on how employment arrangements in the docks are to be determined following the dissolution of the board. The list of items includes a number of inheritances from the existing dock labour scheme, including registers of dock workers which the Bill abolishes. Amendment No. 18, which concerns the Secretary of State's powers to direct the board under Clause 2, would render those powers subject to the board's duties under Section 1 of the Act.
The connection between these amendments is at best a tenuous one. Amendment No. 18 presumably envisaged that the board would have duties under Clause 1 of the Bill in addition to the single duty it has under Clause 2(1) of the Bill to wind itself up as quickly as possible. Your Lordships' Committee, however, has already decided against giving the board additional duties under Clause 1, so that the amendment adds nothing.
I will say only that the powers of the Secretary of State to direct the Board under Clause 2(3) are consistent with what is necessary in a transitional period when the board is under a duty to wind up its affairs promptly and retains residual powers to provide for training and welfare. The Secretary of State needs to be able to ensure that the board's duty and its power are exercised in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Bill. This power may not need to be exercised, but there is always the possibility that the board—composed as now of representatives of employers and employees—will

189
be unable to agree its plans and in those circumstances direction from the Secretary of State may be timely to move matters forward. The Secretary of State will naturally be accountable to Parliament for the manner in which he exercises his powers.
Amendment No. 17 betrays much of the thinking underlying the scheme. Once the dock labour scheme is abolished, the arrangements for determining the terms and conditions for about 9,000 former registered dock workers will be a matter for employers and employees, as is the case now for the 30,000 other workers in our ports industry. Their terms and conditions of employment are determined locally by a variety of arrangements. That is the position accepted by the Transport and General Workers' Union which negotiates on their behalf, as it does on behalf of registered dock workers. I fail to see why the Secretary of State should be required to report to Parliament on the variety of means adopted by former registered dock workers and their employers to determine terms and conditions of employment.
Lord Mellish: I should like to get this clear in my mind. Once this scheme is abolished will those who were registered dockers no longer be registered? Even in the bad old days they had a tally, and that enabled them to be recognised. That person would be among the men from whom the employer chose to do his work. Do I understand now that the registration card is to be abolished as well? Is the whole lot of it to go, to be swept away?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord is right. The register will no longer exist and employment in that industry will be just as it is in any other industry, and indeed as it is in the non-scheme ports, where there are 3,900 unregistered dock workers who now deal with 30 per cent. of this nation's trade and, if I may say so, do so very successfully.
However, to return to Amendment No. 17, this embodies the sort of thinking we must move away from if scheme ports are to develop forward-looking arrangements for employment. That is why I urge the committee to reject the amendment, which adds nothing to the Bill.
Lord Mellish: I should like to put it on record that the Government have made their attitude perfectly clear so that we all know where they stand. The Government are the Government and they have all the power. It seems that not only will the National Dock Labour Scheme be completely wiped out but also the idea of any registered dockers. That will happen overnight. At one time there was a tally disc, which enabled a docker, such as my father, to get preference in being selected for work. It enabled him to go behind certain gates and barriers and he would be picked because he was a tally-holder. Afterwards, of course, things progressed and a registration scheme was introduced. A man could not apply for dock work unless he was a registered docker and, if I may say so, no man would want to apply for dock
190
work unless he was a registered docker in those days. The vast majority of them were still out of work before this scheme came in.
The noble Baroness has put down a modest proposal. What is going to happen? What is to take its place? As I understand it, the Government's attitude is again based on economics. They are saying, "We are not concerned about what happens to these people, we are not concerned with any regulation in the industry: it is up to employers." I am not saying, and never have said, that employers are all bad men—some of them are quite decent—but once they have the freedom to do as they like I am not so sure. But that is exactly what this Bill enables them to do.
It will be for my noble friend to decide whether or not this is worth voting on. With the majority the Government have got, I suppose we are all wasting our time. The Government are determined that this whole scheme will be wiped out. But I would say to the Government that this is not the last word. If the union have decided to adopt legal measures in order to see that what they do is correct—and here may I say I admire Ron Todd, although he is not a personal friend, for the path he has trodden because I think that through a minefield of legal arguments he has trodden the right path—and if at the end of the day he has the authority and the power, he will take these men out and, if they come out, there will be created a hell of a struggle for the Government; and they deserve it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am very sorry that we have had such a disappointing response from the Government. As I said earlier, we are not really wedded to the wording in our amendments, and if the Government would only indicate that they understood the concern felt on these Benches about what happens when the dock labour scheme no longer exists we would feel a little happier than we do this afternoon. As it is, I shall not press this amendment today. We will think further about the situation. We may be in a very different situation by the time we reach Report stage.
I would be very unhappy, as I am sure we all would be, if there were to be a major industrial dispute—although, as we have heard, the unions have cleared their legal obligations and their legal lines in that regard. Nevertheless, there is deep concern about what will happen when there is no longer a scheme, and if only the Government had given some indication that they understood that concern and that they cared about the people in the industry to the extent that they were at least prepared to consider what we were saying and perhaps produce their own amendments at Report stage, the matter would be a very different one.
I shall not press this very comprehensive amendment. In view of what has already happened this afternoon, I can quite understand that the Government are not prepared to accept this wording. However, we shall reconsider the matter and decide what we may put down on Report. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Dissolution of National Dock Labour Board]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) In the disposal of the Board of any of its assets in the performance of its duty under subsection (1) of this section, the Board shall have regard to the market value of the assets in question.").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 with which Amendment No. 19 is grouped. With this amendment we enter the area of discussion as regards the disposal of assets. Somewhat surprisingly, Clause 2(4) of the Bill, as unamended, allows for the disposal of the assets of the board for a consideration:
"which is less than the market value of the assets in question, or for no consideration".
In other words, it will be all right, if the Secretary of State and the Treasury give permission, for assets of the board to be given away. These assets have been built up over the years as a result of levies within the industry, and also as a result of the labour of generations of workers in the industry. We on these Benches are concerned—this concern was also expressed in the Standing Committee in another place—that such assets could be disposed of not for what they would fetch on the market but for knockdown prices. This Government have a record of disposing of public assets at a price which is lower than they would normally fetch in order to encourage the development of their privatisation philosophy in practice. Therefore, it is not surprising that we should be suspicious when this kind of provision, which deals with the disposal of assets, appears in the Bill.
As I understand it, the assets of the board consist of welfare facilities and clubs for dockers, as well as other amenities, office properties and other such things. I believe that the net book value of all tangible fixed assets is £1·25 million. However, that is, of course, a book value. The market value may well be quite different, and no doubt would be very much greater.
It may be argued that the wording of subsection (4), as it now stands, will enable such assets as dock workers' clubs, canteens and other such facilities and amenities to be transferred, perhaps to trustees elected from within the workforce, at very much less than the market value. That would, of course, be to the advantage of present and future dock workers. Some indication to that effect was given by the Minister when dealing with a similar group of amendments in Standing Committee in another place when he stated at col. 458 that the dockers' clubs, medical centres and so on are assets that are likely to be transferred at less than market value. Earlier, the Minister had mentioned the possibility of their being transferred to trustees. However, nothing of this is stated on the face of the Bill.
In the absence of such provision, the people working in the industry are bound to be a little
192
concerned lest the assets built up over so many years are disposed of at knockdown prices to outsiders. If that is not the intention, this group of amendments gives the Government the opportunity to put the situation quite clearly. Amendment. No. 20 states that:
"the Board shall make a report to the Secretary of State detailing any assets disposed of in the period since the passing of the Act".
Amendment No. 21 states that the Secretary of State shall:
"lay before Parliament a report detailing and accounting for the property".
Finally, Amendment No. 22 states that:
"The property and rights of the Board and any income derived therefrom shall be applied solely towards furthering the profitability and efficiency of those ports in the scope of the Scheme at the date of the passing of this Act, and the well-being of workers employed therein".
It seems to me that that is a very reasonable outcome, if assets are disposed of. However, I come back to my main point. If it is the intention of Clause 2(4) that it should be possible for assets like workers' canteens, clubs and other things to be disposed of at less than their market value to elected groups of trustees from within the workforce, that would certainly be acceptable to this side of the Chamber. However, that needs to be written onto the face of the Bill, and not be simply left as a statement made in another place in Standing Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: At first sight this amendment seems to me eminently reasonable, for it is not immediately apparent why under subsection (4) the board may dispose of any of its assets for a consideration less than the market value. It also appears reasonable, as proposed in Amendment No. 22, that the property of the board and any income derived from it should be applied to purposes which benefit the scheme ports and the people employed in them.
I, too, shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say on this subject. It appears from Clause 2(7) that ultimately there will be liabilities rather than profits. Indeed, the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill states that the net liabilities and the running costs of the board during the transitional period are expected to be £6 million in 1989 to 1990, and that these liabilities are to be met from the vote of the Department of Employment. So far, so good.
Like the noble Baroness, I noted what the Minister had to say in another place. I, too, have wondered why the gist of his statement does not appear on the face of the Bill. However that may be, as regards the board's tangible assets, can the Minister assure us that the sole purpose of subsection (4) is to permit assets like dockers' clubs and medical centres that will continue to be of value to the ports, to be transferred from the board to other bodies within the industry on a favourable basis?
Will the Minister further confirm that all other physical assets, like offices and other buildings of that kind which are no longer required within the industry, will be sold to people outside it at their market value? Such a statement would certainly help

193
to reassure me, and perhaps other Members of the Committee that, far from threatening the interests of registered dockers, subsection (4) should positively benefit the ports and the people now working within them.
Lord Monson: Although, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, I support this Bill, on the face of it at any rate this series of amendments to Clause 2 seems very reasonable. On the basis that it creates sweetness and light to give way to one's opponents from time to time on matters of lesser importance, I hope the Government will give serious consideration to this series of amendments.
Lord Underhill: I wish to make one comment in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, referred to something the Minister had said in another place. At col. 466 of the Standing Committee in another place the Minister stated that because of the way in which the assets were acquired, the board may wish to hand them over for less than the market value, or even for nothing. He further stated that it may be perfectly sensible to do so, and that the Government will provide for that, if the board wishes. How does the Minister equate that statement with his own statement earlier this afternoon, which I think I have taken down correctly, that the board will continue until the assets are disposed of in the interests of the industry? Surely it cannot be in the interests of the industry to have the possibility of disposing of assets—even of only £1.25 million—for nothing, as the Minister in another place said at col. 466.
7 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I believe that these amendments would place severe constraints on the board's ability to dispose of its assets, in the case of Amendment No. 19 by restricting its scope to dispose of assets at less than market value with the agreement of the Secretary of State and, in the case of Amendment No. 22 by dictating the terms under which the board can dispose of those assets. By requiring the board and the Secretary of State to submit detailed reports and estimates, Amendment No. 20 places an extra burden on the board during the transitional period—a burden which will interfere with its duty to wind itself up. Amendment No. 21 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament about assets and liabilities transferred to him on the dissolution of the board, even though he was accountable to Parliament for the exercise of his powers in this respect.
The Bill's provisions under Clause 2 allow the board to dispose of its assets at less than market value or for nothing to give the board—and the employers and unions represented on it—the scope to take decisions in the best interests of the industry and not simply to obtain the best price for its assets. The board will have the flexibility to dispose of its assets to bodies which are able and willing to continue to provide training, medical and welfare services which meet the industry's needs. Those
194
bodies may include charities concerned with the welfare of dock workers, but also employers who have already paid for the board's assets through levy and other organisations which in the board's judgment are capable of maintaining the provision.
Mention was made of dockers' clubs. The provision in Clause 2(4) would allow the board to propose to the Secretary of State the disposal of its assets at less than market value or for nothing, so the continued provision of those facilities could be arranged to suit local needs. They would then be open to all employees, not just registered dock workers.
I believe that those decisions are best left to the board with the 50/50 membership of union and employer representation and subject to agreement by the Secretary of State. I hope that that explanation will clarify the situation with respect to disposal of assets at less than market value to the satisfaction of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
An important task of the board in the transitional period is to use its expertise and knowledge of the industry to ensure an orderly transfer of services to the industry. The requirements of Amendment No. 19 to have regard for the market value of assets when the board disposes of them would fetter the board's ability to dispose of assets at less than market price when the board believed that there was a case for doing so and provided the Secretary of State and the Treasury agreed.
If the noble Baroness is truly concerned about giving the board some scope to influence the future training and welfare provision of the industry during the transitional period, I hope that she will think again and withdraw the amendment.
It is right, however, during the wind-up of the board, that it should also strike a balance between its power to make these provisions for the industry and to contribute to its own running costs through income derived from its property. The Committee should remember that during the transitional period the board will no longer be able to levy employers to cover those costs. If the sale of its assets cannot be used for that purpose the whole burden will fall upon the taxpayer, who has already paid £770 million in subsidies for scheme ports since 1972 and who will continue to contribute to severance payments after the scheme's abolition under the Government's proposals. If amendment No. 22 were accepted, income from property and rights of the board could not be used to contribute to the board's running costs during the transitional period. The taxpayer would foot the bill entirely.
I believe that that would be wrong because the well-being of dock workers in scheme ports during the transitional period will already be served by the powers of Clause 1(3) of the Bill which allow the board to continue with its training, welfare and medical services. Abolition of the scheme itself will benefit the profitability and efficiency of scheme ports by lifting restrictions which have long constrained their performance. I submit that the Opposition would do better to support that in the

195
interests of efficiency and profitability than offer the poor substitute of subsidies from the sale of the board's assets.
Once the board has wound itself up and is dissolved in accordance with Clause 2(5) we do not expect many properties or rights to remain to be transferred to the Secretary of State. As the financial memorandum to the Bill indicates, the income of the board from all sources, including the sale of its properties and assets, will not be sufficient to cover its running costs and liabilities during (and after) the transitional period. We expect the board's net liabilities to be in the region of £6 million. That will be met from public expenditure. But that is a small price to pay to bring to an end a scheme which has cost over £45 million per year since 1972. In those circumstances, the imposition of the constraints of Amendment No. 22 on the Secretary of State's custody of the board's property and rights is unjustifiable.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 impose exceptional checks on the activities of first the board and then the Secretary of State with regard to the assets, rights and liabilities of the board. Those checks are cumbersome and unnecessary. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for any directives he gives to the board during the transitional period under Clause 2(3) and for his decision to allow the disposal of assets at less than market value. Once the board dissolved he will be accountable for his custody of any assets, rights and liabilities that he takes over from the board. Normal procedures of parliamentary accountability are sufficient.
Information about the activities of the board has always been available to this Chamber through Parliamentary Questions and will continue to be available in the transitional period. There is no question of the assets of the board being disposed of in an arbitrary fashion. The whole purpose of the procedures in Clause 2(4) is to ensure that the agreement of the Secretary of State and the Treasury are secured when the board acts to dispose of its assets on anything other than commercial terms.
As I mentioned, the sole purpose of the provision in subsection (4) is to permit assets to be transferred to other bodies in the industry at less than the market value. The substance of the assurances sought by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, are consistent with the Government's intentions in relation to any proposals from the board.
I hope that, with that rather detailed explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful for the Minister's very detailed explanation but still a little disappointed by it. As I said when I moved the amendment originally—and in that respect I was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—assurances had been given in the other place by the Minister of State regarding dockers' clubs, medical centres, etc. and, that being so, it would be a very good thing to write it on to the face of the Bill so that those who were concerned about what would happen to the property would have the reassurance
196
that it was written into statute. As the position stands at the moment, even with all the assurances that we have been given, the clause is still very open-ended. It simply says that the assets can be disposed of at less than market value, without any consideration in respect of dockers' clubs, medical centres and the needs of people inside the industry.
In the absence of a commitment by the Government at least to take the matter away and produce their own amendment at Report to deal with the considerations that have been advanced this evening, I intend to press the amendment.
7.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 79.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Monson, L.

Attlee, E.

Nicol, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Northfield, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Prys-Davies, L.

Rea, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Shepherd, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Stedman, B.

Falkender, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Falkland, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Galpern, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gregson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Jay, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Kirkhill, L.

McCarthy, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Mellish, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gisborough, L.

Arran, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gormanston, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Greenway, L.

Belstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bessborough, E.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Bethell, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

Hesketh, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hives, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Holderness, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Caithness, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Long, V.

Coleraine, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lyell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Denham, L.

Marley, L.

Dundee, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Elibank, L.

Merrivale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mersey, V.

Elton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Erroll, E.

Mottistone, L.

Faithfull, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nelson, E.

Fortescue, E.

Norfolk, D.

197

Onslow, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Trafford, L.

Orkney, E.

Tranmire, L.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Vinson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Young of Graffham, L

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Appointment by Secretary of State of person to act in place of members of Board]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("by notice in writing given to each of the members of the Board") and insert ("by Order, a draft of which has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I must say that we have decided not to move Amendment No. 24 with which it is grouped.
Under this clause the Secretary of State is given power to dismiss members of the board who have failed to comply with any directions that he may give to them. Under the terms of the Bill:
If it appears to the Secretary of State that the Board has failed to comply with any directions given by him under section 2(3), the Secretary of State may—

(a) by notice in writing given to each of the members of the Board terminate their appointments as from a date specified in the notice, and

(b) appoint a person to act in place of the members of the Board during the remainder of the transitional period.

Under the terms of the amendment, instead of doing that simply by giving notice in writing to each member of the Board, the Secretary of State should do so by order, a draft of which must be laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.
The Committee will recollect where we are in the life of the board. We are talking about the transitional period, whether it be a week, a month or a year. The board is expeditiously winding itself up. Its only power is to make provision for training and welfare. It does not matter what it does because nothing follows. It will wind itself up and sell off its assets. It may not sell them at market value. It can sell them as it wishes so long as it does not sell or dispose of them in ways that the Secretary of State does not like. If he does not like what it does, he can in effect sack the board.
As I understood it from what the Minister recently said, whereas the directions that the Secretary of State gives to the board are subject to parliamentary oversight and supervision—at least, that is what he said—the sacking of the members of the board and their replacement, individually or severally, all together or one at a time, is entirely at his disposal. He replaces them suitably with "one of us"—because, of course, they are not "one of us". They were appointed before that time. Four of them
198
are represented by dock employers and four by dock workers, who are in fact the nominees of the Transport and General Workers' Union. They have been appointed after consultation with various people but their replacement is undertaken simply by the Secretary of State who writes them a letter and that is the end of it.
We suggest that that is rather monstrous and quite unnecessary. Therefore, in a modest amendment, we suggest that the same kind of provision should apply in this situation as would apply, as it were, when the Secretary of State makes other orders or gives other directions to the board; namely, that the dismissal of the members, like the instructons he gives them, shall be the subject of an order, a draft of which shall be laid before and approved by each House of Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The proposal that the removal of a member of the board should be by statutory instrument and moreover by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure appears to make very heavy weather indeed of the issue. It might also be thought possibly embarrassing for a member of the board. If he is to be removed, it is one thing for it to be done in what no doubt is a politely framed letter from the Minister; but it seems a most extraordinary proposition that it should be done in the full blaze of publicity of an affirmative order which may be argued about. In the course of that argument the board member's personal characteristics and suitability might well be dragged in.
Of course, I understand what the noble Lord is trying to do. He is trying to ensure that if a Minister acts unreasonably in removing a board member (which he has the power to do under the Bill as it stands) the Minister should be held responsible. Should such a thing happen it is perfectly easy for any member of this Chamber or another place to challenge the Minister and ask for his reasons. If that is done with any degree of publicity or if the board member is aggrieved and seeks the advice of his friends about it, the Minister could be called upon to answer either by way of parliamentary Question or other parliamentary action.
However, to put the removal of an individual member in what is the top bracket of secondary legislation—namely, an affirmative resolution —seems to me, if I may put it rather inelegantly, to be over-egging the pudding.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The duties and limitations of the board in the transitional period have been carefully delineated under Clauses 1(3) and 2 of the Bill. Clause 3 provides for measures to be taken by the Secretary of State if the board is unable or unwilling to fulfil those duties. That might occur because of conflicting interests on the board or deliberate attempts to block decisions causing a stalemate. The board could not fulfil its duties in those conditions and would be replaced by a single appointee with the same powers.
These are contingency powers and we hope that they will not have to be used. But they are necessary to ensure that if the board is not functioning as it

199
should the Secretary of State has the necessary powers to appoint someone in its place so that the board's residual duties and powers are exercised properly.
Incidentally, I think that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has a slight misunderstanding of the provisions of the Bill in so far as in Clause 3(1) paragraphs (a) and (b) should be read together. They are linked by the word "and". That requires the Secretary of State to terminate the appointments of the whole board in the circumstances that I have described. He cannot pick and choose between individual members of it.
Returning to the amendment, this requires the Secretary of State to terminate the appointments of the board by means of an order approved by Parliament. It is not unusual for Secretaries of State to be given the powers to appoint and dismiss members of statutory boards without requiring the approval of Parliament; for example under the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case. It is particularly important for the Secretary of State to act with speed in the circumstances envisaged by Clause 3 because the board is under a duty, in accordance with Clause 2, to wind up its affairs expeditiously. Seeking the approval of Parliament to terminate the appointments of board members would be inconsistent with that.
Beside that, I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the exercise of his powers under the Bill: so Parliament would have every opportunity to question him should Members wish to do so. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the Bill should remain as it stands.
Lord McCarthy: I readily agree and of course appreciate that the Bill ensures that he cannot pick and choose. I do not know why I said that. Probably it was because I became mixed up by the fact that we do not intend to move the next amendment, which would have given him such power. However, I quite agree. The Bill makes it absolutely clear that he sacks them all together and appoints someone to replace them. That is absolutely right.
It is also part of the answer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because this is a rather odd procedure. With repect, it is not the case that the Minister has become dissatisfied with an individual member of the board. I quite agree that if he thought that one or another member of the board had behaved injudiciously, wrongly or was in some way unsatisfactory, it would not be desirable to bring the whole matter before Parliament. Indeed, if we did not have a transition period which lasted at the most three or four months—and we have not even been told how long it is to be—we would not need to talk about dismissing individuals because the time would come when their periods of operation would run out and they would not be reappointed. That is how one gets rid of people with whom one is not satisfied.
This is quite different. The Minister is quite right. It is very strange. If it appears to the Secretary
200
of State that the board, the whole board—all of it—whether by a vote of one or two or by a qualified majority is unsatisfactory and if it does not satisfy the Minister's directions in every particular, then he sacks the lot. In the board's place he does not reappoint another board in which case he might have reappointed those who had been good boys and girls and let go those who had been bad boys and girls. He does not do that. If he did, I might agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and we should not need to bring in Parliament. But this is very strange. He sacks everybody, good boys and bad boys, and does not appoint any of the boys or girls, good or bad, in their place but brings in someone else—"one of us". I should have thought that he might have been appointed in the first place; but there you are.
We believe that such an extraordinary procedure ought to be explained or defended in some way. I must say that these Benches are never tied necessarily to the words of their amendments and no doubt they are sometimes badly drafted. Sometimes the amendments put foward by the other side of the Chamber are also badly drafted. For the most part when they are badly drafted by the other side they are usually replaced—endlessly replaced—up to the last minute. But on this unprecedented Bill nothing is replaced. Everything runs. In this Bill, every single word is pure minted and perfect. Nothing is to be changed. Therefore it cannot be amended in any way, can it?
The Minister cannot say to me, "Well, you have the wrong words here, my dear fellow. Let us have some different words" or "I shall suggest a way whereby this strange, bizarre procedure can be subjected to some justification, some supervision or scrutiny, whether by Parliament or someone else". No, no! The fact is that there is nothing in the Bill to change; it is quite unique; it must remain as it is.
We are not convinced. However, we do not wish to press the amendment to a Division because there is another coming up for discussion which is rather similar but directed to a somewhat different purpose. Maybe we shall be more successful with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not make such an appointment except after consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, and shall have regard to the practical experience of the docks industry of any person he is considering appointing.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps we can try with this amendment. The amendment does not provide that a report be made to anybody about the bizarre ways in which the board will be dismissed but tries to suggest that if we reach this position at least the Minister should consult. The amendment provides that:
"The Secretary of State shall not make such an appointment"
the appointment of a good boy or girl, one of us, to get rid of the bad boys and girls—
"except after consultation with the Trades Union Congress"—

201
I apologise for mentioning that terrible phrase in this Chamber with this Government—
"and"—
to balance the good boys with the bad boys—
"the Confederation of British Industry" —
and this is the sensational bit—
"shall have regard to the practical experience of the docks industry of any person he is considering appointing".
I know that that will stick in the gullet. It refers to "a practical experience of the docks industry". Nevertheless it is reasonable when one considers the constitution of the National Dock Labour Board. It is a jointly appointed board. It is what one might call minority Bullock. It is not 2x ² y. Four members are appointed to represent the dock employers. Four members are appointed to represent the dock workers. All of them are appointed by the Minister. They are responsible to the Minister. Other members are appointed to the board. It means that the representatives of the union are in the minority. Therefore all that we have heard about the union having a block vote is nonsense. It is a minority.
Nevertheless, there is consultation. The existing legislation provides that after consultation with the National Joint Council these people are appointed. We are going to destroy the National Joint Council so we cannot consult with it. But on the face of the Bill it suggests no representative role and no consultation process. Someone will be appointed and—we know the phrase that will be used—it will be somebody who is acceptable in his personal capacity. It will be just like the doctor on the policy board of the NHS; or the nurse who is not there. It will be an appointment in a personal capacity—one of us. There will be no consultation. There will not necessarily be any regard to the practical experience within the docks. It could be anyone. It could be the chairman of Rovers who is on the policy board of the NHS with his great experience and knowledge of quality in British industry. He certainly knows nothing whatever about the docks industry.
We are saying that there ought to be consultation. It is provided for in the docks legislation now. Why should it not be provided for if one of us has to be appointed? I beg to move.
Lord Mellish: The amendment states that the Secretary of State,
"shall have regard to the practical experience of the docks industry of any person he is considering appointing".
If a person who has any knowledge of the docks industry is appointed by the Secretary of State to take the place of any member of the board who has been sacked, we have a very strong name for that in the docklands, funnily enough. He is called a blackleg. Frankly, it only goes to show the depth to which the Government have finally gone. They talk about replacing those who are on the board at the moment who do not comply exactly with what they are saying. They will put in "yes" men who will comply. I have nothing but contempt for "yes" men anyway.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have been enjoying the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. However, I have not been able to agree with many of them.
202
As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, explained, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the TUC and CBI about an individual to replace the National Dock Labour Board should that prove necessary under the contingency powers given to the Secretary of State by Clause 3. It would also require him to have regard to that person's practical experience of the docks industry in making his choice.
These amendments would not improve the provisions of the Bill as they stand. It must be remembered that the Secretary of State would exercise his powers in the unlikely event that the board had failed to fulfil its duty to wind up its affairs expeditiously and had failed to exercise its powers over training and welfare provision properly. In those circumstances the rapid appointment of an individual to replace the board would be a priority and consultation would delay that.
There must also be some doubt about the purpose that consultation would serve in those circumstances. If the unions and employers on the board had failed to agree on the action necessary to meet the requirements of their duty and powers, they would be unlikely through the TUC and CBI to agree on the appointment of a successor. In any event one or other party might find it in their interests to frustrate such an appointment. That would not be in the interests of the fulfilment of the Bill's objectives of an early wind up of the board's activities.
On the matter of the experience of the appointee, I am sure that the Secretary of State would wish to take account of all relevant experience to the tasks of winding up the board's activities, disposing of its assets and running its welfare and training facilities in the interim. Experience of the ports industry might not be the predominant requirement to do that job successfully, though I am sure the Secretary of State would regard it as an important factor to be weighed against others. His choice should not be constrained by statutory requirement, such as proposed by this amendment. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept it.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps because it is getting near the dinner hour the arguments from the other side are becoming thinner. The Minister has the cheek to tell me that the parties involved might frustrate the choice of "one of us". How could they possibly frustrate that? Persons are only being consulted. It is not joint determination. The Government are not serious. They can do better than that. I know that it is late at night.
Of course such parties cannot frustrate the choice. The Minister says that such persons may wish to take note of experience in the industry; they may wish not do so so. He worries us because he has suggested that they will not do so. Reading what the Minister has said, if the existing members did not wind up the scheme fast enough it is more likely that a property developer would be sent for. That is what he seems to be thinking about. It is not the

203
appointment of someone who knows about the docks industry but someone who can sell the assets off as quickly as possible at the highest possible fee.
Finally on this clause the Minister has the cheek to ask me what purpose the amendment would serve. I suppose that is because the Government have been in power for 10 years. I am referring to the representative purpose. That is the purpose of the amendment. We are supposed to be a representative democracy. When one takes decisions that affect people one consults their representatives. One does not take decisions unilaterally off one's own bat, even if one thinks that these people may frustrate one's purpose—which they could not do because they are representative of interests, having a knowledge of the subject. One asks them what they think.
The Government cannot see that such consultation has any purpose. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Compensation for former registered dock workers who become redundant]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 26:
"Page 3, line 17, at end insert—
("(c) such payments shall not be less favourable than those available under the Scheme.").
The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee will be pleased to know that this is the last amendment we shall move this evening. The amendment is the modest result of a refusal to accept more ambitious amendments in another place. Members in another place moved a series of rather more ambitious amendments in an attempt to improve the level of compensation payments made to dock workers who are subject to this Bill. For example, it was moved in another place that the maximum figure on 15 years should be doubled from £35,000—which is the present proposed maximum—to £75,000. Naturally enough, the Government would have none of it. It was proposed that the minimum payment should be put up to £35,000. Naturally enough, the Government would have none of it.
These refusals on the part of the Government were all justified, if I have understood the argument, on the grounds that they have improved the position already. They took a certain amount of credit from the fact that, because their compensation scheme had a top figure of £35,000 after 15 years, it was better than the existing voluntary severance scheme which has a maximum of £25,000.
The object of the amendment is to suggest that that is not the case. On any reasonable interpretation of what is being put before the Committee, it is less favourable than the payments available under the scheme. In another place the Government have said that they accept that it should be at least as favourable—indeed, they argue that it is already more favourable. Therefore they should be prepared
204
to accept this modest amendment which provides that payments shall not be less favourable than those available under the scheme.
I must argue and show how it is that the present compensation proposals under Clause 5 of the Bill are worse from the point of view of the registered docker than what is currently available. First, this is a compulsory redundancy scheme. As Members opposite have said endlessly, the dockers are protected against compulsory redundancy, like many other people. They are protected because they must be given voluntary severance; that is the effect of the Jones-Aldington agreement. To say that you get £35,000 for being given the sack is not necessarily better than saying that you get £25,000 for going when you want to go. It is £35,000 for 15 years' service and the sack, £25,000 for 10 years' service and the sack and £15,000 for five years' service and the sack.
In the scheme which existed before the Bill, you got 70 per cent. of those rates for going when you wanted to go. I do not see how that can be said to be at least as good. You get nothing for volunteering. The Government do not propose to put in place a voluntary severance scheme. There is to be no voluntary severance scheme; everybody gets the sack. If they do not get the sack, they receive no money or fall back on to the redundancy payment scheme.
We are saying that, because it is a compulsory redundancy scheme and the Government have completely abolished the voluntary severance scheme, it is not as favourable as previously.
That is only the first heading, because we now turn to what happens when compulsory redundancy comes a little late. The payments of £35,000 for 15 years, £25,000 for 10 years and £15,000 for five years last for only 18 months. I have read with care the debates which took place in another place and I have never seen that explained. Eighteen months after Royal Assent—that is, December 1990—we sink to a maximum of £20,000. It is not £35,000 and not even £25,000. Where do those figures come from?
The poor old dockers who go after 18 months receive £20,000 for 15 years, £15,000 for 10 years and £10,000 for five years. Of course they receive nothing for voluntary severance; they are all sacked. In other words, the figures are 80 per cent. of the present scheme, which is voluntary. So now you get less for the sack than you previously received for voluntary severance. Why is that?
Even that is not all, because after three years you receive nothing at all as the scheme comes to an end. By August 1992, the registered docker receives nothing but the statutory redundancy scheme if he is declared redundant. There is nothing for voluntary severance and, because of the fixed limits for the maximum of 15 years, he receives less than £4,000; in other words, he receives 16 per cent. of the present scheme for a forced dismissal. One of the reasons for tabling the amendent is to try to persuade the Government to justify and explain why they picked those figures out of the air—that is, £35,000 for sacking and nothing for voluntary severance, and for

205
God's sake why?—and then they cut them away after 18 months. Why should there be that tapering of the scheme?
I puzzled about the reason. I may be wrong and I hope that the Minister will tell me if I am, but I came up with a number of reasons. It could be that the Government are saying that in 18 months' time there will be no more registered dockers because they will have sacked them all. Therefore nobody will receive the lower level. That is one possibility—by 1992 there will be no more dockers. The fact is that these people came into the industry on the understanding that they were entitled to expect that voluntary severance scheme. Many of them joined under this scheme.
During the Second Reading debate we showed that it did not lead to the spending of vast sums of money, that the average payment is about two-thirds of the maximum and that it amounts to a little more than a year's average earnings. We have shown that no one in the industry is receiving vast sums of money. Certainly the sums to not compare with some of the golden handshakes which are given in industry generally. Nevertheless, it has always been our argument, and we accept the fact, that there are benefits not received by the mass of workers, particularly those who are not well organised. Even now we ask the Government why they always wish to level the workers down. When they find a group of workers who have a scheme, perhaps by legislation, that gives them a little more than the generality, why do they always believe that that in itself is a justification for taking it away? Everyone must be levelled down to the lowest possible denominator; while there are people with no rights, nobody can have rights. We suggest that that is monstrous.
In another place the Government said that they believed they were operating a scheme no less favourable than the present scheme. We believe that, because we can demonstrate that this is a lot less favourable, they should accept our amendment. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I shall not detain the Committee. The amendment appears to be reasonable and I have sympathy with it. I hope that the noble Lord will look upon it in the same way.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It may be helpful if I clarify one important point. The dock labour scheme itself does not, as this amendment suggests, provide any entitlement to compensation for RDWs made redundant. The severance arrangements that have existed until now have been established on a voluntary non-statutory basis and are the result of a voluntary agreement (the national voluntary severance scheme and, subsequently, the national employers release arrangement) between the employers and the unions. The only statutory element has been the Government's ability to make loans and since 1985 grants for the severance payments. The amounts of individual payments have not been expressed in statute. This Bill,
206
however, will make the compensation payments a statutory requirement for the first time.
Having said that, I fully understand that the objective of the amendment is to ensure that the compensation payments to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Bill should be no less favourable than the voluntary severance payments previously available. I think that I can go a long way to reassuring the Committee on this.
During the first 18 months of the compensation scheme the maximum payments available will be £35,000. This is £10,000 higher than the maximum of £25,000 generally available under the previous voluntary scheme, although payments of £35,000 have previously been made for London, Liverpool and Greenock. But even in those cases our scheme is no less favourable. The voluntary severance scheme provided for lump sum of £3,400, plus £1,440 for each full year of service up to £25,000 maximum. Our scheme in the first 18 months provides a larger lump sum of £5,000 and an additional £2,000 for each full year of service. Under both schemes the maximum entitlement is reached after only 15 years' service. So, for any former registered dock worker after any length of service, the new compensation scheme is still more favourable.
It is true that our scheme provides for a gradual reduction in the amount of compensation for those RDWs nearing retirement age. For every three months by which an RDW's age exceeds 62½ years, the amount of compensation to which he is entitled will be reduced by 10 per cent. of the sum that would otherwise be payable. Without this tapering, a former registered dock worker could pick up a payment of £35,000 if he were made redundant only a few months, weeks or even days before he would have to retire on age grounds anyway. A similar principle applied under the national early release arrangement. But it would still remain the case, whatever a man's age or length of service, that for men made redundant in the first 18 months after Royal Assent our scheme under the Bill will provide as good, and in most cases considerably better, compensation, under the previous voluntary severance arrangements.
However, it is the case that in the second 18-month period of the compensation scheme, when the maximum payments drop to £20,000, the amounts of compensation will often be less than those previously available under the voluntary severance arrangements.
There are two points to make about this. First, we see this special compensation scheme as a short-term transitional arrangement between the severance terms that have applied hitherto to registered dock workers who have left the industry voluntarily and the general statutory entitlement that all other employees have to redundancy compensation under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. We think that there should be special arrangements for former registered dock workers in a period when the industry will be bound to be undergoing extensive adjustments. But we think it is only sensible and right for the transitional arrangements to be staged. Precisely because they are transitional, they should be progressively

207
bridging the gap between existing practice and expectations on the one hand and the general statutory provision on the other.
Secondly the payments to which former registered dock workers will be entitled in the second 18-month period will still be far superior to those to which they would be entitled under the Employment Protection Act 1978. Under our scheme, the maximum payment, for which I should expect most men to qualify, will be £20,000. That compares with a present maximum under the Employment Protection Act, to which comparatively few would be entitled, of £5,160.
So although during the second 18 months of our scheme under this Bill former registered dock workers who are made redundant are likely to receive rather less than they have done under recent voluntary severance arrangements, they will still be getting a fair and reasonably generous deal.
There is another important factor. As I mentioned on Second Reading, nothing in this Bill alters the pension entitlements of registered dock workers under their separate and non-statutory pension scheme. Those pension arrangements will continue. They mean that any redundant former registered docker will receive a pension from the age of 50 onwards. From age 50 to 54 there is an actuarial reduction but from the age of 55 the full pension is payable. A former registered docker on average earnings of £350 per week with 35 years' service will receive a pension of around £4,300 per year, and that is on top of the lump sum payment provided for under the Bill.
I hope that I have been able to convince Members of the Committee that these are favourable severance payment terms and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: It seems to me that the only thing to do is to table much simpler amendments. I do not say that we shall get any further but at least we may receive better answers. I thought that I had made it clear that there is no scheme for voluntary severance. I asked the Minister: how can the present scheme be better than the scheme already in existence if there is no payment for voluntary severance? At the moment, £25,000 can be paid—and it hardly ever is—for voluntary severance. Now, you receive nothing unless you are sacked. How can you compare what you receive when you are forcibly dismissed with what you receive when you choose to leave voluntarily?
I admit that previously there was no such statutory scheme for being dismissed and sacked in the docks. That was not needed because there was something better; namely, voluntary severance. The Government are now going to take that away. When they take away a voluntary severance scheme, they cannot say that a scheme which gives you money when you are sacked is better. It is worse, and much worse, and the Government do not deny that.
We must have simpler amendments and use simpler arguments. The Minister has still not explained to me why the payment goes down after
208
18 months. He uses the general phrases so much beloved by this Government such as, "It is only sensible and right". That is not an argument but an assertion. That is another way of saying, "It seems to me", or, "Shut up, I have told you". Why is this sensible and right? There is no reason except the implicit reason which the Minister gets close to late at night; namely, that the dock workers did not deserve that anyway and we are taking them down to a point when they do not receive any more than the ordinary worker receives under ordinary payment; give us long enough and we will do away with that as well. That is not an argument which is sensible and right. It is mean and bigoted.
Finally, the Minister says, "Well, they will receive pensions anyway. Why do they need anything else?" The workers have paid into those pension schemes and should receive the benefits. It is good that they have done that, because they will not receive much from this Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Schizophrenia After-Care Bill
7.58 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Assessment of needs of persons discharged from hospital after treatment for schizophrenia]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("or (b) his nearest relative").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I shall be brief with all my amendments. In the main they are in response to various points raised by other Members in Committee, and I hope that they will agree that they meet their needs.
Amendment No. 1 endeavours to meet a point relating to Clause 1(6) raised in his opening remarks on Amendment No. 12 at col. 736 of the Official Report on 10th May by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. The amendment would prevent the nearest relative from blocking an assessment if the person being discharged wants one. That was the point made by the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I simply respond to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for meeting the points that I made in the course of our previous debate. He has totally met my concerns and I welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 27, after ("his") insert ("formal").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I take Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 and a new manuscript Amendment No. 5A, copies of which I have given to noble Lords who are taking part in the debate. For the benefit of noble Lords who have not seen it, the manuscript amendment reads:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert ("formally").
These amendments insert in the Bill the word "formal" which was incorporated at various places in the Bill in Committee and it is now necessary to make the Bill consistent where the same qualification is necessary. Arguments for this need were made at the previous stage and I shall not bore the House with them again. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [After-care of persons discharged from hospital after treatment for schizophrenia]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 29, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) A person—

(a) who has information as to the whereabouts of a person—

(i) for whom services were being provided under subsection (1), and

(ii) who cannot be traced by the health authority concerned with the provision of those services, and

(b) who considers that disclosure of that information to that authority would be in the best interests of the person mentioned in (a) above,

may on request by that authority when it is pursuing its reasonable enquiries under subsection (3) disclose that information to it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment responds to the main thrust of Amendment No. 12 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in Committee to which I have already referred. It reflects the fact that some relationships involve a seal of confidentiality; for example, the relationship between a schizophrenic and his doctor, his clergyman or his solicitor. If a schizophrenic wishes to disappear, his doctor may well feel, in the absence of such a provision, an obligation not to reveal his whereabouts although he thinks that the case still requires treatment.
The proposed redrafting of subsection (4) seeks to protect disclosure by the doctor in these circumstances. I suggest to your Lordships that the patient's interest will be served because he will have another opportunity of receiving treatment instead of perhaps sleeping rough in a cardboard box on the Embankment. The patient's privacy is protected as far as possible because the disclosure to be protected must be to the health authority alone, and then only if the health authority requests it.
It was suggested in Committee that perhaps a penalty might be necessary in order to force this through, but I do not think that it is. If the doctor does not consider that disclosure is desirable, that is the end of the matter. It is difficult to conceive of circumstances where he considers disclosure is desirable and where he still does not disclose. The challenge to him in that event could always be met by his saying that he has changed his mind and no longer thinks disclosure desirable. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will feel that with this amendment we have taken the main theme put by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and others who supported him in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I again briefly intervene to say that in the amendment which I sought to move in Committee there were some major points relating to civil liberties, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having recognised the concerns expressed by myself and others. He did exactly the right thing. He prepared a draft, discussed it with us, we agreed and he has come before the House with an amendment. I support it. My hope is that the Government will be as sensible in the whole of the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has been in this part of it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly say that I support what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said. I am bound to say that this kind of problem—a very real problem expressed by many people—still exists and will always exist. I do not believe that the problem concerning civil liberties in relation to disclosure of information can ever be wholly removed; but in so far as it is possible to do so, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has devised a form of words which I at least regard as satisfactory and I hope others will too.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if we take Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 5A formally.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 16, after ("his") insert ("formal").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 5A:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert ("formal").
Page 5, line 21, at end insert ("formally").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Regulations by Secretary of State
.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying one or more of the following—

(a) the description of the authority whose duty it is to provide a type of after-care service under section 2(1), above that is to say, whether the health authority or the local authority is to provide the service;

(b) without prejudice to section 1(4) above, the type or types of need to be taken into account when making an assessment under that subsection;

211

(c) the quality and extent of a type of after-care service to be providedֵ

(2) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any such regulations—

(a) may make different provision for different cases, and

(b) may contain such transitional, supplemental and incidental provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be desirable, and

(c) may create criminal offences or otherwise provide for the enforcement of obligations imposed by or under the regulations.

(3) A statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment endeavours to meet Amendment No. 4 tabled by my noble friend Lady Faithfull in Committee. I suggest that the new subsection (1)(a) meets paragraph (b) of my noble friend's amendment and that subsection (1)(c) meets her paragraph (a). Subsection (1)(b) of my amendment is new, as a result of my having given thought to this matter. For example, suppose that research showed that watching television was good for schizophrenics. I do not know whether it is, but it might be for some. Subsection (1)(b) of my amendment would add a provision that television sets should be considered among the possible needs. Therefore, one needs to give power to the Secretary of State to deal with that situation. This part of the amendment would also enable the list of specific needs—medical treatment and so on—to be notionally extended and gives some flexibility.
As regards subsections (2) and (3) of the amendment, these are fairly conventional for this sort of Bill and, indeed, have been copied from building societies Acts. I believe that they are perfectly straightforward. We also discussed this point earlier and I hope that the proposals are satisfactory to my noble friend. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for incorporating in the Bill the points that I made in Committee. I should like to make one
212
comment—I do not propose even to ask a question. At the moment the health and social services are having great difficulty throughout the country dealing with all sorts of cases, particularly with schizophrenics, because the Griffiths Report has not yet been published. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will understand how much we press for a decision on the Griffiths Report, which would ease the position and made it more easy to administer.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I fully understand what my noble friend said but I regret that I cannot help her on the Griffiths Report. The Government are aware that my noble friend and others would like a response to the report as soon as possible. All I can say is that our response will come forward as soon as practicable, but it is a complicated matter.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Faithfull for her kind agreement to this attempt to cover the points that she made. I wondered who would mention Griffiths; it seemed almost inevitable. I also wondered whether my noble friend on the Front Bench would respond. I only wish that he had accepted the principle of this Bill and could have an experiment to see how Griffiths might be carried out on a wider scale. However, I shall not spend more time on this. I look forward to Third Reading when we shall have an opportunity again to mention the points that have given rise to this Bill, but of course briefly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Control of Smoke Pollution Bill
Report received.

St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.

  TURKEY: ALLEGED HUMAN RIGHTS INFRINGEMENTS
  TURKEY: ALLEGED HUMAN RIGHTS INFRINGEMENTS
  INHERITANCE TAX
  INHERITANCE TAX