Sitting of 6 March 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Disability Benefits
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase disability benefits.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We are spending over £7 billion this year on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled. This is an increase of over 90 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. The results of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' reports on disability will help us judge how well the substantial current expenditure is targeted and whether there are better ways of helping those in greatest need.
    Mr. Evans: One improvement that the Minister could make in support for the disabled would be to scrap the six-month qualifying period for the terminally ill, many of whom, I am sad to say, die before they qualify. Does the Minister accept that such a step would be widely welcomed by those who have built up, supported and maintained the hospice movement and by those who support and nurse the terminally ill in their last months?
    Mr. Scott: I have noted that. The point has been brought to my attention and we shall certainly consider it. There are somewhat complicated questions about medical ethics and about whether or not information could properly and compassionately be given to people who are terminally ill. I am giving the matter considerable thought.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend accept that the figures that he has given for increases in mobility allowance expenditure since 1979 are more than welcome? What is the increase in the number of mobility allowance claimants since 1979?
    Mr. Scott: Expenditure on mobility allowance has increased by 550 per cent. in real terms since we came to office. It is a significant increase in terms of expenditure and the number of those who are receiving the benefit.
    Mr. Fearn: Will the Minister confirm that all those who reached the age of 60 before December 1984, who care for a relative and are eligible for the invalid allowance, will get their back pay, in accordance with the European Court's latest ruling? When will that back pay be paid?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the case which is before the Appeal Court, we would want to await its finding before coming to any conclusions.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that there is great support for the point which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) made regarding the terminally ill? Does he accept also that if the Government conceded his point, that would be entirely consistent with some of the major recommendations in Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care?
    Mr. Scott: I take that point seriously, and I am giving it thought. We will probably look at it in the context of the OPCS surveys.

    Public Spending
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of public spending is taken up by his Department.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): My Department is responsible for 31 per cent. of all Government spending in 1988–89. This is up from 25 per cent. in the last year of the Labour Government. It is thanks to the success of this Government's economic policies that the country is able to afford the massive resources devoted to social security spending.
    Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that achievement. By what percentage has Government expenditure on support for the family increased since 1978–79?
    Mr. Moore: Not surprisingly, support for the family has increased by 27·3 per cent. since 1979, in comparison—just in case the answer needs further embellishment—with the reduction of 7 per cent. under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Haynes: Why is the Secretary of State bragging about the amount of money that the Government are spending on social security? I have mentioned it to him before. When will he wake up to the fact that some people in my constituency live in wheelchairs because they have lost lower limbs? They apply for attendance allowance but are regularly turned down. Why? What kind of instructions are going out from the Department?
    Mr. Moore: I was not bragging. The emotions of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) are understandable, but I was happy to be able to reflect on the Government's economic success, which has enabled them to care in a greater and more effective way. I do not for one moment doubt the emotions and support of the hon. Gentleman or other Labour Members, but their economic failure when in office created great difficulties for those whom they wanted to support.
    Mr. Hanley: By what percentage has the amount spent on the long-term sick and disabled increased since 1979?
    Mr. Moore: Facts such as this are always difficult for the Opposition when compared with their own appalling record—[Interruption.] Of course, the Opposition want to speed quickly across such issues, which contrast so starkly with their own record. Expenditure on the long-term disabled and sick has increased by 90 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State cease his practice of blaming social security officers for not making payments from the social fund? Is not the truth that the system is so circumscribed by regulations and rules that the payments simply cannot be made? Does the Secretary of State realise that Conservatives up and down the land are increasingly concerned about the Government's meanness? They want to vote Tory but want the Government to show more charity.
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is trapped in utter nonsense. I have never once criticised my social security officers about expenditure on the social fund. I have encouraged them to use their discretionary flexibility when dealing with community care grants. I have criticised authorities—especially Labour-controlled local authorities—which, despite their supposed interest in the claimant, sought to boycott the social fund in its early stages.

    Mainframe Computer
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: T: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when social security offices will be linked to the mainframe computer system.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Already, Sir. Under the Department's computerisation programme, we have established pilot link-ups between 22 local offices and new mainframe computer systems for pensions and a central index. The largest and most ambitious project, dealing with the processing and payment of income support, was successfully introduced in Bolton and Edinburgh, south, local offices on Monday 27 February 1989.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I hope by that answer that my hon. Friend is effectively announcing the end of the Dickensian paper chase which used to cause so much frustration, not just to applicants but to staff in various offices up and down the country. Can he shed some further light on the matter, and say whether computerisation will permit on-line information at the point of inquiry at local offices? Will there be a link-up between local offices, for example, to ensure that the John Doe who applies in one of the Nottingham offices is not the same John Doe who applies at the office down the road in Derby? Such a system would, one hopes, eliminate fraud.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: My hon. Friend is quite right. It will be the end of the paper chase. In two years' time, when the national roll-out is complete, it will certainly be possible for an individual to go into his local office and see the information on the VDU screen, to which every office will be connected. As my hon. Friend suggested, that will also create the valuable by-product of helping to eliminate the small proportion of cases which are fraudulent.
    Mr. Allen: Can the Minister confirm that there were problems at Bolton on the very first day of operation? Will he also confirm that the objective of the Government's strategy is to free social security officers to deal directly with clients? How many more people are dealing with clients face-to-face than before the system came in?
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: The same number of people are dealing with clients face-to-face, but they do so with better and more accurate information and can answer questions
    588
    quickly. The hon. Gentleman referred to the experience at Bolton. Minor problems were encountered in the offices there, but nothing substantial, and nothing that will in any way hold up our plans for introducing the system. The whole point of having a pilot period is to iron out small difficulties so that when the system rolls nationally there will be no problems.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is welcome that Bolton was chosen for this pilot scheme? Will he say a little more about the benefits that will accrue from computerisation?
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), the benefits for the claimants are that he receives a quicker, more accurate and more complete service. The benefit for the staff is that they can work in a way that satisfies them because they can give a better service in better conditions. The benefit for the taxpayer is that he will save on administration in the system.

    Transitional Payments
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his calculation of the number of people who will receive no increase in their income support payments in April 1989 over April 1988, because they are in receipt of transitional payments or they have lost transitional payments during the past year.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: The precise information requested is not available but we estimate that of the 4·4 million people on income support 3·9 million will gain from this year's uprating.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister accept that even these estimates show the suffering that will be experienced by many people this April? The estimate is a disgrace. Surely, the Government should allocate more money to such a needy sector.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: The estimates are encouraging in the sense that they will leave 14 per cent. of income support claimants still with transitional payments. The rest will be receiving a partial or complete increase. The hon. Gentleman should remember that transitional payments were designed to prevent a drop in the cash payments at the point of change. People who have them are being paid at a higher rate than is paid to people in the same circumstances who are coming on to income support.
    Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that those whose financial affairs will be altered by these arrangements have been warned sufficiently far in advance to allow them to make other arrangements?
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Local offices have certainly been informing people on income support of what their position will be after April, so those who will have no increase—the 14 per cent. that I have mentioned—will have been informed well in advance.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister accept that his answer to the original question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) was disingenuous? Does he accept that of the 3·9 million people that he mentioned more than 500,000 will not get the full

    589
    increase because of transitional additions, and another 500,000 will get no increase at all? That is not a small minority: it is a quarter of all claimants of income support.
    Does the Minister also recognise that by definition none of these one million people received any increase last April? How does he justify a two-year freeze on the most frail and disabled claimants merely because they used to get a little extra help? How does he square that freeze with the often-repeated claim by the Government that they are targeting help on those most in need3
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) that 14 per cent. will still be subject to transitional payments after April. Secondly, I remind the hon. Gentleman that income support rates for the groups he referred to—the elderly and the frail—will be increased next October.

    Income Support
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases of which he has knowledge 16 and 17-year-olds have ceased to receive income support without taking up a job or employment training place at the most recent date.
    Mr. Allen Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases of which he has knowledge those aged 16 and 17 years have ceased to receive income support without taking up a job or employment training places at the most recent date.
    Mr. Scott: Precise information is not available, but it is perhaps relevant that in the period 12 September 1988 to 24 February 1989 there were more than 3,000 directions under the discretionary powers covering severe hardship.
    Mr. McKelvey: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am intrigued to know why figures are not available. Today in Kilmarnock, despite assurances by Scottish Ministers, 120 16 and 17-year-olds are looking for employment training programmes and only 50 programmes are available, so there must he a shortfall. The local DSS does not keep figures for young people who are denied benefit. How are we to know how large is this vast and growing army of young destitutes—Oliver Twists who come to London, for instance—looking for jobs and wandering the country, if there are no precise figures? That is a disgrace; the Minister should be ashamed to admit that he does not have the figures on these young people.
    Mr. Scott: I am considering whether we need to collect these figures in future. As I have said, they are not available at the moment. The 3,000 hardship cases nationwide show the impact in this area. As I have undertaken on a number of occasions, we are carefully monitoring the impact of the new system on 16 and 17-year-olds and we have had evidence and representations from a variety of sources which we are carefully considering.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister accept that his answer is totally unsatisfactory? I support the Government's strategy of saying to young people that they should either be in school or at work on YTS. Will he give an undertaking that when he next appears at Question
    590
    Time he will be able to provide us with figures for the number of people who are now drifting around and on the streets because they are not able to claim benefit?
    Mr. Scott: There is considerable difficulty in assembling those figures with any precision. As I say, I am considering whether we can get more information than we have at the moment.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that people who are unskilled, unqualified and unemployed at the age of 16 or 17 will almost certainly be unskilled, unqualified or unemployed at 20 or 25 years of age? The whole thrust of our policies must be to make sure that every 16 or 17-year-old has every incentive to get skills, qualifications and further education. Any culture that encourages young people to become dependent on income benefits as early as 16 or 17 is a disgrace.
    Mr. Scott: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I can think of no worse start to life than to begin it on benefit. When the last Labour Government were in office 65,000 youngsters began their adult career in that way.
    Mrs. Beckett: It is four years since the Government were warned of the dangers of cutting benefits to youngsters who cannot live at home, and a year since the Government went ahead and did that. Why are they still studying the inevitable results? How many more thousands of youngsters will have to disappear from sight while the Government hunt for an excuse for a climbdown?
    Mr. Scott: We made special provision in regulations for the most vulnerable groups. We recognised that however carefully regulations were drawn some cases would always fall outside them. For that reason we introduced the severe hardship provisions and the use of discretion. We have had serious representations, not just rhetoric, about the impact on other groups of youngsters and we are carefully considering those.

    Fraud
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the efficiency scrutiny into his Department's anti-fraud procedures to be completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Moore: The scrutiny will be completed by 21 April. I am determined to maintain a vigorous campaign against those who cheat and rob the social security system. Great progress continues to be made in this area and investigations are producing good results. Benefit savings this year are expected to be about £250 million, over £50 million more than last year. This theft of public funds must be stopped, and I hope that the efficiency scrutiny will help us to get even better results.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that so far the campaign has been a great success? Nevertheless, £200 million or more this year is only the tip of the iceberg. Will he assure the House that he will continue to save taxpayers' hard-earned money from cheats and frauds and from people who deliberately go to the social security system to defraud the country? Will he further assure the House that he will maintain his vigilance? How much money does he think is still there to be saved on behalf of the taxpayer?
    Mr. Moore: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's attitude. No hon. Member and no member of the public in any way supports such abuse of the social security system, which is there to help people in need. We shall continue to maintain the kind of vigilant, effective effort which will produce results such as those that I have announced.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that this problem will never be stamped out until his Department finds a way of getting at the collusive employer? There cannot be a fraudulent claimant without a collusive employer who allows the employee time off for signing on. The Minister has received advice from his departmental officials that there is no technique at the moment for getting at the collusive employer. Until he has such a technique, the problem of the collusive employer which creates fraud, especially in the building industry where it is virtually impossible to get a job but only phoney self-employment, will remain with us for a long time.
    Mr. Moore: I do not accept that I am not seeking or following advice that would help us to pin down fraud, whether by employers or employees. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall look carefully at this subject. As I said, this issue is of concern to both sides of the House, and no one should be willing to see an abuse of the system through fraud, whether by employer or the employee.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Is not the amount of publicity given to cases that are brought to trial insufficient to deter others from taking part in these disgraceful frauds? Could not the media and the press do more, and give more assistance in the campaign to prevent fraud?
    Mr. Moore: I am looking forward to the results of the efficiency scrutiny. Publicity impacts and deters, so I shall be looking carefully at any recommendations about it. The cases that come to public attention already receive a considerable amount of coverage.

    Poverty
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to eliminate poverty amongst young people.
    Mr. Scott: The Government believe that the best way to improve living standards for all groups is to manage the economy successfully, and, for young people, to provide necessary employment and training opportunities. This we have done.
    Mr. Wareing: That utterly complacent answer is absolutely deplorable, and the Minister should recognise that a young person who is lucky enough to be on a YTS scheme has to pay 35 per cent. of his rates—sorry, 35 per cent. of his rents—20 per cent. of his rates and all of his water rates, and for all the costs of his heating. Many young people are destitute. Does the Minister accept that the Fowler reforms are not a great and radical reform but a charter for destitution? It is time that the Minister tried to live, as Matthew Parris once did, on the benefits that he is recommending for young people.
    Mr. Scott: I reject the hon. Gentleman's allegation. He got into a terrible mess over his figures, and even when he got them, what he thought he had bore little resemblance
    592
    to reality. The Government are increasing resources spent on support for social security, and increasing the targeting of it on those who need help most.
    Mr. David Martin: How many young people benefit from family credit, and how does that compare with the number who used to benefit under family income supplement?
    Mr. Scott: What is happening under family credit is that we are spending more money than we were profiled to spend. This is a successful benefit. We are about to embark on another advertising campaign to encourage greater take-up, and it would be in the interests of those involved if all hon. Members gave this benefit their full support.
    Ms. Mowlam: It is not in order for the Minister to criticise the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), when the Minister is unable to tell us the number of cases of young people who are no longer on income support because of training and education. If the Minister is so convinced that young people are not suffering under this arrangement, why is there no disregard for young people on YTS after April 1989?
    Mr. Scott: We are studying carefully the representations that we have received to see whether we need to take steps beyond those that I outlined in a previous supplementary answer.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will be increasing the social fund allocation per head of eligible claimants.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: When the social fund allocations for 1988–89 were announced in November 1987, the average allocation per head of supplementary benefit caseload was £39. The latest available figures show that the 1989–90 social fund allocation represents £46 per head of income support caseload.
    Mr. Harris: Is the take-up for the social fund on target? I welcome the figures, but will my hon. Friend take it from me that in my constituency all the scaremongering that we heard about this fund seems to have been completely unfounded?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend says about his local office. I can give him the figures for January, which show that there has been a welcome increase in successful applications. In January, the loans budget was 96 per cent. of profile, and the expenditure of the grants was 109 per cent.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister accept that the social fund as a whole will be grossly underspent by the end of the financial year, largely because he and his colleagues have set the criteria far too high for local offices? Will the Minister be amending the criteria so that all of the social fund can be spent on the needy in Nottingham and elsewhere?
    Mr. Lloyd: The criteria in January, when expenditure was up against the profile, were the same in almost all respects as they were when the social fund started. We have kept the budget for the coming year as it was last year, despite the underspend in the early part of the current year.

    593
    That shows that we have great faith that the rules as they are will enable the expenditure that we have seen in January to be continued and to be directed to those most especially in need, as is the object of the social fund.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will my hon. Friend explain why there is such an extraordinary variation between one social fund office and another in almost identical areas? The three offices in Nottingham, for example, serve similar areas, but there are substantial variations in the per capita provision. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain why that is so.
    Mr. Lloyd: If my hon. Friend is talking about the difference between the per capita provision—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, he is talking about payments.
    Mr. Lloyd: Well, provision was based very much on the pattern of single payments under supplementary benefit. The differences between offices reflect a series of factors, including the difference in the income support case load, the nature of the area, the attitudes of local voluntary and statutory groups and the efforts made by the local offices to ensure that the availability of the grants and loans is widely known.

    Widows' Pensions
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make it his policy to restore widows pension entitlement to widows aged between 40 and 45 years when the last child of the family leaves school.
    Mr. Scott: As my right hon. Friend announced last Tuesday, we have decided on grounds of equity and fairness to extend entitlement to widows pension to women widowed before 11 April 1988 on the basis of the arrangements applying before that date. Our decision will bring in those entitled to widowed mother's allowance as well as widows allowance. For women widowed after 11 April 1988, there will be no change.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister confirm the position for two women in my constituency, for instance, widowed in 1974 and 1975 respectively, whose last child will leave school within the next two years, and who would therefore have previously received the full widows benefit, they being between 40 and 45 at the point when the child leaves school? Will the Minister confirm that these widows will now receive the widows pension in full in accordance with the previous regulation? Will the Minister reconsider the inequity that will result for those who have been more recently widowed and to whom the new regulations will apply?
    Mr. Scott: Those who would have been on the old widows allowance for six months and instead received the widows payment, and who under the strict application of the rules would not have gone on to become entitled to widows pension, will now be entitled to receive it. If the hon. Gentleman cares to write about the details of the precise case that he outlined, I shall give him a firm answer.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister's answer cover widows between 45 and 50, some of whom have lost £20 or more a week as the last child has left school? This has happened without any warning. They were always told that present widows would be protected. The Minister has never spelt
    594
    out that when the last child leaves school, widows will lose massive sums. In addition, there is the gross unfairness faced by widows between 40 and 45 years of age who lost all their rights. In equity, the Minister must extend the provisions to include widows between 45 and 50.
    Mr. Scott: I explained what would happen to those affected by widows allowance. That applies also to the widowed mother's allowance. The hon. Gentleman will recall that that was not covered by the commissioner's ruling. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided, in terms of equity and fairness, to include that group.

    Mobility and Attendance Allowance Units
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the last management audit was carried out on the mobility and attendance allowance units; and when it is proposed to hold a further audit.
    Mr. Scott: The performance of the mobility and attendance units is monitored monthly. Their staffing and organisation is reviewed regularly so as to maintain sufficient staff to handle increasing work loads. The average time take to decide initial claims for attendance allowance and mobility allowance has reduced from over 14 and over 16 weeks respectively to about seven and a half weeks.
    Mr. Holt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He may be aware that last week I wrote to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security about my constituent, Mr. Moore, who has had to wait for a determination because of procrastination, delay, lost papers and the units' inability to answer the telephone. How much longer will Mr. Moore have to wait for the allowances due for Mrs. Moore, who died nearly two years ago?
    Mr. Scott: As I said earlier, clearance times have been substantially reduced despite a steadily increasing work load. However, some claims, especially if reviews are involved, can take a considerable time while they are considered by the independent adjudicating authorities and perhaps even by the Social Security Commissioner. Neither Ministers nor officials can intervene in that process.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that that is not a very good example of the way in which a service should be provided nationally rather than locally, and that people in my area find it very frustrating having to communicate with Blackpool and then not receiving the information they require? Would it not be much better to ensure that the service is locally based so that people can receive information and learn why their claims are taking so long?
    Mr. Scott: As I said, the time taken to handle the initial claims has been halved, more or less, for those two allowances. It is moving very much in the right direction. I want to see the time reduced even more if that is possible, but some of the claims are complex and that is why we need the expertise of the central units so that they may he judged properly.

    Benefits (Elderly People)
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what percentage spending by his Department on benefits for the elderly has risen relative to the rate of inflation since 1979.
    Mr. Moore: Fifty-one per cent. of benefit expenditure goes to the elderly. Spending on benefits for the elderly has grown by 22 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in addition to the excellent figures that he has just given, pensioners' total incomes also matter, and they rose by a pathetic 3 per cent. under the last Labour Government, but by 23 per cent. under this Government?
    Hon. Members: Not true.
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is precisely right. He drew attention to pensioners' real incomes. He was referring to pensioners' average incomes, not simply and solely the state pension. With regard to the average income of all pensioners, my hon. Friend referred to the appalling performance of the Labour Government under whom pensioners saw their average income increase by only 3 per cent. throughout the whole five years that the Labour party was in office.
    Mr. McAllion: Irrespective of actual spending on benefits for the elderly since 1979, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government refuse to allow anyone over 65 to claim mobility allowance? Will he explain why people over 65 are not allowed to claim that allowance? People aged over 65 have the same need to move around as anyone else.
    Mr. Moore: No, the mobility allowance was originally introduced for people in work or in comparable non-work situations. Eventually, the qualifying age was raised to 65 and in the Social Security Bill Standing Committee the Government are extending the upper age limit to 80. Considerable costs are attached, to the extent of £1 billion plus, to extend it beyond the age of 65. However, the massive increase in those able to receive mobility allowance is a reflection of the extra money spent by the Government on that benefit.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: When my right hon. Friend considers what scope he has to help the elderly, will he also calculate and place on public record the amount of taxpayers' money which goes on social security benefits for citizens of the Irish Republic who freely enter the United Kingdom without specific job prospects or their own means of support?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend refers to a feature of our historical relationship with the Irish Republic. I will go no further on that issue.
    Mr. Robin Cook: In view of the Secretary of State's earlier comments, will he for the avoidance of doubt put on record the fact that under the Labour Government the basic pension increased by 20 per cent. in real terms in six years while under this Government it has increased by 2 per cent. in 10 years? Does not that tenfold difference between the last Labour Government and this Government put into perspective the relative priorities which the Labour party and the Conservative party give to pensioners?
    Mr. Moore: I shall put on record that throughout the whole five-year period of the Labour Government, the total increase in the real average income of pensioners was 3 per cent. Pensions have increased by that amount almost every single year since the Conservative Government have been in office. I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are concerned about the least well-off in our country that in 1979 about 38 per cent. of pensioners were in the bottom one fifth of national wealth distribution. Happily, they now number only 25 per cent.—not 38 per cent., as under Socialism.

    Pensions
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the increase in real terms in basic pensions (a) from 1974 to 1979, and (b) from 1980 to 1989.
    Mr. Scott: Chapter II, Mr. Speaker. As has already been indicated to the House, under the Labour Government the level of the basic pension increased by 20 per cent., and under the present Government by 2 per cent. Nevertheless, I confirm the figures given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, showing that pensioners' standard of living—that is what matters—has increased by 22 per cent., compared with 3 per cent. under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Morgan: The Minister's reply highlights the 20 per cent. increase achieved under the last Labour Government, compared with the 5 per cent. improvement seen under the present Government. Does the Minister agree that, because of their upbringing, the elderly are particularly resistant to applying for means-tested benefits, it is important that the Government give some attention to setting a target by which time pensioners will be able to enjoy a 20 per cent. increase in real terms in their basic old-age pensions?
    Mr. Scott: What matters to pensioners is their total standard of living, which has been increasing, and is increasing, under the Government. Under Labour, inflation wiped out the savings of a whole generation of pensioners, and that affected their standard of living more than anything else.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Queen's Counsel
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General how many Queen's counsel are practising at the criminal Bar today; how many were practising 10, 20 and 30 years ago; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): There are 601 practising Queen's counsel, of whom, according to records held by the Lord Chancellor's Department, 259 undertake some criminal work. The total in practice in 1979, 1969 and 1959 were 404, 391 and 181 respectively, but their specialities are not recorded.
    Mr. Greenway: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether any of that increased number of Queen's counsel received any part of the £20,000 costs awarded against the two sisters in the Tesco case? Does he agree that it is horrendous that those two ladies should face such

    597
    appalling costs in their successful efforts to clear their names, following the accusation that they were involved in £2 worth of shoplifting? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that Tesco has a moral obligation, if not a legal one, to pay those costs?
    The Attorney-General: Of course I understand my hon. Friend's compassionate concern, but he will recognise that I am unable to comment on any individual judicial decision, and I cannot make an exception in this case. My restraint must not of course be taken as concurrence in any of the adjectives that my hon. Friend chose to employ.
    Mr. Janner: While I share the hope of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that Tesco will, for the sake of its own good name and of justice, pay those legal costs, is it not a matter of concern for the Attorney-General that the system of justice, including payments into court—whether or not they are received by Queen's counsel—has been brought into disrepute? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look into the entire matter, so that innocent people charged with shoplifting but cleared by a court will not find themselves under a massive burden of debt, which they have to meet because of a defect in the law?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Lord Chancellor is responsible for civil law policy, and I undertake to draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to his attention.

    Legal Reform
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the Lord Chancellor's recent Green Paper.
    The Attorney-General: As of 28 February 1989, 200 representations had been received in response to the Lord Chancellor's recent Green Papers. Of those, 44 per cent. were from members of the public, and the rest were from lawyers, including judges.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Green Paper proposals should lead to cheaper legal services for all, and would benefit everyone in the community? Does he agree also that legal Jeremiahs who forecast an end to the independent Bar and to the family solicitor may be distinguished lawyers, but are jolly bad forecasters who do their profession a disservice?
    The Attorney-General: The purpose of the Government's provisional proposals is to ensure that the public are provided with the most efficient and effective network of legal services at the most economical price. Opinions of every kind about the efficacy of the proposals, expressed in response to the Green Papers, will of course be assessed very carefully.
    Mr. Maclennan: Bearing in mind that no Select Committee shadows the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and that it will be this House which is faced with legislation, and bearing in mind the blood-curdling imprecations of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hailsham, Lord Ackner and a number of other luminaries, does the Attorney-General agree that it might be appropriate to consider supporting any moves to set up a pre-legislative Committee of the House to take evidence on the proposals before they are brought before the House—especially in
    598
    the light of widespread speculation that the Green Paper will be followed speedily by legislation rather than by a White Paper?
    The Attorney-General: I rather lost track of the number of hypothetical questions incorporated in the hon. Gentleman's overall question. Those matters, however, are not for me but for the usual channels—and there I must leave the answer to that interesting question.
    Mr. Aitken: Would it not be a logical extension of the bracing free-market philosophy of the Green Paper for the office of Lord Chancellor and, indeed, that of Attorney-General to be taken by non-lawyers in future? Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the Peter Wright saga demonstrates that millions of pounds could have been saved if the Government had taken the cheapest available common-sense advice, namely that of non-lawyers?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend seems to have overlooked the fact that the Lord Chancellor does not have to be a lawyer. The Attorney-General does, but his salary is so low that I suspect that it represents the lowest cost available through competition.
    Mr. Fraser: First, when the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor examine the Green Paper, will they learn some of the lessons of the Financial Services Act and ensure that they get these radical reforms right first time? Does the Attorney-General recognise that the effect of some other reforms has been to deny proper advice to those most in need of it—perhaps the poorest in the community? Secondly, what opportunity will there be for the House to be consulted? Parliamentary questions do not provide a sufficient forum for consultation about the terms of the Green Paper.
    Finally, why does the Green Paper not say much about one branch of the profession—judges—and their selection, training and suitability? Would it not be better if a legal commission were responsible for the appointment of the judiciary?
    The Attorney-General: As for whether the Financial Services Act and the way in which it has been implemented represent an analogy, those matters can be, and no doubt will be, properly addressed to the Lord Chancellor in response to the Green Papers. As for consultation with the House, there is of course absolutely no reason why right hon. and hon. Members should not make their representations to the Lord Chancellor, and he hopes very much that they will do so.
    The appointment of judges falls outside the scope of the Green Papers, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand why that is so.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Much of the Green Paper is extremely sensible, and valuable to the public and the legal profession. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, however, that any proposal to move to the American system of contingency fees would be unacceptable? Does he not agree that it would be very undesirable for us to return to the days when certain lawyers were regarded with utter contempt and called ambulance chasers?
    The Attorney-General: The proposals regarding contingency fees, and the argument underlying them, are set out with great clarity in the Green Paper. I do not wish to add to what is written there, except to say that the

    599
    American system—or, at any rate, what is commonly regarded as the American system—is not advocated in the Green Paper.

    Child Sexual Abuse
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General what his Department is doing to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse, by securing convictions of perpetrators, and co-ordinating its approach with local government and other institutions in this area.
    The Attorney-General: Crown prosecutors have been directed to accord priority to any child abuse proceedings that have been commenced and to keep the progress of such cases under constant review.
    The CPS is represented on the Home Office advisory group which is considering the practical and legal implications of using a child's video-recorded interview as evidence in criminal proceedings, which is an important proposal. The CPS acknowledges the importance of inter-agency co-operation in the investigation of child abuse cases. The police and the social services, at local level, can always obtain legal advice from the CPS at an early stage in any investigation.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Attorney-General please convey my thanks and those of my constituents to the CPS at local level in respect of its handling of the Broxtowe child abuse case? As that case was handled in an absolutely exemplary fashion, will the Attorney-General call for a report on the interdepartmental co-operation that took place, since we have heard a great deal about interdepartmental conflict in other cases? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that there are lessons to be learnt, and will he have that report distributed to the CPS in other areas?
    The Attorney-General: I am most grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. As always, he is most supportive of the Crown prosecution service in his constituency, and that is greatly appreciated. I note what he has said, and I will make inquiries in the direction he has suggested and will write to him.
    Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is quite impossible for the House to deal properly with the Children Bill or to legislate on any other matter relating to child abuse unless it has some reliable figures? During the Cleveland inquiry we were bedevilled with varying claims concerning the number of children being sexually abused: one in four, one in 10, one in 100, or one in a million. Until we have some reliable figures we will not be able to draw up proper proposals for action. When can we have an inquiry into the extent of this abuse?
    The Attorney-General; Such an inquiry would be outside my responsibilities, but I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that it is possible to acknowledge, and to respond to, public concern about the abuse of children. Undoubtedly child abuse exists to a serious extent, though it is not possible to quantify it precisely. No doubt, my colleagues will determine how best to meet people's concern.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Tigray
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that relief supplies are reaching the population of Tigray.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): The international donor community will continue to do all it can to ensure that relief supplies reach those in need in all the drought-affected areas of Ethiopia.
    Mr. Wareing: Now that the medical teams from the Relief Society of Tigray have confirmed the bombing of Hauzien and Sheraro and other towns by the Ethiopian forces, would not the best way of ensuring that supplies get through to the people of Tigray be to call an international conference embracing the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, so that an end might be brought to the strife in the area and that all those nations could partake in the relief of its desolate population?
    Mr. Chris Patten: I should say, first, that we do try to provide humanitarian aid to those in need, wherever they may be. I do not think that it would be helpful to say precisely which channels have been used in the past, because that could prejudice the success of some of the relief efforts. However, it is a point that we have had an opportunity to discuss with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—to its satisfaction, I think. Of course, we urge all parties to the civil conflicts in Tigray and Eritrea to seek an early, peaceful and negotiated solution to their differences. It is not easy, to put it mildly, to distribute humanitarian assistance when there is a civil conflict raging.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend not agree that in current circumstances one of the most effective ways to get help to Tigran and elsewhere is through the good offices of the international agencies that are working there? Can he tell the House to what extent Britain has contributed in that regard?
    Mr. Patten: In the past couple of years we have provided, altogether, about £50 million for humanitarian assistance in Ethiopia. A good deal of that assistance has been chanelled through non-governmental organisations. At present we are providing 560,000 doses of vaccine, through agencies including the Save the Children and Concern, at a total cost of just over £250,000, to deal with the outbreak of meningitis, which, understandably, has caused a great deal of concern. We shall look promptly and sympathetically at any further requests for help with the meningitis outbreak.

    Uganda
    Mr. Wells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to provide additional aid to Uganda.
    Mr. Chris Patten: During my recent visit to Uganda, I announced a further £21 million in aid on grant terms. Of this, £10 million is fast-disbursing balance of payments aid in support of Uganda's IMF-backed economic recovery programme, £5 million is for development projects, £5·66

    601
    million is an increase in the grant for the rehabilitation of Owen falls power station, and nearly £500,000 is for Oxfam's relief work for displaced people.
    Mr. Wells: I congratulate my hon. Friend on squeezing in a visit to Uganda on his way back from Brazzaville after the Lomé convention meeting. What assurances can he give to the House that that additional aid, which is very welcome to Uganda, will be spent on the objectives that he has agreed?
    Mr. Patten: We have had a particularly close and good dialogue and working relationship with President Museveni's Government in Uganda. They are faced with a Herculean task, but they have made an outstanding start to that job. Since President Museveni came to office we have committed or spent about £110 million in Uganda. I assure the House that we shall continue to support President Museveni and his Government in the excellent work that they are trying to do, which, I saw as is already showing some signs of success.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In relation to Uganda and other African countries, was the Minister consulted by the Prime Minister prior to her statements during the last few weeks on CFCs? If that is not to be empty rhetoric, does the Minister accept that such statements must be followed up by money for the developing world? It may need money to rid itself of existing and future refrigeration plants.
    Mr. Patten: Refrigerators in Uganda are at something of a premium just at the moment. Nevertheless, Uganda and other developing countries are threatened by global as well as local environmental problems. I addressed those problems in a widely unpublicised speech at Cambridge university last Monday, a copy of which is undoubtedly in the Library. That speech reflected many of the wise things that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said recently about sustainable development.

    Sub-Saharan Debt Relief
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he can report on the Toronto package on sub-Saharan debt relief.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Seven countries have already benefited from concessional rescheduling at the Paris club. These countries are all implementing structural adjustment programmes supported by the IMF and the World Bank. We expect more to follow in the near future.
    Mr. Clarke: The Minister has not given the figures, but if the British contribution is in the region of £2·5 million does it not compare unfavourably with the global debts of $73 billion that sub-Saharan Africa faces? Given the colossal difference between our contribution and the debt owed, would it not make sense to write off that debt and to make a substantial contribution to multilateral projects, including the Nordic plan?
    Mr. Patten: As I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would know, we have written off old aid loans in Africa to the tune of £275 million. The initial costs of the Toronto concessions will be small, but they will grow as the Paris club agrees on more reschedulings. The main purpose of those concessions is to reduce the capitalisation of interest that leads to an exponential growth in the stock of debt.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who doubt my hon. Friend's commitment to the destitute and the dying, thosewho have no chance of altering their circumstances, should have a look at a video recording of his excellent interview on HTV?
    Mr. Campbell-SavoursIt is a pity that the Minister has not got any jobs to hand out.
    Mr. Patten: All in good time. I would draw the attention of all corners, and the House, to HTV, were it not for the fact that I was appearing on BBC.
    Mr. Foulkes: Notwithstanding the Minister's unpublicised speeches, his television appearance and his ambition, will he admit that in the past 10 years bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa has been cut in real terms by a cumulative figure of £600 million, while commodity prices have plummeted and interest rates have soared? Does he agree that what is needed is a major international expansion based on a just, new international economic order? Does he accept that the problems of debt and poverty are not just technical matters but are also moral issues?
    Mr. Patten: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities—demonstrating that none of us is entirely beyond ambition. We have spent £3 billion in sub-Saharan Africa through our aid programme since 1981. I am delighted, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is, that our aid programme is growing again in real terms, and much of that growth will go to real-terms increases in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Rain Forests
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international projects his Department is currently supporting to combat the destruction of the rain forests.
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to encourage conservation of the world's tropical rain forests.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Details of our existing activities to protect rain forests are given in a supplement to the December 1988 issue of "British Overseas Development", a copy of which I have placed in the Library. We are encouraging recipient countries to direct more of our aid to forestry. We support international activity through the tropical forestry action plan, the international tropicial timber agreement and other multilateral bodies.
    Mr. Jack: I am greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend's commitment to projects to safeguard the rain forests. Does he agree that we need to redouble our efforts, particularly in places such as Brazil, which faces 1,000 per cent. inflation and 1·5 million new entrants to the labour market for whom the most sympathetic international help is required? Will my hon. Friend consider sponsoring a conference on the lines of the current one in London on CFCs to deal with problems affecting the rain forests?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend's suggestion is certainly interesting. There have been a number of conferences on the problems in the forestry sector where—I agree with my hon. Friend—we need to redouble our efforts. I attended

    603
    such a conference recently, and most of the conferences have as an objective further strengthening of the existing international agencies and institutions so that they may play a more prominent part in securing the objective to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I pay tribute to the expertise of our impressive and concerned embassy in Brasilia? Is the Minister aware that those who are lucky enough to see it at first hand are absolutely appalled at the sheer horrific scale of the destruction near Altamira in the Xingu valley? Out of self-interest, ought we not to study what will happen to us in northern Europe if we do not do something to stop the destruction in eastern Amazonia, which, for reasons of physics, which I cannot go into just
    604
    now, the air currents and the "hopscotch effect" across Amazonia could result in our having a climate similar to that in northern Labrador?
    Mr. Patten: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the expertise in our embassy in Brasilia. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was able to visit Brazil and the important Altamira conference. What he said underlines what I heard last November from Chief Paiakan of the Kayapo tribe. What is happening in Amazonia is properly of considerable concern to the rest of the world. We have to find ways to help developing countries effectively to tackle their own problems and problems of concern to the whole world.

Bombing Exercise (Scotland)
3.34 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed live bombing exercise to be conducted in the Moray firth on 13 March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): There is no question of live bombs being dropped in the Moray firth. On 13 March, which is the day of delivery of the 1,000th Stingray torpedo to the Ministry of Defence, it is planned that three wholly inert practice Stingray torpedoes will be dropped in the Moray firth to demonstrate to the press the ability of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy to utilise this important weapon. All appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that shipping is not affected by this demonstration.
Mrs. Ewing: We welcome the fact that live bombs will not be used, but why did the Minister not take the opportunity that was offered on Thursday when I tabled a written question on the matter to deny that they would be used? When the Ministry of Defence was contacted by the press in Scotland during the weekend, it did not take the opportunity to deny that live bombs would be used. That has caused a great deal of worry to people involved in fishing, the oil industry and aviation in the north and north-east of Scotland. Why is it so important to drop even inert bombs in territorial waters rather than in international waters, as is usual?
Mr. Neubert: I learnt of the confusion only through the medium of the United States navy exercise called Exercise North Star 89 which is taking place from today until 15 March. During the exercise, aircraft from the US navy aircraft carrier USS America will undertake practice bombing missions. They will drop live ordnance on Garvie island and practice bombs on the training range at Tain. There is no question of live bombs being dropped in the Moray firth or anywhere else in United Kingdom territorial waters.
The concern has arisen as a result of a pamphlet, published by Mr. Malcolm Spaven, entitled "Scottish Defence News". He is an academic and adviser to several Opposition Members on aviation matters. He has confused the two events, and caused confusion and a great deal of unnecessary anxiety, for which I cannot be held responsible.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is irresponsible of Opposition Members to raise this matter and to criticise the Royal Air Force for carrying out its training obligations within all the rules and regulations? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the two RAF stations—Kinloss and Lossiemouth—operate to the very highest standards in the Royal Air Force?
Mr. Neubert: That is undoubtedly true. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that this is, if anything, a mischievous attempt to confuse issues which would otherwise be entirely straightforward.
Mr. George Foulkes: When will Scotland stop being used as the playground of the Royal Air Force? Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) joined
606
me, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) to protest strongly at the huge increase in low-level flying—down to 100 ft—over the whole of the south-west of Scotland?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about bombing.
Mr. Foulkes: If they were doing it over Croydon you. would understand, Mr. Speaker. It is all the same kind of thing. The Royal Air Force in Scotland and Cumbria does everything that it wants to. Does the Ministry of Defence ever say no to requests made by the RAF for such exercises and low flying?
Mr. Neubert: I must repeat for the benefit of the hon. Member that this request arises from a press facility arranged by Marconi Underwater Systems to demonstrate a very effective weapon. The use of ranges is entirely different and well established, and I am sure that the Scottish people want to contribute to the defence of the nation.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for Opposition Members to complain about the RAF's activities when everybody knows that Scotland's location and the RAF bases there are essential to the well-being and safety of the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend agree further that the people who look after the servicing and supplies to those Royal Air Force bases would find it offensive if all such activities were stopped because they are the reason why those bases are there? If the Royal Air Force wants to continue low flying in my constituency, I am happy that it should do so.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Keep to the Moray Firth, please.
Mr. Neubert: It is always encouraging to have my hon. Friend with his long experience of the Royal Air Force behind me on these occasions.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister explain why he did not take the opportunity to deny the story last week? Have not the fear and alarm been caused by a ridiculous public relations celebration to celebrate the 1,000th missile? If all reasonable steps have been taken to alert shipping, why has the Moray coastguard no knowledge of the exercise?
Mr. Neubert: It may be because the press facilities were arranged for a week from today—Monday 13 March. On the point about confusion and the timing of questions and answers, the "Scottish Defence News" pamphlet is dated February 1989. It has taken a long time for this scurillous rumour to surface.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the torpedo to be used in the test, Stingray is easily the best lightweight torpedo in the world and that this test will provide another opportunity to show that the decision made nine years ago to go ahead with it was right?
Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend speaks well of the weapon and I hope that the 30 press people leaving from London and going to Scotland to see it demonstrated in complete safety off the Scottish coast will be equally impressed by its effectiveness.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give an assurance that the disruption to

607
the activities of our fishermen will be kept to a minimum? Will he also give an assurance that any debris left on the seabed will be cleaned up in the interests of our fishermen and their expensive gear?
Mr. Neubert: I shall certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's point on the latter question. On the former, I assure him that every care will be taken not to disrupt local fishermen.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that the practice of dropping live bombs on Garvie island, which has been properly regulated for many years, has met with complete acceptance locally because of the way in which it has been conducted and that there is no question of opposing in principle the use of live weapons on those ranges? However, can he tell us when he learnt about what he has described as mischievous rumours and how quickly he moved to quell them?
Mr. Neubert: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. On his second point, I learnt about the confusion from the Sunday Mail, the source of all this anxiety.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The Minister has been extremely dismissive in his answers. Is it not true that a notification about live bombing was issued by the Civil Aviation Authority in relation to the Moray firth? Is that not another example of the complete lack of liaison between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Defence, which we see in other spheres?
Mr. Neubert: The original premise of that question is wrong. What follows, therefore, is equally wrong.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? Why was the Moray coastguard not informed?
Mr. Neubert: I have already replied to that question. I pointed out that this press demonstration is taking place a week from now and that arrangements for it are made by Marconi. All who need to know will be notified.

Train Accident (Purley)
3.43 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the serious railway accident that occurred at Purley at the weekend. The House will also wish to be aware of a further railway accident between two passenger trains which, I understand, occurred at 12.50 pm today in Scotland. Reports of that accident are still coming in.
At about 1.40 on Saturday afternoon the 12.17 Littlehampton to Victoria train ran into the back of the 12.50 Horsham to Victoria train as it was crossing from the up slow line to the up fast line just to the London side of Purley station. The collision derailed both trains and six of the carriages of the Littlehampton train fell down a high embankment. Five passengers were killed and some 80 people were admitted to hospital.
The House will, I know, want to join with me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the injured and the bereaved; and our thanks to the rescue and hospital services and the local people, who responded so magnificently to the emergency. British Rail is carrying out its own internal inquiry into the circumstances and the causes of the accident and has announced some preliminary indications.
Officers from the railway inspectorate, including the deputy chief inspecting officer of railways, attended the scene of the accident and have already started their investigations. I have today appointed the deputy chief inspecting officer to carry out an inquiry into the accident. His inquiry will be wholly independent and will be held in public. The report will be published. I have asked him to report to me as quickly as possible.
The fact that there have been two serious accidents on British Rail, and now a third, within three months is naturally a cause for concern. Mr. Anthony Hidden is already conducting an inquiry into the Clapham rail accident. As part of his inquiry he will be considering whether any broader management lessons need to be learned. On the evidence we have so far about the Purley accident, it is perhaps unlikely that there will be any common features with the accident at Clapham. But if in the course of the investigations any such issues were to emerge I have agreed with Mr. Hidden that they will be brought to his attention so that they can be taken into account in formulating any recommendations he wishes to make on management of safety on Southern region or generally in British Rail. My immediate priority is that both inquiries should be completed quickly so that immediate action can be taken without any delay.
Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a most unfortunate occurrence, especially since there have now been three such incidents? Yesterday I visited the scene of the accident and it was a sickening sight. I should like to add my expression of sympathy to the families of the bereaved and those who have been injured, and to add my congratulations to the ambulance, fire and police services and the hospitals. Many of my constituents should be thanked for the free help they gave immediately while waiting for the ambulances, including the supply of blankets, sheets and

609
so on. Many young people—teenagers—helped by climbing ladders up the steep embankment and smashing windows in order to get out passengers.
I must tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the concern of the general public. We welcome the independent inquiries, but they seem to take so long. The accident at Clapham occurred three months ago and the inquiry is still taking place. If any extra safety measures are needed, they should be implemented immediately, that should be done. Waiting for a report simply delays matters. We have a worried public and they must be reassured as soon as possible. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that any necessary safety measures are introduced at once and that we will not have to wait months and months.
Mr. Channon: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, especially about the help received from local people. All the reports I have heard have referred to the magnificent help given by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and others in the locality. They helped enormously in a difficult and sad task.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments about the time taken by inquiries. That is why I have chosen this particular form of inquiry and why I want both this and the Hidden inquiry to be completed as quickly as possible. I can give a further assurance to my hon. Friend that there is no need to wait for the conclusion of the inquiries for measures to be taken. Should it emerge during the course of the inquiries that any measures are necessary, I shall ensure that they are acted upon immediately.
Mr. John Prescott: On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of those killed or injured in Saturday's terrible accident. We also extend our sympathies to those killed or injured in Glasgow this lunchtime, the first details of which we have just heard from the Secretary of State.
We express our great admiration to the emergency services who were, yet again, called upon to respond swiftly and with skill and courage. For the fourth time in three months our emergency services have responded to a major transport tragedy with unfailing professionalism and dedication. We also pay tribute to the way in which people in nearby houses reacted with such speed and compassion, whether it was running to get a ladder from the garden shed to help with the rescue or making a cup of tea to comfort the injured. Their natural human reaction was to do what they could to help. They must have been a great comfort to the injured, especially in those terrible moments before the emergency services arrived.
We welcome the fact that British Rail has acted so swiftly to accept full responsibility for the accident. When the news came through early on Saturday afternoon, I am sure that, like the Prime Minister, we all had the same dreadful feeling of,"Oh no, not again" as we were faced with yet another transport tragedy.
It is two years today since the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise. Since then we have witnessed a major loss of life at King's Cross, Piper Alpha, Clapham junction, Lockerbie, the M1 air disaster, Purley, and now Glasgow. The regularity with which such tragedies have occurred only heightens our sense of shock and the desire to do all that is possible to improve passenger safety. I ask the
610
Secretary of State to ensure that, on this occasion, he gives the House all the relevant information that is available, which he has not always done in the past, as we saw with the Lockerbie statement.
Does the Secretary of State share my concern at the speed with which some sections of the media have sought to blame the driver of the Littlehampton train, Mr. Morgan, even as he lay seriously ill in hospital over the weekend? Will he review the practice by which such interviews are conducted?
How many incidents have there been in the past year of trains passing signals at danger? Will the Secretary of State consider some of the issues that have been brought to my attention and to which the inquiry should address itself'? Does he accept that it would be much easier to determine the circumstances that lead to such accidents if trains were fitted with black boxes similar to those on aeroplanes? Would that not help to remove a lot of the speculation and controversy that follow such tragic accidents? Will he ensure that the inquiry studies the nature of injuries sustained at Purley, Clapham and Glasgow so that we can learn appropriate lessons about the design of coaches, seating and internal layouts?
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is growing concern among the travelling public about safety and a lack of confidence in the policies presently being pursued by British Rail? Does he accept the view of the former head of signalling and safety at British Rail, Mr. Stanley Hall, an acknowledged authority on these matters? In this morning's Dail Mail, he wrote:
"Over the years, railways gradually became safer until they reached a very high standard. But during the 1980s, the trend has not continued. BR seem to have reached a worrying plateau of safety."
Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that, if Mr. Hall had still been employed by British Rail, under the new British Rail rule changes he would have been dismissed for writing such an article of criticism? Does he share my concern that British Rail is looking to disband local safety committees? What does that tell him about British Rail's management's approach to safety? According to the Secretary of State's railway inspector's report, since the early 1980s, accidents and injuries have increased by 30 per cent. and collisions have increased by 20 per cent. Does he accept that there is now cause for concern about British Rail's safety record? Is it not true that, in the past five years, excluding the King's Cross fire, 73 people have been killed in rail accidents? That is not including the tragedy in Glasgow today. In the five years before that, no one died or suffered a major injury in a train crash.
We welcome the fact that there will be a full inquiry into the Purley accident, but, in the light of the spate of recent tragedies, will the Secretary of State also consider a broader independent public inquiry into pasenger safety to ensure that standards are not being compromised to meet financial targets that are too tight and demanding? Does he acknowledge that the increased capital investment in British Rail has been provided not by greater Government resources but by the payment of higher fares? Does he accept also that the level of current financial support, in the form of the public service obligation grant paid by the Government, has been cut by over 35 per cent. in five years, a saving of over £2 billion at current prices?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with Mr. Stanley Hall, who said that safety is being compromised because

611
the Government are tight-fisted with their current financial support? Does he accept that the financial climate—[Interruption.] I am reporting to the House what has been said by an authority on safety who made accusations about the level of financial support affecting safety, and I ask the Secretary of State to listen carefully. Does he accept that the financial climate set by himself and in which British Rail operates means that new safety measures such as the implementation of a new advanced warning system, which is being installed elsewhere in Europe, has not been adopted?
The House needs to reassert the paramount importance of safety on the railways. Does not the Secretary of State think that an important step in that direction would be for the Government to find time for a debate on the Fennell report into the King's Cross fire which was published three months ago and has not yet been debated in the House?
Mr. Channon: I agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said and join in his tributes to those who helped in the appalling disaster.
If the House wishes, I can bandy about party political points on the level of investment, although I had rather hoped that I would not have to do so. However, as I have been challenged on specific points, let me tell the House that current investment in British Rail is £560 million, which is an incredibly high level—one of the highest levels in real terms in the history of this country.
Mr. Peter Snape: Self-generated.
Mr Channon: Whether it is self-generated or not is not the point that Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) had in mind. He asked whether the British Rail network was starved of investment. It is not. The hon. Gentleman also asked about rail working expenses. Rail working expenses and revenue investment in Network SouthEast have risen by 9 per cent. in real terms during the past three years. Therefore, his points on those matters amounted to nothing.
I accept that the House and the public have a right to be reassured about the safety record of this country's railway systems. That is far more important than scoring party political points in the Chamber. As a result of the Hidden inquiry and other inquiries, I am determined that hon. Members should be in possession of all the facts and, therefore, see that safety remains one of British Rail's top priorities for the future. I have reinforced that extremely important point with its chairman.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: The majority of those who were injured in the Purley accident were admitted to the Mayday hospital in Croydon, in my constituency. I am sure that the House would want to know that, on Saturday, everyone associated with the Mayday responded magnificently to the challenge. Doctors, nurses, auxiliaries, secretaries, porters—literally everyone—rallied to the call and worked selflessly to care for the patients. I express sympathy for the bereaved and injured, and I repeat that everyone connected with the Mayday responded wonderfully to this awful accident and deserves our heartfelt thanks.
Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have heard many reports about the magnificent work done in the Mayday hospital.
Mr. Jim Sillars: May I and my colleagues be associated with the expressions of sympathy about the accident at Purley? Will the Secretary of State provide us with further details on the accident in Glasgow? His statement was rather light on that matter.
I think that the Secretary of State will regret saying that the questions asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) were purely party political. People are lying dead in various parts of the country and the general public is now deeply concerned that, perhaps, the Government have subordinated the ethic of public service to their ideological anxieties about financial restraint. Is it not time to have not just individual inquiries into such accidents but a comprehensive review of British Rail's standing in relation to Government policy on safety?
Mr. Channon: I note the hon. Gentleman's initial remarks and accept his views and those of his party.
As for the Scottish railway accident, it is difficult for me to give the House accurate information. It occurred only a few hours ago, just before one o'clock this afternoon, outside or near Glasgow at Milngavie—[Interruption.] Opposition Members' disagreement with that shows the unwisdom of my trying to give detailed information. Messages are coming through all the time. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) will be kept in touch—indeed, I shall ensure that he is.
I agree that there is public concern about British Rail and about safety on the railways. It is important that it should be allayed. It is a pity when hon. Members start throwing partisan statistics around. There should be a general view throughout the House that we want a better safety record for British Rail. Historically speaking, it has been good, and I am determined that it should be further improved as a result of the inquiries.
Mr. Michael Marshall: I want to express my sympathy for the bereaved and injured and my appreciation of the voluntary help and the work of the hospitals, including Mayday, which I visited yesterday. I am also taking this opportunity to speak on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Members for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) and for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who, for reasons known to the House, cannot be present this afternoon.
May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? First, will he accept that comparisons with European safety practices should be made as part of this and other inquiries? My second question relates to a matter that caused me and many of my constituents grave problems over the weekend. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to end the absurd practice of giving out one emergency telephone number which then becomes clogged up, thereby causing unnecessary anguish and suffering to many of the families concerned?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I realise that he speaks for our colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), who are concerned about the situation.

613
It is fair to say that British Rail's safety record bears comparison with that of the other major rail networks in Europe—but I want it to be improved.
I agree with my hon. Friend's point about difficulties with telephone numbers. The problem has been examined on a number of occasions. It is not my direct responsibility, but I have already asked for it to be looked into.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I wish to join in the expressions of sympathy to all who have been bereaved or injured in the one accident—we do not yet know what may have happened in the other accident at Glasgow.
The public's view was that one accident could be excused as misfortune, but their concern that the Government were being careless grew with the second. Now, after three, people will say that there must have been underinvestment, certainly of time and effort, in safety. They may also say that there has been too little financial investment.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that the inquiry extends to the general issue of investment specifically in safety measures by British Rail? Will he further ensure that decisions on the Channel tunnel high-speed link are taken with reference to the conclusions of the committees of inquiry into safety?
Mr. Channon: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about his party's expression of regret, which I welcome.
Railway investment is now at its highest level for 20 years—£560 million this year, and an average of £755 million over each of the next four years. That is a prima facie case for saying that what the hon. Gentleman suggested was improbable—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) does not understand the difference between the public service obligation and investment levels. Investment is high by historical standards, and it is growing.
British Rail's top priority is safety. I have never turned down an investment proposal from British Rail. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) can rest assured that the Hidden report will cover any points relevant to this.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies that, in view of what the Secretary of State has said, there is not much point in calling them today? I shall look with sympathy on this matter tomorrow.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: As one who had constituents travelling on the train and whose constituents regularly use the route in large numbers, may I take this opportunity of expressing appreciation on their behalf to the relief services, the hospitals and everyone else who helped them so readily and selflessly in their plight?
My right hon. Friend will know that there is heightened concern in the south and south-east about the incidence of these accidents and the extent to which overcrowding on trains and congestion of trains in the area may lead to more such incidents. To what extent is consideration being given to additional safeguards that may prevent the overriding of automatic stopping systems? I do not of course refer to the cause of this accident.
Despite the generosity and immediacy of compensation by British Rail, to what extent does my right hon. Friend
614
think that £3,000 for a death or a voluntary sum of £10,000 are adequate? The families concerned consider such sums grossly inadequate.
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of compensation, which is a matter for British Rail, which has accepted full responsibility. Generally it has a good record of dealing with compensation claims and I am sure that it will consider such claims sympathetically.
My hon. Friend rightly does not want me to prejudge the inquiry's outcome, and I do not want to comment on anything that may be relevant to the cause of the accident. I should have joined the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in saying how much I regret it when people speculate or come out firmly about accidents' causes before they have the facts. They should not blame persons or causes until they have the facts.
Anything relevant to these disasters will have to be considered. The Hidden inquiry can take everything into account when formulating any recommendations that it wants to make about the management of safety on Southern region, or more generally in British Rail.
Mr. John Fraser: The Minister must recognise that there will be vastly increased traffic on Southern region as a result of the building of the Channel tunnel. Is he saying that the inquiry will be specifically instructed to consider a higher level of safety which will eliminate human and mechanical error as far as possible in the light not only of the accidents but of the future increased traffic that Southern region will have to bear?
Mr. Channon: Of course, our objective is to improve the safety record on Southern region and throughout British Rail—that is one of British Rail's top priorities. The House will want to be satisfied about that and will ask me to report back about it from time to time.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all forms of travel inevitably involve a degree of risk? Is it not highly irresponsible to exaggerate that risk for party political purposes? On the journey from Brighton today I spoke to 22 of my constituents on the train, only one of whom had any serious doubts about British Rail's ability to maintain the highest safety standards. It is disgraceful that that confidence should be undermined for sordid party political purposes.
Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. The important consideration which should unite both sides of the House is that we should work together to improve safety standards. I shall certainly try to.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Although the figures may back up some of the statistics—I believe that only six people were killed in collisions between 1980 and Clapham—does the Secretary of State agree that there is another side to this which he has not mentioned? Will he look at a letter published in the September issue of Modern Railways, written by an anonymous driver out of Waterloo, who pointed out the low morale of train drivers, the fact that they have sometimes been asked to be on duty for 12 hours, and the fact that for the first time ever train drivers are leaving Southern region to take up alternative occupations? Is the Minister aware that, in correspondence that I have had with it, Southern region management does not deny those allegations?

615
Good financial structures and good industrial relationships are surely a sine qua non of safety. Is it not now clear that by the Government's various actions in this and other public services they have been through some double yellows, other single yellows and have now passed two reds? When will the driver put on the brakes?
Mr. Channon: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's partial support on the accident figures in the first part of his question. I shall have to examine exactly what he said. I am not sure whether my figures are exactly the same as his, but they are not dissimilar.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the morale of drivers and the hours that they spend on duty. If those factors are relevant, they will be considered by the inquiry into this accident. I shall read the letter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the travelling public are entitled to expect three things from British Rail: first, that trains should leave and arrive on time; secondly, that passengers should travel in comfort and have access to seats; and, thirdly, and more important, that they should be able to travel and arrive safely. As my right hon. Friend has said, British Rail needs to restore confidence in those aspects. Will he therefore take steps today to summon Sir Robert Reid to a meeting so that my right hon. Friend can be satisfied that there is sufficient safety built into the fast rail link from the Channel tunnel to the London termini? None of us wishes to contemplate being in the House to listen to a Secretary of State for Transport giving an account of the massive death toll caused by trains with a frequency of one every eight minutes colliding while travelling at 160 mph across Kent. Safety applies no more and no less to the county of Kent.
Mr. Channon: I share my hon. Friend's concerns. British Rail's first duty is to ensure safety. The other two duties about which my hon. Friend spoke are important, but they are not as important as safety, which is the top priority. British Rail agrees with me about that. I have already discussed this sad situation with Sir Robert Reid.
My hon. Friend spoke about the fast rail link in Kent. Should proposals come forward from British Rail for that, I am sure that, among other matters, British Rail will have to satisfy the House that it is proposing a safe solution.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: The accident in Scotland happened just outside Bellgrove station, in Glasgow. Once again, on behalf of my hon. Friends I extend deepest sympathy to those who were involved in the accident and to the relatives of those who were killed or injured. Will the Secretary of State ensure that this accident will also be the subject of a full public inquiry?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says. I am sure that he speaks for all Scottish Members, at this early stage. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport has gone to Scotland to examine the situation, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is also at the site. I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman says to see whether an inquiry is necessary or appropriate. I would
616
not rule that out. May we have a few more hours to find out the exact situation? I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman is kept informed.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Given the immense pressure on Network SouthEast as thousands of commuters, including my right hon. Friend's constituents and mine, insist on being carried to London at peak hours, is it surprising that there is perhaps anxiety emerging that the increasing density of traffic that is necessary to meet the demand can continue to be met against a background of continuing safety? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the extension of the Hidden investigation into the Clapham accident is adequate to deal with the specific point of reassuring commuters that safety and increasing density of traffic go hand in hand?
Mr. Channon: I hope that it will. The measures that I have announced are the inquiry by the railway inspectorate and the need, if necessary, for Mr. Hidden to take further steps. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. I entirely agree that his constituents and mine want reassurances about safety and they are entitled to have them. I shall do my best to ensure that they have such assurances. I hope that my hon. Friend and I can work together in this regard.
It is worth bearing in mind that, in spite of these appalling disasters in the past few weeks, British Rail's general safety record is extremely good. Every day it safely carries millions of passengers, and our investment and other measures should make it possible for British Rail to give an even safer service than it does at present.
Mr. Peter Snape: May I ask the Secretary of State to give the House details of the Glasgow accident when they become available? Will he accept that we are not playing party politics by quoting the former British Rail head of signalling and safety who, writing in this morning's Daily Mail, said:
"the … Government which is very generous with capital investment is also very tight-fisted with current support".
Does the Minister accept that that tight-fistedness has an enormous impact on the day-to-day running of British Rail and on the safety measures to be taken in the industry?
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that any inquiry into these latest accidents looks not only at finance but at safety, and at questions of staffing, salaries and overtime working, especially in the south of England? Does he agree that having people in responsible positions, such as drivers, signalmen and signal technicians, working 12 hours a day for seven days a week is not conducive to safety? Will the Department provide the money to allow British Rail to develop a new automatic warning system capable of differentiating between caution and danger signals as an additional aid to the driver?
Are there no deaths or tragedies and, based on his performance today at the Dispatch Box, are there no circumstances in which the right hon. Gentleman would review his own situation?
Mr. Channon: The House will form its own judgment of the merits or otherwise of the hon. Gentleman's latter comments. Until I heard his comments, I would have said that the hon. Gentleman was not making party political points, but I am not sure about whether to say that now.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Hall's article. I understand what he is saying. He alleges that the

617
investment may have been adequate but that the running expenses are not. I answered that earlier when replying to a question about the increase in resources that have been available to Network SouthEast in the last three years. When the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will find that I gave a full answer to that point—[Interruption.] I clearly understood that, but whether the hon. Gentleman does must remain open to doubt.
I was asked about making a statement on the Glasgow accident. We shall consider the matter and decide upon the most appropriate course.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to register my protest that sufficient information about the Scottish rail accident is not available to make a report to the House. [Interruption.] There is no point in Conservative Members moaning. The tragic accident at Lockerbie happened in a much more remote area than Glasgow. From my recollection, it took place at 7.15 and within two and three quarter hours the House was suspended so that a Minister could make a statement at 10 o'clock. It is simply unacceptable that an accident which took place in Glasgow before 1 o'clock today cannot be reported on by Ministers at 18 minutes past 4 in the afternoon. One cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that Ministers are evading their responsibilities in relation to this Scottish accident.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I must put the record straight. After the Lockerbie disaster, I made a business statement at 10 o'clock to the effect that a statement would be made the following day. The hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that I voice the feelings of the whole House when I express sympathy to those who have been injured and to the relatives of those who have been killed in both accidents, especially as one of them was close to my constituency in Croydon.

"The Satanic Verses"
4.18 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the escalating international crisis arising from the publication of the book 'The Satanic Verses'."
My application is clearly specific because an international crisis has been provoked by the publication of the book.
The matter is important. Cardinal Hume and the Chief Rabbi this weekend joined the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Foreign Secretary in issuing statements about the international crisis. Representatives of Moslem and non-Moslem organisations overseas, the Archbishop of Canterbury, several bishops and a thousand writers from around the world have also issued statements on this escalating crisis. The media, both newspaper and broadcasting, have been pre-occupied by comments and events concerned with the publication of the book.
Demonstrations have taken place in a number of places, including Blackburn, Oldham, Bradford and London. Over last weekend there were others in Halifax,, Nottingham, Sheffield, Derby and Keighley. Overseas there have been a number of protest demonstrations in which, unfortunately, scores of people have died and hundreds have been injured. More demonstrations are planned. More than 50 Members of Parliament, of all political parties, have signed early-day motions noting the offence caused to many Moslems by the publication of "The Satanic Verses".
This matter is urgent. Tomorrow Iran is expected to end all links with Britain. On Sunday the Foreign Ministers of more than 40 Islamic countries meet. They are expected to take decisions that will have important: repercussions for the non-Islamic world, especially Britain, I believe that those repercussions will be social, political and commercial.
It is imperative that the House of Commons is allowed to discuss all the issues surrounding the publication of "The Satanic Verses." That would allow all hon. Members to speak on behalf of their constituents, Moslem and non-Moslem, the Government to give the House reports as. to what actions they have taken, the House to be told the current views of the Executive on this escalating. international crisis and the Government to receive views and suggestions from hon. Members as to how this, dangerous and difficult crisis can be brought to an end.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the escalating international crisis arising from the. publication of the book 'The Satanic Verses'''.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to take into account the requirements of the order and announce my decision without giving reasons. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Leicestershire Constabulary
4.23 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the action of the Home Office in regard to the investigations into the Leicestershire constabulary".
A year or so ago, Colin Pitchfork was jailed for life for the brutal murder of two Leicestershire teenagers. Two weeks ago, an American best-selling author and former policeman, Joseph Wambaugh, published an account of the killings and the police investigation entitled "The Blooding". It was clear from the account in the book and the credits given by the author that persons, possibly police officers, were involved in divulging confidential information to the author. This information was never published by the police, it caused great distress to the parents of one of the children, and it raised crucial questions concerning the conduct of senior police officers.
Three investigations into this case have already started. The first was launched by the complaints department in Leicestershire, and this was superseded by an investigation by Mr. Don Dovaston, the deputy chief constable of Derbyshire. Last Friday it was confirmed that the Police Complaints Authority would supervise the inquiry. Last week the matter was raised by a senior police officer during the annual visit of the inspectorate.
During the past month, the head of the CID, one of the officers named in the book's credits, has been moved from his position, as has his deputy. Both have many decades of service, and were highly regarded by fellow officers. The chief constable has now announced his retirement, the deputy chief constable has asked to leave to become the chief constable of Suffolk, and one assistant chief constable is being questioned about this inquiry. The situation is rapidly becoming farcical, and with constant and bizarre developments it is more akin to a soap opera than to the workings of a respected constabulary of police.
620
The officers of the Leicestershire police force are among the finest in the country, but morale is low, as has been revealed by letters sent to me from senior officers. It is vital that the public knows the current status of the various investigations and the stages that have been reached. We need an estimate from the Home Secretary as to when these investigations will be concluded. The Home Secretary must give the House an assurance that the results of the investigations will be published. Nothing less will reassure the public and restore morale. It is of the highest importance that confidential information given to police officers in trust should not be given to best-selling authors for material gain. If senior officers were entertained by or entertained Mr. Wambaugh, the public has a right to know, especially at a time when the chief constable has asked for more police officers because of pressure of work.
I ask that leave be given to adjourn the House so that we can discuss fully the recent and serious developments in the investigation of the Leicestershire constabulary.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the action of the Home Office in regard to the investigations into the Leicestershire constabulary".
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said about this matter, but I regret that I have to give him the same answer that I gave the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The matters raised do not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened with interest to the second application under Standing Order No. 20, and I wish to put the record straight about the chief constable of Leicester. The present chief constable is seeking the permission of the police committee, which I understand is meeting today, to move to another job, with the British Transport police. Therefore, it is not strictly correct to say that he is retiring.

Question Time
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last week, possibly on Thursday. you were rudely assailed on many occasions by Opposition Scottish Members during Scottish Question Time because English Members wished to ask questions. Today, six out of the first 11 questions on the Order Paper were tabled by Scottish Members, of whom four did not turn up to ask their questions.
Would it not be in everybody's interest to avoid the unseemly behaviour directed towards you, Mr. Speaker? All the questions tabled by Scottish Members today, as with my question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, could have been automatically transferred elsewhere—in this case to the Scottish Office, to be answered at Scottish Question Time—so that all of us representing English constituencies could get in more often.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with this. I do not recall being assailed by any Scottish Member. Scottish Members are among the most courteous of hon. Members.

Orders of the Day

  Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We would be happy—I am sure that I speak for all Scottish Opposition Members—if the House would leave all the proceedings on the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill to the individual votes of Scottish Members.
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, and long may it remain so.
  4.28 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
  In putting forward their proposals on education, the Government start from three premises, all of which, I believe, will be acceptable to both sides of the House.
  We start, first, with the premise that the purpose of education is to enable every youngster at school in Scotland to realise his or her full potential. That is the only rationalisation of and justification for an education system.
  Secondly, I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House would accept that education does not consist only of what happens within school, and nor does what happens within schools interest only the teaching profession. The involvement of parents and of the wider community in our schools is likely to bring results that will ultimately be to the benefit of the pupils themselves.
  Thirdly, I believe that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that the debate takes place in the context and against the background that, over the past 10 years, education standards in Scotland have continued to improve, to the benefit of all the pupils in Scotland. It is important—[Interruption.] I am surprised that there is some objection to, or protest against, that proposition. I use as evidence for the proposition a recent Labour party document which was produced by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). A passage on page 2 of the document states:
  "It is important at the outset of this review to reaffirm our belief in the excellent record of Scottish education. Standards are constantly improving."
  It is significant that it took the publication of the Bill for the Labour party to admit that over the past 10 years standards of education have been improving. For the previous nine years, Labour Members have been trying to tell us that standards have been deteriorating. All of a sudden, they agree with the Government on the high quality of education. They recognise that under the Government, and with the various reforms of the education system that have taken place, the net result has been constant improvement in the standards of education that are enjoyed by our young people.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am interested in the three premises on which the Secretary of State began his remarks. Does he agree that one of the reasons for the

  623
  strength of the Scottish education system is its distinctive nature? Is it not, therefore, appropriate that legislation dealing with Scottish education is left to Scottish Members? Does he agree that, on that basis, the Scottish Grand Committee should consider the Bill in Committee?
  Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Lady's premise, but not with her conclusion. One of the benefits of a United Kingdom Parliament—I cannot expect the hon. Lady to understand this—is the mutual exchange of ideas. Our English colleagues are learning the advantages of a national curriculum, which we in Scotland have enjoyed for some time, and we should all be free to participate in these debates in this, the Mother of Parliaments.
  I suggest that it is common ground that the standards of Scottish education have improved over the past 10 years. A factor to which I must refer was the almost unknown involvement of parents in any significant way in the school system in Scotland in the recent past. In that respect, we were behind the rest of the United Kingdom and western Europe generally. It is common ground now, even if it was not a couple of years ago, that the involvement of parents by giving them practical responsibilities, not merely in an advisory capacity, in the schools which their children attend is beneficial in terms of the education that the children ultimately receive.
  The Government took the first steps in that direction when they introduced the parents' charter. The House will recall the great scepticism, indifference and in some respects hostility that was displayed by Opposition Members when it was proposed that parents should have real rights in respect of the schools that their children would attend. It was said that there was little interest in that, and little demand for it. Since the charter has been introduced, however, over 120,000 parents in Scotland have exercised their rights. That has been to the benefit of their youngsters and to the education system as a whole. I do not believe that any political party represented in the House suggests that the charter should be repealed or that parents should not have the rights that the Government gave them, against the advice of Opposition Members.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State not realise that one of the reasons why more and more parents have become involved in Scottish schools is the cuts that the Government have imposed on schools and their budgets? That has made it necessary for them to engage in fund raising. It has led also to a greater level of awareness. In my constituency—even when the Conservative party ran the local council—we have lost specialist teachers, such as music and physical education teachers. Teachers left, never to return. It is no wonder that parents have become more involved and that they feel strongly about the education of their children.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. He might like to discuss these matters with those who occupy the Opposition Front Bench. The Labour party is on record as saying that over the past 10 years standards have constantly improved. It recognises that they have improved constantly, not occasionally. That is a fact in which we can all take great pride.
  The proposals in the Bill cover a wide range of issues. I wish to deal especially with the proposals for self-governing schools. It is right to emphasise that in one
  624
  profound sense the proposals are different from those for school boards, which the House considered in the previous Session. It was the wish of Parliament that boards should be established in all primary and secondary schools in Scotland. Inevitably and properly, there was enormous interest in what the implications might be. It is significant that over the past year the debate on school boards has been entirely won. Those who share my political philosophy and education philosophy and Opposition Members are now committed to school boards. The Educational Institute of Scotland has said that it intends to work with school boards. Opposition spokesmen are on record in calling on parents to join school boards to help the education system.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State accept that Opposition Members and teachers are recognising the existence of the law and the need to ensure that schools are properly managed? That does not mean that they support school boards. Parents are extremely concerned that they should have to fight other parents rather than entrust their education of the children to professionals.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman may be living with reality, but he will know that every test of opinion in Scotland in recent months has shown a large majority of Scottish parents in favour of school boards and believing that they are a desirable innovation.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I wish to develop my argument.
  As I have said, there is an important difference between the school board proposals and the proposals in the Bill. The proposals for self-governing schools are optional. The question whether an individual school will become a self-governing school will be decided by the parents in the locality. It will not be a question for the Government or local authority to determine. In some places, parents will decide that it is appropriate and in others they will not. That is entirely proper.
  I shall explain the basic thinking behind the proposition and its relevance to Scottish education. It is a legitimate and proper matter to address. We are all conscious, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, of the distinctive nature of the Scottish education system. Those who are familiar with the system know that its roots go back to the involvement of the local community in its local school. That led to a distinctive and traditional type of school in Scotland, which gave literacy to a far wider section of the population than was common elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It established an international reputation for excellence. They were local schools—parish schools. They were schools in the local community.
  That structure changed—it was inevitable that it would—for two reasons. It did not change because there was objection to the community being responsible for its local school. It changed because the local community could not generate the resources that are properly expected in the contemporary system to provide the quality of education that is required. Secondly, it changed because parents, equally properly, over a number of years grew to expect national standards for the education that their children would receive. There had to be a basis for being satisfied that the education received was of a national standard.

  625
  That gave reassurance to parents and offered the maximum prospects for their youngsters to have access to university or to higher or further education, or to the seeking of employment.
  Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall develop my argument and give way to the hon. Gentleman in a few minutes.
  The considerations to which I have referred led inevitably to education being less controlled by the local community. There is an additional consideration that stems from 1975 and the reform of local government. Education had been the responsibility of local authorities for many years, but the effect of reorganisation of local government was to make education one of the responsibilities of the regional councils. It was inevitable that, for most of Scotland, that meant control—
  Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall develop my case for a moment, and then I shall give way.
  The effect of the reorganisation of local government meant that control over local schools became concentrated in the regional councils, which were often many miles away from local communities. Strathclyde is the most obvious example of that, as its education authority is responsible for the detailed administration of schools as far apart as Campbeltown, Oban, Motherwell, Cumnock and other places.
  It is equally true in other regions. We might have to live with that if those factors were inevitable. However, essentially we are suggesting that the Bill provides an opportunity for parents and local communities, if they so desire it, to have much greater control over a school with the resources required in the modern world and a guarantee of continuing national standards. I believe that that is consistent with the Scottish tradition and it enables the Scottish education system to get the best of both worlds if parents so wish it.
  Mr. Douglas: Without following the Secretary of State's analysis of the scope and nature of control, many hon. Members remember the review of local government and we made points then about the size of Strathclyde. However, that legislation was forced through by the Conservative Government. Is not the Secretary of State missing one important and distinctive Scottish criterion which commands attention in relation to giving opportunities to all on the same basis? Every child should have a similar and equal opportunity to exercise his gifts and so benefit the community. Is that not basically what the Bill transgresses? In one way or another, the Bill is selective and that goes against the inherent character of Scottish education.
  Mr. Rifkind: I agree with most of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but 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 education system.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the Secretary of State accept that as resources will be limited—as they always will be under this Government if they remain in office—the pressure on school boards to ensure that the parents of children they accept are capable of
  626
  raising money by contributions or through fund raising will be immense? As in private schools at the moment, parents will be invited to raise more of the funds. The: Government are encouraging a similar practice in the Health Service. Does the Secretary of State accept that in that way selection will occur? Fees may not be charged, but fund raising will be encouraged. There will be selection by the back door. That is the whole reason for school boards. Surely the Secretary of State should be honest and just tell us that that is what he wants.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am very encouraged by the fact that the hon. Gentleman finds it so difficult to find anything in the Bill to oppose that he erects Aunt Sallys to attack, because he knows that there is nothing in the Bill to encourage a school board of a self-governing school to be any more interested in raising money than any other school in the state system. The hon. Gentleman must know that, because I do him the credit of assuming that he has read the Bill.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State said that the Bill is not designed to encourage selection or encourage the return of selection in our education system. He knows that when an opted-out school considers its fundamental characteristics after a period of years, it clearly has powers to reintroduce selection. Will he assure us that while he is Secretary of State—or if he is not, that he will use his influence on a future Secretary of State to ensure this—the Secretary of State's veto will be used to stop the reintroduction of selection?
  Mr. Rifkind: That is a very important issue and I am well aware of the allegations which have been made.
  Hon. Members want to know whether there are proposals in the Bill which will change the character of schools in the state system. Let us consider the existing position. At the moment any local authority can change the character of all its schools overnight. There is nothing to stop any local authority in Scotland, either because of a change in political control, or simply because it has changed its mind, changing the character of every school in its locality. It does not have to consult the parents, the electorate or the Secretary of State or gain approval or permission from anyone. It is important that I should remind the House that local authorities can change the character for selectivity or for ending co-education in all schools in Scotland, if they wish.
  Clearly it cannot be made impossible ever to contemplate any change in a school in the state sector if that is not impossible at the present time, but the Bill introduces infinitely more safeguards than exist at the moment. For the benefit of hon. Members who have not read the Bill, I will explain why that is so.
  Any proposal to change the character of self-governing schools requires a ballot of the parents. If there was a proposal to end co-education in a school, it is somewhat improbable to believe that the parents whose children were of the different sex from the character proposed for the school would find that proposition attractive. There must also be consultation with the education authority, the Scottish Office and others involved. The Secretary of State must also give his approval.
  Quite properly those are substantial hurdles to changing a school's character. In response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr.

  627
  Darling), I am on record saying that I do not envisage it being appropriate in the first few years for a school that has achieved self-governing status to want to change its character in any major or fundamental sense. What happens in the longer term, as with local authority schools, is something that we will have to address in future.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he means by a reasonable number of years? Is he setting a time limit? Does he envisage his successor using powers which the right hon. and learned Gentleman may leave behind precisely for that purpose?
  Mr. Rifkind: At the moment I have no clear knowledge how long my term of office in my present post is likely to last. I should not like to address this matter in terms of whether it will be me or my successor who will have to consider it, but clearly it would be considered by a Conservative Secretary of State, whichever approach was used.
  The purpose of the Bill is not to change the character of schools. Its purpose is to allow parents to achieve self-governing status for their schools if they so wish. As local authorities at the moment have a completely untrammelled ability to change a school's character without any external consultation or approval, it would have been quite unreasonable to say that a self-governing school could never, irrespective of the safeguards, contemplate any minor or significant change in the school. The safeguards that we have proposed are far tougher than those which exist at the moment.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The Secretary of State has been most generous in giving way. However, what is he actually saying? Is he saying that he will give his authority or use his powers to help schools that want to opt out and become self-governing to do that but, if at a later date, possibly very soon thereafter, a school wants to opt back into the state system, he will withhold his authority and not allow schools to opt back in? That seems to be what he has just said.
  Mr. Rifkind: No, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. We originally proposed to suggest that, once a school became self-governing, it would not be able to revert to local authority status. However, we said some weeks ago, in the light of various proposals and consultations, that we would not want in all circumstances to rule out a self-governing school opting back in if the local education authority and parents took that view and if it was the common-sense outcome in the circumstances. There is nothing in the Bill to rule that out.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: Why is that not said in the Bill?
  Mr. Rifkind: That does not need to be said in the Bill, because it was never forbidden by the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill, he would know that.
  The second allegation that is occasionally made, particularly by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, is that the Bill is a centralising measure. The hon. Gentleman used the rather quaint expression that the Government propose to "nationalise" schools. I am not sure whether, in
  628
  using that particular word, he was trying to put my own right hon. and hon. Friends off the proposal or put his own hon. and right hon. Friends on to it.
  In considering whether the Bill is a centralising measure, the only question that needs to be addressed is whether parents, teachers, and other representatives of the local community serving on the board of management will have far more or far less control than in a school run by a local education authority. If one addresses oneself to that question, the answer is obvious. The board of management of a self-governing school will have responsibility for staff, for finance, and for a whole range of matters that are currently determined by the local education authority, which may be many miles away.
  While the Secretary of State will provide the block finance, he will have nothing like the day-to-day control that an LEA has, because the Bill gives him no such powers. The hon. Member for Fife, Central will realise that when he re-reads the relevant clauses.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Why does the Secretary of State believe that a ballot only of parents currently having children at the school is important? Why should there not be included in the ballot parents who expect to send their children to the school in future? Why not a ballot of the whole community? One cannot argue that the community as a whole does not have an interest in the matter simply because some residents have no children or have children who have left school.
  Mr. Rifkind: There could be certain practical problems in trying to determine those who may have children at the school at some future time. We recognise the interests of the wider community, which is why, in the case of a self-governing school, the parents will not by themselves have an overall majority. That provision reflects the legitimate interests of the wider community. Because the local education authority will no longer have overall responsibility for that school, it is right and proper that that should be the case.
  Part I of the Bill deals with self-governing schools. Its first 12 clauses determine how those schools should be managed. Important provisions ensure that the essentials of existing legislation on public schools will continue to apply to a school that becomes self-governing. In addition, each self-governing school will have its own scheme of government that will define its basic characteristics and policy and provide for the composition and proceedings of its board of management. The board will include the school's headteacher, elected members drawn from the teaching staff, parents and members appointed from the local community. The board will include all elected school board members who wish to transfer and serve out their terms of office on the new board of management. However, we have allowed for boards of management to include more appointed members and for them to serve a longer term—partly to strengthen links with the local community and partly because external expertise will be particularly valuable to a body taking on those aspects of running a school.
  Mr. John McFall: What is the democratic case for co-opted members being elected for a period of five to seven years? Also, what criteria does the Secretary of State apply in allowing for the election of outsiders for

  629
  a period of up to seven years, given that the Bill is meant to ensure that the school is an extension of the local community?
  Mr. Rifkind: Certain schools are denominational, and in our view it is right that the church in question should have representation on the board of management. Also, if one did not include representatives of the wider community, the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) would be a factor, because parents of children currently at the school would have an overall majority. It is important to have wider representation, because longer-term interests may not simply be those of the parents of children currently at the school. That is a point which the Government themselves are making.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: Is that so?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should not sound so surprised at that "extraordinary" revelation.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give one or two examples of the "wider community"? What special interest will such representatives have in the Raploch primary school in Stirling, for example?
  Mr. Rifkind: It is easy to identify the likely consistency of the wider community. It might consist of some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
  Mr. Ewing: They are not on the health board.
  Mr. Rifkind: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consider its composition again before he repeats that statement. As we understand that the hon. Gentleman is now a believer, in some circumstances, in self-governing hospitals, he should not be upset at the prospect of self-governing schools, because the same principles apply.
  Wider interests may be represented by a board member who is a trade unionist or a local business man. It will not be the Secretary of State who decides that, but local people on the board itself. If Opposition Members are being so scurrilous, it implies that they do not have confidence in parents and teachers to select members of the local community who have a contribution to make to the board.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it surprising that Opposition Members should be so opposed to parents' rights?
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Where is the hon. Gentleman's constituency?
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke at Question Time for the English Home Department and Welsh Office last week, so I ask the hon. Gentleman not to give me that nonsense.
  Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is surprising that Opposition Members should be so opposed to parents' rights? Does he agree that they should take a trip to Buckinghamshire, to the manor owned by their hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who will instruct them in the new-found consumerism that is Labour party policy? Does he agree also that putting power in the hands of the parents is the ultimate form of devolution?
  Mr. Rifkind: It is, and the opposition of Labour Members is rather curious.
  Once a school becomes self-governing, the education authority will no longer have any responsibility for overseeing its day-to-day running. That duty will fall to its board of management, which will have responsibility for providing education, managing the school's staff and assets, and overseeing its day-to-day running.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue for a moment. I have given way several times, and many right hon. and hon. Members wish Ito participate in the debate. I must show some self-discipline, much though I enjoy the hon. Lady's interventions.
  The Bill requires boards of management to promote links with the local community and to encourage wider use of the school's facilities. It places on the board a duty to consult regularly with the parents of children at the school. Boards will be required to run schools in line with the description included in the articles of management. Self-governing schools will, of course, remain in the public sector and could not become fee-paying.
  Clauses 13 to 19 set out the procedure to be followed by a school seeking to become self-governing. The schools not eligible to do so include nursery schools, special schools, and schools for which no school board has been established. The Bill provides for the procedure to be initiated in either of two ways—by the school board passing a resolution or by a written request signed by 10 per cent. of the parents. A secret postal ballot of parents of children at the school would have to be held within three months. That ballot will be funded by the Secretary of State and conducted by an independent body that he will appoint. If the majority of parents voting were in favour of self-governing status, proposals would have to be published and submitted to the Secretary of State. The Bill gives outside parties one month to make representations before a final decision is reached. If approval is given to the proposals, the school will become self-governing on a specified date, which is referred to in the Bill as the incorporation date.
  Mr. James Wallace: As the Secretary of State well knows, in many rural areas—not least, the Scottish islands—there may be only one secondary school but a large number of primary schools. What rights, if any, will the parents of children at the feeder primary schools have in a ballot relating to the wish of the secondary school to opt out? Parents of primary schoolchildren may have no choice if the only secondary school to which they can send their children is one that has already opted out of the local authority system.
  Mr. Rifkind: The electorate will comprise parents of children already at the secondary school. However, I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that access to that school will not be denied to any youngsters living in the locality. The same rights available under the present parents' charter will continue to be available, which is something that the hon. Gentleman should welcome. No doubt those who vote at such an election will take account of that point when considering the proposal before them.
  Mr. John McAllion: As the Secretary of State says, the Bill requires a simple majority of votes cast

  631
  in the ballot to approve opting out. What percentage of the votes of the entire electorate will be required before he can give his approval?
  Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman says, the ballot does not itself decide the question of opting out; it simply determines whether the process can reach the next stage. As Secretary of State, I would of course take into account the proportion who had voted in a ballot—which I accept is relevant—but I think it right to give most weight to the views of those who have chosen to exercise their vote either for or against the proposal.
  Clauses 21 to 23 cover staff matters. The members of teaching and non-teaching staff of a school that becomes self-governing would transfer to the employment of the board of management, and their contracts of employment would also transfer unchanged. Once a school had given notice of its intention to hold a ballot of parents, the education authority could not appoint, transfer or dismiss staff without the consent of the school board.
  Clause 24 provides that if an education authority has the duty or power to provide benefits or services for pupils in the area, such as school transport, it is not to treat pupils at self-governing schools any less favourably than those at schools under its management. Clauses 25 to 27 provide for the financing of self-governing schools. Grant will be paid direct to the board of management, and recovered by the Secretary of State from the local authority. We intend it to be in line with what the school could reasonably have expected to receive had it remained under the management of the education authority.
  Mr. Darling: May I return to the point that I tried to press earlier? What will a board do if it simply cannot make ends meet on the grant that it receives from central Government because the average is not sufficient? Will it raise funds from other sources or will it be required to pay off staff? What will happen?
  Mr. Rifkind: What will happen will be exactly the same as what happens at present if a school receives less than it would like from the education authority. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this is an exceptional problem that would be relevant only to self-governing schools does not match the experience of successive schools under successive Governments of varying political complexions.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Secretary of State is a lawyer and I am not, and my question is purely interrogatory. He talks about the management of assets and of staff. Are there not likely to be continuing problems? By their very nature, the personnel of some of the governing bodies will change. Parents will go off to take jobs elsewhere, and there will not be continuity. I can imagine hideous legal cases going on for a long time and creating endless problems. As a lawyer, the Secretary of State may say that there is an answer, and I should like to hear it.
  Mr. Rifkind: There is an answer: it is called by-elections, which happen regularly in local authorities. People change their employment if they are councillors, or they move to another part of the country, and it is necessary to fill vacancies. I have never heard that used as an argument against the whole structure of local democracy, and I do not see it as a fundamental problem.
  Mr. Dalyell: In a local authority there is some continuity. The new organisations simply will not have that.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the real issue. A large proportion, indeed the majority, of the board of management will be either teachers or co-opted members. Parents will form a minority, albeit a large minority. It is not realistic to suggest that on a given date all the members of a school board will suddenly decide to move their homes or employment.
  Clauses 32 to 42 make provision regarding property. The basic intention is for all property rights, liabilites and obligations of an education authority relating to a school to be transferred to the school's board of management when it becomes self-governing. A commissioner for school assets will be appointed to assist the school board and the education authority to determine how property and rights over property are to be apportioned between the education authority and the school when it becomes self-governing.
  Another basic provision is that after a school has given notice of its intention to hold a ballot on self-governing status, the education authority should not enter into any transaction involving the assets of the school, used for the purposes of that school, except with the consent of the school board. Nor is it expected to remove any property from the school without the consent of the school board.
  I am occasionally asked whether the Government have a target for the number of schools that they wish to achieve self-governing status in Scotland. We have no such target and it would be wrong and foolish to attempt one, because the matter will be determined not by Government but by parents in the individual localities.
  We are already able to point to certain significant advantages accruing to parents that have resulted purely from the Bill's publication. Already a number of important spokesmen are giving advice to their local authorities. For instance, councillor Malcolm Green, chairman of the education committee, has said to his colleagues in Strathclyde region:
  "If we want to stop parents in Strathclyde going for self-governing schools, we will have to make sure that our schools are so acceptable to the parents that they will not wish to use the rights in the bill."
  On 14 February, Mr. Fred Forrester of the EIS is reported to have said:
  "Some fine tuning of authorities' policies could satisfy some groups of parents and reduce the impetus for opting out. In general there should be the greatest possible sensitivity to local parental opinion, even if this seems perverse when viewed from the education offices or the regional chambers."
  Dr. Farquhar Mackintosh, who takes a much more balanced approach to all these matters, has been quoted as saying:
  "If the possibility or threat of opting out helps to make education authorities more sensitive to local needs and more even handed in their dealings with schools that will clearly be a benefit."
  Even if the Bill has achieved nothing else, it has converted councillor Malcolm Green and Mr. Forrester of the EIS to the belief that education authorities should be sensitive to the interests of parents. I emphasise the simple point that until now an education authority has been able to say to parents, "Like it or lump it." Parents have had no alternative. Now there will be an alternative, and if the provision of education is made so much better and more

  633
  sensitive to parental wishes that the parents' wish to use the powers in the Bill is reduced I shall be entirely happy with such a development.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the proposals in the Bill will make it almost impossible for a local authority such as Strathclyde to rationalise in the way that he wants? As soon as any school is threatened with the possibility of closure it will be likely to plump for opting out. How does that square with the statement in the Bill that there will be no significant cost? The Secretary of State will have to pick up the cost of the opting-out schools, and Strathclyde will have to mop up the rest.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should consult the leader of the Democratic group on Strathclyde regional council. Councillor Mason has gone on record as supporting such proposals precisely to ensure that good schools are not closed by an intransigent authority. The hon. Gentleman might like to get his own act together before commenting further.
  There will be no question of a school's being given self-governing status if its numbers are so few that it would not be viable. We are concerned with schools that are so popular that they are packed to the gunwales but whose closure has nevertheless been proposed by the education authority for reasons other than educational ones. [Interruption.] I am as intrigued as Opposition Members by the movements on my left, but no doubt there will be a rational explanation.
  The other clauses are equally important and should, I think, be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Clauses on further education form part II of the Bill. Clauses 48 to 54 provide for the appointment of new college councils for further education colleges managed by education authorities, which should be in place by April 1990. The Bill provides for a maximum membership of 20, of whom at least half will be nominees of employer organisations, and not more than one fifth will be members or employees of the local authorities. By October 1990 education authorities should have made arrangements to delegate further education functions to college councils and to provide the means for the councils to carry out those functions. The Bill also gives college councils the power to raise funds, accept gifts and retain income.
  Clauses 55 to 57 give education authorities the power to conduct commercial activities through further education colleges. Authorities may set up companies to undertake these activities and may make loans to them if required. These powers are among functions that may be delegated to college councils. Education authorities are also to have the power to form companies to take over the management of colleges previously under the management of the authorities.
  Mr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman show his characteristic grace by giving way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I cannot resist such a request.
  Dr. Godman: Given that there are now no parliamentary restraints on this Government, and, hence, that the Bill will go through all its stages unamended, may I ask the Secretary of State whether "employer organisations", in
  634
  clause 48(5)(a)(ii), includes the representatives of community businesses, producer co-operatives and worker co-operatives?
  Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his confidence about the smooth passage of the Bill, which, naturally, I hope will be vindicated. But who knows? The hon. Gentleman might just come up with a constructive amendment that we are able to accept. He must not be too surprised if that happens. I will certainly check the point that he has raised, but I expect that all those who are representative of wider community interests will be eligible to be considered for appointments of this kind. I hope that that is the point to which the hon. Gentleman was referring. I will look further into it.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I must move on.
  Clause 61 makes provision for the abolition of the Scottish joint negotiating committee on further education, whose remit is to settle pay and conditions of service for teaching staff in colleges of further and higher education. That committee has not worked effectively, and it will be replaced by separate non-statutory arrangements for the two college sectors, which should enable the negotiating machinery to be more responsive to the requirements of both staff and management in the two sectors concerned.
  Among the other provisions of the Bill, the establishment of privately sponsored technology academies will be another means of widening the range and diversity of schools available to parents. These academies will provide young people with access to a type of school that will equip them well for adult life and for work in an advanced industrial society. They will also offer an opportunity for raising standards and expectations of pupils, parents and teachers generally. The provision of this new type of school, with the teaching of technology and science a predominant theme, reflects the Government's awareness of the needs of industry and commerce and of the necessity to develop the qualities that employers in these fields seek. [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members are not suggesting that technology academies are some doctrinal proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, those hon. Members might explain that to councillor Charles Gray, the leader of the Labour group on Strathclyde regional council, who tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade his more doctrinaire colleagues that such an academy would be a great asset to the city of Glasgow and to Strathclyde as a whole. I would pay more attention to councillor Gray's views on these matters than to those of some of his more doctrinaire colleagues.
  I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) so that he may inform us whether he agrees with councillor Gray, or with the rest of the Labour group in Strathclyde region, on the question of technology academies.
  Mr. Dewar: It is well known that there is a plan to found one of these technology academies in Glasgow. Can the Secretary of State say whether there are any on the stocks for other areas? For the sake of public knowledge, can he list the principal backers of the Glasgow academy that is planned?
  Mr. Rifkind: First, I note that the hon. Gentleman has declined to express any personal view on these matters.
  Mr. Dewar: I shall do so later.
  Mr. Rifkind: We look forward to that. We will listen very carefully. Indeed, we shall go in for a detailed textual analysis to see whether we can divine the hon. Gentleman's real views on these matters.
  As for the location of technology academies, there has been a very generous offer from Lord Forte to contribute towards the first of them. We are currently considering the possible location of such an academy, which might be in the west of Scotland or elsewhere. That is a matter on which I cannot report further at this stage.
  When we announced last October our proposals for curriculum and assessment, I referred to the existing powers, which enabled me to prescribe general requirements for education authorities and which could be extended in order to put arrangements for national testing in primary schools on a formal basis. I am now taking the opportunity, in the Bill, to do this. Incidentally, it would appear that the public as a whole in Scotland are behind the Government in their proposals for national testing in primary schools. Some 50 per cent. of parents, when asked last May, said that they were in favour of these proposals. We are very pleased about that.
  I have noted with interest also the views of the Opposition spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It will be interesting if the hon. Member for Garscadden can tell us whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Blackburn, who is the shadow spokesman on education—[Interruption.] Yes, in England and Wales, but it would be interesting to know whether these principles apply also in Scotland. On 26 November the hon. Gentleman said:
  "The performance of teachers in schools has always been judged and will always be judged, for judgment is inherent in choice. But in the absence of any formal system, schools will be judged by reputation and rumour, by crude examination results, by newspaper stories of prizegivings and sports successes on the one hand or of drug stories or truancy on the other."
  He went on to describe a method of scrutinising exam results that could be used. He said that he would want a system
  "to judge each individual school's own progress year by year to provide a twin focus by which schools not only compete with other schools but, more importantly, pitch themselves against their own previous performance."
  He went on:
  "I do want flagship schools"—
  I ought to remind the House that these are the words of a Labour spokesman on education celebrating these schools—
  "which, with similar resources to others, have achieved great things for their pupils, so that when, in the future, people think of comprehensives they do not think of an impersonal system, but of real schools, of paradigms of excellence, which can provide the best for all."
  That, we are told, is the Labour party's policy on education and on testing in England and Wales. Is it the Labour party's policy on education and testing in Scotland? If so, why has it not said so? If not, why not? We wait to hear whether the EIS has given permission for the adoption of such a policy north of the border.
  Last month we issued our consultation paper on school teachers' professional development into the 1990s. Like the members of other professions, teachers must constantly refresh and replenish their skills and knowledge. Only through a well-planned and properly managed programme of staff development can they
  636
  maintain their professional competence and expertise. To be effective, staff development programmes for teachers must start from an accurate identification of their needs, through assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of their teaching.
  After the most careful consideration, we have decided to seek enabling powers, which, if necessary, can be used to ensure that appraisal within staff development programmes is introduced on a national basis. I hope that progress on appraisal can be achieved voluntarily, but I believe that reserve powers are necessary in case there should be continued resistance to appraisal despite its many benefits, which the more enlightened members of the teaching profession now readily recognise. I welcome in particular the statement of the SSTA, emphasising that, for its part, it has always been in favour of appraisal, and saying that it looks forward to developments in that direction over the next few weeks and months.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State not feel that it would have been better had the consultation process on appraisal taken place without clause 64? Surely this is the reverse of the normal process: consultation and then legislation. Now we are having legislation followed by consultation—indeed, the consultation process will not be completed until the end of June.
  Mr. Rifkind: As I have just indicated, this is a purely enabling power. I hope that it will not have to be used, as will be the case if the response of the teaching profession as a whole follows that of the SSTA. I hope that the EIS will also give the proposal very serious consideration, because it is genuinely in the best interests of individual teachers that there should be a proper appraisal system. If that can be confirmed, a voluntary scheme will be available.
  The Bill clarifies the power of education authorities to send children to special schools outwith Scotland and to pay the necessary fees and expenses. It is common for them to do that now, where the needs of a child are most appropriately catered for at a school not in Scotland that specialises in that child's particular learning difficulty. The practice represents a useful widening of educational choice for some of our most unfortunate youngsters. Unfortunately, a recent court case suggested that authorities may not have the requisite powers under the Act to place children in schools in other parts of the United Kingdom. We are now putting the position beyond doubt.
  Mr. Douglas: Will that power include further education? Is such a provision embraced within the clause?
  Mr. Rifkind: I do not know the answer to that question, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) will respond to it when he replies.
  Clause 66 brings about the repeal of section 88 of the 1980 Act, which provided a form of procedure for the dismissal of teachers. The additional protection that that provision affords teachers against dismissal has been overtaken by the safeguard contained in the general employment protection legislation. This proposal is therefore appropriate.
  Paragraph 1 of schedule 12 strengthens the management of the four ancient universities. At present, the courts of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and St. Andrews universities are chaired by the university rector who is

  637
  elected by the students. The courts of these universities recently considered whether that arrangement is still appropriate, given their responsibilities for the financial management of the universities. Three of the four courts concluded that it was not and they asked the Government to bring forward the proposals that are contained in this part of the Bill. Consequently, if the Bill is enacted, the chairman will be elected by the court from among the lay members. The rector would remain eligible for election, so long as he or she was not—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I think that the Secretary of State means schedule 10, not schedule 12. Schedule 10 is entitled "Minor and Consequential Amendments." Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us, by means of that careful textual analysis for which he is renowned, which substantive clause in the Bill provides the basis for which paragraph 1 of schedule 10 is a consequence? Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not a minor amendment to remove from the students of Scottish universities a right that they have held for many centuries and that they have traditionally discharged with great responsibility?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that students have traditionally exercised that right with great responsibility. That has been true on many occasions. However, this is not a Government proposal. We have responded to a request from three of the four universities. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that in certain cases the rector has been overseas and has been unable physically to carry out that responsibility. On other occasions, rectors have not been interested in doing so. That led to the universities' proposal. However, I emphasise that the rector will still be eligible to be elected to chair the court. It will be for the court to decide who the chairman should be. I should have thought that a member of the Social and Liberal Democrats would be only too happy to endorse a democratic way of deciding who the chairman of the university court should be instead of its being determined on the court's behalf by another body.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Given the tenor of the other proposals, would it not have been appropriate to put such an important proposal as displacing the rector as chairman of the courts of the older universities to a ballot of the students in those universities?
  Mr. Rifkind: That is entirely a matter for the universities. No doubt they will hear about the hon. Gentleman's interesting proposal.
  The debate takes place against a wider educational debate. For some time we have been critical of the Opposition because of their unwillingness or inability to put forward an alternative educational philosophy. Recently I thought that that was no longer going to be a criticism that we could validly make. On behalf of his party, the hon. Member for Fife, Central produced a document that purports to be the Labour party's alternative policy.
  Mr. McLeish: It is a discussion document.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am told that it is a discussion document, so presumably it has something to discuss and represents what may be the Labour party's policy.
  As the hon. Member for Fife, Central would expect, my hon. Friends and I have studied the document with great
  638
  care and attention. It is a weighty document—21 pages. I thought that it would contain a mountain of new ideas, initiatives, policies and proposals. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) obviously expected that to be the case, but clearly he has not read it. If he chooses to read it, he will find that, of the 21 pages, a mere three and a half are about what the Labour party describes as its policy, while 17 pages contain an attempt to criticise the Government's policy. If we have to listen to the criticism that the Goverment's proposals are not consistent with the best traditions of Scottish education, I must point out that the evidence supplied by Opposition Members points in the opposite direction. At page 17 the hon. Member for Fife, Central says:
  "equality of opportunity lies at the heart of the Scottish education tradition."
  The Conservative party strongly believes in equality of opportunity.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: No.
  Although Opposition Members may not realise it, they do not believe in equality of opportunity. I have no better authority for saying that than the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). On 31 July 1983 the right hon. Gentleman, when talking about the Labour party, said:
  "We are not the party of equality of opportunity. That is a view of society of the Conservative Party."
  That is an interesting statement. The Labour party says in that document, quite rightly, that equality of opportunity is at the heart of what the Scottish educational tradition is all about, but the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook says that Socialists do not believe in equality of opportunity; that is Tory policy and Tory philosophy.
  That explains the final statement in the hon. Member for Fife, Central's policy document. I shall quote his words because they will be his epitaph. At page 17, on behalf of the Labour party, he says:
  "we have failed to properly develop the desires of parents to be more involved in their children's education; and we have failed to embrace the real and changing needs of education into a radical and imaginative Agenda."
  The Opposition have failed. We do not intend to do so.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State plays with consummate skill, which comes from long practice, the role of a reasonable man struggling with an unreasonable brief. His problems have never been deeper than they are today. He complains bitterly that the Labour party's document deals at some length with the case for opting out. He may have read the 21 pages of text but he clearly did not read the title, which is
  "Opting out—the Government's case examined."
  Not surprisingly, he spent some time establishing to my satisfaction, as well as to the satisfaction of my hon. Friends, that there is no case for the Government's proposals. If the Secretary of State is a little worried about the fact that the Labour party is showing signs of developing self knowledge and a critical faculty, I suggest to him that that kind of humility is something that he should consider importing into Conservative thinking. It would do a great deal of good.

  639
  This is a dishonest Bill. Even its title is dishonest. All the talk about self-governing schools is spurious window-dressing. I am sorry that even the draftsmen are being dragged into the Government's propaganda war. The Bill adds to the confusion, because this is an inexact new category. On this occasion I should have preferred the Government to take a leaf out of the Department of Education and Science's book and talk about grant-maintained schools. That term would at least have had the virtue of being understandable, and I shall continue to use it.
  The core of the Bill is opting out. The first contention is that no one in Scotland, wants it—not even the parents in whose name it has been introduced. I notice that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), whose words I always follow with interest, told a rather sceptical Scottish Question Time on 1 March that
  "the Hungarians expressed considerable admiration for the emphasis that we place on increasing competition in our education system".—[Official Report, 1 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 270.]
  I am prepared to believe that one has to travel as far as Hungary to find support for the Bill, but I find it difficult to believe that a man is sitting on a Budapest bus, lost in envy and admiration for the activities of the hon. Member for Stirling. There must be some mistake.
  Local government is almost united in its opposition. The teaching profession will have none of the new proposals. I know that there is a tendency for the Minister to treat one with contempt and express some hatred for the other but those are significant opinions and should not be swept aside, particularly when very strong reservations have been expressed by bodies in Scotland on whom the Minister has relied for his rather thin support in the past. For example, I have a press release from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council. There are disputes about how representative that body is, but it has been prayed in aid by the Minister in the past. It states:
  "the successful establishment of School Boards will be jeopardised by the undue haste with which the Government is pursuing these proposals."
  The council goes on to say that it believes that
  "comprehensive education might well be compromised by those proposals and that it would be more honest to have an open and informed debate about its successes and failures rather than allowing it to be incidentally eroded as a consequence of this proposed legislation."
  The Scottish Consumer Council, which on some occasions has taken the Minister's side, refers to the Bill as "ill-timed" and states that its proposals
  "do not offer parents a significant extension of choice".
  The kindest thing that I can say is that the Bill has very little support. It is significant and regrettable that almost all the research that the Minister has mounted in conjunction with the proposals has examined parental and public attitudes to the present system. He has made no attempt whatsoever to canvass the views of the wider Scottish public—parents, teachers or anyone else—about the proposed measures. According to the MVA consultancy study, £121,715 of public money has been spent, I suspect as a trawl in the hope that it will produce critical material that the Minister can use in a totally negative way to attack the present position. It is the brunt of the bunker mentality which has marked Scottish Office debate for a considerable time.
  640
  The signs have been bad from the beginning. There was the bizarre episode of Paisley grammar school with the Prime Minister telling the Scottish Office its business, and no nonsense from the Secretary of State for Scotland. We received a fairly detailed account of that from a number of sources, including the roving journalist who acted as go-between. There were also the activities of the Minister, before electoral chance promoted him to office. I remind the House that if one looks back to the proceedings of the House on 21 October 1986 considering the Education Bill (Lords) which applied only to England and Wales, a young, keen Turk of the Right, the hon. Member for Stirling with the experience of a number of years at Westminster city council, proposed opting-out clauses almost exactly parallel to what he is now trying to foist on to the people of Scotland. He argued specifically that they would
  "bring tremendous support and morale among the teaching profession"—[Official Report, 21 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 1040.]
  and were what parents wanted. If those were the grounds on which the Minister introduced such a measure in England, the same test should be applied to his proposals for Scotland, but if they were, they would bite the dust immediately. The arrogance with which the measure is being pursued is alarming. It has been put forward as a matter of faith and dogma, and is not based on the existing Scottish education system or the wishes of people involved in the education system.
  An interesting article appeared in the Financial Times on 23 February under the heading:
  "Radical waves stir new hopes for beleaguered Scots Tories."
  That is a snappy populist heading if ever there was one. But the article contained a direct quote from the Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling, who said:
  "With the position we're in, with socialist policies entrenched in local government and the media, I can't afford to take prisoners."
  Sometimes paranoia is associated with a Rambo complex, but it is peculiarly inappropriate. The Minister does not challenge those words, but dealing with Scottish education in terms of taking no prisoners is a somewhat unfortunate approach.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State made the point that standards were not dropping. My honest impression is that the Minister responsible for education takes a very different view and argues, perhaps more by innuendo than anything else, that there is an undermining of confidence in Scottish education, declining standards, slipshod teachers and inadequate pupils. I do not believe that that is the case, but there is always a temptation for him to say that because it is the only way in which he can justify the present proposals.
  I do not think that it is enough for me to argue simply that the Bill is an alien proposition, although that is true. Our objections are root and branch and can be put briefly. Opting out will fragment the school system and make it harder to provide educational opportunity across the social scale and across the range of ability. There is no demand, but a determined Government can create a false demand in certain circumstances.
  We all know that certain schools are threatened with closure. It is a very real threat; indeed, the Minister is constantly urging local authorities to think in terms of rationalising school capacity to meet falling rolls. The Minister will say that the Bill contains protection and that

  641
  under clause 13, if a school is scheduled for closure, it cannot opt out. That is similar to section 52(8) of the English legislation, the Education Reform Act 1988, which states:
  "A county or voluntary school is not eligible for grant-maintained status … if proposals by the local education authority to cease to maintain the school have been published"
  under certain statutory enactments.
  It appears that the same protection is being offered in Scotland, but I am sure that the Minister has examined the English experience which demonstrates that that protection is a total illusion. At the last count available to me, there had been 37 ballots in England and Wales by schools wishing to opt out. Of those, 27 were in favour of opting out and 10 were against. Of the 27 schools which voted for opting out, two thirds were threatened with closure. That is one reason which will create similar problems in Scotland if those unfortunate proposals reach the statute book.
  I shall quote a source to which the Minister might pay some attention, the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate "Standards in Education 1987–1988" produced by the Department of Education and Science. It states:
  "Plans to reorganise secondary schools, in order to provide more economically and rationally for 16 to 19 year olds, appear to have been slowed by uncertainty over the effects of recent legislation, especially that relating to grant-maintained schools."
  It is put pretty cautiously, but I find it extraordinary and significant that there should be such explicit criticism of the machinery which has been introduced in England, and which we are now threatened with in Scotland, from such a responsible body of educational opinion as Her Majesty's inspectorate. The fact that it has come to that conclusion ought to make the Secretary of State, if he is prepared to be fair, stop and think again.
  We shall look closely at clause 13 to establish when the gate comes down on opting out. Is it when there is a draft plan? Is it when there is public discussion of a possible closure? Is it when a recommendation is made to the education authority? Is it when a final decision is made? I fear that, in Scotland, as in England, unless we are careful—there is no adequate protection in the Bill at the moment—the most common reason for opting out will be the threat of rationalising school accommodation. That is not a good basis on which any school should set out on this experiment.
  Schools which take this road will be those that are confident of their survival—perhaps falsely confident. They are the ones that think that they will get additional cachet—the smack of independence without the financial risk. The Secretary of State said that that is an opportunity that does not exist under the present system. I take his point, but it depends on how one looks at these matters. I feel that there will be snob appeal and that schools will try to distance themselves from the common run. I put it as bluntly as that because we have to face up to it. They believe that they can attract funds and travellers, bussed or driven, from afar. The arguments will be social as well as educational, and they will be divisive.
  There is the problem of rural areas. The Secretary of State may say that, if a school is the only secondary school in the area, and its opting out would leave a massive hole in provision, that may be a factor that he will take into account when deciding whether to approve opting out. That does not seem to be a big contribution to good
  642
  educational order or parental satisfaction. The trouble with this exercise is that, if we begin to eat into the universality of provision, we will have a less efficient school system—even arguing the educational case in Conservative terms.
  Ministers tell us that costs have to be spread and overheads more efficiently shared. If the Government have their way, we shall be contemplating an educational landscape littered with free-standing schools which contribute little and represent disunity where there ought to be unity. That is not a sensible use of resources. Nobody who has read the arguments advanced by the Secretary of State and his colleagues on these matters would have any doubt about that.
  The Secretary of State is to pay the schools, negotiate per capita funding, talk through their financial situation and satisfy their needs, but it is the local education authority that will have to pay because the money will come directly from its budget. That is an unhappy state of affairs. The more generously the grant-maintained sector is funded, the worse off mainstream provision will be. We are entitled to put up a serious warning about that.
  Teachers who have spoken to me are worried about their promotion prospects and career structures. They can dodge backwards and forwards between the maintained and the education authority sectors, but they envisage the danger of being locked into one school and the problems that may result from that. We want to consider that carefully in Committee.
  We are also worried about the position of auxiliary staff as they will have less protection than teachers under the new set up. That is unsatisfactory, even in the guise of a democratic exercise in parental power. There are points to be made in Committee about the interests of the community and of primary parents, and the odd fact that, by the time a school has opted out, some of the parents who voted in favour will no longer have an interest as their children will have left, and other parents, whose children will enter the school in the year of opting out, will have had no vote. That is one of the many inconsistencies that are built into the Bill.
  There is a problem about changing a school's fundamental characteristics. I take the Secretary of State's point that his intention is that, initially, when the ballot shows a majority in favour of opting out, the school's fundamental characteristics will not be altered. I am prepared to accept that he, at least, means what he says about that, but after the first few years—I think that was his phrase—a further ballot can be held and there could then be a change in a school's fundamental characteristics; in the uniform, religion or—a key issue—the means of entry.
  I believe that selection is ultimately incompatible with parental choice and that, in his heart of hearts, the Secretary of State knows it. The Secretary of State managed to give the impression that he opposes the introduction of selection in schools that decide to opt out, but he would not be drawn on that matter. I recognise that his tenure of office may be short for all manner of reasons which we do not need to go into and which are irrelevant at the moment, but it would be interesting if he could make it clear that he, a politician who represents a Scottish constituency, would oppose the reintroduction of selection via the back door as a result of the opting out process. Will he give such an assurance?
  Mr. Rifkind: I can happily give that assurance. I have no intention of endorsing a proposal that would so change the character of a state school as to return it to the selective system that existed some years ago. That is not the purpose of these proposals.
  Mr. Dewar: This has been an afternoon of debating points, but debating points can become important ones. I entirely accept that the purpose of the Bill is not necessarily to reintroduce selection. The practical consequences, however, may be that we shall introduce them, at least in some parts of the education system. I do not think for a moment that we can contemplate that prospect with equanimity, and the best way to get rid of that danger is to get rid of the Bill and the scheme.
  Mr. Douglas: Will my hon. Friend note that the Secretary of State used very few words to answer his question? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he does not envisage altering the present means of selection, but the Bill introduces novel means of selection. That is what many of us are afraid—of we fear that the Bill is a precursor to a new form of selectivity.
  Mr. Dewar: However straightforward the Secretary of State is being—I still think that his position is a little obscure—he is putting in train something which is extremely difficult to control, although the consequences are easy to foresee. I do not get any satisfaction from contemplating that approaching danger.
  I feel that I ought to respond to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's challenge. I have read the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), to which he referred. My hon. Friend did indeed make the points which the Secretary of State quoted, but he was saying—I should have thought that the Secretary of State would welcome it—that we believe that it is possible to have excellence in the comprehensive system. I entirely agree. Comprehensive education is not, as is sometimes suggested by idealogues, grey and uniform education which allows no room for excitement, for variation or for catering to the needs of individual children. Of course one wants to encourage excellence within comprehensive education, but one will not achieve that by introducing selection and social and educational division.
  I shall quote again from the same speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. He said that policies
  "for City Technology Colleges, and for opted out-schools are designed systematically to sabotage the central value of the comprehensive school—the idea that each child is of equal value, of equal worth."
  I approve of that sentiment as well.
  Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman approves of the sentiment, which referred to city technology colleges, am I to assume that that is his answer to my earlier question about whether he agrees with councillor Charles Gray about the attraction of a technology academy in Glasgow?
  Mr. Dewar: I was not at the debate to which the Secretary of State refers with such pleasure. If he wants to take that as an answer he may, but I was going to answer fully later on. I am happy to give him that reply as an advance taste of my later answer.
  The introduction of opting out is wholly wrong-headed and has no part to play in the Scottish education system. When we come to consider the discontinuance—an especially unpleasant new Scottish Office word—of the opted-out schools, there is clearly an implication that they
  644
  may move from that into the fully-fledged private sector. When one considers what the Scottish people want, one should look at the market system and the Secretary of State may have done that.
  My attention was drawn the other day to a case reported on 23 December 1988 in The Times Educational Supplement for Scotland, which concerned a redundancy at Westbourne school, for girls. The unfortunate absence of any consultation with the threatened member of staff resulted in an award for unfair dismissal. I draw to the House's attention that Professor Curtis, the chairman of governors of Westbourne school explained that the school
  "faced a crisis as falling rolls reduced demand for single-sex private education. The combined primary/secondary school has fewer than 300 pupils."
  I mention that because, of the 300 pupils, 71 are paid for by the taxpayer under the assisted places scheme at a cost of about £151,000. That school would fail wholly if it were not for that subsidy because of the lack of public demand for its services. That is interesting in view of the debate about the worth of public sector provision, universal education and the advantages it brings. If we move away from that, people will find to their cost that we betray an important educational trust.
  The Bill is not merely bad, but goes beyond that. It is a breach of faith and concerns a matter of honour, if I can say that without sounding too pretentious. I remember, as will many of my colleagues, when we were discussing the ceiling proposals on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. There was consultation with educational and public opinion and there was an almost universal no from every conceivable interested body and thousands of individuals as well. The Government agreed to abandon the ceiling proposals on that basis. I took that Government action at face value, so I take it amiss when, only a few months later, we find ourselves considering an educational leap in the dark that goes massively beyond those ceiling proposals. It is a form of sharp practice—which is as near as I can go in the House, although in private conversation I would go a great deal further—in the light of the assurance given when the ceiling proposals were not included in the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, to unveil his horror show now. The Bill is extreme, objectionable and, above all, friendless. The Bill also introduces a false prospectus, given those earlier matters.
  Even on the Conservative Benches—I do not want to put the spotlight on any hon. Members—there are hon. Members who have been quoted publicly as having fundamental doubts about the proposals. I do not know what their attitude will be as the Bill progresses, but I must say to the Secretary of State—I do not want to overdramatise—if there are moves to exclude such hon. Members from the Committee, we shall see that as an outrage. We expect available Scottish Tories to serve. It is bad enough to face the prospect of a Committee where the Government majority is maintained by hon. Members whose interest in Scottish education is, to say the least, only as a comparative study. It would be monstrous for hon. Members to be excluded or for a coalition of Scottish Members of all parties, including Conservatives, to be considering essential safeguards and to be overwhelmed by the votes of troops gathered by the parliamentary press gang. I hope that the Government will pay attention to that.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No, as I want to get on.
  As the Secretary of State will have noticed, I do not like the Bill. I do not want to spend a great deal of time going through the rest of it in detail because I recognise that I have already spoken for some time, although not as long as the Secretary of State. Let me hasten to assure him that I do not believe that the technology academies—although non-selective in statutory terms, they will make selection according to attitude and motivaton—represent educational progress in Scotland. We shall oppose in Committee the rigid testing in primary schools. It is educationally distracting and has almost no educational support.
  I am not happy about the proposals for colleges of further education with boards of a minimum of 50 per cent. drawn from local employers. One of the great fallacies and a rather insulting assumption is that a horde of under-employed industrialists in Scotland nothing better to do than sit on boards of further education colleges, the Scottish enterprise boards and the crimebusters panels. Most industrialists I know have their hands full trying to maximise the return on their capital and trying to obtain orders to keep their work force in being. I take no delight in the idea of a further education plc, with all the fears that that will bring for the teaching of special subjects that are not commercially attractive.
  Even the ancient office of rector of our universities is to be cut back at the behest, so rumour has it, of principal McNicol of Aberdeen university. I warn the Secretary of State that I—and, I suspect, many of my colleagues—took a close interest in that office when I was a student at the university of Glasgow. I should want a more substantial argument than the weak assurance that there have been approaches from certain universities. There would be. It does not seem to make the case for change very adequately.
  The Bill is arrogant, ill judged and insensitive. That is the heart of the matter. The cause is the capitulation of the Secretary of State. Once again, he has fallen meekly into line, although there is always a mystery whether he is behind his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr Forsyth) or the Department of Education and Science.
  Mr. Rifkind: Both.
  Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State proudly says both. In that case, if they go different ways in future, we shall see a nasty case of split personality. Whether the Secretary of State has fallen into line behind one or the other, the effect is unpleasant. Almost certainly the Prime Minister has a great deal to do with the present atmosphere.
  The Secretary of State may laugh, but some of us remember the correspondence in the Glasgow Herald and the leaks that emerged at the time of the case of Paisley grammar school. Perhaps the Prime Minister has found time on occasions to look at Scottish education. If we are to use the royal "we", which is so much in vogue in Downing street these days, I only wish that we would turn our attention to education in Scotland and recognise the damage that has been done.
  The Bill is a caricature of Government action. There has been no consultation, no preparation, no sympathy or feeling for the problems in Scottish schools. The result will he uncertainty, a return of privilege and a course of reckless prejudice. The Bill may be reasonably presented, but ultimately it will be damaging to pupils and staff and the communities that the schools serve. We will protest
  646
  tonight in the Lobby but I have to say to the Secretary of State that it will not be a formal parliamentary minute of dissent. We will protest with a degree of anger that is unusual in this place because I genuinely believe that there is no case for what is being proposed and no one in Scotland wants it.
  6 pm
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I felt when the debate opened that we were perhaps about to break new ground with the new-found agreement between both Front Bench spokesmen on the quality of our education in Scotland. To that extent, the debate has made some progress in at least producing a degree of unity. It is good to begin discussions on the Bill in that context.
  I intend to confine my remarks to self-governing schools. Having listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, I am more bewildered than I was to begin with about why we should make these changes now. I understand what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the size of regional authorities and trying to make education more personal and closer in its administration. If that is what we are tilting towards, perhaps we should look at the future of our regional authorities. I know that that matter has been previously discussed because I was a member of the Committee on the Bill dealing with that issue. If that is the problem, we do not necessarily need a Bill such as this.
  I must emphasise that the only letters I have received in support of the Bill have been from parents whose schools have been threatened with closure. I understand their fears and worries. However, surely there are other means of dealing with problems of threatened closure if there is a legitimate case.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend said, I do not think that the measure will necessarily change the character of schools that choose to opt out. However, that is a matter of opinion. My right hon. and learned Friend has to address himself more to the fact that, even if it does not change the character of schools, it will change the structure of Scottish education as we have known it for many years. I do not think that that change will necessarily be for the best.
  In practical terms, I am worried about the timing of the proposal. Even if one supported the merits of the Bill, this is not an appropriate time for its introduction. We have seen schools in Scotland pass through a period of considerable difficulty. We had the industrial dispute over teachers' salaries. I keep in touch with the schools in my constituency and that dispute disrupted the schools and caused divisions—I will not go into the reasons now—between staff and parents and staff and pupils to a degree that I have never seen in all the time I have been involved in public life. We are just beginning to get over that and return to greater unity in our schools. Parents are working with teachers and there are better relationships between staff and pupils. We need a period of peace in order to get over that unrest.
  In recent years we have seen an enormous amount of good innovation that has helped to restore some of the high standards in our schools and the respect in which Scottish education was held generations ago. In many ways we in Scotland have been pioneers in some of the new measures. For example, we were pioneers in relation to the curriculum, the new examinations system and, more

  647
  recently, the school boards. However, as politicians we have to be careful. We have to assimilate change. Often we find it difficult to cope with change and we should have more concern for those at the sharp end of education who will have to apply the changes in the classroom. I have many friends, and an even wider range of acquaintances, among teachers. There is enormous demand on their time in coping with changes to the curriculum and examinations. They may have to attend in-service training and be involved in the extra administration necessary to make the system work. All new systems need dedication and time if they are to work properly. We need time to recover from the disputes in our schools and to consolidate and ensure the success of recent changes. Therefore, this is not the time for a new measure.
  I support strongly the principle of school boards and I welcome them. I will continue to do what I can to support them. When school boards were introduced last year, we saw in many areas of Scotland—this is one of the reasons why I supported them—the first major involvement of parents in schools. In my area many of us did not see the need for school boards because our school councils were relatively effective. However, I supported the principle because I realised that other areas of Scotland, for various reasons, were not benefiting from the extra and required involvement of parents in schools. If that did not happen voluntarily, I thought it necessary to see that the benefit was extended to other areas.
  I support that and believe that it is good. I want to see greater parental involvement in schools. Surely in education we want to get under our belts and see working the changes that have only recently been enacted. That is another reason why the timing of this Bill is inappropriate. There is much more chance of seeing the school boards working efficiently if they are given time to get under way before additional changes are superimposed on our school system.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentioned the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and the Scottish Consumer Council. I agree with them. I want to see evolution in our education system. I want to see changes assimilated and working before moving on to the next stage. Alas, that is not happening in regard to this legislation.
  I am not persuaded that this measure is appropriate for Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend briefly described the history of Scottish education. For want of a better phrase, we have a two-tier system in Scotland—a public sector and a private sector. They work relatively well together. However, my right hon. and learned Friend is creating a third tier—a second tier within the public sector. Ultimately that could be divisive. In Scotland over the years we have had a much more universal system of education than the rest of the United Kingdom. In my part of Scotland the burgh school has been the tradition of education.
  The introduction of comprehensive education caused a hot political debate, but that was never so in my constituency. Because of our traditions, we already had a universal comprehensive system. Those who did not want to send their children to schools in that system had an opportunity to send them to schools in the private system. They fairly and properly exercised their choice. Therefore
  648
  —I say this particularly for my part of Scotland—this measure has the seeds of division. It may divide the structure of education in Scotland which has proved itself over the years and which is highly acceptable to parents in my part of Scotland.
  Another aspect worries me. On this fundamental ground, I might be persuaded in relation to the structure of the Bill, but many of its implications have not been worked out. Simply to pluck schools out of the local authority sector is bound to create imbalance within it. With time, we might further examine the matter and perhaps conclude that it is not too dangerous and could be tolerated, but we have not had time to do that. We are not yet clear about the effects on costs and the running of schools in the local authority sector and of schools that have opted out. How will common services be apportioned? How will we accommodate special teachers such as remedial teachers or music teachers? Obviously there is not a full-time demand for such teachers in certain schools. Many practical problems are revealed.
  I am worried also about the status of teachers. It was said that teachers will be free to move from the opted-out sector into the local authority sector, and vice versa. Will it be as easy as that? If local authorities resent schools opting out, for purposes of promotion or other reasons, will teachers from opted-out schools be welcomed back? What about those teachers who find themselves in the opted-out sector when they may not have wished for it?
  Most fundamentally of all on the practical side, I am deeply worried about the position of a primary school feeding into a secondary school that may choose to opt out. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, it will be a real problem, particularly in rural areas. Under the Bill, parents will have no say in what happens to a secondary school. Many of their children will possibly enter a school as it becomes an opted-out school. That could be divisive in the present structure of education.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, sadly, there has not been adequate consultation on the Bill. Although I have some fundamental objections—I hope that I am not an unreasonable person—I should have felt much happier about the Bill if there had been adequate consultation. My right hon. and learned Friend introduced his School Boards (Scotland) Bill in August 1988. I was much against some of the extreme elements of his proposals, but I can have no complaint about the adequacy of the consultation procedure. If my memory is right, consultation continued until November, and we saw the Bill in January or February. We were all encouraged, and we gave my right hon. and learned Friend credit because he reacted to consultation. Many people, even those who did not like the ultimate proposals, could not complain that there was not adequate consultation.
  The consultation paper on this Bill was introduced on 6 December, and a 70-clause Bill was produced at the beginning of February. I have been involved in three Government Departments and I do not know of one which could produce a Bill of that size having published a consultation paper just two months previously.
  My next point is purely party political. I am saddened by what my right hon. and learned Friend is doing. The idea of opting out was launched on a surprised country during the middle of the 1987 general election campaign. I remember being totally surprised by the idea, and my right hon. and learned Friend probably was, too. I

  649
  remember asking, "Does this apply to Scotland?" We were immediately reassured that in no way would it apply to Scotland, and that it was to meet special situations in England and Wales.
  Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is mistaken. During the election campaign we made it quite clear that the first priority in Scotland would be to establish school boards. I remember quite explicitly saying that that was the first step and that only thereafter would we consider self-governing schools opting out.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is a pity that my right hon. Friend did not speak to me personally during the general election campaign. Fighting as a candidate in my part of Scotland, when I consulted on the matter I was quite clearly told that it did not apply to Scotland. I do not want to make a great thing of it. Of course policy moves on and new ideas arise.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, I will not give way. I want to conclude my remarks in a minute.
  If something was to be introduced within two years of a new Parliament, one would expect mention of it in the manifesto. This matter was not included in our manifesto. The advice I received was to say to my constituents that it was not expected within the foreseeable future. Within two years is the foreseeable future, and I regret that the legislation has been introduced in this way.
  I remind my right hon. and learned Friend of an important Conservative dictum which perhaps our party does not remember enough today: "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." This change to self-governing schools is not necessary. For that reason, I regret that I cannot support my right hon. and learned Friend tonight.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. William McKelvey: This is the first opportunity that I have had to wear my new Gregorys. For the purpose of reading, they are excellent, but they serve the secondary purpose that I cannot see the countenances of Conservative Members.
  I listened intently to the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), as did all hon. Members. We regard his remarks as not only reasonable but intelligent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) clearly said, the core of the Bill is simply to allow schools to opt out. It has nothing to do with parental choice and will merely concentrate education in the hands of the Government, to be controlled by that undemocratic, centralist organisation.
  The proposals are a foil to remove the current system of local democratic control by elected representatives of the community. There will be no choice for rural communities. Furthermore, proposals to allow opted-out schools to change their characteristics are an open invitation to return to academic selection and privilege. The two parts of the Bill clearly refer to that point. Schools selecting pupils is the direct opposite of parents and pupils selecting schools.
  The Bill represents a serious erosion of choice for parents of pupils whose academic performance has been
  650
  low. Moreover, it is a threat to the parents of academic achievers. Creaming off high fliers will leave local authority schools geared to low achievers, not the current broad base. High achievers will not be truly served in local authority schools. Naturally, the response to that scenario—it is the Government's aim—would be to send a high achiever to an opted-out, selective school. The physical limitations of such schools will not allow all children to attend, and borderline cases will have no chance at all.
  Research shows that the ending of selection in Scottish schools brought significant improvements in performance by all children, not just low achievers. It should surely be the aim of Government, Parliament, industry and the community that all children achieve their potential. That is the guiding principle. These proposals can only harm education in general and take us back to the bad old days of secondary modern sink schools for the majority, and selective academies for the minority of high fliers from privileged homes and backgrounds.
  The ultimate ability to select is not the only effect of the opting-out proposals. Education authorities will be left with a duty to provide for pupils who are rejected by opted-out schools, but their resources will be severely curtailed. The direct financing of opting-out schools by the Goverment will decrease the money available to local education authorities, as costs for central services fall upon fewer and fewer schools. Unit costs for buying services and equipment will rise dramatically.
  Thus, pupils in local authority schools will not only be even more poorly equipped with text books, science materials, new technology and even pencils, but the increased unit costs and reduction in central service financing threatens the vital psychological and other advisory services. So the very children who are likely to need such services will be robbed of them by the Government proposals.
  Is this any way to upgrade education? Of course not. I do not believe that the proposals will even upgrade education for a minority. The experience south of the border shows that the schools likely to opt out will be those that will not be considered viable by local education authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden gave figures that clearly showed that out of the 37 schools opting out, only nine were legitimately seeking to do so. The majority were either against it or were forced into doing it because they were being threatened.
  No provision has been made for schools to opt back into local education authorities when it becomes obvious that they are not viable, or when they run into financial difficulty. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that he would not put any barriers in the way of such a provision, but he was not forthcoming enough to say that he would actually introduce legislation to ensure that it was included. Again, we are left with a mysterious area of which many of us are suspicious.
  The proposals show a distinct irresponsibility by the Government and complete dishonesty about the reason for them. To give the reason of parental or pupil choice is highly misleading. The balloting proposals make this clear. A majority of current parents will be allowed to make the choice—usually at a time when their backs are against the wall due to falling rolls or threatened reorganisation or closure. Prospective parents and the communities serving the school will not be consulted. More important is the Government's dishonesty in not declaring their aims,

  651
  which have nothing to do with extending choice and everything to do with the Government taking central control of Scottish education.
  Direct funding of schools follows the pattern of legislation enacted to remove democratic control from local authorities. Local authorities which provide education in such circumstances will be forced either to increase the poll tax charge to pay for the increased costs of education or dramatically to reduce the service.
  For me and for most of the Scottish people, the Bill is nothing more than a blatant attempt to anglicise the Scottish education system. At Scottish Question Time the surrogate Secretary of State said that he had discussed the matter in Hungary and had the support of his Hungarian comrades. I doubt whether that is the case. Perhaps they were nodding in agreement because they were excellent hosts and did not wish to upset him. If our Hungarian comrades had studied his proposals, they would come to the same conclusion as their comrades in Haringey—which is much closer than Hungary. Perhaps the Minister should hear what those in Haringey have to say about the provisions on opting out.
  The Scottish people have much more with which to concern themselves than the dangerous nonsense contained in the legislation. The people in Scotland to whom I have talked have a real and honest yearning for relief from the Thatcherite policies which are being thrust on them by Conservative apparatchiks.
  The people of Scotland are more concerned about social justice than complete independence. Quite frankly, they would prefer a return to the democratic structure which they held in such high esteem to waving a flag on a Scottish gunboat. We need a directly elected Scottish assembly to assign this kind of dangerous nonsense to the dustbin where it belongs.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on his new Dennis Taylor lookalike appearance. It was perhaps unfortunate that he had clearly written his speech before listening to the Secretary of State and did not revise it in the light of what he said. The Secretary of State answered during his speech the hon. Gentleman's criticism about selection.
  I am not sure who first enunciated the principle, "My country, right or wrong". This afternoon we heard the amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to that principle—"My local authority, right or wrong". That is the nub of the debate.
  Are there certain circumstances—[Interruption.] I shall come to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) in a moment. Are there certain circumstances in which it is right to give parents the opportunity to use a school outside local authority control?
  The view of the Opposition that the local authority is always right was aptly shown during last year's debate on Strathclyde's rationalisation and closure proposals. Strathclyde was right to attempt that exercise, but, as I recall, the hon. Member for Garscadden supported every proposal put forward by Strathclyde regional council.
  652
  The hon. Member for Garscadden took a delegation to see the convenor, Charles Gray, and, as I understand it, simply ended up with him—[Interruption.] I apologise; Charles Gray, the leader of the council—
  Mr. Bob McTaggart: The godfather.
  Mr. Stewart: That is the hon. Gentleman's term, not mine. As I understand it, the meeting ended with the hon. Member for Garscadden leading his colleagues in a rousing chorus of "Charlie is my darling".
  There was certainly no criticism at any point of the aspects of these proposals which converted me to the principle of self-governing schools. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that the aspects, principles and questions brought up by Strathclyde's rationalisation proposals are for me what have changed since the last general election.
  The approach taken by the Labour party has continued with the new document produced by the hon. Member for Fife, Central to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred and is in marked contrast to many of the principles put forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). That was true, even in the Committee that examined the Schools Boards (Scotland) Bill last year. When the hon. Member for Blackburn produced his proposals for "Parents in partnership", they were discussed in Committee and it immediately become obvious that the only Committee Member to have read them was the Minister. The then Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), said that the Opposition would study the documents.
  It is clear that moves towards increased parental involvement in education and towards testing, to which the hon. Member for Blackburn has reacted positively, have simply stopped at the border.
  We have had examples of yuppie Socialism from the Labour Scottish spokesmen. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) is not here—he produced proposals on health and talked about Tory concepts such as more information and choice for patients—[Interruption.] These principles have not been followed by the hon. Member for Fife, Central perhaps because he used to represent Windygates and Kennoway. Possibly there are no yuppies there.
  The opposition to these proposals is based on two incompatible propositions. First, it is alleged that there is no evidence that parents want schools to be able to opt out of education authority control—so says COSLA. Secondly, it is alleged that the proposals will create extensive damage to the structure and ethos of Scottish school education. Both propositions cannot be correct: if there is no demand there will be no change. The Bill will merely be on the statute book and will not be used—
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: How many letters has the hon. Gentleman received specifically asking that the Government bring in these policies?
  Mr. Stewart: From memory, about 1,500. I have been photographed with piles of them in the Glasgow Evening Times.
  I want to give an example of why self-governing schools are important. The hon. Member for Garscadden referred

  653
  to single sex schools in the private sector; my example will come from the public sector. On 17 April last year there was an interview on Radio Clyde involving councillor Malcolm Green, the chairman of Strathclyde education committee, and councillor Peter Edmondson, the Conservative councillor for Eastwood, North. In answer to a question from a Mr. Keegan of Baillieston, councillor Malcolm Green made it absolutely clear that the Labour group had taken a policy decision to abolish single-sex Catholic schools. He added that he was opposed to that decision. The proposals to close Our Lady and St. Francis and Notre Dame in Glasgow—other schools were involved, too—were not a rationalisation of school provision; they derived from a decision in principle to deprive minorities of parents of a form of education to which they attached considerable value.
  Moslem as well as Catholic parents attach importance to this form of education. The interviewer on the programme I have mentioned said:
  "But ethnic minorities simply do not want their daughters to go to a co-educational school."
  Dr. Green replied:
  "That was the very point that I made to the education committee. I am afraid this appears to have been ignored or dismissed as being a marginal issue."
  I believe that self-governing schools could have a role in these circumstances. There are minorities who genuinely want a form of education that the education authority, for reasons of principle, does not want to supply.
  I regret that Opposition Members sneered at this case when it was raised in Committee. When I asked him about Notre Dame, the hon. Member for Fife, Central replied contemptuously:
  "I have not been to Paris recently".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 3 May 1988; c. 169.]
  That sort of sneering at a form of education that is valued by minorities is beneath contempt.
  I welcome the Bill's proposals on special educational needs, which have not yet been mentioned—
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I am sorry that I was not here al the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech. If I had seen his name go up on the television screen I would have been in like a shot. Is he saying that the Bill is necessary to provide secondary education for minority groups of any religion—Protestant, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish or Moslem, male and female? If so, on behalf of which group were his efforts in the case of Paisley grammar school bent?
  Mr. Stewart: The point I am making is that self-governing schools would give parents a chance to continue a form of education that they wanted when an education authority had ruled that out on grounds of principle. That is unrelated to the issue of Paisley grammar school, although, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, I was strongly in favour of continuing it. It was a school to which many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine went. Many of the letters about which I told the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) just now came from Paisley.
  Mr. Buchan rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, who was not here for the beginning of my speech.
  Technology academies are another part of the Bill. I respect councillor Charles Gray's honourable position on this subject. It is extremely unfortunate that the regional
  654
  council appears bent on ensuring that it does not receive the £1·5 million that Lord Forte is prepared to put up. No doubt others elsewhere in Scotland would welcome such extra resources.
  An issue that is not mentioned in the Bill is the compulsory membership of the National Union of Students. I see that Opposition Members are wearing badges declaring, "I am opting in." I take it that that is a reference to the need to reform the membership structure of the National Union of Students. If they consult early-day motion 306, which is to do with opting in, they will see what I mean. I hope that I shall have an opportunity under the long title of the Bill to raise this matter in Committee.
  My right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend have already won much of the argument. Not only has there been an EIS U-turn on school boards—a recognition of reality which I warmly welcome—but we have heard councillor Green and others talking about the need for local authorities to be more responsive to the sensitivities of parents. An example from my constituency is relevant here. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his co-operation and understanding of the eventual decision taken to provide an extension to Neilston primary school—an idea that was bitterly attacked by Labour Members during the Committee stage of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. It is widely believed that my hon. Friend's television broadcast, in which he mentioned the possibility of Neilston opting out, resulted in a focusing of minds within Strathclyde regional council. I do not know whether that is true. I welcome Strathclyde's decision, but the importance of self-governing schools applies not only to schools who adopt that stance. The option provides an important safeguard that parents can take up.
  Opposition Members will oppose these changes as they oppose all changes that lead to more involvement by and say for individuals. My right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues are winning the battle. I warmly welcome the Bill and wish it well in its progress to the statute book.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The contrast between the speech by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and that by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) could not be wider. The right hon. Member demonstrated a genuine understanding of the division that this kind of legislation can create coming so hard on the heels of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. The hon. Member for Eastwood should not confuse acceptance of the law with endorsement and support for the thinking behind it. Many people are still less than convinced that the parental majority on school boards is entirely the right way forward in terms of improving parental consultation. That was not suggested in the Conservative party manifesto any more than was opting out as suggested in the Bill. I shall return to that.
  The first thing that the House must accept is the ideological thrust of the Bill. It was cheeky of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is sitting alongside the Secretary of State, to acknowledge that he was pulling the strings. We all know that that is the case, but he might

  655
  have had the grace to allow the Secretary of State at least the illusion that he is the motivater, supporter and promoter of the Bill.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Forsyth): For the sake of accuracy in the record, I said nothing. My right hon. and learned Friend made a joking remark in response to what was obviously a joke by an Opposition Member. Perhaps the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) could explain why he responded in the way that he did to my right hon. and learned Friend when he spoke about our suggestion that the leader of the Democrats in Strathclyde was opposed to opting out. I have here a letter which he sent to me on 4 July 1988 and it pleads with me to intervene in respect of Our Lady and St. Francis school. He said:
  "The Order declared their willingness to gift their part of the property to the Region if the Region agreed to the school's continuation. It would be worth asking the Order if they would transfer their part of the property on the same terms to a company formed to run the school."
  He goes on to argue that it is essential that we deliver the promises that we have made in respect of schools in the area and allow the school to be run as a company. Does the hon. Gentleman repudiate the policy put forward at that time by the leader of the Democrats on Strathclyde council?
  Mr. Bruce: I seek your protection, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has chosen to intervene and make a speech and I have only just started to speak. It will obviously make my speech longer if I have to deal with points raised by the Minister.
  The leader of the Democrats on Strathclyde regional council is an able and effective councillor who fights hard for his community. He does that within the framework of what he thinks is achievable. He knows the ideology of the Minister and he is squeezed between that and the monopoly position of the Labour party in Strathclyde region. He seeks a compromise to protect a good school and I commend him for that. However, that does not justify the Bill.
  If the genuine point at issue is that Conservative Members are interested in ensuring that good schools continue, this is not the way to go about it. That can be done in many ways within the framework of existing legislation rather than creating a divisive, elitist two-tier system. That is the ideological thrust that the hon. Member for Stirling has put into the Bill. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman and not the Secretary of State was the architect of the Bill. I do not think that anyone believes differently.
  The hon. Member for Stirling is so obsessed with his single-minded crusade to impose Thatcherism on Scotland that he is prepared to undermine a valuable and distinctive public service. To do that he uses the ethic of the market by saying that the structure of the future should be demand driven. He sees the ideology of Marxism in every public service and his response is to bring us his philosophy of Marks and Spencer, consumer-led, demand-led education. That is wholly inappropriate. The hon. Gentleman's Christian name may be Michael, but his conduct in running education in Scotland is anything but saintly.
  656
  I am worried about the way in which the Bill has been introduced. The Conservative party has brought before the House a totally dishonest representation of the policies that it presented to the people of Scotland. The Government have no right to say otherwise. The right hon. Member for Kircardine and Deeside knows perfectly well that the issue was raised in my constituency and in other areas. When I raised it directly with the Secretary of State he made it absolutely clear that there was no intention whatever to introduce opting-out. Now the Bill is before us and the Secretary of State is utterly unconvincing in his attempts to suggest that that was not the case. Even if he does not show respect to me, he might show some to his right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside who is, after all, telling the truth as he knows it.
  This issue was raised at the last general election. It was put before the people and was decisively and comprehensively rejected. That possibly explains why my majority went up from 850 to 9,500. That is the kind of public consultation that has been put to the test, and it is a pity that the hon. Member for Stirling is frightened to have consultation on this matter. Perhaps he is frightened because he knows how little support he has. He is not even able to say whether he can provide a speaker for the conference to be held in Aberdeen a week on Saturday to discuss this very issue. That is extremely regrettable.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth rose—
  Mr. Bruce: I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene because he abused my allowance last time.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. We are providing a speaker for the conference about which he has spoken.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to hear that. The Secretary of State will know that as of the day before yesterday the organisers of the conference were unable to secure such an answer. That is a helpful and welcome intervention.
  The status quo in education is never an option. Education must always move with the times. It must always be ready to change and to adopt new ideas. We support and welcome that. Some of the changes that have been imposed on education have not led to improvements and have not always achieved the kind of improvements that those who advocated the changes wanted. When it took place, the forced and rapid comprehensivisation lowered standards in many cases, and nobody can support measures that are likely to lower standards or create divisions. I fear that that is likely to happen as a result of the Bill.
  We have had a discussion about standards in Scottish schools. There are some serious shortcomings in Scottish education and the educational attainment of many of our young people is inadequate. One of the reasons for the introduction of standard grade was to give a wider range of opportunities and a greater measure of attainment. That was a welcome change. The participation in further education by children from poorer families and from deprived areas is still low. That is especially true of girls from such backgrounds. I should like the Minister to point to a clause in the Bill that addresses that problem. The Bill will make that problem significantly worse. It will create a widening division between the elitist schools that have

  657
  opted out because they have parents of drive and resource and schools that are under-resourced and left to fend for themselves with inadequate support.
  The Secretary of State and the Minister should confront the issue ()Oust how divisive it will be simply to go through the process of testing whether a school is to opt out. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) quoted a specific example of what might happen if Kirkwall grammar school were to opt out. I can point to rural schools in my constituency in which I know there are people who are likely to make use of this legislation. No doubt when the Minister finds out about those schools he will be happy to rush in and fan the flames. Many people are concerned that an articulate, elitist group of people will want to take over a country school that serves a wide rural area and turn it into the kind of school that they think will meet their own children's needs, even though children in the wider community may have different needs. The problem is that people in the wider community are often less involved and less articulate. Some people may be just as articulate, but, as hard working and busy people, have reasonably assumed that their children will get a decent education as a result of the taxes that those parents have paid, without having to run the schools themselves. The Minister has not considered the kind of people who will wish to lead the move to opting out. If the vote is decided on a 51–49 per cent. result of those who turn out, the Minister should be aware how divisive that will be, and how it will affect for almost ever after a community that had been united in its support of its school.
  Some points in the Bill highlight some of the problems and anomalies. Clause 3(1)(c) specifically denies an opted-out school board a parental majority, but many people wonder why that should be, given the force with which the Minister told us that a parental majority is a sine qua non of establishing a viable school board. That principle seems not to apply to the board of an opted-out school, which is inconsistent to say the least.
  Clause 11 shows another way in which an opted-out school could be divisive. It allows an opted-out school, which will lake with it the assets that have been paid for by the taxpayer, to charge for the use of those assets by the community, as a fund-raising exercise. That is an absurdly divisive and unjust proposal. If the Minister can tell me that that is not the case, I should welcome him doing so. Under clause 11, although schools will not be able to charge fees, they can charge for ancillary services such as sports, and can insist that children wear expensive school uniforms, which would start to create selectivity. Fund raising through such charges can also be divisive.
  The Secretary of State's assurance that the Bill is not the precursor to selection is worthless. He gave us assurances that there would be no proposals for schools to opt out, and that he was in favour of increasing school councils—he said nothing of abolishing them in favour of school boards. I must not trespass beyond the rules of the House, although I am sorely tempted to do so, but the Secretary of State's assurances are not worth the air that he wastes in giving them.
  The testing provision in the Bill provides the ideal basis for selection at a later date because schools will be able to say that they will accept children who have passed certain acceptable standards at primary 4 and primary 7 as the basis for entering. That will also cause concern among teachers. There will not be a huge queue of teachers
  658
  wishing to teach primary 4 and primary 7, given the intense pressure that they will come under while these changes take place.
  Special schools have expressed concern about the results of the Bill. Small special schools are having considerable difficulty in getting enough people to enable them to establish a board. As a consequence of that, a small school may be taken ever by a large neighbour, which may subsequently opt out, leaving it exposed. The Bill does not give adequate assurance that that cannot or will not happen.
  Some hon. Members may be surprised to hear that welcome clause 65. The Minister will not be surprised, because we have discussed this clause, which will benefit parents of children with special needs. It will help to ensure that such children get access to what parents believe is the most appropriate form of education. That may mean that parents, for example, those in the Central region, whose children qualify might be able to go to the Mary Hare school for the deaf, where the children will receive the best possible education.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: That is an unfair comment. I know the case about which the hon. Gentleman is talking and Central region's point is that it could provide the same kind of education for that child as it is claimed could be provided at the Mary Hare school. Why should a local education authority denude its schools to feed other schools? The hon. Gentleman should not have made that remark.
  Mr. Bruce: I do not wish to be drawn too far down that road. The hon. Gentleman and I differ on this matter, as we are entitled to.
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman does not know the case.
  Mr. Bruce: I do know the case, in considerable detail as it happens. I also know several other cases; and if it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, I have taken issue with members of my party who take the same view as him. As I have a deaf child, I may have a different perception from that of the hon. Gentleman. I believe that that level of choice is both necessary and desirable. Being deaf is a big enough handicap without being denied access to what is seen, by the parent and the child, to be the best available education.
  The parts of the Bill dealing with further education are indicative of the market-driven approach. They create a basis from which further education colleges can be taken over by the business community. Those who work in further education colleges feel that ideas that they have, and module education on which they have worked and which they have developed, may be sold at a profit to private training agencies. They have every reason to resent that.
  Schedule 10, labelled "Minor and Consequential Amendments", and referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), concerns university rectorships. As a former rector of the university of Dundee, I regret this part of the Bill. That university does not have the advantages of the four ancient universities. Those who have the advantage, as an ancient right, of electing a rector as a representative of the students to chair the university court should not have it taken away

  659
  from them by this legislation, and especially not have it taken away on the instigation of the principal of another university.
  More trouble has been caused at universities by principals taking the chair than by rectors taking the chair, and that is particularly true at Aberdeen university. The students' right to have a rector elected as chair of the court should not be denied. A simple modification of the Bill would allow for the election of the chair of the court when there is an absentee rector. I would support that reasonable proposal. What is being proposed is highly motivated, but unjustified and unnecessary. It is a pity that the Secretary of State, having intervened in Scottish universities to this level, could not have done so in other ways to try to ensure a more democratic structure in the overall management of universities. Students have little voice in that management as it is, and he is weakening what they have.
  This is particularly evil, wicked and malignly motivated legislation. Given the Government's situation in Scotland, and the fact that at the one test of their support, at the last general election, they denied any intention of introducing such a Bill, and given that at that election their support was halved, it is despicable to insist that the Bill is imposed on the people of Scotland, who have adamantly rejected such a Bill. Their reaction to the Bill is evidence that they want their own Parliament and their own domestic policies. It would not get through its First Reading, never mind a Second Reading, in such a forum. I urge Tory Members who oppose it to join us in the Lobby, because that is the only opposition that the Government will recognise.
  6.58 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: With my past involvement in education I welcome education debates. It is rather sad, however, that we have before us a Bill which provides for opting out. It is rare for me to disagree with party policy, though I did so last year when the Government introduced what is now the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, and it is not so many years ago that I shared a disagreement with my party over devolution with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who is now the Secretary of State for Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I would fail to support him only if I had a strong feeling of conscience.
  I felt during the last general election that the major piece of education legislation ahead of us was the introduction of school boards. I am glad that the original plan was modified following consultation, and that the plan, as modified, eventually became warmly acceptable. I am pleased, too, that the Dumfries and Galloway pilot scheme has been so successful. I know that those who are involved in it welcome the support of Ministers for their initiatives in that direction. It has been a much more expensive policy than my ministerial colleagues were prepared to accept when the School Boards (Scotland) Bill was being considered in Committee. I forecast a cost of about £600,000 for Dumfries and Galloway, and that is what it has turned out to be.
  I am extremely pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has set his sights on
  660
  improving the quality of education. A major plank in that policy has been the involvement of parents and the introduction of parental choice. Parents are interested particularly in good examination results, order and discipline, choice of subjects, better buildings and an opportunity for their children to develop character. All these issues are being looked after ably by the policies of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend rightly said when he opened the debate, we are proud of our education in Scotland and proud of its breadth. Five highers in Scotland constitute a much better qualification than three A-levels in England. In addition, there is the extra year at universities in Scotland. All that is good for Scotland, and it is only right that we are proud of the quality of education that we provide.
  In saying how pleased I am with the current developments, I recall where we were 15 to 20 years ago, when we were fighting for money to provide roofs over heads. That was a common expression at the time. We were trying to increase the supply of teachers, almost at any cost. All that belongs to the past and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State can take credit for the major achievement that he recorded in solving the problem of teachers' salaries and the introduction of the new curriculum more recently.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, there is so much going on that education is suffering from indigestion. It is calling out for time to put into practice the new policies and legislation, but we are now embarking on another major change for which there is no enthusiasm among our people. It is certainly not an election promise. When the matter was raised during the general election, I was on to Central Office in Scotland as quick as a knife to find out what it was all about. I was assured that what I had heard did not apply to Scotland. I conveyed that assurance to my local press and it was widely reported in the local newspapers. That is one of the reasons why I feel that I could not let down my constituents by supporting the Bill.
  One of my many concerns is about timing. The opting-out proposals in part I would come into effect on Royal Assent. Give or take a month or two, that could be July or October. By then we shall hardly have implemented the school boards legislation. That will come into force only in the autumn. In theory, we could set up a board of management to opt out before a school board had been established. I find that an astonishing procedure. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Under-Secretary of State, to consider a two-year moratorium so that school boards can at least consider all the issues before opting out becomes a possibility.
  We have a good structure of education in Scotland. At a time when quality is improving we do not want to embark on an issue that could cause a great deal of confrontation. It is not the moment to take that course. We need more time to consolidate our policies. Now is not the time to introduce an additional policy that might cause a great deal of harm. The National Consumer Council states in a well-argued document that it feels that time is required before the new policy is introduced. The pace of change is extremely important, as is the priority of each individual part of our overall policy.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not said how many schools he thinks will opt out. I

  661
  appreciate that it is a difficult figure to assess. There are about 2,800 schools in Scotland. If about 10 per cent. decided to opt out, the 300 schools would cause a great deal of chaos within the school structure. My right hon. and learned Friend and everyone else accepts that there is opposition within local authorities and among teachers. The differing attitudes of education authorities should be emphasised, whether we talk of authorities in the north-east or the south-west. Some authorities are strongly Socialist, some are independent and others are of a mixed variety. The generality feel that the Bill will not assist them in providing quality education. It has been said already that we shall set parent against parent over a highly confrontational issue. We may end up politicising school boards, with one group of parents being against another and with teachers being against parents. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind what the National Consumer Council had to say about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) was probably right when he said that he had received 1,500 letters in support of opting out. He should have highlighted, however, that that was very much relative to Paisley. I have had only two letters in support, and both have come from Paisley. We can read into a statistic almost anything that we want.
  I am concerned that opting out will become important in dodging the school closure issue. I know that there are safeguards in the Bill that theoretically should stop that, but I do not think that they will do so in practice. I have always been disappointed that in 1980 the then Secretary of State for Scotland relinquished his veto on school closures. The Secretary of State now has an involvement only with denominational schools and remote, rural schools. When he had the veto he could take a broad view.
  School closures are becoming more frequent because of the decline in the number of pupils, which means that opting out will become extremely prominent. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to the 37 schools that have voted on opting out in England. I understand that only 10 voted on self-management and that 27 voted to opt out because they faced closure. I believe that opting out will become a prominent issue when the Bill comes into effect in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend will be left in a strange position. He will appreciate the need for rationalisation as a result of falling school rolls and the need for closures, but he will have to accept votes in favour of opting out. He will have to pay the cost of running such a school within the state system. During my time in Parliament I have always argued against rural school closures. I have sought always to prevent them. I do not want to see any more closures for whatever reason.
  We must also consider the structure. We all accept that there are many common services including meals, guidance, careers, psychology, in-service training, sport and recreation and so on. It will be very difficult to resolve many of the anomalies which will arise between schools which are trying to use the same facilities, even if the opting out school has to pay the education authority for the services that it wants to purchase. If we were considering a school or authority that had opted out willingly, so be it. However, I do not think that that will ever happen. The education authority will feel resentment and there will be no co-operation even if safeguards are written into the Bill. The structure of education in the state system will he weakened.
  662
  I am also worried about the teachers. At the very moment that parents invoke opting out, the teachers' position will be frozen. A teacher will not be able to move in or out of that position and that situation might last for six months or a year. That is unfair and must be considered very carefully in Committee.
  I am also concerned about a teacher's career. I cannot see that it will be easy for a teacher in an opted-out school. whether he wanted to be part of that school or not, to receive promotion—for example, a head teachership—in the state sector. I know that such schools are broadly in the state sector, but I believe there will be divisions between schools that have opted out and those that have not.
  We must accept what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said, that all the mounting controversy is about permissive legislation, even though he has taken power for himself through legislation no fewer than 28 times. I am glad that he has accepted the point that there is a right to opt in. I cannot see a warm welcome for a school wishing to opt in, though the major change in Dumfries and Galloway has involved the opting-in of St. Joseph's college, a very fine Roman Catholic school, which is now in the state sector in Dumfries and has a very high quality of education.
  It is very sad that we must face this confrontation when it is not really necessary and when there is so much good happening that can be continued by my right hon. and learned Friend's administrative action. Parts II and III of the Bill contain good points about technology, further education, testing in primary schools, teacher appraisal and performance and assessment. The heart of the Bill is perfectly acceptable to me. However, in total I am most disappointed that the Bill concentrates on opting out and on things which I believe should not matter in Scottish education today. We should not be creating divisiveness. We should be aiming for harmony, quality, discipline and achievement.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: If the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) does not mind, I will refer to his speech in a moment. I do not want him to think that I am ignoring him.
  I want first to refer to the case raised by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). That was one of my constituency cases and the hon. Gentleman gave me no notice that he would raise it today. If he has been dealing with that case, he has no business doing so, because that would be a serious breach of the conventions of the House. If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue that I have been dealing with the case but not to the satisfaction of the parents concerned, that is a matter between my constituents and me. If my constituents so desire, they can campaign against me publicly and record their displeasure about my handling of the case in the ballot box.
  I want to put the record straight about the case. The hon. Member for Gordon was less than full in his recording of the facts. Central region, as the Minister responsible for education at the Scottish Office will know, has excellent facilities at Bantaskine primary school, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), for educating profoundly deaf children. The child concerned went through the primary

  663
  sector and did brilliantly at the Central region's education facility at Bantaskine school. Only when he became eligible for secondary education did a dispute arise.
  The child's parents, rightly from their point of view because they have a right to think that they know what is best for their child, wanted the child to go to Mary Hare school for the profoundly deaf. Central region, from its point of view, decided that, having educated that child to a very high standard during the child's primary education, it had the facilities to complete the child's secondary education. That is what the dispute was about.
  I take strong exception to the throwaway remarks made by the hon. Member for Gordon. I am prepared to leave it at that. I would not have mentioned those points if the case had not been referred to today. I have spoken without the permission of the parents concerned, and I have not identified them or the child. I just wanted to set the record straight.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries and the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) expressed their opposition to the Bill. That is not surprising. They are both right because, after all the changes in education over the past 10 or 15 years, the education system needs a rest. For various reasons, the standard grades have not yet been fully implemented in the Scottish education system. Not only will this legislation be implemented in addition to the legislation on school boards before that legislation is properly introduced; we will also implement the school boards legislation and this legislation before the standard grades are properly implemented throughout the secondary school system in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member are right to express concern about what is happening in Scottish education and at the turmoil and upset which the Bill will cause.
  In a debate on the Government's failure to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I said that one of the problems in Scottish politics and in Scottish society today is the way in which opposition to anything which the Government think up is completely ignored. I have not complained, and I do not complain tonight, that the Labour party is being ignored. Nor do I complain that the Democrats, the Scottish National party or anyone else will be ignored. However, the fate of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside and the hon. Member for Dumfries is that they will be ignored.
  When the Secretary of State for Scotland sits down—as I am sure he does from time to time—and ponders what is causing the tensions in Scottish politics and society, he should ponder long and hard about the way in which he simply ignores the expression of opposition to anything that he introduces.
  I do not believe for a minute—and of course the Secretary of State will deny this—that the Secretary of State believes in this legislation. Had he believed in it, as the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside and the hon. Member for Dumfries said, it would have been an issue at the last general election. I am prepared to accept their word for it—I did not notice any arguments about it at the time—that they received an assurance from the Scottish Conservative Central Office that this proposal
  664
  was not on the drawing board for the lifetime of this Parliament. It is the Secretary of State who brought it forward.
  I do not regard the Bill as being particularly anti-teacher or against everything that teachers stand for. However, I do regard the Bill as being anti-education. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) gave the other "anti" game away. I refer to the Bill's anti-local government provisions. In England, the Greater London council and the metropolitan county authorities were abolished because they were giving the Government far too much trouble. They were simply legislated out of existence. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside was far more honest and forthright when he stated that, if the problem is local government, something should be done about local government. No one will convince me that the Central region, part of which I represent, is anything but a viable and well-run region. There may be points for debate, in which I should be pleased to join, but the hon. Member for Eastwood gave the game away.
  In a peroration that the Secretary of State started but did not finish, he was on the point of attacking regional authorities in Scotland, but he allowed himself to be diverted and did not complete that peroration. The Bill is both anti-local government and anti-education.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that my position in relation to Strathclyde regional council's reorganisation was not only to say that it was right in principle to try what it did, but to argue publicly for increased resources for Strathclyde to help in that process. It is one aspect of that process that I oppose, but I have supported the general principle and many of the proposals.
  Mr. Ewing: People talk about supporting general principles, but I prefer to hear them talking about supporting detailed proposals. I do not wish to become involved in the issue of Paisley grammar school, because I am not fully acquainted with the circumstances and with the situation that prevailed in that case. However, from all accounts, the role played by the hon. Member for Eastwood was, to put it mildly, less than honourable.
  Mr. Stewart rose—
  Mr. Ewing: Perhaps I can introduce a note of light-heartedness. It interested me that, during his speech, the hon. Member for Eastwood tried to convince the House of what had persuaded him to support the Bill. In truth, the hon. Gentleman would never dream of opposing anything put forward by his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman made up his mind to support the Bill as soon as it was published.
  Mr. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reverse is the case? Last year I tabled an amendment in the School Boards (Scotland) Bill Committee concerning what I then called grant-maintained schools that the Government did not accept. I am delighted that the Government now accept the kind of principles that I proposed last year.
  Mr. Ewing: They say that confession is good for the soul, and now we discover the real culprit.
  The Bill's detailed proposals are dangerous because of the divisions that they will create in the Scottish education

  665
  system. As was said by the hon. Member for Dumfries, the changes in relation to school boards are due to be implemented on 1 October. On top of that, schools will be permitted to opt out. In his opening speech, the Secretary of State omitted to describe the way in which the governing bodies of opted-out schools are to be established, but clauses 3 and 4 describe in detail the way in which that is to be done.
  Of the three sectors comprising the governing bodies, that comprising teachers will remain of exactly the same size as when the school was in the state sector. The sector comprising parents will also remain exactly the same. But the sector comprising representatives appointed from what the Secretary of State described as the wider community but failed to define is to be increased in size. Two thirds of the board will remain the same, but the independently appointed sector will increase.
  Incidentally, nothing in the Bill states that those appointed will have to serve for a term of from five to seven years. My understanding is that that provision appears in briefing material circulated by the office of the Minister responsible for education and science in New St. Andrews, South. Nothing in the Bill gives any indication of the term of office. It is interesting that the size of the independent sector on the boards of opted-out schools, as opposed to those remaining in the state sector, is to be increased.
  From where are those people to come? What is the definition of the "wider community"? I can speak only for my own constituency, which, in Grangemouth, embraces Scotland's most highly industrialised region. I mean to cast no aspersions when I say that I do not know of a single manager in any of the industries in Grangemouth who lives in Grangemouth. I go further. I do not know any who live in my constituency. That may be a reflection on me, but I shall not take it personally.
  Are those people to be appointed to the board of Grangemouth high school? Are they to be appointed to the board of Bowhouse primary school? They have no children at those schools. Their only interest in Grangemouth is in managing the industries there, yet the independent representatives must come either from that sector or from a new sector that the Conservative party in Scotland is using extensively—chambers of commerce. My experience is such that I would not allow them to run a Sunday school picnic, let alone a primary or secondary school.
  Mr. Stewart indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Member for Eastwood is entitled to his opinion. Perhaps his experience is more encouraging than mine.
  In Central region there are a number of five-year and six-year comprehensive schools. The Secretary of State cannot possibly say what will be the effect on the education provision in Central region if one of those five-year or six-year schools opts out. I represent a collection of villages as well as a fairly large urban area. What will happen to the children living in village communities if schools opt out? We all know what will happen—education will be divided and ruined.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend will know what I mean if I ask him why "Black Bitches" in Linlithgow should have their education run by people who work in Grangemouth. There is another side to the coin.
  Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend emphasises my comment, although he does so from his point of view, and I was doing so from the point of view of my constituency. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly what would happen.
  I turn to the question of schools becoming selective. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked the Secretary of State for an assurance that there would be no selection, and although his question may have been couched in lawyer's language, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply was couched in even deeper legal language. Clause 16 cannot be read without clause 28, which states explicitly that to change the character of a school—including its method of admitting pupils—it is necessary only to put together a scheme and submit it to the Secretary of State, who will either accept or reject it. If the Secretary of State has no intention of accepting any of the proposals, they should not be in the Bill in the first place. The only reason for them to be there is that the Secretary of State is minded to accept them.
  We should not be surprised at that. My hon. Friends will remember that, in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh, the Under-Secretary made it clear that he preferred to make educational choices with his cheque book. We are moving towards a system of cheque-book education: that is the danger posed by the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden made a plea that Conservative Members opposed to the Bill should not be excused from membership of the Standing Committee. It would be bad enough if they were excused from serving on the Committee, but it would be appalling if Government Whips kept them out deliberately. If the motion tonight were to be decided purely by Scottish Members, and if all 72 of them were here, we should know the result of the vote before the tellers went in. 64, including two Conservatives, would vote against the Bill, and there would be only eight Tories in favour. That is the measure of support for the Bill., and that is why it should be thrown in the dustbin.
  7.31 pm
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, Fest (Mr. Ewing) on his speech. I always enjoy listening to what he says, and he said it tonight with reason and moderation. Nevertheless, I did not think that what he said was very sensible. That is the hon. Gentleman's objection to what is called "testing".
  It has always been a boast—or a concept—that Scottish education is somehow better than any equivalent. That bracard has frequently caused a good deal of embarrassment. There have been times, however, when Scottish education has been particularly excellent. My constituency contains a small library, the first lending library not set up by a local authority but by the local laird. It is called the Inverpeffray library. The borrowing book shows that local shepherds and craftsmen in the 18th century borrowed the most sophisticated books. They were essentially self-educated, under the aegis of either the minister or their—as it then was—private school. At its best, in all its ages, the parts of Scottish education that have been most successful have been the self-governing parts, and that important characteristic should not be forgotten.
  Some hon. Members on both sides of the House were at self-governing schools throughout their education. A

  667
  manifest characteristic of such schools was that those who ran them were intensely interested in ensuring that the education of those who went to them—whether they were primary, secondary or nursery schools—was the best that could be provided. Plenty of schools in my constituency are self-governing, and it is wonderful to visit them and to see the enthusiasm of those who run them, those who teach in them and those who learn.
  This week I went to a PTA meeting at a school in my constituency which at present is not self-governing. The rector said that he desperately wanted me to visit the school, but that for that to happen he would have to obtain the permission of the officials and the education committee in Dundee. In the name of what principle should education be run on such a basis? The Bill's aim is—rightly—to escape from such an abominable concept.
  The example of Strathclyde is the most absurd of all. What possible business can some officials in the middle of Glasgow have to be running—or permitting decisions in the running of—a primary school in Tyndrum? Let me take the example of Central region, given by the hon. Member for Falkirk, Eest. One could stand in the middle of the village of Doune after regionalisation and see the little yellow vans going backwards and forwards with circulars and officialdom and all that goes with it. I do not think that that is a good way in which to run education. Schools should be institutions run by the enthusiasm of those who work there, those whose children go there and the local community in general. They ought to be self-governing. It is an entirely Socialist precept that we should all be run by a distant bureaucracy.
  Why should schools not look after themselves? What is wrong with that principle? If the principle that now applies to schools applied to shops—on the basis that there was only one village shop in Bridge of Garn, or Kinross, or Abernethy, and that there could be no choice—it could be said that all restaurants must be British and run by the Ministry of Food. It is the same jealous, rotten concept.
  Mr. Dalyell: Did the hon. and learned Gentleman get his clothes at the village shop?
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: No, but if the hon. Gentleman had his way I would be compelled to get my demob suit from the local Co-op. The hon. Gentleman's question suggests that he is jealous. He loathes choice and individuality. We do not agree, which is why we like the idea of self-governing schools. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his clothes or his taste or his lunacy, but I know where he got his education—and by God, it was at a self-governing school. It was not even in Scotland. He may think that it was a village shop, but, by God, it turned out some things that I would never be able to buy in a village shop.
  Let us be clear: if we are to continue the historical boast that Scottish education is the best, it has got to be the best. We must not continue to describe it as the best simply because it was once the best—when schools were self-governing, and education was central to family and church thinking. Scottish education should be the best because those who run the schools still have that enthusiasm and do not regard them as a fiefdom of the Department of Education. That is of very great importance.
  668
  Before regionalisation, before reorganisation, when I represented a much larger part of rural Perthshire, the difference, in terms of excellence, between schools from Aberfeldy to Aberfoyle was very clear. The degree of excellence depended on the extent to which a school was essentially a self-governing institution rather than simply an object of officials of the regional authority. The difference was huge and was easy to notice as one went from one end of the constituency to the other.
  I welcome the principles of the Bill. I welcome the principle of self-governing colleges of excellence. We made a terrible mistake in turning Strathclyde and Heriot-Watt into universities. Anyone who talks about snobbism should realise that that was the crown of snobbism. Here we had colleges of excellence, world renowned in particular disciplines, and we diluted them for the sake of the absurd concept that everybody should be allowed to go to a university. The colleges of excellence that this Bill introduces in order to provide special training are most important to Scottish education. A graduate of Heriot-Watt, when asked, "Where were you trained as an engineer?:, used to be able to say, "I went to the Heriot-Watt". Now he says, "I got an engineering degree at Heriot-Watt university", and that does not have the same magic, the same validity.
  Let us get back to the great qualities that the peculiar characteristics, the self-governing, self-generating, excellence of Scottish education produced.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. and learned Member rejected a self-governing Scotland.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Lady says that I rejected a self-governing Scotland. A " self-governing et cetera. Scotland" might be a better description. The claim of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is that it would give Scotland more say over its own affairs. Assuming that to be true—and I do not accept that it is—why does not the hon. Lady agree that the people of Scotland should have more say in the running of the schools in which their children are educated? I am very suspicious of those—
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that this Bill gives the people of Scotland the choice? Those people have the choice also whether to be self-governing. Thus far they have not expressed that desire.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: This Bill does indeed give the people more choice, and I believe that that choice will be exercised in favour of more excellence. That choice, together with the individual educational institutions that were self-governing and those that still are, is the foundation of the reputation of our education. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. John McFall: Let us make no mistake: the proposals in this Bill are inspired more by a particular philosophy than by any real desire to improve the quality of education in Scotland. There has been no genuine attempt at consensus regarding a progressive improvement in education. As The Scotsman says, this is
  "not a challenging leap into the unknown, but a huge step back into the known, and unhappy past."

  669
  In 1989 we find ourselves in the situation in which the Conservatives are the ideological party. When formulating their policy, they are unwilling to consult interested bodies or to take account of the views of others.
  Before this debate I received several items of correspondence from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, from Strathclyde School Parents Federation, from the Scottish Consumer Council, and from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, every one of which is critical of the undue haste with which the Bill is being introduced. We have other recent examples of the Government's approach. When the Government were looking at the National Health Service, one body that they did not consult was the British Medical Association. When they put forward their proposals on Scottish enterprise the SDA had already commissioned a study from Conran Roche, but they ignored that.
  This is all the more shameful since the Secretary of State, in his address today, was lucid and erudite. But, sad to say, the Prime Minister has eliminated any alternative social policy emanating from her Cabinet. We have no alternative to Thatcherite tunnel vision, and Scottish education is in danger of feeling the full ideological impact of that detrimental approach. There is nobody here to stand up for Scotland's needs. During the course of this debate we have found out that 40 per cent. of Scottish Tory Back Benchers are already against this proposal. It just needs one waverer—perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)—to create a Tory Back-Bench majority against this proposal.
  In determining to characterise the state system as a failure, as undisciplined, as a system with which parents have manifested dissatisfaction, the Government have ignored all the available evidence. Every opinion poll over the past nine years has shown a high level of parent support for comprehensive education, and satisfaction with the performance of comprehensive schools. The parents have seen that, with comprehensive education, standards have risen, and children from all social classes have improved—not least, working-class children. Yet, with their proposals for school boards and for opting out, the Government are pretending that they are responding to parental demand. The proposals purport to be an exercise in the extension of democracy and in the decentralisation of power.
  What the Government are hoping to do is to utilise the genuine desire of parents to become more involved in the education of their children in order to undermine the role of the local authorities. The Secretary of State is on record as having said in this House that only if there were evidence of real and substantial demand would he introduce this Bill. I challenge the Government to tell us exactly where the evidence of real and substantial demand is. Our proposition, right from the time the school boards legislation was going through its Committee stage, was that the Government would invent demand—and invent demand is what they have done—to destabilise the education system.
  Some schools—perhaps those with modern buildings and better resources—will anticipate the financial rewards of following the Government's path and will possibly opt out. The evidence from England is that opting out appeals to schools that are threatened with closure because of falling roll numbers. But it has to be said that, even if the uptake is small, this Bill's effect on the state system will be considerable because once opting out is a possibility for a
  670
  school it opens the way for an increasing number of activities which require subsidy from parents. There is little doubt that in the longer term selection will be available.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: To answer directly the hon. Gentleman's point about evidence of demand, did he see the MORI poll, reported in The Scotsman last summer, which showed that about one third of parents believe that it is right that they should be given the opportunity to opt out of the local authority system?
  Mr. McFall: Yes, I saw that report. However, when the Minister put forward the school boards proposal he received 7,600 replies against his proposals. That was tangible evidence of parental feeling. When I look at grass roots responses, I find that there has been a total rejection of the Government's view.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my point about the opinion poll. The purpose of the consultation exercise was not to measure demand. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the school boards, I wonder whether he saw the System 3 poll that the Scottish Office commissioned. It showed a 2:1 majority in favour of school boards and a very high level of awareness—at 64 per cent.—of their functions. Why is the hon. Gentleman so selective about the evidence that he puts forward?
  Mr. McFall: The Minister has been selective in the opinion poll polls that he used. What about the opinion regarding devolution for Scotland? The Minister does not really want to consult Scottish parents. To cite opinion polls is insufficient when we are considering the real needs of Scottish education.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman support. Strathclyde regional council's decision on principle against Catholic single-sex schools?
  Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman has been involved all along in diversionary tactics. He is trying to divert me from the real point. He is very good at that, but I shall ignore his attempt.
  Selection will undoubtedly be introduced if schools are allowed to opt out. Last Friday evening I was debating the education proposals in Lenzie—not a hotbed or bedrock of Socialism—with the vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland, Mr. Hirst, who was a Member of Parliament. When we were questioned about selectivity, the vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland said that he hoped that selectivity would not be introduced. He believes that selectivity is invidious. Clause 16, in conjunction with clause 28, makes selectivity much more of an option. It does not remove that possibility. Selectivity will therefore return. The re-emergence of the old, discredited selectivity is envisaged by the Government. Baroness Hooper, a former Under-Secretary of State for Education in the other place, has stated that if, as a consequence of the Government's proposals, we end up with a segregated system, "so be it."
  The Government intend to establish a national curriculum and to introduce testing for primary 4 and primary 7. The only consequence of that will be a narrowing of the state education role. The Government believe that that will equip the workers of the future with marketable skills. Their proposals will result in a narrowing of the curriculum. They are antagonistic

  671
  towards any other system. They are certainly antagonistic towards the concept of the 1968 Plowden report that put the individual child at the centre of educational provision.
  The Government say that insufficient time is given to the core skills, but that runs contrary to the evidence of Her Majesty's inspectorate, which is asking for a broader view of the curriculum. The Government say that in primary 6 and primary 7, pupils should be tested with much more rigour. The Government want to fire pupils with the competitive spirit, but in doing so they are flying in the face of all the evidence that has been laid before them.
  As for the national tests, the Government refer to age-related criteria. The Cockcroft report was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The report suggested that there may be as much as a seven-year spread within the mathematical attainments of 11-year-olds. The national tests that the Government intend to introduce are bound to be arbitrary and unrelated to the needs of the individual child. To have any diagnostic value, assessment must determine how much learning has taken place. That must therefore be at the end of a teaching unit, not at the end of a stage in a pupil's school career. The Government's timetable rules out the possibility of devising any of the sophisticated forms of assessment that would be required to test the full range of a pupil's abilities.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science commissioned a report from the Centre for Educational Studies, King's College, London. The report said that it would take nine years before assessment procedures could be put in place. The Government's readiness to disregard the report's conclusions illustrates the degree of their ideological commitment and the political nature of their assessment proposals.
  The Government's plans for assessments are motivated by a crude management philosophy and by a desire to control teachers whom they hold responsible for the increasing ills of society. The Government say that teachers have failed to inculcate attitudes in pupils that they believe are desirable—a proper appreciation of market disciplines. The establishment of national standards would result in the establishment of league tables of school performance which would be based on assessment results. The net effect would be to put pressure on teachers to teach to the test, which would result in a further narrowing of the educational focus.
  How well thought out are the proposals? I received this morning a document from the Scottish Council for Research in Education. It considered the Government's assessment proposals, the curriculum, tests, the use of test results, report cards and evaluation. The Government say that attainment targets and objective criteria in primary education are to be identified. The Scottish Council for Research in Education asked:
  "Will those areas of English and Mathematics for which there are no 'objective criteria' be taught and tested?"
  It goes on to say:
  "Curriculum objectives for the primary school may be readily selected. The identification of 'targets' or 'objective criteria', however, has proved elusive for many important areas of learning. In addition, wide variation of attainment within each age group suggests that if stage-related targets were identified they would carry the risks of lack of challenge for some pupils and sense of failure for others."
  672
  That is where the Government's assessment proposals are leading us.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. My memory may be defective, because I have read a number of reports commissioned by various impartial sources from the Scottish Council for Research in Education, but my recollection is that the report begins by pointing out that because the council does not have the details of the Government's proposals it is not in a position to make an assessment of their efficacy. Is that not right?
  Mr. McFall: The Scottish Council for Research in Education looked into the history of assessment and saw nothing in the Government's proposals that would assist in the assessment of individual children.
  How will nationally standardised tests be constructed to reveal how a child's progress measures up nationally and at the same time to identify what specific help or challenge he or she needs? The answer to that question is that a test that serves both purposes is an attractive prospect but that efforts to achieve such a test in the past have been unsuccessful. The Government's assessment proposals have not been tested. There is no precedent for them. That is what worries politicians, teachers and educationists.
  When he put forward his school boards proposals, the Minister obviously did not listen to his alma mater. When I visited the Scottish Office and looked at the responses to the questions that had been asked about school boards, I found that they were against his proposals. Perhaps the Minister will listen to what is said by the Central region in which his constituency lies. It undertook a case study at McLaren high school in Callander regarding opting out. Using McLaren high school as a model, it found that there would be waste involved in the establishment of grant-maintained schools, since these establishments will not be in a position to get the same value for money as schools which are part of the local authority provision. A per capita share of central spending cannot compensate for the reduction in spending power which would result from a loss of access to the economies of scale.
  To compensate for the loss of purchasing power which will result from the decision to opt out, schools will have to look to areas of their school provision that they feel can be cut back. McLaren high currently makes provision to meet a minority demand for Gaelic. That is expensive in terms of overall staffing provision. The opted-out school would have to decide whether it wished to continue that specialist provision, and the decision is likely to be based on economic considerations rather than educational or cultural needs, the interests of the pupils, or even parental choice. Music is a feature of the curriculum at McLaren high and that is made possible because the authority provides 10 visiting music teachers. That facility would be withdrawn if the school opted out and the school would be withdrawn if it opted out and the school would beunable to replace those staff, consequently disadvantaging pupils. The school would also have to decide whether to replace the school librarians and technicians if the school opted out.
  An important consideration is the provision for special needs, which was raised with me at the meeting at Lenzie on Friday evening. That is another decision to be made

  673
  when schools opt out. McLaren high received a very high commendation by HMI in respect of support to a pupil with physical disabilities.
  McLaren high has been allocated a special lift which connects the floors of the main building, a lift within the new library, ramps at various points in the school and an adaptation of a toilet. A further toilet incorporating a shower is currently being planned. The quality of inter-professional co-operation between the special duty attendant, the school nurse, subject staff, medical services and so on is very high. Close liaison is also maintained with the pupil's family. All concerned must draw satisfaction from the fact that the pupil participates in the entire curriculum, enjoys a good relationship with her peers and involves herself in sponsored swims to raise money for others similarly disabled.
  Will such provisions still be high on the agenda, as it was for Central region, when schools opt out? The critics of the Bill say no, and nobody other than Ministers say yes.
  The greatest dangers that would be faced by opted-out schools would be isolation. They would be cut off from the support offered by the directorate, advisers, development officers and the many committees and working parties within a local education authority which help to develop and advance policy, deepen the knowledge and hone the expertise of practitioners. Opted-out schools could not possibly hope to have the same access to the regional in-service training, computer centres and teacher resource centres that the local authority schools enjoy. All that would seriously impair a school's ability to respond to curricula change and could lead to a narrowing of the curriculum on offer to the pupils.
  When the Minister puts out his videos and his high tech promotion, he should consider the grass roots aspect and give parents the opportunity to discuss the full meaning of opting out, taking into consideration categories such as special needs.
  I conclude by referring to the meeting in Lenzie and to the remarks of the vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland. I gave him notice that I would raise the issue. I was asked to outline the advantages of school boards and he was asked to outline their disadvantages. Obviously that was a hard question for me to answer and my reply was not very bold, but Mr. Hirst gave the disadvantages. In reply to a question about unrepresentative parents on a board, he replied that he accepted that in the meantime those unrepresentative parents will do damage, but the situation will correct itself at the ballot box. However, within the Government's timetable, within three of four years the decisions taken by parents, individuals and other co-opted members of the school board could destroy a school and could destroy the relationship between the school and the local authority. The vice-chairman of the Conservative party said that the problem would be solved by reverting to the ballot box, but that will be far too late because under his proposals the prevailing school system could be changed out of all recognition within two or three years.
  I ask the Minister to ponder deeply on those words which were the response of the vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland to a genuine concern on the part of parents in Scotland. It sums up our worries and concerns about what will be nothing other than the destruction of Scottish education if the Bill is passed.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) began by suggesting that 40 per cent. of Conservative Back Benchers were not in favour of the Bill. That certainly appears to be the case from the speeches that we have heard. I find it interesting that at least 40 per cent. of Labour Members representing Scottish constituencies have not even bothered to turn up. He asked when the Government or their supporters had consulted parents. I have news for him—I consult parents in my constituency all the time. I must say that there have been objections to schools boards and to self-governing schools. Almost all those objections have come from teachers and not from parents. Of course we understand the fears and concerns of teachers, and I will address that matter later in my speech.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton spoke about unrepresentative parents. One can only assume that we have unrepresentative councillors because they are elected on a similar basis; people put themselves forward for election and get elected. That suggests that the electoral system is flawed. That may well be the case, and it may well be that the wrong people are elected. There are those who hold views on who are elected and who are not, but it all depends on their position at any given time.
  I found the speech of the h on. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) interesting, and I am so pleased that he is in his place. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) called it a moderate speech. It may have been a moderate speech, but, if I recollect it correctly, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East spoke about principles and detail. Is it not interesting that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East is on record as saying that he is in favour of opting out when it suits him in his constituency?
  Mr. Harry Ewing: We shall have a debate on the matter tomorrow morning and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is as diligent in his attendance tomorrow morning as he is today. I shall take his point on board and deal with it to his disadvantage and certainly to the disadvantage of the Minister, who offered me his dead body in exchange for the closure of the Falkirk infirmary.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should have let me finish my point. The Bill gives people the choice. I read in the newspapers that he would make use of the choice that will become available to him to allow a hospital in his constituency to opt out because he would rather it opted out and that he would bury his principles if it were to the advantage of the people in his constituency for his hospital to opt out. I am not arguing against that; I am merely trying to put it on record. But that is exactly what the Bill does for parents and others in respect of schools in the parts of the country where they live. It gives them the very choice that he wished to exercise.
  I shall conclude my comments on the hon. Gentleman's speech by agreeing with him. I agree with him that the Bill is not an anti-teacher Bill. It is anything but that. I would go further and say that good teachers have nothing to fear from the Bill. The hon. Member spoke about the turmoil and upset in Scotland. He would not expect me to agree with him on that. My view is that that turmoil and upset are a direct result of the Labour party's attitude since 1983 when it tried to pretend to the Scottish people that it had a mandate to govern Scotland and was going to do so.

  675
  Labour Members went even further in 1987 when some of them did it in their own different ways by breaking the rules—even the rules of the House. The turmoil and upset are the result of what they have done. There is nothing worse than making promises that cannot be delivered. That also causes turmoil and upset.
  The hon. Member also mentioned the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. He knows that I have a deep interest in the business of that Committee, past, present and some time in the future, I hope. It was never the Government's fault that the Committee was not set up. If ever arms were twisted, mine were. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I and other Conservative Back Benchers made sure that the Committee was not set up. It could not be set up without us. We had our reasons for doing that. I have put mine on the record, and I do not deviate from them.
  My right hon.Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said in their interesting speeches that they think that the pace of change is too fast. Others may share that view. I think that this is the right time to make the change. There are two areas where I disagree with my right hon. Friend. During the 1987 general election campaign I made clear what I expected a returned Conservative Government to do with regard to school boards and what is commonly known as opting out. There was no doubt about the matter in Tayside, North. Secondly, I disagree with my right hon. Friend when he says that Scottish education is sound because we have a state sector, and that those who wish to exercise choice can do so by sending their children to fee-paying schools. He was supported in that view by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. It is a funny kind of choice that is determined by the size of a cheque book.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is not in his place. I make no criticism of that.
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman was quite happy to talk about the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) without saying that he is absent from the Chamber.
  Mr. Walker: I am not being critical. I would not want to say anything about the hon. Member in his absence at which he might take offence. We all have to go out to eat, for example. I have never criticised hon. Members for leaving the Chamber.
  I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Garscadden but he would not accept an intervention, which I thought rather bad considering the number of interventions that my right hon. and learned Friend took when he introduced the Bill. He hoped that there would be no Conservative Members on the Standing Committee, or that there would be only Conservative Members with no experience or knowledge of Scottish schools.
  I hope that there will be no Labour Members on the Committee who were educated in private schools, or who send their children to private schools. I say that because a lot of barbs come from Opposition Members on this issue. I do not criticise people for sending their children to private schools—I defend their right to do so—but I find it offensive when Opposition Members accuse us of not understanding.
  Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will defend himself, but that is not what he said. He said in simple language that it would be a scandal if the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) were deliberately kept off the Committee simply because they disagree with the Government.
  Mr. Walker: When the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will find that the hon. Member for Garscadden did say that, but he went on to say what I said he said.
  I welcome the provisions that establish self-governing schools. They represent an opportunity for choice for many people. The Government are right to increase the number of appointed and co-opted members to the board, and to include the head teacher as a full member of it if schools decide to exercise their choice to opt out.
  The Government are also wise to allow non-elected members to serve longer periods, thus assisting continuity of management policies and to maintain the long-term interests of the school. I hope that few, if any, schools will exercise the choice, but I welcome that choice. There are many good schools in my part of the world, but many of them are starved of essential resources because the local authority is a long way away. It has failed to deal with the 40 per cent. overcapacity in schools in Dundee. The result is that resources essential for Highland rural schools are sometimes slow getting there.
  I welcome the checks and balances in the form of a ballot of parents, consultations with local education authorities and the requirement to seek the approval of the Secretary of State. Each stage must be gone through before a self-governing school can introduce any form of selection of pupils. It is important to note that because there is a feeling among teachers and others that the Bill is a veiled attempt to introduce selection by the back door. I believe that the checks and balances will ensure that that does not happen.
  I understand that education authorities already have the power to introduce selection. They need only consult parents before making a change. They do not need to refer their proposals to the Secretary of State. The Bill proposes a big improvement.
  I welcome the assurance that a simple majority of parents will not necessarily be decisive, and that such a decision only allows the proposal to go to the Secretary of State, who will take account of the size of the majority and the percentage turnout. I want that assurance on the record, because it is important. We do not want the Bill to be regarded as a vehicle for things that will not be beneficial. If the majority of parents want change, and that is shown clearly in a ballot, there should be change.
  Such powers and choices will put pressure on education authorities to be much more sympathetic to the needs of, for example, rural and denominational schools.
  Mr. McLeish: Why has not the Secretary of State included the same balloting provisions as apply in England, whereby in the first ballot there is some regard to the turnout?
  Mr. Walker: I am happy with what we are doing in Scotland. I always thought that we Scots argued to do things differently because we like to do things differently—our education system is different. It would be nonsense for us to explain why we are not doing things identically.

  677
  There has been a lot of misinformation about the Bill. There has been misinformation about specialist services, such as child guidance, school hostels, school transport and recording of special educational needs. I am glad that such services will remain and that education authorities will continue to be responsible for their maintenance if a school decides to become self-governing.
  There has been misinformation about self-governing schools. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that the board will have the same powers as other employers.
  There has been misinformation about funding. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the funding of self-governing schools will be comparable with what a school would have received if it had remained under local authority control? I represent a massive rural constituency, where local schools are an essential part of the community, so I am delighted that my schools and parents will have a choice, which will be exercised only if parents feel that the local authority is no longer in tune with the wishes and perceived needs of the community schools.
  I want to place on record my pleasure at the number of parents who have intimated to me their wish to stand for election to the local school hoards in my constituency. I have been holding public meetings throughout the constituency and I have been delighted at the response. Many hon. Members have been fortunate enough to enjoy the opportunity of choice both in their own education and the education of their children. The Bill gives the opportunity of choice to all parents in Scotland. They need not exercise that choice, but at least all of them will have the opportunity to exercise that choice. At present, it is the exclusive preserve of a few. I find it interesting that some hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill have already made a choice in their own and their children's education, and I find it fascinating that they are prepared to oppose the Bill.
  I shall now deal with the proposals for colleges for further education. Few would argue that such colleges should not he close to industry in the local community and understand its needs. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East mentioned the problems of Falkirk. Sadly, it is often true that the mandarins of industry live a long way away from where they work. I accept that as a truism. In a lovely country such as ours, with its beautiful wide open spaces, people have the right to choose to live in a rural area and to commute to work. It is wise to have at least half of the college council members drawn from employers in the local area because they understand the areas of work for which the youngsters are being trained.
  I believe that it is sensible that only one fifth of members should be drawn from the local authority and the remainder from other interested groups. I assume that that means that some of them will represent professional bodies, and I hope that there will also be representatives from organised labour, in whatever form. I am pleased to note that college councils will select staff, although the selection of the principal will continue to be the responsibility of the local authority and the principal will be an ex officio member of the college council. All those provisions are good, and I hope that they will receive support from all parties.
  There may be some doubts about giving future Secretaries of State the power to make regulations about
  678
  the testing of primary schoolchildren. On balance, I am in favour, but it is an area in which mischievous information may give many parents cause for deep concern.
  I am pleased that the Bill contains enabling proposals about the appraisal of teachers. A high calibre, high quality teaching staff is vital to the well-being of present and future generations of schoolchildren. Most teachers to whom I have spoken seemed to take a fairly positive approach. The proposals will be extremely helpful and will provide the opportunity for teachers to add to and update their skills. There is no profession in which people do not have to do that regularly.
  I welcome the introduction of technology academies. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross mentioned various academic institutions in the past. I remember that when I was a young boy I was told by many people that the only escape route in Scotland was through education. In Dundee there were some very good education institutions. There were schools of excellence there and the Dundee technical college was recognised as a place of academic excellence in technology. I was a student there and I have no regrets about the fact that I attended that college because it was beneficial to me. I hope that those who attend the technology academies will experience the same pleasure as I had in what the college gave me.
  I hope that Tayside region—and this is an important point which I have raised already with the convener of education there—will take a positive stand on the technology academies and will accept the offer that may come to it to have a technology college on Tayside. I would expect it to be placed in Dundee where we have surplus school accommodation that could be used for such an academy.
  We have had some interesting comments about university rectors. I am not qualified to comment on whether university rectors should automatically be the chairmen of the university courts, but it seems that the position has come about as a result of an approach by the universities themselves. One or two people have made observations about that time, but I have made it clear that I have no direct knowledge of the running of universities and I cannot tell whether that change will be beneficial. However, I am prepared to listen to the comments in the debate and to those hon. Members who have direct knowledge of universities. In principle, I probably support the change, but I would need to be given certain assurances about what lies behind the Government's thinking and why the provision has been included before I could say that I supported the proposal.
  We have heard much about what the Bill is supposed to contain. I believe that it contains no draconian measures unless parents choose to exercise their rights. Choice is a principle that all Members should approve. The Bill will give parents a choice and I welcome the opportunities for the schools in my constituency. Some of those schools have long and distinguished records and are good community schools. I welcome the thought that in the future, if necessary, they can exercise choice. By the very fact that choice exists local authoritities will, I hope, be more responsive to the needs of local schools and communities.
  8.26 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made great play of the word "choice". I must remind them that at the general election the Scottish people made their choice through the democratic processes open to them.
  Mr. Bill Walker: People in Scotland exercised the choice of electing hon. Members to this unitary Parliament and the results were clear. That was their choice and the Bill seeks to provide choice about how schools will be run in the future.
  Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman always resorts to hiding behind the cloak of the unitary Parliament. Clearly, the people of Scotland elected 62 Members of Parliament who believed in some form of self-government for Scotland. Their opinions may be of various shades, but the people of Scotland voted for Members who wanted to see a change in the system of government within Scotland. It is clear that the people of Scotland did not choose a Conservative Government or the policies that are being implemented. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross spoke jocularly about a self-governing Scotland. Scottish Conservative Members should realise that in a self-governing Scotland people would have real choice about the way in which their education system was run—and about any other aspect of life that affected them directly.
  The Secretary of State started with three basic premises and he seemed to bring an element of unity into the House. He then departed from that and began reading from a brief prepared, no doubt, by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He read it unconvincingly and seemed to reflect the reasonable doubts that many of his hon. Friends have shown in the debate. What worries the Secretary of State, as it worries many other hon. Members, is that it has not yet been demonstrated to us that there is a clear demand for the policies in the Bill. When challenged by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary responded by quoting the single shred of evidence he has been able to produce—one MORI opinion poll showing that about one third of people think that the policies might be a good idea. It was not specifically about this legislation but on the general philosophy. That is one of the poorest excuses I have ever heard propounded for introducing legislation.
  I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in his place. He tried to suggest to me earlier that he thought I was having a bad day. He has misunderstood some of the questions that have been asked by my hon. Friends and the importance of the answers that were forthcoming. I asked the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) how many letters he has received expressing demand for this legislation. He replied glibly that he had received 1,500. Those of us who understand Scottish politics—I appreciate that it is difficult to understand it when the Scottish Whip represents an English seat—know that the letters referred to one area and one issue. It is interesting that the only letter that I have received asking for such legislation also came from Paisley. It was from the parents of a child in Neilston school; the school which was the loser in the debate about Paisley grammar. That is a straw in the wind.
  680
  It is clear that the proposals will be used not for philosophical or ideological reasons but by people who see, under a rationalisation process, their local school being threatened.
  I should be interested to know how many letters the Secretary of State and his Ministers have tucked away in their files in the Scottish Office suggesting that the people of Scotland are screaming for legislation such as this. The Secretary of State tells us happily that he never receives letters about constitutional change and that therefore there is no demand. I suspect that we could quote more effective opinion polls and point to many more letters about constitutional change than the Secretary of State could produce on this issue.
  I receive many letters about education. They are generally about the fabric of buildings, the need for adequate resources and about facilities for the children. It is not adequate for the hon. Member for Tayside, North to suggest that somehow the starvation of resources is the fault of the local authorities. We all know that the money comes from the rate support grant, which has been cut back further and further by the Government, squeezing resources for education and making life difficult. He suggested that a school that wants additional resources should consider opting out because, through a special grant or a capital grant, it may be possible for the Secretary of State to help it out. The Bill does not address the main issues involved in education in Scotland or the difficulties we face.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Is it not important to point out to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the House that any resources received by an opted-out school are taken from the resources that would have been allocated to the regional authorities to administer the state sector schools? It is as simple as that.
  Mrs. Ewing: Yes, and it also represents the thin end of the wedge for a two-tier system of education, something which we would all resist.
  I resent the implication that because we oppose the Bill we cannot accept criticism about our education system in Scotland. Opposition Members are not saying that everything is perfect and nor are the teachers' unions or anybody involved in education. We are willing to look at the criticisms, but we feel that they are not being addressed effectively by the Government. I would be more convinced of the Government's aims if some of the important issues were addressed in the Bill.
  Conservative Members seem to have great difficulty making up their minds about what they mean by education. I have always understood that education should be child-centred. The Bill is proposing that education should become management-centred. Essentially, the same debate will occur in the Scottish Grand Committee tomorrow when we talk about how we manage our National Health Service. Nobody doubts that management has a role within education. I have worked on the administrative side of education as well as in teaching. I recognise the importance of management, but it should not be the driving force for our education system. If management becomes the driving force, it will be for only political reasons. That worries me deeply. There are strong political reasons why the Government wish to see changes in management to remove more powers from the local authorities and so on. It is political manipulation.

  681
  I wish to re-emphasise the point already made about the timing of the legislation. Education, particularly in our schools in Scotland, needs stability and consolidation. The schools do not need more upheaval or uncertainty. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross spoke about the need to have schools in which the staff were enthused, the communities involved, and so on. The continuing changes and upheavals that have been enacted by the Government have lowered the morale of teachers. Despite that, as the Secretary of State admitted, they are still managing to do a great job and standards are rising.
  Managerial upheaval such as this will bring more uncertainty and will do nothing to help teachers' morale. The Government should put the Bill away and forget about it. It is clear that the majority of Scottish Members do not want it. We have not heard a chorus of enthusiasm from Scotland. The Bill is not wanted, so let us put it on the shelf for a few years and see what happens. Let us leave our schools to consolidate and cope with the changes that have already been enacted.
  I can reassure the Minister that I have read the Bill a couple of times. It is purgatory to have to plough through the Bill twice. No doubt, in Committee I will be able to raise many of the points that I have underlined and put exclamation marks beside. I wish to raise several issues and I hope that the Minister will comment when he winds up.
  Essentially, the further education sector is being handed over to sectoral interests. I saw training courses in some of our further education colleges before returning to the House in 1987. It was clear then that the colleges were being encouraged to take on more youngsters from youth training programmes than youngsters looking for courses leading to professional qualifications. I am thinking about nursery nurses and people involved in social work training. The college fees extracted for such courses are not particularly high and, therefore, do not attract a great deal of money into the FE sector, so it was more attractive for principals to bring in youngsters on courses involving much higher fees and on which they would receive a good turnover of capital. I am not saying that those youngsters should have been denied those opportunities, but I have always had reservations about such schemes because they were not really offering training.
  There is an attempt now to remove the idea of education from our FE colleges and to talk only about interests relating to the workplace. I thought that we had moved away from the Robbins concept that education is merely about training for employment. We believe—certainly my party does—that education is about much more than that. It is about encouraging people to recognise their talents and abilities, ensuring that they are stretched as far as possible and that they are equipped for life in its many facets. I am deeply concerned that the handing over of our further education college councils in the way suggested in the Bill will move us further away from the idea that education should be a rounded process.
  Clause 22 seems to suggest the possibility of the ending of the requirement to register with the General Teaching Council before being employed in Scottish schools; there are references made to exceptions which may be prescribed. That is worrying for those of us who have been glad to see a fully qualified and registered profession operating in Scottish schools. I would not want us to return to having non-qualified teachers in our schools or a system of licensed teachers as is often the case south of the border. I should like some clarification on that point.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that a Conservative Member is so interested in the subject that he is dealing with his correspondence? He is practising for the Committee stage, which will no doubt be packed with Conservative English Members with no interest in, and even less understanding of, Scottish education.
  Mrs. Ewing: I noticed the arrival of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). No doubt he is practising for the Committee stage.
  Clause 63 refers to national testing. [Interruption.] My teacher's training comes in most effectively. Normally, if a teacher stops speaking, the class immediately becomes quiet. I am most grateful to Conservative Members for having effectively observed that principle.
  I am worried about national testing, mainly because of my training in remedial education. I will not rehearse all the arguments. However, continuous assessment is the best way of identifying children's learning needs. The concept of a test which is suddenly brought in at the end of a certain stage in primary school seems to be a move from continuous assessment and the classroom teacher's right to define learning needs. If we really are concerned about standards and how most effectively to meet children's learning needs, we should look at more opportunities to enable our teachers to undertake additional in-service training to keep them constantly updated on new ideas that emerge rather than introduce national testing.
  Many hon. Members have referred to clause 65. No one disputes the basic principles in the clause. None of us expects that every area will be able to provide schools for children with specialised needs and specific handicaps. We recognise that there must be a centralisation of resources. I should like to be assured that the Scottish Office will not use clause 65 as an excuse for not providing facilities for those children. All hon. Members recognise the need to centralise resources, but it must not be an excuse for not providing what is needed for handicapped children in Scotland. We recognise that ramifies should be close at hand for such children, because they need the warmth and love of their family surroundings perhaps more than anybody else does.
  The Bill is based on a centralising philosophy. A rough count demonstrates that 66 new powers are being ascribed to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that is without including the various procedural powers in the schedules. Scottish Members do not like the philosophy on which the legislation is founded. We do not like its proposals. The Bill is alien to our idea of an education system in Scotland. On that basis, we will reject it. No doubt, many other hon. Members, whether or not they are signing their mail, will trot through the Aye Lobby at 10 o'clock and ensure that Scottish Members are outvoted.
  There have been broad hints in the press that five or seven English Back-Bench Conservative Members will be put on the Committee to ensure that the Government have their majority. I have sat through the debate, as have many other hon. Members, and I have carefully watched to see which English Members would listen to the debate, and show their interest and involvement in the subject.][congratulate the hon. Members for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine). They have sat faithfully and loyally throughout the debate, and I am sure that they intend to speak. If English hon. Members are selected to serve on the Committee, we

  683
  would have expected to see more of them attending today. I exempt the Government Front Bench; I am talking about Back-Bench Members.
  Scottish National Members believe that the Bill should be dealt with by a Committee of Scottish Members. The facility exists for the Bill to be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee and dealt with by Scottish hon. Members who, after all, were elected by the Scottish people and are seen as the protectors of the Scottish education system. As hon. Members have admitted, Scottish education is distinctive and different. Therefore, we cannot expect people to understand it unless they are involved in it.
  The Bill says that simple majorities are enough to start the ball rolling for a school to opt out. A simple majority of votes cast at the last election demands that the Bill be dealt with by Scottish Members. I trust that the Minister will at least comment on how he envisages the Committee stage will be dealt with. We cannot win the vote tonight, but we are determined to win in Committee.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The winding-up speeches are expected to begin at about 10 past 9. Four hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. They have been present throughout the debate. I hope that they will divide the available time between them.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who made an interesting speech. However, it was spoilt by the intervention of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who has a singularly inappropriate name for a Scottish Nationalist. It was also singularly inappropriate of him to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who had a most distinguished career in the Department of Education and Science. He was responsible for introducing some enlightened reforms in the education system in England and Wales. Nevertheless, I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks about my attendance during the debate. I do not think that I have missed one word.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I have been asked to be brief. The hon. Gentleman has intervened before. It was not an appropriate intervention, and I shall not allow him the opportunity of making another.
  At a conference in Bournemouth, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who, needless to say, is not present, suggested that the Conservative party has run out of steam. This Bill demonstrates that that is far from true. We have certainly not run out of steam in Scotland, in particular.
  This is the latest of several measures. We have seen the sale of National Bus Company subsidiaries, privatisation of the electricity industry in Scotland, and the school boards legislation which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and we now have this Bill to give a much bigger say to parents. [Interruption.] Opposition Members might like to know that I wrote my speech myself.
  684
  The School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 met opposition because it attacked vested interests by giving greater power to parents and reducing the power of local authorities. This Bill takes that process a stage further. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is reported in the Glasgow Herald of 15 December as saying that Scottish education is too valuable to be left to a politician who is as zealous and ideologically motivated as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. A great many things are too important to leave to politicians, which is precisely why this measure is being introduced and why we are seeking to reduce further the role of the state.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) referred to a visit that he wished to make to a school in his constituency. He required the permission of the local education authority before he could make the visit. Similarly, I visited a school in my constituency. When I turned up with a local reporter who wished to take a photograph of my attendance at the scene, he was told by the headmaster that there were to be no photographs; it had not been cleared with the local authority.
  The idea that at the moment schools operate in an atmosphre of political neutrality is a load of nonsense. Schools, both north and south of the border, are very much politicised because local education authorities are accountable to locally elected politicians. The Bill gives parents further powers, in addition to those they received under the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. They are given power to order their own affairs and to decide what is in the best interests of their children.
  However, the important point is that the opportunity to be self-governing will not be mandatory. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who both have Scottish constituencies, have declared their uneasiness about the Bill and about the pace of change.
  Opposition Members have also made the point that this Bill, coming so soon after other changes to the Scottish education system, would impose too great a burden. It is vital to recognise that this measure permits and in no way imposes mandatory opting out on the school boards.
  The Bill gives further choice to school boards and parents to say which alternative they wish to adopt. In so doing, it further enhances the choice available to parents. It shows that the principal purpose behind Government reforms is not to bolster the rich and defend the privileged but to give those at present trapped in the education system the opportunity to decide for themselves and to run their own show—a worthwhile step to take.
  There have been complaints in the past that Parliament has imposed legislation on the Scottish people first and then introduced it in England and Wales. This case is different—an experiment has already started in England and Wales. We have experience of opting out, and since that opportunity was given to parents throughout England and Wales no fewer than 37 schools have voted. Twenty eight schools voted to opt out—13 of them were in six Conservative-controlled authorities, which demonstrates that the Bill is not simply a measure to allow parents opposed to Labour authorities to escape from them: it is designed to increase parental choice. That is why I welcome the fact that parents in Conservative-controlled authorities have decided to exercise their right and try something else. So far, two opt-out schools have received

  685
  approval from the Secretary of State—Skegness grammar school and Audenshaw boys' comprehensive school—despite massive campaigning by some local authorities to intimidate parents into resisting opting out.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that the Bill contains provisions to protect parents who are subject to undue influence from local authorities—anxious not to lose part of their fiefdom—so that they will be able to make a rational decision, free from intimidation.
  I believe that parents are clear about the responsibilities that they are assuming and are prepared to shoulder them—as has already been made clear by some who are involved in the process.
  The headmaster of Skegness grammar school said—[Interruption.] These are important considerations because they give—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has not been in the Chamber as long as I have. I am—
  Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to be talking about an English education authority on a Scottish education Bill? I understand that, on Second Reading, a wide latitude is given to speakers, but the speech of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) is well outwith the proper scope—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the drift of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I have heard nothing out of order.
  Mr. Howarth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to continue.
  It is pertinent to the debate to know what is happening in schools in which opting out is being considered. The headmaster of Skegness grammar school has said:
  "We shall consider the insurance, payroll and finance services offered by the council. But, if the banks or someone else can provide them more cheaply and efficiently, we will choose them."
  Parents will be well aware of the responsibilities which they will have to shoulder. I recognise that those responsibilities will, in some respects, be quite onerous, but I am quite sure that parents will take that into account when exercising their judgment on these matters.
  In conclusion—I know that time is short and that other hon. Members wish to speak—I believe that Scottish Office Ministers have made a significant impact on the Scottish economy and on Scottish social policy. As has already been said, the fact that, even in advance of the Bill's publication, the Educational Institute of Scotland has pointed out the need to be sensitive to parental wishes shows that the Ministers are having an effect.
  In contrast to the positive and innovative policies of Ministers, the Opposition—whether the Scottish National party or the Labour party—are in total disarray. As has been clearly pointed out, first the Opposition were opposed to school boards, now they encourage parents to join them so that they can resist opting out. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) even got the title of the document wrong. In fact, it is called "Opting Out and Labour's Alternative Agenda". Labour's alternative agenda took up only two and a half pages of that 21-page document which states that the policy is "a" way forward—not, note, "the" way forward but "a" way forward. It is such a major policy document that it carries
  686
  a health warning stating that the ideas contained in it do not represent a blueprint. In other words, they are not worth the paper they are written on.
  The Bill is a sensible measure, based on experience. It will do excellent work for Scottish education, and will be endorsed by the Scottish people.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: The ignorance of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) about Scottish education was matched only by his selfishness: he used up 13 minutes of the remaining 25 minutes which should have been shared between four hon. Members. I shall try to confine my remarks to five minutes, as he should have done.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—long gone now, but not forgotten—said that Ministers had won the argument over the Bill. But it was obvious from the speeches made by his hon. Friends that they had not even won the argument among their Back Benchers or in their party; neither have they won it in Scotland, where the Bill is deeply resented and where it will be bitterly opposed when it comes to be implemented.
  It would be fatuous to search for any sort of democratic mandate that might justify the extreme proposals in the Bill. As always with specifically Scottish Bills, there is no such mandate. So much was made clear by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who pointed out that the Bill's proposals did not even appear in the Conservative party's Scottish election manifesto in 1987—no more than the poll tax appeared in the previous election's manifesto. That did not prevent the last Tory Government from goose-stepping the poll tax through Parliament in opposition to the wishes of the Scottish people. So we should not be surprised.
  Perhaps we have entirely missed the point. Perhaps the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), sees Scotland as a school writ large. On such an analogy, the Scottish Office becomes the school board, and Scottish Tory supporters represent—albeit just—more than 10 per cent. of those eligible to vote for the school board. In line with clause 13 the Government have successfully passed a resolution through the school board and received the support of at least 10 per cent. of those eligible to vote for it in support of the resolution. Now they should put the proposals to the test of the ballot box among those eligible to vote, but that is where the analogy breaks down.
  The Minister and his lackies are, to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, frit to put the question to the test of the ballot box in Scotland because they know that the answer will be an overwhelming no. That is why they have distorted and restricted the democratic process surrounding the Bill by insisting on ballots at individual schools. They know that they will lose the vast majority of those ballots, but that does not concern them. In the few places in which Ministers' appeals to self-interest and selfishness strike a chord in the Tory heartland the Government may be able to get away with this and begin to build a directly maintained school sector which is separate, privileged, elitist and entirely cut off from the rest of the comprehensive sector and Scottish school education. The overall loser would be Scottish education.

  687
  Scottish education has been almost wholly organised on the comprehensive principle, experience of which has been almost completely positive. I say almost, because the Under-Secretary was a product of comprehensive education in Scotland—the one black mark against it. Apart from that, it has been an outstanding success. More students than ever are sitting certificate examinations, in which more than ever are achieving higher grades. All the research shows that that is so.
  So on strictly educational grounds there is no justification for the organisational turmoil into which the Bill will throw Scottish education. Not only opposition political parties, teachers, unions, and parents say that: the Minister's predecessor, Mr. John MacKay, said so. At a meeting with teachers' unions before the last general election he stressed that Scottish education needed a period of stability and time in which fully to introduce the new standard grade courses into Scottish schools—the stability and time in which to work out the primary curriculum and in which to ensure that the modular approach favoured by the 16-plus action plan could and would work. According to the previous Tory Scottish Education Minister, Scottish schools needed a period of relative calm in which to get on with the real job of improving the quality of education that is delivered at the chalk-face. It did not need and could not afford the time-consuming and resource-wasting organisational upheavals that make sense only in the fevered imaginations of ideologues like the Under-Secretary.
  I want to say a great deal more, but I shall cut short my speech to allow other hon. Members to speak. I warn the Government that the Bill will be fought every inch of the way by Opposition Members in Committee.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: Scotland has a proud and distinctive educational history and tradition. One of its particular merits is that over the years Scotland can justly claim to have allowed the less well off access to high-quality education. I am grateful for that, because my forebears benefited from it. It is important to consider the Bill in that light.
  There is much to be proud of in Scottish educational tradition and history. We are deciding now whether the Bill is the best way of making a good educational system better. I submit most emphatically that it is. If there is an aspect of Scottish education that has justly been open to criticism in recent years it has been the lack of parental involvement. Steps have already been taken to correct that, but the Bill goes a good deal further. It brings parental choice into the heart of the Scottish education debate, and the parents of Scottish children will be grateful for that.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) gave the main reasons for the Opposition voting against the Bill. Their main reason—the first argument, as he put it—was that no one wanted it. Several times he described the Bill as objectionable and friendless and said that it had little support in Scotland. If that is so, why was the hon. Gentleman in such a state about it? Why are Opposition Members so overwrought and anxious about the Bill? It is because it gives a choice to the Scottish people, to Scottish parents of Scottish children, and if they
  688
  do not want to exercise their right on the opt-out provisions there is no compulsion on them to do so. It will be for parents to decide.
  I suspect that much of the anxiety, passion and wrath in the Opposition stems from the fear that is deep in the heart of Opposition Members that the Bill will prove rather popular with Scottish parents. That is because the Bill's provisions pose a challenge to the monopoly of local authorities. The Opposition have powerful allies on Scotland's local authorities. I am sure that if a local authority is doing well by its schools and parents are satisfied with the standard of education that their children are receiving, they will not exercise the choice that the Bill gives to them. Rather, they will stay with that local authority.
  If a local authority is letting parents down and a school is not being properly run, parents will at last have the right to say, "No, we may not be well enough off to send our children to an independent school but we have had enough of this. We shall opt out." That is a massive advance. Not only will the Bill improve the choice that is available to Scottish parents, but it will put Scottish local authorities on their toes. It will make them much better prepared to take note of the wishes of the parents. At the moment the only sanction available to parents is the right to complain. The Bill will give them an opportunity to opt out and that will put pressure on Scottish local authorities to deliver better-quality education.
  9.7 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In bringing forward the Bill the Government had an opportunity to do something for further education in Scotland. In a few weeks time the Chancellor will have a great deal of money to dispose of and in that context the Government could have talked about more resources for further education. Various Governments have a history of not resourcing further education in the way that should be resourced. Further education has to cover abilities ranging from university preparation to basic literacy and numeracy. It takes in high flyers and those who have never left the ground. In view of that, it is appalling that it is left to do the best that it can with such poor resources.
  I worked for nine years in a college in which the roof constantly leaked every winter, but the local authority, Strathclyde regional council, had enough money only to carry out minimum repairs and never enough to put on a new roof. A college of commerce that runs on paper had to cut its paper budget. I do not blame Strathclyde regional council for those things. I blame the Government who consistently over 10 years have refused adequately to fund Strathclyde council for the work that it has to do. The Government are short sighted because they are not only failing to cater for the needs of students but they are not properly addressing themselves to the needs of the country and the hopes for regenerating industry. They are treating students in further education in a miserable fashion.
  Under the Bill, employers will fill 50 per cent. or more of the college council places. I have not yet heard an explanation from the Government as to why they think that this is appropriate. There is a history of poor attendance by employers on college councils, and I do not particularly blame them for that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out, they have their businesses to run and profits to make,

  689
  and attendance on a local college council cannot be high on the list of priorities for many of them. Nor is it part of our argument that all employers take an unhelpful or unprogressive attitude. I know of employers in Glasgow whose work on the area manpower board has been constructive, and who have taken a great interest in proper training and in health and safety.
  However, employers have their own view and they have their business interests to protect and foster, as we know from the history of employers' reaction to education and training. We have no reason to suppose that they are any different today. It is in the employers' interest that most employees should be well-trained and obedient hewers of wood and drawers of water. Employers do not want an educated work force that is encouraged to develop independent thought so that people think for themselves and possibly question not only the employers' decisions but the decisions that affect them in society at large and in Parliament.
  Despite all that, Scottish colleges will have imposed on them a system in which employers will have massive influence, not only because of their numbers on the college boards, but because they will contribute gifts of money, take part in fund raising or produce investments. Inevitably, those who bring in the money will have more influence than the individual with one vote. What impact will all this have on fees for those who want, for example, to take an evening course to educate themselves further or for the whole range of people who are trying to get a second chance, which is part of what further education is all about? What will happen when colleges have to make their own way and raise money wherever they can? If money is short, I suspect that the answer will be similar to that given by the Secretary of State when we were talking about schools running out of money. When asked what would happen when schools run short of money, he gave the offhand reply "Much the same as what happens now." At the moment, colleges and schools get a fair share of the resources available, but in future they will have to struggle for whatever cash they can lay their hands on, and resources will not be available.
  Some years ago, I worked at Falkirk college of technology. I congratulate it on its excellent work—as it celebrates its 25th anniversary this week. Hon. Members on this side of the House will want to join me in congratulating it. When I worked there, the then college council at one time wanted to cut the provision of classes in the ordinary grades and highers. Many of my colleagues said that as the college council had decided on that course, there was nothing to be done about it. However, we fortunately had an active Educational Institute of Scotland branch, and with our friends in other education unions we appealed to Central regional council, to Michael Kelly, who was a long-standing chairman of the education committee. We explained to him why it was so important for the people of Falkirk to have that second chance opportunity to achieve ordinary grades and highers. To its credit, Central regional council overturned the decision of the college council, and gave the people of Falkirk those opportunities. When colleges reach their own decisions without any further reference to anybody else, people will be deprived of that second chance.
  Clause 61 deals with the abolition of the negotiating machinery. Both sides would agree that that machinery
  690
  has not been satisfactory, but the Government's proposal for an alternative is extremely unsatisfactory. Under the clause, where
  "any group of teaching staff employed in or in connection with the provision of further education in Scotland 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 teaching staff'",
  such a change can be implemented.
  That is arrant nonsense. I hope that the Minister will respond to this issue when he replies. Are we to understand that if a group of Professional Association of Teachers members decide to accept a pay offer or a change in conditions, the offer or the change will be imposed on the rest of their colleagues? If in the course of negotiations on a new pay round a group of teachers at a college feel that they may as well give up the struggle because they are not getting anywhere and opt for accepting a low offer, that offer will take effect and will be imposed on the rest of their colleagues. The Bill does not make the position clear and I hope that the Minister will clarify the issue. I want to know what he anticipates the outcome will be. I suspect that we are on a road that will lead to staff being paid less well and to worse conditions of service. They will face a much more difficult negotiating position.
  The non-teaching staff has not been mentioned. What will become of the office workers, cleaners and janitors who service the colleges? Will any change be made to their negotiating machinery? So much in the Bill will be the subject of future regulations. It would seem that other developments are in the pipeline. I want to know more about the Government's intentions.
  I have waited in my place all afternoon and evening for a chance to participate in the debate. I thank the Opposition and Government Whips for allowing me a short time to make my contribution to the Bill's Second Reading. I say that with all respect to you, Mr. Speaker. I did not sit in my place thinking that if I were fortunate enough to catch your eye I would be able to change the minds and attitudes of Conservative Members. We all know what a foolish hope that would be. None of our amendments is ever accepted in Committee. That is certainly true of social security and employment legislation, and the same can be said of any other measure that is considered in Committee.
  The Government have not accepted an Opposition amendment for as long as most of us can remember. My colleagues and I are not making speeches this evening because we think that we shall be able to change the opinions of Conservative Members. They will not listen to rational arguments. We want to be able to tell the people of Scotland that we are sticking up for them and doing the best job that we can. It is extremely important to get that message across to them.
  I hope that the people of Scotland understand that once again they are having imposed upon them ideas on education and on how to run schools and colleges that are anathema to them. At 10 o'clock, however, the bunch sitting on the Government Benches and their right hon. and hon. Friends will troop through the Lobby in support of the Government. Most of them will not have heard a word of the debate, they could not name a single college in Scotland, yet they are intent on voting for the Bill's Second Reading and its subsequent passage through the House.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I am pleased to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box for the first time. I am even more delighted to know that a document produced by the Labour party on education has been widely read by Conservative Members. It is rare that they want to pick up any document that the Labour party produces. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will refer again to the excellent document that has been produced by my colleagues.
  Few hon. Members will have been impressed by the unconvincing words, the empty assurances and the Government's politically convenient conversion to parental choice that have characterised the debate. As my hon. Friends have identified clearly in their contributions, the Bill remains politically dishonest and is educationally divisive. It poses a real threat to the ethos, structure and achievements of Scottish education. In a nutshell, the Bill is unnecessary, unwanted and unworkable.
  The Scots feel strongly about education. It has a special place in the hearts and minds of the Scottish people. It is a tragedy that a system that has been built up painstakingly over the past 30 years, and which has involved so many people, is about to be destroyed by a Government who do not care and who have only a casual regard for a distinctive and successful part of Scotland's heritage. It has a part which was even mentioned by the Secretary of State in a recent speech in Aberdeenshire. Speaking to a chamber of commerce on 15 April 1988, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "What was important to Unionists and remains so is the preservation and enrichment of traditional Scottish institutions."
  He went on:
  "Thus as Unionists,… we attach importance … to our distinctive educational tradition".
  It has not been evident this evening that the Secretary of State has remembered those words.
  It is also important to point out that 119 years ago tomorrow the Bill that became the Education (Scotland) Act 1872 received its Second Reading. That Bill introduced compulsory schooling to Scotland. Despite two world wars, despite school boards, which were scrapped, and despite the current Scottish Office Minister responsible for education holding that post for the past 18 months, Scottish education remains in the forefront of everything that is positive and innovatory in education in Europe.
  Even by the Government's appalling standards of hypocrisy, insensitivity and malice, this Bill plumbs new depths. The overwhelming majority of Scots consider the Bill to be educational vandalism of a high order. As we heard earlier from two distinguished and respected Conservative Back Benchers, the Bill is part of an alarming sell-out which has betrayed the trust of Conservative Members and the trust of the Scottish people. It is crucial that when the Minister replies he tells us why opting out plays such an important role in the Bill. Forty-seven of the 72 clauses involve opting out. I will give the Minister an opportunity to intervene now to tell us who wants opting out. Will the Minister tell us which groups and organisations in Scotland are clamouring to have opting out included in this menu for schools? Not surprisingly there is little activity on the Government Front Bench.
  I can tell the House which important organisations are the inspiration for this divisive measure. These are not
  692
  normal bodies within the democratic process. They include the Institute of Directors, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust, the Adam Smith Institute and the Centre for Policy Studies. That is a host of bodies accountable to no one except the raving Right of the Conservative party who used to be involved in fringe politics at university, but who now occupy centre stage at the Scottish Office.
  It is important for me to highlight why there is such bitter anger in Scotland about the Bill and about opting out in particular. The source of the anger can be traced back to a comment made by the Prime Minister on 9 April 1988 on BBC Radio Scotland. When asked whether she would confirm that opting out of local authority control would go ahead in Scotland, she said:
  "No I cannot confirm that it will definitely go ahead. The first thing we had to do was to see that every school has a school board. Then we have to take further soundings to see if sufficient people would like to have opting out as an option. No one is compelling anyone to do anything."
  That sounds to me like an assurance that school boards would be introduced and be up and running before opinion was tested in Scotland. That is the point of regret expressed by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). They are dismayed and disgusted by the double dealing by Ministers in the Scottish Office. That is on record to prove to the Scottish Office and the Scottish people that this is a shabby piece of legislation.
  I can understand why the Government are running away from consultation. Opting out was never in the Conservative party manifesto and it has never been the subject of consultation. After the school boards consultation fiasco in which 96 per cent. of Scots rejected ceiling powers, it is no wonder that Scottish Office Ministers have run away from consultation. Although Ministers and the Conservative party have some friends, that friendship has been shaken by the Government's double dealing on this issue. The Scottish Consumer Council supported school boards, but in a press release it now comments:
  "Proposals to allow schools to 'opt out' of education authority control are ill-timed and do not offer parents a significant extension of choice."
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman cites the submission of the Scottish Consumer Council to support his argument that people in Scotland do not want ceiling powers. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the council's full submission. If he does so, he will find that the council asks the Government to introduce ceiling powers for school boards. What is the hon. Gentleman's position? He cannot cite one part of the council's evidence with which he agrees and ignore those parts with which he disagrees.
  Mr. McLeish: I was making the point that an organisation that trusted the Government in respect of school boards now feels betrayed because it now feels used. School boards were never a vehicle for parental involvement but were a stepping stone to opting out, and that is what hurt the council. Even the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which supported Ministers in the Scottish Office over school boards, stated in a press release dated 15 February:

  693
  "We believe that the successful establishment of School Boards will be jeopardised by the undue haste with which the Government is pursuing these proposals."
  What a difference there is between the slipshod and second-rate performances of Scottish Office Ministers and the performance of a real Tory statesman such as Rab Butler, who introduced the important Education Act 1944 into England and Wales. In a debate on that legislation on 19 January 1944, Mr. Butler said:
  "I now commend the Bill to the House as one which is warmly welcomed by the many active partners in the education service. It is they, as a team, who have helped to fashion it during the last two years. We have now come to Parliament and the Government look for the help of Parliament and the wisdom of hon. Members."—[Official Report, 19 January 1944; Vol. 396, c. 208.]
  How different that is from the tawdry behaviour of the present ministerial team. Rab Butler spoke of two years spent on the Education Act 1944, but the Bill before the House was conceived in two months.
  When Rab Butler spoke of a team, he did not mean the Adam Smith Institute or any of the other hangers-on that now subscribe to the development of Government policy. In 1944, Mr. Butler was able to say that the whole House welcomed the legislation. How different that is from tonight, when such a sensitive issue is being dealt with in a cavalier fashion and, quite rightly, receives no support from the Opposition Benches. Clearly, there is no accounting for the decline in political standards in some political parties over a long period.
  Under the guise of opting out, there will be a move towards centralised political control of education and not parental choice. We shall also see the introduction of selection, not improving standards. Under the guise of testing, national testing will be introduced. There will be nominative testing—setting child against child, teacher against teacher, class against class and school against school. Instead, there should be diagnostic testing, locally conceived and locally delivered, that centres on the child and relates his or her potential to his or her attainment. That is the proper way to progress. Instead, we know that testing is being introduced because it is an essential step towards selection. Unless one has a league table, one cannot select.
  Under the guise of teacher appraisal and the scrapping of section 88, there will be further attacks made on teachers rather than proper staff development. Under the guise of technology academies, there will be pandering to some of the educational illiterates who advise the Government on industrial matters. Technology academies are merely a Trojan horse, used to increase selection and to ensure that the comprehensive system is further undermined.
  Taken together, the measures in the Bill will tear the heart out of Scottish education—and regardless of the crocodile tears and of the faint expression of understanding and knowledge from English Conservatives this evening, the Bill's powerful set of political reforms is designed to do just that.
  Striking at the heart of our schools is the creation of a three-tier structure of educational provision. First, independent schools cater for 32,000 out of Scotland's 800,000 children—a rich preserve for the privileged. Next we shall have grant-maintained schools and then LEA schools. The strategy is so uniquely objectionable that it is—if hon. Members will excuse the expression—in a class of its own. We are offering a school menu of declining
  694
  educational standards, restricted parental choice and the introduction, through clauses 16 and 28, of selective education based on academic criteria. What is worse, it is underlined by a highly centralised form of political control from the Scottish Office.
  There is another interesting feature of the Government's concern for Scottish education. The Conservative manifesto of 1987 talked of
  "Raising Standards in our Schools".
  It claimed:
  "This Government has provided more resources for pupils than ever before."
  It said that the ratio of teachers to pupils was at its best ever, and that Scottish schools were among the world leaders in the use of computers.
  Why, then, have we had cuts in real terms of 14 per cent., or £300 million, in the proportion of funds provided by the Government for local education authorities in the last decade? Why is it that between 1982 and 1987 we have seen cuts in capital expenditure for buildings of 44 per cent., or £35 million? Why, after a decade in which school rolls have dropped dramatically, have we seen barely an improvement in the pupil-teacher ratios? In primary schools they have fallen only from 14·4 to 12·9 to one, despite there being 83,000 fewer children. In secondary schools they have fallen only from 20·3 to 20·2 to one, despite 120,000 children leaving school.
  Why has the number of full-lime equivalents in nursery places increased by only 3,100 in a decade—to 20,600—when another 120,000 Scots aged three and four have required places? Why, in view of that catalogue of cuts, is £7 million being spent in 1989 on assisted places schemes in Scotland? It is a financial and political disgrace that public money should be used to prop up private schools. Why does that miserable catalogue also include a loss of 8,750 teachers between 1979 and 1987? That is why pupil-teacher ratios have not improved. At a time of falling school rolls we should have been retaining teachers to improve the ratio, but the Government have shown that they want none of that.
  Let us look at one of the tests that the Government always use to prove that they are doing well by Scottish education: textbooks and equipment. Over the past decade, provision in primary education has slumped—in real terms—from £5,300,000 to £5 million, and in secondary education it has fallen from £6·9 million to £5·9 million.
  That is only a portion of what I could have read out to illustrate 10 years of Tory neglect. The Under-Secretary may be laughing to the Secretary of State, but people in Scotland demand to know why standards have not improved. Opposition Members have no reason to apologise for the success of Scottish education, despite such a catalogue of deliberate neglect. Yes, there are weaknesses that need to be tackled and improvements and innovations that we all want to see. Parents and children have legitimate aspirations that must be satisfied. The plain truth is, however, that it is not the Scottish education system but the Government who have failed our children and their parents.
  The Bill talks about opting out. The first point that it makes is about expanding choice. I want the Minister to tell us how choice can be expanded when one group of parents, at one time, on a single ballot and on a simple majority, with no regard to turnout, can take a school out of the state sector. What choice is that for the 800,000

  695
  children in Scottish education? What is worse is that parents whose children are going from feeder primary schools to comprehensive schools will not have a vote but parents of children in their final two years at school will, although they will not be around when the school opts out. In any catchment area, parents of potential pupils will have no particular say in the matter. A once-and-for-all decision, a one-way ticket to ministerial mercy, is not real choice for the vast majority of Scottish parents or Scottish children.
  There is another important question. What will happen to Scottish children with special needs? Can the Minister give us a guarantee that when clauses 16 and 18 become operative children with special learning difficulties and children with other special needs will be able to go to the school of first choice in their catchment area?
  But, more important, can the Minister, unlike the Secretary of State earlier today, give an unequivocal guarantee that clause 28 will not be used to bring in selection? The nub of this Bill is selection. We challenge the Minister to reassure the House and Scottish parents that selection will not be used as a means of excluding those parents. This is not real choice. Real choice is about real options. This is a major restriction of choice. We should be investing in failure, not in the kind of hypocrisy that this Bill represents.
  Let me make a final point about choice. There is choice in the system at present. The Minister will always talk about the 100,000 children taking advantage, over a period of seven years, of the parents' charter to seek a school elsewhere. He does not tell us, of course, that 6·5 million children will go to Scottish schools over that period. We find that 0·02 per cent. actually have been refused the place of their choice. That is a pretty formidable record by any standard.
  The second main claim that has been used in putting the Bill before the House is that opting out will improve standards. Hon. Members have referred to the work being done by the Centre for Educational Sociology in Edinburgh, which shows that comprehensive education has not only worked, but has actually equalised attainment between social classes, and increased overall attainment. It is important also to consider outputs. The Government talk about processes. What about outputs? Has the Minister read the comments of the Scottish Examination Board on the results for 1987? The board says:
  "Candidates' performance in 1987 was, on the whole, maintained at the pleasing level achieved in the previous year."
  It refers glowingly to accounting and mathematics. Has the Minister read his own figures from the Scottish Education Department? Between 1979 and 1987 there was a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of children leaving school without qualifications, and a 38 per cent. increase in the number of children leaving with more than five highers.
  More important, the Bill will do nothing to improve the chronic under-resourcing of our education system; it will do nothing to tackle the £300 million worth of outstanding repairs, modernisation and building; it will do nothing to develop a coherent, imaginative and flexible system of real parental involvement; it will do nothing to improve nursery education for the under-fives to bring us into line with our European partners; it will do nothing to
  696
  encourage more young people to stay on at school after 16; it will do nothing to prevent taxpayers' money from propping up private education while the state sector is starved of resources. The debate has proved that the Government have a bankrupt policy towards education. We know that education is not safe in Conservative hands. The Government are indifferent, complacent and arrogant. Indeed, the Bill is the perfect example of how out of touch they really are.
  We accept that there are always problems to be tackled in any education system. However, Labour believes that key principles, such as equal opportunity and equal access, should be the foundations. We believe that self-confidence, self-discipline and self-worth should be the qualities that children take away from the education system. We believe that those should be linked to educational attainment. But, most important of all—and the Minister should listen to these words—education should be regardless of geography, regardless of income, regardless of social class, race or religion.
  We believe that educaton is a right, not a privilege. Education is the most productive investment in people, in communities and in the economy; it is not a drain on the taxpayer. Education should be shared generously, not rationed. Education should be universal and free at the point of need. It should not be based on selection, or on the market, or on privilege. For all those reasons, we shall fight the Bill in the House and in Scotland and we shall vote against it.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) to the Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that I might live to regret it. His remark, which I hope Hansard will record, that
  "We should be investing in failure"
  may live to haunt him for some time to come. Having listened to his speech, I understand why that might be the conclusion he would reach at the end of his argument.
  I noted that the hon. Gentleman said that the Scottish education tradition had been painstakingly built up over the past 30 years. Many hon. Members have benefited from Scottish education, and they believe that it took rather longer than that.
  The hon. Gentleman described the Bill as a piece of educational vandalism. If it is a piece of educational vandalism, he has put parents in the role of lager louts. None of the self-governing status provisions in the Bill will be achieved without taking into account the wishes of the parents in the schools concerned. Opposition Members have consistently failed to recognise that this legislation—unlike the school boards legislation—is permissive.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the cuts that had been made by Labour-controlled local authorities, in the main, which decided on alternative priorities. He did not mention that expenditure per pupil in Scotland has risen by nearly 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979, that pupil ratios are far better, that expenditure on books and equipment has risen by 20 per cent. in real terms and that provision for local authority current expenditure next year is set to rise by 7 per cent. on the current year. I accept that the last Labour Government did not do as well—not out

  697
  of malice because of their views on education but simply because of their lack of competence in running the economy and creating the necessary wealth.
  Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister address the central point? If a primary and secondary education system has lost 200,000 children in a decade, why has not the pupil-teacher ratio improved?
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman looks into that question, he will find that the pupil-teacher ratio has improved. When the hon. Gentleman and his friends in the Educational Institute of Scotland get together and discuss the creation of more generous terms and conditions for teachers, they will find the answer to that question. I make no bones about that.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the self-governing schools being taken out of the state sector. They will not be taken out of the state sector. They will continue to be funded by the state. They will be run by boards of management.
  Another point that has not been made in the debate and that Opposition Members do not appear to have taken on board is that the Secretary of State for Scotland will provide funding on the same basis as would have been provided by the local authority. It will not be for the Secretary of State to decide the level of funding. Schools that become self-governing in local authority areas where there are high levels of expenditure will benefit proportionately more.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could guarantee that children from a neighbouring area to the catchment area of a particular school—I remind him that we do not have catchment areas in Scotland—would be guaranteed a place in a self-governing school or in any other school. I am happy to give him that guarantee, but that is no thanks to him and his party. The Opposition opposed us when we introduced the parents charter in 1980 that gave to parents the right to send their children to the school of their choice. The hon. Gentleman has been at great pains in the press and elsewhere to rubbish the fact that more than 20,000 parents every year are able to exercise that choice. He has argued that, compared with the total number of parents, that number is insignificant. Once again he has misunderstood the importance of a small number of parents being able to exercise choice and discrimination within the system.
  I do not make a general practice of reading the Observer Scotland at the weekend, but I saw something this weekend which I feel I should quote because it is relevant to the debate. It says:
  "It is rarely sensible for a Labour spokesman to question standards of teaching; it is unwise to suggest evaluation procedures which parents can actually understand; it is anathema to advocate new ways of funding education, heresy to urge greater autonomy for individual schools, and unthinkable even to whisper that bad teachers must be weeded out with all speed.
  The result is an alarming lack of new thinking."
  I could not have put it better myself as a summary of the speeches by Opposition Members throughout the debate. That piece was written by a man called Ian Bell, and, judging from what he said about me, he is not a Government supporter. However, I felt almost certain that he must have read the hon. Gentleman's 21-page document outlining the Labour party's proposals.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: As the Minister has referred to what the writer of that article said about him, will he read it out to the House? None of us had the privilege of civil servants drawing that article to our attention.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find in the Library a copy of Sunday's edition of the Observer Scotland and he will be able to read its delights for himself. I shall not take up the time of the House on it now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) drew attention to the conversion of the Labour party to school boards. I welcome that. We were very surprised to be told in November that the Labour party was very much committed to school boards, when Opposition Members had used the arguments that they used tonight against self-governing schools—saying that they were irrelevant and were not wanted in Scotland. It was not until Boxing day that we discovered why the Labour party was suddenly forced to a conversion on school boards.
  On Boxing day the Educational Institute of Scotland decided to issue a press release announcing to an unsuspecting world dealing with the aftermath of their Christmas dinners that the EIS had changed its policy and was now in favour of school boards. We learnt subsequently that it had changed its policy in November and the Labour party quickly came into line. Throughout the debate we have witnessed a party which has no idea and no policy and waits to hear what the major teaching union has to say before it can work out its own position.
  I was fascinated by the views of the hon. Member for Fife, Central on testing. He told us that our views on testing were inappropriate and not necessary for Scotland. I remind the House that we propose to introduce testing in primary 4 and primary 7 in English and mathematics. The hon. Gentleman is a former leader of Fife council and very proud of the record of Fife region, so hon. Members can imagine my surprise when I discovered that the education authority in Fife has testing in primary 1, primary 3, primary 5 and primary 7.
  Mr. McLeish: It is widely known in the best circles of Scottish education that Fife became involved in diagnostic testing. It is sick and tired of the Government's attempt to force down its throat nominative testing which bears no relationship to IQ, potential or social background, but is a recipe for league tables and selection. Yes, Fife has diagnostic testing. Why does not the Minister allow the teaching unions, the local authorities and parents to devise testing procedures which are in the interests of children and not in the interests of political policies?
  Mr. Forsyth: Who would have thought that that was a clear statement of Labour party policy in Fife? I shall return to that in a moment.
  Imagine my surprise to find that the Labour party in Central region split. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know that it split over a proposal by Mrs. Margaret Connarty, who is described in The Scotsman on 2 March as
  "the teachers' representative on the education committee"
  and a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland. She proposed to get rid of the diagnostic testing which the hon. Gentleman has just told us he favours and the Labour group split both ways and was only saved by other

  699
  opposition members. A certain councillor Corrie McChord—one of the six angry Labour members who voted for her motion—is on record as saying:
  "We have already been contacted by the group whips, and it looks as if we could be subject to group discipline. I am being told by the Scottish executive, the regional party, and my constituency party, to oppose testing. Yet this happens. It's crazy."
  What is the Labour party's policy on testing? Is it in favour of some types of testing, or is it opposed to all types of testing? Why is it that Fife has successfully carried out testing proposals which the hon. Gentleman knows are so much in line with our policies? There is no question of people being put in league tables. We made that clear in our original consultative document. If the hon. Gentleman is defending what happens in Fife, he is supporting what the Government are proposing.
  Mr. McLeish: The Minister is not listening. Does he know the difference between normative and diagnostic testing? Does he know the difference between policies aimed at children and those aimed at league tables? Fife has an excellent system. The Minister's proposals will lead to league tables and selection in the opted-out sector. They are not about children. Tell the House.
  Mr. Forsyth: I do not know how to cope with hon. Members who will not accept assurances given in consultative papers which say that there will be no league tables and that the results will be kept confidential.
  The hon. Gentleman is, however, right about one thing; there is a difference between the sort of testing which is being carried out in Fife and that which we propose. There is only one difference. It is not that there will be league tables—the information will be kept private. We propose that parents should also get to know about their children's performance. In Fife, information is not passed on to parents. Therein lies the difference between us and Opposition Members, who do not believe that parents are entitled to be involved in schools or to have information. They think that it should be left to the professionals. They are entitled to put that that point of view, but they will get short shrift.
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the House. Will he kindly withdraw his remark about Fife? I assure him that Fife regional council's teachers discuss the results of tests with parents. I know because my children have been through its schools. As he believes that diagnostic and normative testing are the same, will he give us any evidence that suggests that that is so?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am relying on Her Majesty's inspectorate for my information, but I am told that none of the information is made directly available to parents.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Withdraw!
  Mr. Forsyth: There is nothing to withdraw. The information is not available as we propose.
  Mr. Dewar: If the Minister is so worried about parents being consulted, why does he not consult them about his opting-out proposals and rely on their judgment? I find it astonishing that, in this comparitively lengthy speech, he has not yet turned his attention to a defence for his
  700
  principal and most controversial proposal—opting out. He has succeeded only in chasing red herrings, and conducting what sounds a little like a personal vendetta against various people in his part of Scotland. Would he like to defend what the Government are about?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am responding to the arguments that have been made in the debate. The fact that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have not made a single argument against the proposals for self-governing schools but produced a series of scare stories about selection and other matters is a problem for him. The hon. Gentleman asks me to respond to the arguments, and I shall respond to the arguments that have been made. His first argument was that the name was wrong—
  Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) made it clear that the Minister has misled the House. I am not saying that he did it deliberately. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, I have two children who have gone through the Fife education system. We get results from teachers at every stage. It is not on for the Minister to make a statement and then to refuse to withdraw it. He has impugned the reputation of Fife regional council and the teachers in Fife. He should withdraw what he said, if he has any decency at all.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of order. The Minister must take responsibility for what he says.
  Mr. Forsyth: Hon. Gentlemen cannot complain that they do not receive answers to points of substance if they raise such points of order. I am glad that I have the hon. Gentleman's support in the view that it would be impugning the integrity of an education authority if one were to suggest that it was not providing information to parents about their children's performance in the way that the Government are planning.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) began his argument against the Bill by saying that the phrase "self-governing schools" was wrong. He suggested that we should use the term "grant-aided schools". [HON. MEMBERS: "Grant-maintained schools".] I should say "grant-maintained schools". Perhaps we avoided the term "grant-maintained schools" because we thought there might be some confusion with "grant-aided schools". [Laughter.] The Opposition Front-Bench Members may laugh about grant-aided schools. They represented a tradition of many hundreds of years of Scottish education and the Labour party destroyed them out of naked ideology. Let us not have any lectures from them about Scottish educational traditions.
  The hon. Member from Garscadden also described the Paisley grammar saga as a bizarre story. That was a revealing comment because it went to the heart of his antipathy towards the Bill. He regards any option in which a school is supported by parents, as it was in Paisley, and in which people, under the parents charter, send children to the school of their choice, which allows them to frustrate the wishes of an education authority like Strathclyde, as bizarre. The Bill provides for a breaking of the monopoly of which the hon. Gentleman is so contemptuous.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Garscadden said that there might be schools that wanted to take advantage of that, such as those facing closure and others that he described as being interested in snob value. There we have it. The wish to send one's child to a particular school, perhaps because it has a uniform, a tradition, a discipline or academic standards, is now to be denounced as snob value. I have news for the hon. Gentleman: there are many people throughout Scotland who wish to have the advantage of such schools, and I repudiate the thinking of the education authorities. The Bill provides an opportunity for such parental choice.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden also talked about the position compared with that of schools in England.
  Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: He said that the only schools interested in opting out were those facing closure. For the record, 59 schools have been involved, 26 of which are not subject to closure. The hon. Gentleman also asked about voting and consulting the wider community. There will be an opportunity to consult the wider community. The ballot will be held and the Secretary of State will consult on the parents' views.
  The most bogus threat was that the hon. Gentleman argued that opting out would mean bringing back selection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] We already have selection in local authority schools. We have made provision for children with special needs in Knightswood.
  Mr. Dewar: Knightswood'?
  Mr. Forsyth: Yes Knightswood. Knightswood is an example of a school in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency which select children who are especially talented at dance for the school of dance. Self-governing schools would create an opportunity for schools to he established to provide for particular needs.
  The Bill is a radical measure. It is the most radical change in Scottish education for a generation or more, and I freely admit that. Its potential is profound and the benefits it offers are obvious to some already. In time, they will be widely recognised. The concepts are novel, but as people realise what is on offer they will realise that they have a tool with which to reshape Scottish education to the great benefit of its users.
  The Bill strikes a blow for freedom of choice, for diversity and for healthy competition. It promotes selection of the best kind—that is self-selection. We want to see parents and pupils selecting schools. That is the real issue, not whether schools can select pupils. It is no longer good enough that parents should have schools selected for them. It is no longer good enough that most parents have only one kind of school from which to choose. Uniformity breeds complacency and apathy.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Forsyth: We need different styles of management and different teaching methods.
  Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Not at this stage of the evening.
  Mr. Forsyth: Nobody has a monopoly of educational wisdom, so nobody should have a monopoly of provision.
  702
  The Bill is designed to promote excellence. Equal opportunity must mean equal opportunity to excel. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 206.

  Division No. 116]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fallon, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Amess, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Amos, Alan

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Forman, Nigel

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Atkins, Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Franks, Cecil

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Frseman, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  French, Douglas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fry, Peter

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gale, Roger

  Benyon, W

  Gardiner, George

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Body, Sir Richard

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowis, John

  Grist, Ian

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Grylls, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brazier, Julian

  Hague, William

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hannam, John

  Burns, Simon

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

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butler, Chris

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butterfill, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heddle, John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heseltme, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Churchill, Mr

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Sir W (Croydon S)

  Howarth, G (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, David

  Irvine, Michael

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

  Irving, Charles

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Dicks, Terry

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dover, Den

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Tony

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evennett, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  703

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knowles, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Speed, Keith

  Lang, Ian

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Latham, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Squire, Robin

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lightbown, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stern, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stokes, Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Sumberg, David

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Marland, Paul

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thurnham, Peter

  May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tracey, Richard

  Mellor, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Trippier, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Trotter, Neville

  Neale, Gerrard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Norris, Steve

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Pawsey, James

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Riddick, Graham

  Walden, George

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Ward, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rost, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Whitney, Ray

  Ryder, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Sims, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Allen, Graham

  Buckley, George J.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Battle, John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clay, Bob

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

  Clelland, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Coleman, Donald

  Blair, Tony

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Boateng, Paul

  Corbett, Robin

  Boyes, Roland

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradley, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Crowther, Stan

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Cummings, John

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  704

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dalyell, Tarn

  McFall, John

  Darling, Alistair

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  McTaggart, Bob

  Dobson, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Doran, Frank

  Madden, Max

  Douglas, Dick

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Martlew, Eric

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Meale, Alan

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Fearn, Ronald

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fisher, Mark

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flannery, Martin

  Morley, Elliott

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foster, Derek

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foulkes, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Nellist, Dave

  Galbraith, Sam

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galloway, George

  O'Brien, William

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pendry, Tom

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gould, Bryan

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Graham, Thomas

  Reid, Dr John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Richardson, Jo

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Robertson, George

  Grocott, Bruce

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hardy, Peter

  Rogers, Allan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Rooker, Jeff

  Haynes, Frank

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rowlands, Ted

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ruddock, Joan

  Henderson, Doug

  Salmond, Alex

  Hinchliffe, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Holland, Stuart

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Home Robertson, John

  Short, Clare

  Hood, Jimmy

  Sillars, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Howells, Kim (Pontypridd)

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

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Snape, Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Illsley, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ingram, Adam

  Stott, Roger

  Janner, Greville

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Straw, Jack

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Turner, Dennis

  Lamond, James

  Vaz, Keith

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Wall, Pat

  Lewis, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Litherland, Robert

  Walley, Joan

  Livsey, Richard

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wigley, Dafydd

  McAllion, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Wilson, Brian

  McCartney, Ian

  Winnick, David

  705

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Frank Cook.

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

  Self-Governing Schools Etc (Scotland) Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act and any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment; and

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be paid into that Fund in pursuance of the Act.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  10.15 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The money resolution should not pass without one or two queries being directed at the Government. The Government's wont on Scottish Bills has been to attach money resolutions stating that the costs will not be significant, or containing estimates of costs which experience has shown to be wild underestimates.
  In one or two areas covered by the Bill it is unclear what the financial effects of the Bill are likely to be. The Bill states, for example, that
  "The … provisions … should be generally neutral. Self-governing schools are to receive funding from the Secretary of State at the level they could have expected had they remained under local authority control."
  As has already been said, however, there is every sign that schools that seek to opt out may be the very schools that would otherwise have been closed or rationalised. Although the Secretary of State has partially answered that point, he has not made it clear whether additional charges could fall on the local authority or the Government from that commitment. If the Bill prevents rationalisation from going ahead or ensures an unequal distribution of costs, the costs will not be neutral.
  The Bill also states that there will be small additional costs relating to the funding of parents' ballots. The Government have no experience of such ballots. They may be contested, or they may need to be re-run—that would lead to higher than expected costs.
  Other aspects of the Bill certainly suggest that the determination of costs will be inequitably decided. Clause 26 allows the Secretary of State to determine the transitional amount due from or to the local authority when a school opts out, with no right of appeal by the local authority against the Secretary of State's determination. That might lead to an extra cost for the local authority which might require it to seek more direct grant or increase the poll tax.
  The Minister's estimates proved to be way below the actual costs during the passage of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. The original estimates were increased during its passage, as the Minister knows. The outturn of costs for the collection of the poll tax has been much higher than the Government estimated. As the orders to be
  706
  discussed tonight will show, that tax is proving a most cumbersome, complicated arid expensive tax to collect, which means that the costs have turned out way above the Government' estimates.
  Some of us are sceptical about the idea that no additional costs will be levied on the public purse; the Government are not clear about what the take-up will be or about the costs.
  I hope that if and when the Minister responds to this debate, he will do just that. He failed to respond to the main debate tonight. I do not mind that he did not respond to the points that I or the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) made, but he did not even answer his own Back Benchers' points—for instance, those made by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). No doubt that contributed to the smallness of the Government's majority because the provocation of not even having their arguments acknowledged, never mind responded to, must have been the final straw that drove them into the Lobby with the Opposition parties.
  The Bill is not opposed, as the Minister tried to make out, simply by the Labour party and it is not the root cause of some curious ideological struggle. It is opposed by all the representatives of all the Opposition parties and by the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland. It is a pity that the Minister tried to pretend differently and to turn the debate into a sort of Labour-Tory dog fight. H e also failed to answer the questions that have been asked. The costs associated with the Bill are likely to be far greater than the Minister has said. Even if the costs in money terms are not great, the cost in human terms will be very high.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I should like some information from the Minister. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has said, the Minister did not respond to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). In this short debate I should like the Minister to put some flesh on the bones and tell us about the matters under the heading, "Financial Effects of the Bill". What exactly is meant by the phrase
  "efficiency savings from more locally based decision-making"?
  What is meant by
  "offset by savings on local authority central administration"?
  Will the Minister make clear what savings he has in mind? Surely the cost of training college councillors and the running costs of the councils will be increased because of duplication. Could the Minister tell us how the figures have been calculated and say why he is so sure about the statements in the Bill?
  We are told that training costs will be "offset by savings". Can the Minister tell us what the savings are and whether they can be quantified? Are they pious Government hopes? Costs will eventually be passed to the taxpayers and the Minister should at least give an indication of what he has in mind. What is the expected allocation of costs to the technology academies? The Bill says:
  "the cost of introducing and administering appraisal schemes will fall on Government and local authorities,".
  What is meant by that. What proportion will fall on local authorities and what proportion do the Government

  707
  expect to take up? Can the Minister reveal what he has in mind or whether he has any figures? That would certainly help to clarify matters.
  I wish that the Government had spent money on the Scottish education system instead of transferring it out of the system. We can all be proud of that system. It deserves more resources and should be given more. This trivial Bill contains an alien set of principles which are to be imposed on the Scottish economy. The Government should give more resources to the teaching staff in further and secondary education in Scotland rather than acting in the way that they are.
  10.22 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The major payments covered by the Bill are grants to the board of management of a self-governing school under clause 25. The most important of these will be the recurrent grant for each to meet its normal running costs. Our intention is that in every course the recurrent grant will be set at a level which the school could reasonably have expected if it had remained under the control of the local authority concerned. This amount of recurrent grant paid to the school will then be reclaimed from the authority under clause 26.
  Grant and recovery regulations will have to be made giving detailed effect to this policy. The principle is clear. The school and the authority are to be left in the same financial position overall. Thus the level of expenditure on any self-governing school will reflect local spending decisions by the authority.
  Mr. John McFall: The Minister speaks about the level of grant that a school can reasonably expect from a local authority. For years the Government have been telling local authorities that they have been spending above budget. Will the budget be decided by the Scottish Office or will it be the budget to which local authority schools have been adhering?
  Mr. Forsyth: We have entered the new era of the community charge, and it is a matter for the local authorities to decide their own level of expenditure and their own priorities. I have some sympathy with the point—if the hon. Gentleman is making it—that perhaps the Scottish Office should be less proscriptive in these matters than it has been in the past.
  Other grants under clause 25 will provide for capital spending in self-governing schools and for special purposes. These equally are aimed at ensuring financial neutrality. Capital projects funded by grants will require the consent of the Secretary of State. Grants will be set against the overall public expenditure programme of the schools' capital works. Special-purpose grants will cover such items of expenditure as it would not be appropriate to recover from the local authority. For example, there could be one-off management expenses associated with the transition to self-governing status. They will also provide a mechanism allowing self-governing schools to give the equivalent benefit to any specific balance available to local authorities, such as those in support of in-service training for teachers. As the financial
  708
  memorandum states, the overall impact of creating self-governing schools for these grants will be "generally neutral".
  The Bill offers a new way to manage Scottish schools within whatever level of resources local authorities choose to spend. Certain minor costs will fall on the Secretary of State as each self-governing school is established. These include the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)—the costs of balancing expenses under clause 14(6). Our best estimate is about £1,000 for a medium-size secondary school with 500-plus pupils. There will be payments under schedule 9 to cover the work of the commissioners for school assets in arranging for transfer of the property of the school. There is a power under clause 5 to cover special additional costs during the transitional period. For example, in some cases it may be appropriate for a school board to make an early appointment of someone to deal with future financial arrangements for the school. The extent of these various minor payments will depend on the number of schools seeking self-governing status in any year and on the size and circumstances of each individual candidate.
  As the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) does not believe that any school is interested in adopting self-governing status, he must draw his own conclusion as to the likely level of expenditure. It is not possible for me to offer any global figure for the same reason. Setting up and running the new college-based administration for further education colleges under clauses 43 to 58 will involve some added costs. However, these will be offset by savings in authorities' central administration. The hon. Member for Angus, East asked me to explain it, and it is very simple. If the centre is no longer required to administer the colleges, there will clearly be an opportunity for savings. By greater efficiency arising from more locally based decision making—our basic premise is of the people who are involved in providing services making the decisions—then there is likely to be a more efficient allocation of resources.
  Moreover, these changes, together with the commercial activity powers granted by the Bill, will allow colleges to generate more income to boost further education. Primary testing will carry additional development costs of £2 million with some recurrent costs in administering the system. This spending falls under the Scottish examination board. We have made it clear that these costs will be met in full by the Government.
  To summarise, this is not a Bill with significant consequences for public spending, overall. Where some additional spending is involved in the transition to self-governing status on technology academies or on primary testing, it will be met by Government. It does not place financial burdens on local authorities. I commend the money resolution to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act and any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment; and

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be paid into that Fund in pursuance of the Act.

  Rating Reform
  10.27 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I beg to move,
  That the Personal Community Charge (Students) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 32) dated 12th January 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th January, be revoked.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with this the following motions:
  That the Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 63), dated 17th January 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th January, he revoked.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 241), dated 23rd February 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be annulled.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The third motion, on the abolition of domestic rates, Statutory Instrument, 1989, No. 241, has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I hope that you can give me an assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if any technical fault is found by the Committee, which will discuss the instrument tomorrow afternoon, it can be debated in its entirety again at some other stage. I also hope that it will not automatically be approved, or that further consideration on it will be excluded, because we will have referred to it in the debate. There is little point in setting up a Joint Committee to scrutinise statutory instruments if decisions are cut and dried the day before the Committee is due to examine a statutory instrument.
  Several of these poll tax instruments have been reported by the Joint Committee to the House, and abuses by the Government have been noted by the Committee. Therefore, it is important that the Committee should have the opportunity to examine the instrument and to report on it if there is that justification. The counsel to the Joint Committee, who is, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, counsel to the Speaker, has not yet had an opportunity to give his views to the Joint Committee, so it is vital that any consideration of the instrument should be deferred until the Committee has considered it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for giving the Chair notice of his intention to raise a point of order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not be making a decision tonight on Statutory Instrument, 1989, No. 241. It will be debated with the other measures, but the House will not make a decision upon it. Should the Joint Committee find fault with it tomorrow, there will be a subsequent opportunity for the House to debate the statutory instrument and come to a decision upon it.
  Mr. Maxton: We want the severely mentally handicapped to be exempt from the poll tax. We want also the mess that the Government have got themselves into with students to be sorted out. We shall debate the regulations and vote against them because we shall continue to oppose in any way possible in the House any measures that relate to the poll tax. That unwanted, unfair and unworkable tax has been rejected by the Scottish
  710
  people. We have a responsibility to recognise that by opposing whenever we can regulations such as those mentioned in the Order Paper.
  As we approach April Fools' day, when the first payments will be made, the tax becomes more ludicrous and unfair. Within the past few weeks it has become apparent that at the same time as imposing new and intolerable burdens upon the poor and the low paid in our society the Government are prepared to give private landlords in Scotland a massive £40 million handout as a result of the poll tax legislation. Many of those who rent private accommodation make a combined rent and rates payment to their landlord. It is clear that the Government have no intention of doing anything to stop those landlords from continuing to ask for the same amount of money after 1 April, even though the rates element of the charge will have disappeared.
  When the Council of Scottish Local Authorities suggested to the Department of Social Security that it should reduce housing benefit payments to landlords accordingly, it was told that it could not do that by statute. It is incredible that, while those who can afford so little are being asked to pay exactly the same as the wealthiest in the land, private landlords should be encouraged blatantly to profiteer.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend has told us that the Government have made substantial concessions to landlords. Is he aware that a specific group of landlords are doing quite well out of Government concessions? I refer to farmers who have had empty farm cottages taken out of the poll tax system. Only last week the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board refused to do anything to compensate 10,000 Scottish farm workers, who may be earning as little as £103 for a 40-hour week, who are paying for their accommodation through their labour. They will not be compensated for the extra imposition of the poll tax. What sense can there be in that?
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is right. That is typical of the Government's mean-mindedness. They promised that they would increase students' grants to compensate for the 20 per cent. contribution to the poll tax that they will have to pay, and that they have done. There is a mean-minded nature to this iniquitous tax, and it is clear that it is becoming an administrative nightmare.
  It is absurd that, with only three weeks to go before the first payments are made, we are debating regulations that must take effect on 1 April. It makes nonsense of the procedures and democratic nature of the House that that is happening with only three weeks to go. Indeed, social security regulations that relate to the poll tax have not even been laid before the House, even though they have been the subject of consultation for months. That is what I have been told by COSLA. They have not yet come before the House, but they will have to take effect on 1 April.
  The second group of regulations that we are discussing tonight deals with those who will be completely excluded from paying the poll tax. Almost all the exclusions have been wrung unwillingly from the Government as the Scottish and English legislation wound its way through this House and the other place. There were very few concessions in the Scottish Bill, only those for people in hospitals. The original Bill did not exclude people in old folk's homes and bit by bit the Opposition have won and have excluded more and more people. We would not

  711
  particularly welcome some of the exclusions. I do not see why an American service man living in Dunoon should be exempt from paying the poll tax while a British service man serving in Dunoon must pay it.
  It is typical of the Government that to the end they cannot be even remotely generous in the exclusions. The first regulation, for all the exclusions that it will involve, will not exclude any elderly person suffering from Alzheimer's disease despite the demands from the Opposition and from the caring organisations in Scotland that they should be treated in the same way as those suffering from other forms of severe mental handicap.
  Many Alzheimer's disease sufferers are cared for by elderly relatives—wives, husbands, sisters or brothers. They have a thankless task, but one which many undertake rather than see someone they love put into institutional care. How heartless it is now to impose an extra burden on them. The sums of money involved are paltry in comparison with the money that will be collected by the poll tax in Scotland for local authorities, yet the Government refuse to concede anything.
  The medical evidence used to debar Alzheimer sufferers from exclusion is spurious, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) will show if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to tell us from where he got his medical evidence.
  Even at this late date we appeal to the Minister to show some compassion and to introduce regulations within days to allow Alzheimer's disease sufferers complete exemption from the tax in the same way that the Government are exempting sufferers from other forms of dementia. If the Minister introduces such regulations, I promise that we will not pray against them or oppose them in any way.
  The regulations about students show the complete administrative muddle into which the Government have got themselves. This is the second regulation that we have debated in this House about the definition of students and how they are to be registered for poll tax purposes. The first regulation proved to be such a mess that it had to be withdrawn after we had debated and approved it when the Government realised that it simply would not work and that the registration of students would be impossible under it.
  Because of that fiasco, some registration officers, particularly the one in Strathclyde, refused to register anyone as a student until the regulations came into force on 3 February. As a result of that, the whole process is now way behind schedule. The regulation states that all students in Scotland should have been issued with a document certifying that they are full-time students by their college or university by last Saturday 4 March. I am assured by the National Union of Students in Scotland that many simply have not received those certificates and many will not receive them for some time. However, registration officers are refusing to register students until they receive a certificate from them.
  That is a doubtful legal procedure because there is nothing in the legislation which says that they must be given certificates before students can be registered. They are interpreting the law as they see it when they say that they will not register students until they have received a certificate. No one knows how long that will take, but it
  712
  means that it is impossible for all students in Scotland to be registered on the poll tax register by 1 April when the first bills will be issued.
  Therefore, students will face bills for the full poll tax and will face a long bureaucratic procedure to ensure that they pay only the 20 per cent. that they are due to pay as students. It is worth bearing in mind that bills for £250 or £300 will drop through students' letterboxes and will then have to be appealed against, so that they will be reduced to 20 per cent. of that figure, at exactly the time—in April, May and early June—when students in the colleges and universities of Scotland will be sitting examinations upon which their whole future will depend. For the Government to impose that burden on students at such a time is wholly unacceptable.
  Both sets of regulations show, in their different ways, that the tax is unfair and unworkable. The Government are not prepared to be generous in any way. They are getting themselves into an administrative muddle, and my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against both measures simply to make the point that they are an absurd part of a very absurd tax.
  10.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): The regulations bring us to the brink of the introduction of the community charge in Scotland, which is now less than four weeks away. They represent almost the final pieces of the jigsaw that we have been working to complete since before the Green Paper on abolishing the discredited domestic rates system which the community charge will replace.
  Far from being the shambles that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) suggested, the procedure has advanced in an orderly and efficient way, despite all the attempts of the Labour party to inhibit progress.
  To place the legislation in context, it is worth reviewing briefly the community charge arrangements as they now stand—up and ready to go. Looking first at the registration process—the key to the whole system—we see a remarkable success story. The canvass of households started in April 1988, and when the community charge registers came into force on 1 October last year, as planned, they showed that, on average, more than 99 per cent. of adult residents in Scotland had, according to the registrar general's population figures, been registered.
  However, the Government made it clear at the time that that figure was subject to adjustment once individuals had been given opportunity to check their register entries. That checking process has now largely been completed, and I am delighted to report that the adjusted registration figure, as at January 1989, is 98·8 per cent.—a very marginal drop on last October's figure. That is an excellent result and shows, once and for all, that those who ran campaigns against the registration process totally misjudged the good sense of the Scottish people, who would not contemplate breaking the law.
  On the basis of those registers, which are being continually updated, local authorities are now printing bills, which will be sent out to everyone on the registers in the next four weeks. The scale of that achievement is itself impressive, particularly when one considers the obstacles that many local authority practitioners had to overcome, and which had been imposed by their own councillors.

  713
  The most disappointing and self-indulgent of those obstacles was the refusal by a number of district councils to co-operate in the collection of the charge and in the operation of the rebate scheme. All that does is to make life difficult for the elderly and for the less well-off people in those councils' areas—for nothing more than the greater glory of a few councillors. The rebate scheme will help a very large number of people—more than I million people in Scotland stand to benefit from it. Both the Government and local authorities are continuing to encourage those who have not yet applied for a rebate to do so.
  We have not been helped by the constant barrage of griping about the rebate scheme that has conveyed the message that only the very low paid could benefit from it. Opposition Members ought to know better by now. I need give only one example to demonstrate the fallacy of the Opposition's argument. A married man with two children aged under 11 living in Edinburgh could, depending on other circumstances, earn £168 net, including child benefit—which works out at about £10,400 per year gross—and still qualify for rebate. There are many more aspects to the new arrangements, and I shall deal with some of them later. The message that is clearly emerging is that every aspect of the policy is working.
  Mr. John McAllion: I should be grateful if the Minister would say how much a single person living alone could earn while still qualifying for rebate.
  Mr. Lang: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the circumstances of every individual will depend on a number of factors. I cannot possibly give him a specific figure without knowing many of those factors first.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Before the Minister leaves his own example, will he tell us what the rebate was for the married man in Edinburgh whom he cited?
  Mr. Lang: The precise rebate will depend on a number of factors, but the point is that he will receive a rebate. What Opposition Members do not like is that some 1 million of the adult population of Scotland—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has been addressing the House for four minutes and has not yet addressed his remarks to the motion. I hope that he will do so now.
  Mr. Lang: I have been trying to do precisely that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am happy to do so.
  The Personal Community Charge (Students) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 repeal and replace the corresponding regulations that came into force in April last year. We have taken the opportunity to make some changes in the criteria that must he met for a person to receive the full-time student concession. For example, the wording of regulation 3(b)(iii) has been expanded to make it clear that a sandwich-course student on a placement will continue to qualify for the student concession provided that he meets the other requirements.
  The main changes, however, reflect changes and improvements made in the community charge arrangements by the Local Government Finance Act 1988. In particular, regulation 5 prescribes the arrangements under which educational establishments will have to provide certificates to their full-time students, and regulation 6 requires establishments to provide any additional
  714
  information required by the registration officer, provided that it is information that he reasonably requires to carry out his functions and is in the possession or control of the establishment.
  The provisions are designed to facilitate the registration of students to ensure that those who qualify for the concessionary rate can be readily registered without requiring time-consuming investigation by the registration officer. All the evidence that I have suggests that the system is working well, and that full-time students are being recorded on the register without problems. Regulation 4 makes specific provision in relation to student nurses and, taken with regulation 3, has the effect of providing that student nurses studying at universities, central institutions colleges of education, polytechnics or further education establishments in England and Wales and who are liable for the personal community charge in Scotland will pay only 20 per cent. of the personal charge and personal community water charge. The effect of the 1988 student regulations was in practice no different, although those regulations did not differentiate between students and student nurses, leaving the rules on students to determine which student nurses would receive the concession and which would not. Following the changes made to the 1987 Act by the Local Government Finance Act 1988, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment stated the Government's policy in a written answer last October, and the present regulations are consistent with that policy.
  There has been criticism that the student arrangements were not finalised until too late and the hon. Member for Cathcart repeated it. That is nonsense. As I have said, the main student provisions have been in place since April last year, and the changes that have been made have effectively been to improve the operation of those provisions. Educational establishments have been implementing the new arrangements, and students are being entered on the register in time for them to receive their bills at the concessionary rate.
  Mr. Maxton: Strathclyde region is the largest single local authority. Its registration officer, Jack Wood, rightly said when the Government withdrew the previous regulations and put forward new ones that he could not register anyone as a student until the new regulations came into force, because he did not know whether Parliament would bring them forward. For that reason many students in Strathclyde will not be registered by 1 April.
  Mr. Lang: It is for the registration officer in each region to decide how he will discharge his statutory duties. I understand that in Strathclyde it was decided—for administrative reasons—to await the revised regulations. That was a temporary measure, until students had received their certificates and were able to send them to the registration officer. The registration officer sent a standard letter explaining what was happening to everyone who was entered on the community charges inquiry form as being a student, and where appropriate those people have now been entered on the register as students.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Is this not a bit like the baptism of the Chinese with a hosepipe? Is this not to be an individual Act applying to individuals, rather than a portmanteau provision swallowing them all up?

  715
  In regulation 6, what precisely is the extra information that is wanted? What is wanted by the registration officer that is not covered by regulation 5?
  Mr. Lang: The registration officer may, for example, require information about the course that the student is following to make sure that it qualifies. Some courses might not be long enough to qualify under the terms of the regulations affecting students. There is a requirement as to the number of weeks and the number of hours worked during the week, and so on. The registration officer will not ask for information that he cannot properly and reasonably require; nor will he ask for information that is not in the possession of the establishment.
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does the Minister intend to bring in emergency legislation to protect some of the 40,000 Scottish tenants in the private sector, many of them students, following the abolition of rates?
  Mr. Lang: I should have thought that most students in that situation would be able to take care of themselves. However, I was about to mention landlords because the hon. Member for Cathcart referred to them.
  I reject the across-the-board criticism of landlords as though they were all rogues and scoundrels. The plain fact is that most landlords are earning an honest living in a responsible and respectable way, and it is quite inappropriate to abuse them. Nevertheless, I am grateful for another chance to make it clear that in the new situation—I refer to the fact that rates will disappear from 1 April—landlords should, of course, reduce the rent charged if it includes a sum for rates. Landlords have no right to ask for contributions of that kind. Regulated tenancies allow for the rent to be registered. In that case the rates will be separated, and the position will be perfectly clear. I urge students in that situation to have their rents registered.
  I do not accept that the harassment excuse that is raised is a valid one. Indeed, in the Housing Act 1988 we strengthened the provisions to resist harassment, and I believe that that is the right approach for students in that situation.
  Tenants with assured tenancies are entitled to obtain a statement as to the terms of their lease, and they will then be able to deduct from their payment the amount due for rates. Of course, from 1 April the rates element will disappear altogether.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Minister make it clear that, if a landlord continues to charge a tenant the sum that represented the old rent and rates, that will be nothing less than fraud and that the landlord ought to be prosecuted?
  Mr. Lang: Whatever the hon. Lady chooses to call it, there certainly is a sanction available to such tenants. They can use the resources of the law to have their rights enforced.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lang: I think I had better press on. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak during the debate. I must cover the other regulations.
  716
  The Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 make provision in relation to four exempt categories: service prisoners, the severely mentally impaired, cross-border students and care workers. The service prisoner provisions in regulation 3 are technical in nature and have the effect of placing service prisoners in the same position as other prisoners in relation to their community charge liability.
  The regulation and schedule relating to the severely mentally impaired is also technical in nature. After we had made the previous regulations covering the severely mentally impaired it became apparent that there might be some benefits, particularly some war pensions, that ought to be included in the list of qualifying benefits for which people have to be eligible as part of the exemption criteria. The present regulation makes sure that nobody who is entitled to exemption would fail to qualify on a legal technicality.
  The regulations relating to cross-border students are required to ensure that full-time students from Scotland who study elsewhere in the United Kingdom do not have to pay the community charge in Scotland when they return for any length of time during their course—for example, during the summer vacation—so long as a student's term-time address is outwith Scotland.
  Regulation 8 covering care workers prescribes the criteria that have to be met if a person who is a care worker is to be exempt. The criteria have been drawn up after consultation to ensure that such workers who are disqualified from receiving income support by virtue of the hours they work will not be disadvantaged in terms of the community charge. The regulation necessarily defines the exempt group quite tightly to ensure that exemption is granted to, for example, community service volunteers where hardships would otherwise result, but not to workers who might in practice be better off financially than other non-exempt groups in the community.
  Finally, the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 close the loophole that occurred as a result of a drafting error in the amendment of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 by the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Under the terms of the incorrectly amended provision, people such as the proprietors of boarding houses, hotels and pubs who are solely or mainly resident in premises which are subject to non-domestic rates will be exempt from the personal community charge. The regulations represent no change in policy, as the Government have always intended that people in these circumstances should be liable to pay the community charge. Naturally I regret the need for the regulations to be made, but it is of course right that this loophole should be closed. An amendment to correct the error in the primary legislation has been inserted in the Local Government and Housing Bill. Once the correction comes into force, the temporary regulations will be repealed.
  This is the last time that we shall have the opportunity to discuss Scottish community charge regulations in the House before the new community charge arrangements come into effect in Scotland on 1 April. The new system is ready to operate. I commend the regulations to the House.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I shall not detain the House for very long. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, we are now within three or four weeks of the poll tax coming into force in Scotland. However, we are still debating the regulations, many of which have been introduced only because the Government did not get it right in the first place. I do not think that the Minister believed it himself—he had a wry smile on his face—when he claimed that all is going forward in an orderly and efficient manner.
  The Minister said that the arrangements that have been made to close the loophole will not come into effect until the Local Government and Housing Bill, now being considered in Committee, comes into force. When he replies to the debate I hope that he will refer to the position of those who in the meantime are exempt because of the loophole. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent until the autumn, as it has to go through all its stages in both Houses, will those people be required to pay the community charge retrospectively for the forthcoming year?
  Mr. Lang: It may help if I deal with that point at once. The purpose of the regulations is to bring individuals in that category into liability for the community charge until such time as the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers comes into force later in the year.
  Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister. Those people will therefore be liable to pay the community charge as from 1 April. I assume that all the necessary registration and administration that go with it will have to be completed within a short period.
  The Minister began his speech by referring to rebates. Although you pulled him up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will allow some latitude, in as much as the Minister raised a pertinent issue. There may be people who do not quite make it into the exemption categories. People who could be thought of as students but who probably do not fall into that category are constituents of mine. They are employed by the Orkney youth theatre. They receive approximately £40 a week, but they were informed when inquiries were made that they would be entitled to a rebate of only 47p per week. The local authority maintains that it will be unable to pay that rebate because it is under 50p per week. I hope the Minister will explain whether that is to be a national rule or whether it is just a question of a particular local authority's administrative convenience, because 47p per week—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the House allows the Minister to speak again, I hope that he will confine his remarks to what is contained in the regulations.
  Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Minister accepts that if these students do not quite fall within the scope of the regulations, a legitimate point has nevertheless been raised. If he is not allowed to reply to that point in the debate, I hope that he will write to me about the matter.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart referred to those who will be exempt because of severe mental impairment. Many hon. Members referred to that point last week at Question Time and it has been the subject of much correspondence between hon. Members and the Minister. I refer to those who are suffering from Alzheimer's disease. It would not have been remiss of the Minister, who has taken the
  718
  opportunity provided by the regulations to make amendments in order to close some gaps, to extend the scope of the exemption to those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. We have heard of no rational or justifiable reason in the exchanges for the exclusion of those people.
  We have been told that there has been medical advice. I think that in an answer last week it was said to have been given by the chief medical officer and others—the others being, curiously, anonymous.
  I understand that some 90,000 people in Scotland suffer from dementia. Many in the earlier stages of the disease would not be classified as severely mentally impaired, so the number involved is probably well below that. It would not amount to many people, but those people can be hard hit by the regulations. There is considerable disparity which demonstrates that when one embarks on legislation which is inherently unfair the number of injustices which result when it is applied in detail are expected to be quite considerable. It is yet another injustice which goes to the heart of a very unjust tax.
  The Minister will know that we have consistently proposed a local income tax. The Minister tries to find some justification for not exempting people suffering from Alzheimer's disease by saying that they were never excluded from rates. References to previous omissions do not justify their continuation. If one were to apply the system of local income tax, clearly that injustice would be covered, as such people could not possibly be earning. If they had substantial income from capital, it would not be unreasonable for them to contribute.
  The regulations demonstrate the difficulties of implementing a basically unjust tax and we shall have no hesitation in supporting the Labour party and voting against the regulations tonight.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: The kernel of our opposition relates to the principal legislation and the role of the poll tax registration officer. The principal statute gives that individual considerable latitude in his or her responsibilities. Poll tax registration officers are circumscribed by statute, but they are responsible to no elected individual. There is no one in the local authority, which is responsible in theory for collecting the tax, to whom the poll tax registration officer is responsible.
  Many of our people fought against Hitler's Germany and Fascist Italy to remove dictatorial powers, but we are giving such powers by statute. Tonight we are discussing regulations that enhance the powers of the poll tax registration officers. Part of those regulations relates to service personnel. It is easy to determine when service personnel are in prison but how do we determine when they are at sea?
  This may be the last time that we receive some indication of the power of the poll tax registration officer to create almost unilateral exemption. We have fought, and are fighting on the Floor of the House, for exemption for people suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The Secretary of State and his Ministers resisted that on the basis of spurious medical opinion.
  Let us consider service personnel. I have a letter on a matter I raised concerning people in the Royal Navy. The

  719
  regulations refer to people in the Royal Navy being in prison. I received a letter from Fife regional council saying:
  "The failure of the Community Charge Legislation clearly to define what is meant by 'residents' has meant that a practical approach has had to be taken in many cases. This approach may or may not eventually be upheld by the courts, but it is one of those matters which is left to them to determine."
  At this stage, we have to leave it to the courts to decide who is resident. The letter continues:
  "Insofar as the Royal Navy is concerned, the Community Charges Registration Officer for Fife has made an arrangement that residence will be determined by its quality and intention rather than its duration. There is no reason why this same criteria should not be applied to Merchant Seamen. Having secured the navy's agreement, it is reasonably certain that Navy personnel will accept the arrangements made, although they will still have their individual Rights of Appeal. No such assumption can be made for Merchant Seamen.
  Married Seamen or single Seamen who have a permanent home will be registered at that address and will be removed from the Register only if at sea for a continuous period in excess of six months."
  Depending on information provided by the Navy, it is possible to get out of the poll tax bracket, if that is administratively possible. We know about someone who is in prison—that is provided for in the regulations—but do we know when someone is at sea? The Russians spend a lot of money keeping Klondikers and others out in the North sea to determine the movement of our vessels. All they need do now is buy a copy of the poll tax register. That would save them a heck of a lot of money. I know that I am verging on the farcical, but the whole issue verges on the farcical. Someone in Fife—Mr. Thompson—can make an arrangement with the Royal Navy about who will be on the register.
  I shall not stray out of order by referring to the other debatable nonsense in the letter. I am being respectful to the chief executive of Fife regional council—he is only saying what the poll tax registration officer determines. If I ask, "To whom is the poll tax registration officer electorally responsible?" he will tell me that the power is provided by statute. Someone can go on and off the register because of the say-so of that one person.
  Is the Minister honestly telling the House that the poll tax registration officer can determine when someone is at sea for 61 days but cannot determine whether someone suffers from Alzheimer's disease? Is it impossible for medical opinion to say that someone is so severely mentally impaired that he ought not to be registered? The Minister knows the stand that I have taken on this matter. If the poll tax registration officer will not accept a case for exclusion on the grounds laid down in the regulations or the word of the general practitioner, a person who is acting on behalf of the severely mentally impaired person has to prove his case. That is the depth to which we have sunk to get this nonsense of legislation through.
  I am convinced that this legislation will not remain on the statute book for long. I am aware from meetings during the past few months that there is a growing undercurrent of resentment at it. I can illustrate how it operates. I recently sat across the table from someone who earns about £35,000 a year and whose rates bill is £2,500. His poll tax bill will be £600. I have also sat opposite someone whose rate bill was £600 and whose poll tax bill will be £1,200. All of us could give such illustrations. We
  720
  know from our surgeries that there are depths of poverty that we thought had been abolished. People come to my surgeries on Saturdays who are threatened with eviction or with great difficulty and they do not know which way to turn. I ask the House, at this late date, to take cognisance of the fact that the regulations are nonsense. How quickly they are removed from the law of the land depends on our tenacity.
  11.10 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) put his case well and he is undoubtedly deeply concerned. However, I believe that he would agree that the rating system had enormous anomalies which caused great difficulties. I promoted two Bills which attempted to change the legislation on rates and which were subsequently incorporated into Government measures so that the anomalies were dealt with.
  The regulations will be welcomed. The students will welcome the opportunity to have certificates to show that they are students. There is a question about cross-border students, which is important in applying for rebates. Like everyone else, the students will apply according to their position and income to ensure that they enjoy the rebates.
  Mr. Maxton: For the record, I must point out that the students will pay a student community charge. They will not claim a rebate.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I have two daughters who are students, so I know what is going on. Whatever he may say, I want to raise the matter of cross-border students. Some future cross-border students will be at school or about to leave school. They will take up their positions in colleges or universities south of the border after the summer holidays. At what point does the students' position become clear? Is it when they have been offered their places, as is happening now, or is it when they take them up at the end of the summer holidays?
  I also welcome the provision affecting war pensioners. I am pleased that there has been a response on that. People in my constituency who are affected by the boarding house and hotel technical amendment would have wished for the loophole to remain. However, we must understand that the community charge is a charge against individuals, and those people have always understood that they would have to pay the community charge.
  I believe that, contrary to some remarks, more people are beginning to acknowledge that the community charge is a viable method of funding local government. Contrary to the Opposition statements, with the passage of time it is unlikely that any future Government will remove the community charge.
  11.13 pm
  Mr. Ron Brown: We know for sure that travel broadens the mind. The further one goes north over the border into Scotland, the more one learns that Thatcherism is hated. It is hated because of the attacks on jobs, living standards, social services and the welfare state and now because of the poll tax. The working class of Scotland attack the Tories and vote accordingly. That is why the Tories have little support in Scotland and why the Scottish people oppose the regulations. Whatever we are

  721
  talking about, we must tell the Prime Minister that she got it wrong when she went to the Church of Scotland and gave a lecture. She tried to tell us that Scotland needed not less but more Thatcherism. She may have believed that God was on her side. Her god is the god of profit. That has been confirmed on many—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking to the wrong subject. I hope that he will address his remarks to the regulations before the House and put theology aside.
  Mr. Brown: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  People in Lothian can see what the regulations mean. Effectively they mean that many students and others—that includes the low-paid and pensioners—will have to pay the poll tax. They will have to pay £392 a year. That may not seem a lot of money to some members of the Government, but it is a lot for a family. It is not a matter of saying to the low-paid and pensioners, "Under the regulations, you can get a concession or some sort of rebate." Those people did not pay rates before because their income was so low. Now they will have to pay at least 20 per cent. Because of a sliding scale, many old-age pensioners will have to pay much more. Many will have to pay the full whack.
  The poll tax, or community charge, call it what one will, is regressive. It attacks the working class—the vast majority—and benefits the rich. There is no doubt about that. Hon. Members may call it what they like, but it is a counter reform. It has taken back one of the gains that we achieved through the rating system. I am not saying that the rating system was perfect. I have heard it said tonight that the rating system also had some flaws, and I agree, but the rating system since 1979—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that we are discussing some narrow regulations. I hope that he will address his remarks to them. So far he has not done so.
  Mr. Brown: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as the matter was mentioned, I must say that high-spending councils are a myth. There are lies, damn lies and Tory statistics. Tory statistics are about unemployment, inflation, and anything that they care to cover. The experiment is being put to the test in Scotland because the Tories think that they will get away with it. They will not. Community organisations, unions, Labour councils and other groups—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly disregarding the advice which I have offered to him. He will either address himself to the regulations or resume his seat, and I will allow another hon. Member to have an opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Brown: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I must say to Conservative Members—there are not many here tonight—that Adam Smith, the great mentor or guru, advised the Bourbons that there would be disaster if they imposed iniquitous taxes. That led to the French revolution 200 years ago. The Tory Government will lead to another revolution, not just devolution. That fact must be faced. Scotland is anxious and, obviously, will challenge the Government.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were quite correct to ask me to make some points about the regulations. When
  722
  Conservative Members talk about democracy, they talk about hypocrisy. They are trying to impose class rule on the small country north of the border by means of the regulations, which, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, point out, are important.
  Let us consider the law—which, in this place, is worshipped daily—and regulations to see what happens to individuals who work in many factories throughout this country. Some are injured, many are killed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have heard all about Adam Smith, the French revolution and the Bourbons, but so far we have heard nothing about the Personal Community Charge (Students) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 or the Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989. The hon. Gentleman must either address his remarks to the regulations before the House or resume his seat.
  Mr. Brown: I am always grateful for your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are talking about regulations, and this place—and about reality, which is not just in a little closet or box. We like to kid the working class punters outside that there is something marvellous about this place. However, as a mere representative of Leith, as a shop steward writ large—or small, because I am not that tall—all I can say is that, when we talk about the law and what happens to people outside, the ruling class is not that concerned.
  The ruling class avoid regulations and paying taxes—certainly the poll tax—when that suits them, even though the poll tax is generous to them and benefits them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate and a number of hon. Members are waiting to speak on the regulations. I must instruct the hon. Member to resume his seat.
  11.22 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister has been poorly supported by his Back-Bench colleagues tonight and, after the speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), he probably wishes that he had been completely unsupported and had answered the House alone.
  I shall be brief because the debate is no longer taking place in the House. Its focus has shifted to Scotland. The level of resistance to its imposition in Scotland over the next few months will determine the longevity of the poll tax.
  It has been said that the separation between the severely mentally handicapped—who will be exempt from the poll tax—and the merely mentally handicapped—who will have to pay—is one of the most offensive distinctions in what is undoubtedly an offensive tax. There is also no doubt that the Minister of State's defence of imposing the poll tax on people with Alzheimer's disease, on the basis that such people would be offended if they were exempt, is equally offensive. What manner of morality or sensitivity argues that American air force or army personnel will not be offended if they are exempt from poll tax in Scotland but those with Alzheimer's disease will be?
  Mr. John Marshall: Are people with Alzheimer's disease exempt from rates in Scotland?
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman had not just wandered into this Scottish debate, he would have known

  723
  that that precise point was addressed earlier in the evening. [Interruption.] The answer is simply that two rights do not make a wrong—[Interruption.]—or even that two wrongs do not make a right.
  If the Minister seriously argues that people with Alzheimer's disease are anxious to pay the poll tax and would be offended if they could not do so and were placed in an exempted category, he demonstrates how out of touch he is—not just with the people with Alzheimer's disease and their carers, but with the vast bulk of Scottish public opinion that finds such definitions totally offensive.
  The Minister recently made a concession for unoccupied farm cottages, apparently not realising that the real issue in Scottish rural communities is occupied farm cottages. Can he not find it within his heart, even at this late stage, to make a concession for those suffering from Alzheimer's disease?
  Statutory instrument No. 32 refers to students. I had an interesting opportunity last Thursday night to test students' attitudes to the poll tax in Scotland when I spoke in a debate at St. Andrew's university. Hon. Members will know that St. Andrew's has suffered from the reputation of being responsible for the genesis of the radical Right in United Kingdom politics. Even worse, it has had to carry the burden of having been responsible for the university education of the Under-Secretary of State for opting out—thereby devaluing the worth of my degree from that noble institution. In a packed union debate on Thursday night in the old parliament hall in St. Andrew's, the students not only voted by a majority of three to one against the poll tax but they voted for a non-payment campaign against it, which did much to restore the reputation of the university and showed that free thought is still alive in that institution. It also showed the amount of resistance to the poll tax that is building up in Scotland.
  Resistance will be greatest at the point of payment. Over the next few weeks and months the Minister will find himself even more isolated in Scotland than he has been in this debate.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Government have lost a golden opportunity to show that Conservatism has a caring face. They had the chance to heed the representations of those representing sufferers from Alzheimer's disease and senile dementia. They have ignored those representations in a way that has caused a great deal of anger among the groups acting for the disabled.
  Regulation 4 does not cover millions or hundreds of thousands of disabled sufferers. It deals with a few lives that have been blighted in their later years by the tragedy of Alzheimer's disease. Appeals have been made to the Conservatives to include that small but important group in the legislation and it is little short of tragic that the Government and the Minister have not taken this opportunity to reverse last week's decision and show some compassion to the disabled.
  The Hansard report of oral answers to questions on Scotland on 1 March has given my constituents a true insight into the thinking of the Conservatives on Scotland. Last week, the Minister of State said:
  724
  "Because of the gradual onset of the disease, many people suffering from degenerative disorders seek to play a full part in the community, which includes contributing to the cost of local government."
  There are people like Mr. Guthrie of Lasswade road in my constituency. His wife phones me every weekend to tell me about her husband's condition and her worries about his having to pay the poll tax, and the notion that people like him can ever again play a full part in the community would be laughable if it were not tragic.
  The Minister went on:
  "The disease has a gradual onset, leading to progressive decline in all aspects of mental functioning."
  That is what we believe.
  "The difficulty is one of diagnosis to establish precisely at what point any exemption should be made."
  All that we are asking is that the Minister shows some generosity of spirit and of action in accepting that at a certain stage people suffering from Alzheimer's disease should be exempted. We are not asking for hard and fast rules. We are asking that for a few thousand people in Scotland suffering from the disease the Government should accept the advice of medical officers and make an exemption. The Minister of State said:
  "The balance of medical advice that we have received is that it is impossible to establish a method of assessing precisely at which point an exemption could be granted".—[Official Report, 1 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 260–61.]
  That is used as an excuse not to grant any exemption, and it is little short of disgraceful.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Most Conservative Members take the view that you are dotty. Do you think you should be exempted? We should be happy to exempt you.
  Mr. Griffiths: Many Opposition Members realise that far from you being dotty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your faculties are as good as ever. We deplore the fact that Conservative Members treat as a laughing matter and a joke people who suffer from senile disorders and who are being described as dotty.
  That attitude is exemplified by the rather typical intervention on Wednesday by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who sought to make cheap, party political points at the expense of disabled people. We know that such attitudes are not lost on the people of the United Kingdom, and that relatives who have to care for disabled people and cope with the day-to-day problems of senile dementia know full well that the comment "dotty" by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) is typical of the Government's uncaring, arrogant, aristocratic attitude towards the problem.
  The second set of regulations is about personal community charges. I should like to speak on a slightly different tack. Yesterday I visited Pollok halls of residence which contain 1,800 students. I was accompanied by David Martin, the Labour Euro MP, and local councillor Alan Tweedie. We met Terry Cole, the senior warden, and students in those halls. They told us of their worries about their grants which have fallen by 20 per cent. in value under the Government. The grants are simply not sufficient to meet the charges laid on them by the personal community charge. The Minister mentioned that the whole of the community water charge will have to be paid by students. There will be no 20 per cent. exemption.
  Mr. Lang: The exemption applies also to water charges for students.
  Mr. Griffiths: We are pleased to hear about that concession and that they will not have to pay the full water charge. Will the Minister extend that to make the water charge rebatable? I think that the answer to that must be no.
  Students form a low-income group in society and will have to meet the community charge. Previously they did not have to pay rates because the University Grants Committee reimbursed halls of residence for rates. Now there will have to be a charge. The impact of the Government's failure to exempt students and chronically disabled people from the charge is plain for all to see. Ten years ago the Government provided £58 for every £100 spent on local services such as schools, housing, street cleaning, libraries, swimming baths, environmental health and pollution inspection. In 10 years, the figure of £58 out of every £000 spent has gone down to £31. That has rocketed the rates, and it is blasting the poll tax into the stratosphere.
  Sad to say, the Government will now inflict a higher than necessary charge on my constituents in Edinburgh who suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and on the students. If Edinburgh residents got the same allowance from the Government towards the poll tax as the average Scot, they would be paying not £392 each but £250. If they got the same allowance as the Government are providing for Glasgow's residents, they would be paying only £146. Instead, the Government have brought all the powers that they can to bear on Edinburgh's residents to force up the poll tax to unbearable levels. The tragedy is that under these regulations, when, at the eleventh hour, the Government had a chance to help vulnerable groups and to recant on some of the worst aspects of the community charge, they failed.
  I am pleased to say that in the Euro-election coming up in June, only two short months after the community charge comes in, the people of Scotland will have the chance to show the Government what they think of that tax. We can expect another rout of the Tory party in Scotland.
  11.36 pm
  Mr. William Ross: At first sight, these regulations refer only to Scotland. If that were so, I would be happy to leave them to the representatives of that part of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, like so many other matters in a unitary state, these regulations have consequences beyond the boundaries of Scotland. In particular, I am concerned about the position of students from Northern Ireland.
  It is true that those who leave Scotland and come to England, Wales or Northern Ireland will initially be leaving a place where they have to pay a community charge, and arrive in a part of the kingdom where rates are still the norm. However, there is no proposal, as far as I am aware—indeed, it has been denied—to extend the community charge system of financing local government to Northern Ireland. This means that students from Northern Ireland in Scotland will find themselves paying 20 per cent. of the community charge, while their parents in Northern Ireland will continue to pay rates at the level applicable in that part of the kingdom. This is manifestly unjust, and. despite the fact that it has been reduced from
  726
  the full rate to 20 per cent., that does not remove the inequity of injustice from which students from Northern Ireland suffer.
  I remember interrupting a Labour Member during the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and asking him why, if the Act was so damaging to the Conservative prospects, the Labour party was not supporting it. I was told that the Labour party was a party of principle—a fine sentiment. I only regret that its principle did not extend to insisting that the same level and type of taxation prevailed throughout the kingdom. When the Minister replied on behalf of the Government, I asked him why Northern Ireland was denied the evident benefits that the Government saw in this system of local taxation, and I got a non-answer. It was even worse than that from the Labour representative. I regret that, because this question should have been faced.
  The House knows what the reality is. It is that a Government who cannot see to it that the BBC collects the television licence in the Republican-dominated ghettos of Northern Ireland know very well that they cannot collect the poll tax there either. Therefore, I accuse them of cowardice in the face of the terrorist organisations.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is aware that many Conservative Members believe firmly that Northern Ireland should be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom when it comes to local government taxation and other related matters.
  Mr. Ross: I welcome the general principle behind the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I should like to discuss it with him at greater length on another occasion rather than trespass upon the time of hon. Members who wish to contribute to this debate. The hon. Gentleman's general principle is welcomed, but if he were trying to introduce this system of local government taxation in Northern. Ireland it would not meet with general approval. It would not meet with my approval. By introducing this system of local government financing we are merely replacing one bad system with another.
  11.40 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: There has been more than a touch of hypocrisy and humbug about the debate. We heard a moving speech from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who told us that certain categories of people should be exempt from the community charge. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that everyone who he says should have been exempted from the community charge is currently not exempted from the rating system. The Labour party had time to do something about that and it chose not to do so.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Guthrie of Lasswade road does not pay his rates. His wife pays the rates.
  Mr. Marshall: It seems that the householder pays the rates. The hon. Gentleman knows that Labour Governments could have considered the problems that he has described and that they chose not to do so.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South complained about the level of rates in Edinburgh. He should have said that Edinburgh had a high-spending Labour authority which forced up the rates. In days gone by Edinburgh used to be a byword for efficiency and economy of local

  727
  government—[HON. MEMBERS: "How does the hon. Gentleman know?"] I lived in Scotland for many years. I know that within the local government system Edinburgh was well known as being the most efficient authority throughout Scotland among the four cities. That is no longer true.
  Mr. Maxton: If the hon. Gentleman had managed to listen to any part of my speech, he would have different ideas about the regulations.
  Mr. Marshall: If the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Maxton: Why did the Tories lose Edinburgh, South?
  Mr. Marshall: The Conservatives won Edinburgh, South at the district council elections. It was the Labour party which lost it. That tells us about the verdict of the electors of Edinburgh, South at the district council elections on the policy of the then district councils. The electors did not support it and wanted to see it changed.
  I was sorry tohear the speech of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about his visit to the University of St. Andrews. Why the hon. Gentleman was not here last Thursday and was in St. Andrews, only he can tell us.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the Under-Secretary of State was also billed to appear for the debate at St. Andrews, and that he mysteriously failed to turn up.
  Mr. Marshall: Obviously my hon. Friend felt that it was his duty to be in this place.
  Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be interested to know as well that St. Andrews asked me to attend the debate. I made it clear that it was my duty to be in the House.
  Mr. Marshall: That is the sort of devotion to duty that we would expect from my hon. Friend.
  It is unfortunate that the University of St. Andrews, which is well renowned historically as being a centre of compassion, voted against the community charge. We know that 80 per cent. of single pensioners will be better off under the community charge than under the rating system. I must apologise to the people of Scotland that my former university has become so heartless as to vote against the community charge.
  11.44 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: The contribution from the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was one of the most disgraceful contributions to the debate. He is not just an hon. Member of this House, he is also a Euro Member for north London and he collects two salaries.
  Mr. John Marshall: That is not true. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I do not take any salary as a Euro Member? I do not know whether his Labour colleagues can boast the same.
  Mr. Galbraith: I withdraw that and rephrase it. The hon. Gentleman collects two lots of expenses. We do not require any tutorials from him about hardship and
  728
  pensioners. He also made a great play about talking to local authorities. He should speak to his local authority and to the chief officer who is bitterly opposed to the poll tax before he talks to us about that.
  Mr. Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Galbraith: No. Sit down. The hon. Gentleman is not interested in what we have to say, so he should not bother boring the House with his comments.
  I rise at the Dispatch Box briefly once again to challenge the Government's medical advice on the regulations. I did that in the House last week and I want to do so again now. I have taken extensive advice since last week from my colleagues who are experienced in these matters and who might have expected to have been consulted, but were not. They are at one with me in the belief that the Government's medical advice in relation to Alzheimer's sufferers is wrong. I do not expect the Minister to give me any specific answers tonight. I accept that because I am going to make some technical points and it would be unfair of me to ask the Minister to respond to specifically medical matters. I expect the Minister to reconsider my remarks and return to the House to say that he will stop treating Alzheimer sufferers differently from other patients with dementia.
  When considering patients with Alzheimer's it is important that we distinguish between a diagnosis and a clinical picture because often those two factors are confused. The diagnosis is Alzheimer's disease while the clinical picture is a separate presentation. The latter is the way in which the patient behaves and his relationship to surroundings, relatives and the environment. Alzheimer's disease is a diagnosis and I accept that it is not necessarily the same thing as severe mental handicap. Essentially, for those patients the diagnosis is irrelevant. We must decide whether patients can lead an independent existence and whether they have severe impairment of social and intellectual functions.
  When we consider diagnosis and presentation, we must also consider acquired dementia. I have referred to severe mental handicap which may be due to dementia. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was right. Between 90,000 and 100,000 people in Scotland suffer from that form of dementia. The majority of those people have Alzheimer's disease, the figure being about 80 per cent.
  If I use slightly technical terms it is not for the Minister's benefit, but for the benefit of his friends and colleagues who will consider this later. Ten per cent. of those dementia sufferers have what is known as a multi-infarct syndrome. It is impossible to distinguish between a patient presenting with Alzheimers's disease and multi-infarct syndrome based on the presentation. That is clinically impossible. Alcoholism is another cause of dementia and the clinical picture can be the same as Alzheimer's disease. Parkinson's disease is another cause of dementia and its clinical picture can be the same as Alzheimer's. Similarly Huntington's chorea is another form cause of dementia.
  The clinical presentation and everything that the Minister has said about Alzheimer's disease—that it is progressive and intermittent—applies to all those causes of dementia. However, the only cause that the Minister is excluding is Alzheimer's disease. Will the Minister explain why that is so? Alzheimer's clinical presentation is exactly

  729
  the same, as is the nature and cause of the disease. Why is it that those suffering from Alzheimer's disease are discriminated against? What is the difference between a patient suffering from Alzheimer's disease and one suffering from multi-infarct syndrome?
  In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), the Minister wrote:
  "Parliament recognised that considerable difficulties and some potential for unfairness would be involved in assessing precisely when a person with a degenerative condition, such as Huntington's Chorea, reaches the point during the progress of the condition where intelligence and social functioning are severely impaired."
  I accept that, and I do not dispute that it can be difficult to decide when that point is reached—but the same applies to every other form of dementia, even congenital dementia. Will the Minister explain what difference the diagnosis makes?
  In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote:
  "People with degenerative brain disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, have a very gradual onset of their condition and may continue for a period of some years to carry on a normal life".
  So may a patient suffering from multi-infarct syndrome, from alcoholism, from dementia caused by a head injury, or from Parkinson's disease. Why do the Government persist in discriminating against patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease? That is the question I ask the Minister to answer tonight.
  The Minister may give the easy answer that people in residential care will be exempt. He surely does not suggest that the way to exempt a loved one from the poll tax is to place him or her into care. I quote again from the Minister's letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North:
  "I do not therefore believe that the community charge arrangements offer any financial discouragement to caring for people … in the community."
  In truth, they do just that. Instead of being able to look after a loved one at home—albeit that they may have no relationship with those around them or with their surroundings—it is suggested that they be placed in residential care and in that way be exempt from the poll tax.
  It is not the diagnosis that should concern us but the clinical picture. The regulations refer to "severe mental handicap", which makes the actual diagnosis irrelevant. Everything that the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends have said in relation to Alzheimer's disease applies to every other cause of dementia, be it congenital or acquired. The diagnosis remains irrelevant. I put it to the Minister again that the medical advice which the Government have been given is wrong. By accepting it, the Minister penalises those who wish to look after their loved ones at home. For all those reasons, we shall certainly be voting against the regulations.
  11.52 pm
  Mr. Lang: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I reply? Nobody can say that this evening's debate has been a particularly uplifting affair. As was said by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the debate has shifted to Scotland, where we all eagerly await the arrival of the army of 100,000 protesters that the hon. Gentleman promises will descend upon us at some unspecified time.
  730
  Perhaps I should first concentrate on the constituency of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), where the Scottish Nationalist council is implementing the community charge so efficiently.
  Mr. Salmond: I hope that the Minister will answer the substantive points made in the debate, but perhaps he noted that the thousandth nor -payer has been signed up in the constituency of his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Lang: It will be interesting to see what happens about that army of 100,000 people who "Can pay, won't pay". I think that it will be more a case of "Can't find, won't find".
  Alzheimer's disease is a serious subject, and it is one that I am content to address. However, it was significant that when my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) asked what was done by the Labour party to exempt Alzheimer's diseases sufferers when they had the opportunity to do so, there was no answer. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) suggested that the House should reverse last week's decision. The fact remains that, after two years' debate, only now do the Opposition begin to show any concern for those suffering from conditions such as Alzheimer's disease.
  The debate concerns a serious and sensitive issue. Many of us know people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and we all recognise that it is a tragic condition, but when the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) says that we are discriminating against those with Alzheimer's disease he misunderstands the position, which is that diagnosis is difficult: his comments underlined that. We are not discriminating against Alzheimer's. We are taking exactly the same attitude to all degenerative brain disorders.
  Mr. Galbraith rose—
  Mr. Lang: I am sorry, but I should like to reply to the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
  Considerable serious research is going on, some of it promising, but an indication of how much there is still to learn about diseases such as Alzheimer's can be found in the most recent edition of the Lancet. In an article headed
  "Senile Dementia of Alzheimer's Type: Normal Ageing or Disease?"
  it states:
  "The clinical diagnosis of dementia is very inaccurate in general practice, and the same applies to senile dementia of Alzheimer's type in hospital practice, with a preponderance of false positives when checked against the post mortem findings."
  In the Lancet of 4 March, an article headed
  "Senile Dementia or Alzheimer's Disease"
  states:
  "The existence of senile dementia of Alzheimer's type as a disease entity has lately been questioned. Is it instead part of the normal process of ageing?"
  In the Lancet of 29 October, another article asks:
  "Do general practitioners miss dementia in elderly patients?"
  It continues:
  "How accurate are general practitioners in recognising dementia in their elderly patients? In a frequently cited study by Williamson and colleagues, 200 patients in three Scottish general practices were assessed by a geriatrician and a psychiatrist. Later their diagnoses were compared with information taken from the general practitioners' medical records and from interviews with them about each of their

  731
  patients. The general practitioners were said to be aware of only seven of the 48 cases of dementia identified by the investigation team."
  I could give a number of other quotations from articles in the Lancet. They prove that diagnosis is extremely difficult, and that is the underlying problem that we face in finding any method of assessment whereby we can decide on a dividing line making it appropriate to exempt sufferers from degenerative brain disorders.
  Mr. Galbraith: The Minister continues to make the mistake of confusing clinical diagnosis with clinical picture. The regulations apply to the clinical picture—severe mental handicap and severe impairment of social and intellectual function. The diagnosis is not at issue here.
  Mr. Lang: The difficulty is of assessing when it would be proper and fair to grant an exemption without creating more anomalies than it would remove. That has governed the balanced medical advice that we have received.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked whether the maximum rebate of 50p was a national rule or one local to his area. The answer is that regulation 51 of the Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 provides that housing benefit shall not be payable in respect of any claim where the weekly amount awarded would be less than 50p.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) asked about the community charge in Northern Ireland. It is not, of course, for me to say anything about the Government's intentions in the Province, but, as I am sure he will acknowledge, the structure of local government, the level of its funding and the area of its responsibilities are very different there from in the rest of the United Kingdom. For students from Northern Ireland to come to the rest of the United Kingdom and pay the community charge at 20 per cent., although their parents are paying rates in Northern Ireland, seems entirely acceptable to me, and I do not believe that it will reduce the enthusiasm of students from Northern Ireland to come to Scottish universities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) asked when students would start to pay. The answer is, when they enrol for the start of their courses, as regulation 3(c)(i) of the student regulations shows.
  This evening we have again witnessed the now familiar sight of the Opposition striving to find anything cogent to say in response to the new community charge arrangements. It is clear that they have nothing of substance to contribute, which is why they are reduced to scavenging for peripheral titbits. Even then they are finding nothing of worth.
  The measures to introduce the community charge system have proceeded steadily towards implementation on our planned timetable, as we have always maintained that they would. This is possibly why the Opposition have run out of substance for their arguments.
  This debate marks another, and near final, step forward in the process of removing the totally discredited domestic rating system. The Opposition's usual, tired criticisms of the regulations and of the community charge pale into insignificance when they are contrasted with the huge, and entirely justified, weight of criticism which, over the years, has been directed against the domestic rating system. It is
  732
  a source of great satisfaction to me and to millions of ratepayers in Scotland that we are now within a few weeks of ending the domestic rating system there.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes. 207.

  Division No. 117]

  [12 midnight

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fraser, John

  Allen, Graham

  Fyfe, Maria

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Galbraith, Sam

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Galloway, George

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  George, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Battle, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bell, Stuart

  Gould, Bryan

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Blair, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blunkett, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Hardy, Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bradley, Keith

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Holland, Stuart

  Buchan, Norman

  Home Robertson, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Caborn, Richard

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howells, Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clay, Bob

  Illsley, Eric

  Clelland, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Corbett, Robin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lamond, James

  Cousins, Jim

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Crowther, Stan

  Lewis, Terry

  Cryer, Bob

  Litherland, Robert

  Cummings, John

  Livsey, Richard

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tam

  McAllion, John

  Darling, Alistair

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McCartney, Ian

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

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

  McFall, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dixon, Don

  McKelvey, William

  Dobson, Frank

  McLeish, Henry

  Doran, Frank

  Maclennan, Robert

  Douglas, Dick

  McNamara, Kevin

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McTaggart, Bob

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McWilliam, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Madden, Max

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Martlew, Eric

  Fatchett, Derek

  Maxton, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meale, Alan

  Fisher, Mark

  Michael, Alun

  Flannery, Martin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Foster, Derek

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foulkes, George

  Morgan, Rhodri

  733

  Morley, Elliott

  Sillars, Jim

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mullin, Chris

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

  Murphy, Paul

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

  Nellist, Dave

  Snape, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stott, Roger

  Patchett, Terry

  Strang, Gavin

  Pendry, Tom

  Straw, Jack

  Pike, Peter L.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prescott, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Vaz, Keith

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wall, Pat

  Reid, Dr John

  Wallace, James

  Richardson, Jo

  Walley, Joan

  Robertson, George

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wilson, Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winnick, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Salmond, Alex

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen Adams.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Short, Clare

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amess, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Amos, Alan

  Churchill, Mr

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Colvin, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Baldry, Tony

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cran, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bendall, Vivian

  Curry, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Durant, Tony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bowis, John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Evennett, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Brazier, Julian

  Fallon, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Favell, Tony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Forman, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Butcher, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Butler, Chris

  Franks, Cecil

  Butterfill, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  French, Douglas

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Cash, William

  Gale, Roger

  734

  Gardiner, George

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gill, Christopher

  Norris, Steve

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Riddick, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Rost, Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Grist, Ian

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Grylls, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hague, William

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

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

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Harris, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shersby, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Sims, Roger

  Heddle, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Speed, Keith

  Holt, Richard

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

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

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Stern, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Irvine, Michael

  Stokes, Sir John

  Jack, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Janman, Tim

  Sumberg, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Summerson, Hugo

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Key, Robert

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Knapman, Roger

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Tracey, Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Tredinnick, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Trippier, David

  Lang, Ian

  Trotter, Neville

  Latham, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Lightbown, David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Lilley, Peter

  Walden, George

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Lord, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Lyell. Sir Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Maclean, David

  Wells, Bowen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Whitney, Ray

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mans, Keith

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Maples, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Marland, Paul

  Yeo, Tim

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Mellor, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Question accordingly negatived.

  ACCESS TO PERSONAL FILES (HOUSING)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Access to Personal Files (Housing) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Trippier.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.

WALES

  Rates
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average rate per adult in Wales in 1988–89.

  Mr. Grist
  The average domestic rate bill per adult in Wales in 1988–89 is £156.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) today.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Seafarers (Taxation)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the extent to which the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands are contemplating following the example of the Danish and Swedish Governments in making special arrangements to reduce the burden of personal income tax and social security payments by or on behalf of their national seafarers so as to improve the competitive position of their merchant fleets in international trade; and if he has any plans to follow their example.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information that we have is as follows.

  In 1988 the Netherlands Government distributed NF1 50 million (£12,500,000) to shipowners in proportion to the tax and social security payments that they remitted. The Netherlands Council of Ministers has approved a proposal to reduce by 35 per cent. the taxable income of seafarers employed by shipping companies whose ships fly the Netherlands flag. If this proposal is enacted, companies will from 1 January 1990 be entitled to withhold from seamen's wages the amount of tax and social security thus saved, while employees' after-tax position will remain unchanged.

  I understand that the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany has agreed a Bill to establish a second German register for ships in international trade, the intention being that foreign seafarers not resident in the Federal Republic of Germany would be paid at rates agreed by the trade union of their native country.
  382
  On the final part of the question, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Public Service Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his best estimate of the number of widows of post-retirement marriages with public servants contracted after 6 April 1978 who receive a pension in respect of their late husband's service; and what is the average amount received.

  Mr. Brooke
  I regret that the information required is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  VAT
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, pursuant to the reply of 6 February,Official Report, column 548, to the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), he has received any recent representations about the timetable for the imposition of value added tax on non-domestic construction and property;

  (2) what discussions he has had with representative bodies in the construction industry about the proposed commencement date of 1 April 1989 for the extension of value added tax to non-domestic construction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received a number of letters on this subject since 6 February. I met the joint taxation committee of the Building Employers Confederation and other construction industry trade bodies on 16 February. I told the committee that there was to be no change in the commencement dates I announced on 6 February following an extensive period of consultation.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate when Her Majesty's Customs and Excise plans to publish guidance literature on the proposed extension of value added tax to non-domestic constructon; and what steps are being taken to see that traders affected by the new rules receive that literature sufficiently before the proposed start date for the new regime.

  Mr. Lilley
  The guidance for building contractors is now available in local VAT offices. That for property developers and landlords is expected to be available during the week ending 17 March. All the trade bodies have known about the main changes since 21 June 1988 and they have had the draft legislation since 6 February. They have thus had ample time to inform their members accordingly. In addition Customs and Excise has referred to the changes in "VAT Notes" (No. 2) 1988–89 and will do so again in "VAT Notes" (No. 1) 1989–90. "VAT Notes" goes to every registered trader with the VAT return and will alert traders to the further guidance available from local VAT offices.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will list all pre-Budget representations that have been received on the taxation of workplace nurseries.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a small number of representations.

  Data Network
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will make a statement on the implementation of the Government data network and on the Government's plans for the future management of its voice and data traffic.

  Mr. Brooke
  After trials in January the initial phase of the Government data network has been accepted. It was implemented at 178 Customs and Excise sites throughout the United Kingdom on 20 January and is now in daily use.

  The Government will now be considering the future strategy for Government voice and data traffic as a whole. An interdepartmental collaborative study, led by Her Majesty's Treasury, has been set up to identify possible options for aggregating Government voice traffic and integrating voice and data traffic. Ministers will receive a report of the study in about six months' time and will announce their conclusions, in the light of the study, in due course.

  The study will be undertaken by a project team involving Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the Department of Employment, the Home Office, the Inland Revenue, the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Department of Social Security in conjunction with Her Majesty's Treasury's central computer and telecommunications agency. Consultancy support for the project team will be provided by Kermon Associates Ltd. and PA Consulting Group, and a third consultancy firm will be chosen to provide independent quality assurance.

  Excise Duties (Revalorisation)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be(a) the revenue yield and (b) the impact on the retail prices index of revalorisation of excise duties at (i) the present rate of inflation and (ii) the present rate of inflation less the mortgage component of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 3 March 1989]: Estimates are as follows:

  Net revenue yield 1989–90

  RPI impact effect

  £ million

  Per cent.

  (i) Present rate of inflation (January 1989 RPI)

  1,350

  0·51

  (ii) Present rate of inflation less mortgage components

  995

  0·38

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Government pay banks and post offices for their involvement in the selling of premium bonds.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 3 March 1989]: In 1987–88 banks, including Girobank, were paid a total of £2 million for their involvement in the selling of premium bonds. In addition, Post Office Counters Ltd. was paid a composite fee for servicing National Savings products. The premium bond element cannot be separately identified.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Leo Alexandrovskey
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British Government have made to the Russian authorities about their continued failure to grant an exit visa to Leo Alexandrovskey of Leningrad who first applied for such a visa in 1978.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The case of Lev Aleksandrovsky has only very recently been brought to our attention by my hon. Friend. We are now including it among those cases on which we consistently press the Soviet authorities.

  Angola (Weapons)
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the levels, quantities and types of Cuban and Soviet military equipment recently introduced into Angola; and what assessment he has made of the implications of this information for Her Majesty's Government's policy of supporting the United Nations embargo on the supply of weapons to South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have no reliable information to provide about recent Cuban and Soviet military supplies to Angola but are encouraged by Cuba's commitment to withdraw all its troops from Angola within 27 months from 1 April 1989 and the deployment of the United Nations Angola verification mission (UNAVEM) to verify this. We remain fully committed to the United Nations arms embargo on South Africa.

  Israeli-occupied Territory
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for a copy of the United States State Department report regarding human rights abuses in the Israeli-occupied territories to be(a) made available to interested Members and (b) deposited in the Library.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I am arranging for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Relations
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Government have decided not to uprate the grant for the Commission for Racial Equality in line with inflation.
  385
  Mr. John Patten
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the supply estimates, the Commission for Racial Equality's grant-in-aid provision for 1989–90—£11,440,000—will meet in full the commission's bid for additional expenditure.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of progress on the introduction of information technologies to facilitate internal communications in his Department and the provision of information to the public concerning those areas for which he is responsible; and if he has any further plans to apply the newest technologies in these fields.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office makes increasing use of information technology, where this offers the best value for money, to help meet its business objectives. Developments in information technology and their application to the Department's business needs are kept under review, and the newest technologies are applied where these provide cost-effective solutions.

  Police Custody (Deaths)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all deaths in police custody since 1979, giving the date and cause of death, the age and sex in each case, the location of police custody at the time of death and the inquest verdict.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on deaths in police custody for the years 1980–87 is contained in the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary and of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for the years in question. Copies of these may be found in the Library. It was not the practice to compile figures relating to deaths in police custody before 1980 and information for 1979 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information about deaths which occurred last year will appear in the 1988 reports, and these will be published shortly.

  Non-animal Testing (Grants)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for grant have been received by the animal procedures committee under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for funds for research into non-animal testing techniques in 1988–89 and 1989–90; how many grants were given; to whom; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Of 124 applications received for Home Office research grants it was decided to fund four, following recommendations from the Animal Procedures Committee:Dr. P. A. Botham and Dr. G. J. A. Oliver, ICI Central Toxicology Laboratory.
  "Validation of an enucleated eye model".
  Dr. A. F. Bristow and Dr. S. Poole, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control.
  "Assay of Pyrogens measuring lymphokine production in vitro".
  Dr. A. Robinson, Public Health Laboratory Service.
  "Alternative potency tests for cellular pertussis".
  Dr. R. M. Stagg, now at Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Scotland.
  "Fish cell culture for toxicity assessment".

  386
  In addition, the Home Office has commissioned an investigation into antibody production and is supporting international work on acute toxicity testing aimed a t further reducing the need for formal LD50 tests.

  No applications have been sought or received for funding in 1989–90 whilst consideration is being given to the possibility of commissioning work in particular areas of concern.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the grant made to the animal procedures committee under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to commission research into non-animal testing techniques in 1988–89; and whether he will announce the grant for 1989–90.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Home Office grants for research to reduce the number and severity of experiments on living animals in 1988–89 totalled £70,000. We have sought provision for 1989–90 of £120,000.

  Electronic Surveillance
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the companies which have tendered for pilot bail projects using electronic surveillance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No companies have yet tendered. Invitations to tender will be sent shortly.

  Football (Offences)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exclusion orders have been granted against persons convicted of a football-related offence in(a) the Merseyside police area, (b) the Tyneside police area, (c) the Birmingham police area and (d) the Greater Manchester police area since 1 July 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The exclusion order provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 came into force on 1 August 1987. I understand from the chief officers of police concerned that the information for their force areas since then is as follows:

  (a) Merseyside—56;

  (b) Northumbria—3;

  (c) West Midlands—150;

  (d) Greater Manchester—113.

  Blasphemy
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to seek the advice of the hierarchy of the Church of England on reform of the law on blasphemy.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have noted the views of the group set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury to consider the Law Commission's recommendations for reform of the law of blasphemy, but we have no plans for any such reform.

  Remand Statistics
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown by race on the most recent convenient date, of the prisoners held in the following remand establishments: Ashford, Chelmsford, Feltham, Latchmere House, Norwich and Rochester.
  387
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The readily available information is given in the table. Ashford was not open on 30 September 1988.

  Population1 of selected prison service establishments on 30 September 1988: by ethnic origin

  Number2

  Establishment

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other, not recorded refusal

  Total

  Chelmsford local prison

  326

  53

  3

  10

  6

  398

  Feltham remand centre

  249

  107

  12

  20

  36

  424

  Latchmere House

  68

  59

  23

  11

  12

  173

  Norwich remand centre

  54

  1

  —

  1

  4

  60

  Norwich local prison

  193

  11

  2

  1

  16

  223

  Rochester remand centre

  147

  43

  4

  2

  16

  212

  1 Including sentenced and non-criminal prisoners.

  2 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate.

  Erotica
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the strip show currently being transmitted on Super channel, which originates from Italian television station Rete Mia, is subjected to approval of the Broadcasting Standards Authority; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what powers the Cable Authority has to ban transmissions of an erotic nature from being carried out on cable networks; whether it is his intention to exempt satellite television operators from such a restriction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The Cable Authority is under a statutory obligation to ensure that programmes on cable do not offend good taste and decency. If, in the authority's opinion, a programme fails to meet these standards, it may give a direction excluding it from a licensed station and as an ultimate sanction has the power to revoke a licence.

  Most satellite services uplinked from abroad are received in the United Kingdom on cable and are regulated by the Cable Authority. Paragraphs 7.12–7.14 of our recent White Paper, "Broadcasting in the '90s; Competition, Choice and Quality" set out our proposals to safeguard against the possible future development of unacceptable satellite services not taken on cable.

  The terms of reference of the Broadcasting Standards Council require it to monitor and report on the portrayal of violence and sex and standards of taste and decency in television and radio programmes received in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on whether the Italian television station Rete Mia, currently transmitting a strip show to the United Kingdom on Super channel, has plans to extend such transmissions via a Sky television transponder and a channel on the second Astra satellite; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  None.

  Mr. J. Garfinkle
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation has been paid by the Metropolitan police to Mr. J. Garfinkle of 110 Dirleton road, London E16; what was the justification for the payment; and to what incident it related.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Garfinkle was arrested on suspicion of possessing a controlled drug but was released
  388
  without being charged. In a civil action claiming damages for assault; wrongful arrest and unlawful detention he was awarded compensation of £1,532·50p by the court.

  Raja Shahid Mahmoud
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Raja Shahid Mahmoud, Ref: TN4/IS81/161/2/889, was detained on arrival in the United Kingdom; whether he possessed a valid visa to visit the United Kingdom; where he was detained; whether he has been released from detention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Raja Mahmoud held a valid visit visa when he arrived on 13 February. He was detained under the authority of an immigration officer pending further examination, and pending a decision to grant or refuse him leave to enter. Raja Mahmoud was detained at Harmondsworth until 3 March when he was refused entry and released on temporary admission. He has a right of appeal exercisable before removal.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what allowance he has made in his Department's budget for each of the next five years to provide for the substitution of HCFC 22 for chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants covered by the Montreal protocol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The cost of replacing refrigerants over the next five years will be contained within planned maintenance budgets.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the, Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) today.

  Magisterial Officers
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if approval has been sought for the
  389
  payment of grant for the purposes of authorising the pay award to magisterial officers for 1988 following Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service arbitration in January; when such approval is likely to be given; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he anticipates the pay award to all magisterial officers for 1988 will be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 2 March 1989]: The management side of the joint negotiating committee for magistrates courts staff has sought confirmation that grant will be paid on the recent arbitration award.

  We hope to provide a response very shortly, taking into account recruitment and retention problems.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she has taken to ensure the use of chlorofluorocarbons in food and other packaging in refrigerator units in Government buildings and in research stations operated on behalf of the Government is halted as soon as possible.

  The Prime Minister
  As I informed the hon. Member on 25 January at column 568, Government Departments have been asked to review their policies, specifications and practices with a view to promoting the objective of reducing use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons to the maximum possible extent. The Government's policies are aimed at ensuring that production and consumption of CFCs, whether in the public or the private sector, are eliminated as quickly as possible, and that all possible steps are taken to minimise emissions of CFCs currently in use.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will initiate a study to evaluate the total cost of converting(a) all ministerial and departmental cars and (b) all vehicles operated by Her Majesty's armed forces to lead-free petrol use.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Crown Suppliers (a trading fund of the Property Services Agency) who supply vehicles to various Government Departments and manage the ministerial fleet through the Government car service, and the MOD, have already implemented a policy of purchasing vehicles which can run on unleaded petrol and a programme of converting the vehicles which can be adapted to run on unleaded petrol. The cost of converting vehicles, capable of conversion, to run on unleaded petrol is minimal. In the majority of cases this involves only minor engine adjustment.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to ensure all vehicles operated by(a) Government Departments and (b) the armed forces are converted to use lead-free petrol by installation of catalytic converters.

  The Prime Minister
  No. It is our policy that, where possible, vehicles should run on unleaded petrol. In the majority of cases this involves only minor engine adjustment. The installation of catalytic converters is not usually necessary.

  President Gorbachev
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to discuss with President Gorbachev during his visit to the United Kingdom on 5 April, joint nuclear disarmament initiatives under the provisions of article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  No. Article VI of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons requires the parties to it to pursue negotiations on effective measures connected with nuclear disarmament. Since the United States and the Soviet Union possess between them the overwhelming preponderance of nuclear weapons it is universally recognised that the primary responsibility for negotiations falls to them. The United States and Soviet Union are currently engaged in such negotiations which aim at 50 per cent. reductions in their strategic nuclear weapons.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to discuss with President Gorbachev, during his visit to the United Kingdom on 5 April, joint United Kingdom-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics initiatives to implement a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty under the provisions of the 1963 partial test ban treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Middle East
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, in her recent meeting with the Israeli Foreign Minister, she expressed concern over the Israeli development of a destabilising nuclear weapons capability in the middle east.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Engagements
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the engagements she carried out on Wednesday 1 March.

  The Prime Minister
  During the morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I had a working lunch with the president of Cyprus at 10 Downing street. In the afternoon I had further meetings including one with the United Kingdom/Japan 2000 Group.

  "Our Future World"
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has yet received the report by the Natural Environment Research Council "Our Future World"; and if she will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Isle of Man
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met with his opposite number from the Isle of Man.; and what matters were discussed.

  The Attorney-General
  I have not had the pleasure o f meeting the Attorney-General for the Isle of Man.

  Women Judges
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Attorney-General how many women are currently serving as recorders, county court and High Court judges and in the Court of Appeal.

  The Attorney-General
  There are at present 29 women recorders, 17 women circuit judges, 1 woman High Court judge, and 1 woman Lord Justice of Appeal.

  Rape Cases
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his reply of 27 February, concerning the discontinuance of proceedings in rape cases, under what kinds of circumstances it has recently been considered that the public interest does not require a prosecution.

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

  The code for Crown prosecutors at paragraph 8(vi)(b) states that where a Crown prosecutor is satisfied as to the sufficiency of evidence in a rape case there will seldom be any doubt that a prosecution will be in the public interest.

  Mr. Chander Singh
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made in proceeding with the prosecution of Mr. Chander Singh for offences of fraud.

  The Attorney-General
  Inquiries into the affairs of Mr. Chander Singh are being pursued.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Departments;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) today.

ENERGY

  Single European Act
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the impact that the Single European Act will have on his Department's operation of domestic policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The impact of the Single European Act cannot be measured precisely given that many measures taken under new or amended provisions of the EEC treaty could have been taken under powers existing in the treaty before amendment. However the main areas within my Department's responsibility affected by the SEA are:

  (i) research and development and environmental aspects of emergency operations;

  (ii) operations which might affect the internal market. In this context the Council has generally endorsed a communication by the Commission on completing the
  392
  internal energy market—COM (88) 283 of 2 May 1988, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the Ferrybridge and Eggborough power stations will be included in the acid rain clean-up programme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Central Electricity Generating Board and its successors will decide the order in which large coal-fired power stations should be retrofitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment in order to meet their share of the United Kingdom's commitment to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions.

  Restart (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to visit miners and former miners in the south and north Yorkshire mining areas, and address a meeting on the redundant mineworkers' pension scheme in relation to the restart programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I have no plans to address a meeting in the south and north Yorkshire mining areas on the redundant mineworkers payments scheme. I refer to my answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 27 February at column 5 in which I made a statement on the problems caused by restart for beneficiaries under the scheme.

  British Coal (Salaries)
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the salaries paid to(a) the chairman of British Coal, (b) the deputy chairman of British Coal and (c) the new joint deputy chairman of British Coal as announced on 28 February; and when the last-named takes up his appointment.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The current annual salaries of the chairman and deputy chairman of British Coal are £145,000 and £75,000 respectively. British Coal Corporation members' salaries are presently under review.

  Mr. David Kendall takes up his appointment as joint deputy chairman on 1 April 1989 and will receive a salary of £95,000 a year.

  Electricity (Privatisation)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals exist within the North West electricity board to mount a pre-flotation advertising campaign; what is the budget allocation(a) individually and (b) collectively with the other area boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Proposals by the North West electricity board to mount pre-flotation advertising campaigns either individually or collectively with other area boards are a commercial matter for the board itself. I have asked the chairman of Norweb to write to the hon. Member.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditionng systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  "Our Changing Schools"
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many copies of the booklet "Our Changing Schools—a Handbook for Parents", have been printed; at what cost; to whom are they being circulated; and how are they being distributed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Four million copies of "Our Changing Schools—a Handbook for Parents" have been printed.

  New mandatory and discretionary awards1 to university students

  Academic year

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Bolton LEA

  376

  320

  325

  294

  307

  Average for all LEAs (England and Wales)

  626

  609

  615

  607

  606

  1 Excludes sandwich students on their placement year.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report for each local education authority in England and Wales the youth service provision component of grant-related expenditure, as assessed for the years 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested in respect of local education authorities in England is set out in the table. Although grant-related expenditure is assessed for individual services, rate support grant is unhypothecated and is intended to support expenditure on all the services for which local authorities are responsible. The figures for Welsh authorities are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Youth Service Component of Grant-related Expenditure

  1986–78—1989–90

  LEA

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Barking

  ·53

  ·65

  ·72

  ·77

  Barnet

  1·14

  1·36

  1·60

  1·69

  Bexley

  ·68

  ·78

  ·89

  ·90

  Brent

  1·47

  1·70

  1·95

  2·08

  Bromley

  ·87

  1·01

  1·16

  1·19

  Croydon

  1·22

  1·45

  1·64

  1·71

  Ealing

  1·48

  1·72

  2·02

  2·13

  Enfield

  1·03

  1·19

  1·37

  1·42

  Haringey

  1·14

  1·31

  1·48

  1·53

  Harrow

  ·72

  ·85

  ·98

  1·02

  Havering

  ·72

  ·82

  ·92

  ·94

  Hillingdon

  ·77

  ·88

  1·02

  1·06

  Hounslow

  ·85

  ·99

  1·16

  1·20

  394
  The cost of printing was £483,000. Copies have been circulated to the headteachers of all LEA maintained schools in England, chief education officers, as well as to public libraries, day nurseries, play groups and relevant national bodies.

  The main distribution has been in response to requests from headteachers for additional copies to give to parents. Copies have also been available from many supermarkets. Copies are available from DES on request.

  Undergraduates
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students from the Bolton education authority area gained places at universities during each of the last five years; and what was the average number from each education authority in England and Wales during each of these years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available data are listed below. The figures represent the number of new mandatory and discretionary awards made to university students by Bolton local education authority and the average number of these types of award made by the 105 English and Welsh LEAs.

  LEA

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Kingston

  ·38

  ·44

  ·51

  ·52

  Merton

  ·57

  ·66

  ·77

  ·81

  Newham

  1·29

  1·51

  1·70

  1·82

  Redbridge

  ·80

  ·93

  1·08

  1·14

  Richmond

  ·45

  ·53

  ·60

  ·63

  Sutton

  ·48

  ·56

  ·64

  ·66

  Waltham Forest

  1·02

  1·19

  1·36

  1·42

  ILEA

  11·49

  13·55

  15·80

  16·64

  Birmingham

  5·34

  6·21

  7·06

  7·28

  Coventry

  1·43

  1·65

  1·86

  1·93

  Dudley

  ·97

  1·14

  1·29

  1·33

  Sandwell

  1·46

  1·70

  1·91

  1·93

  Solihull

  ·68

  ·79

  ·89

  ·92

  Walsall

  1·14

  1·27

  1·44

  1·49

  Wolverhampton

  1·36

  1·58

  1·79

  1·86

  Knowsley

  ·83

  ·93

  1·05

  1·08

  Liverpool

  2·05

  2·35

  2·67

  2·76

  St. Helens

  ·64

  ·75

  ·83

  ·84

  Sefton

  ·96

  1·12

  1·25

  1·31

  Wirral

  1·14

  1·32

  1·50

  1·59

  Bolton

  1·04

  1·21

  1·38

  1·46

  Bury

  ·57

  ·65

  ·74

  ·77

  Manchester

  2·19

  2·58

  2·91

  3·04

  Oldham

  ·90

  1·4

  1·19

  1·21

  Rochdale

  ·85

  ·99

  1·12

  1·16

  Salford

  ·91

  1·08

  1·21

  1·26

  Stockport

  ·85

  1·00

  1·12

  1·16

  Tameside

  ·75

  ·86

  ·98

  1·03

  Trafford

  ·74

  ·85

  ·95

  1·00

  Wigan

  1·01

  1·19

  1·34

  1·38

  Barnsley

  ·72

  ·86

  ·96

  1·00

  Doncaster

  ·99

  1·17

  1·34

  1·38

  Rotherham

  ·87

  1·03

  1·18

  1·19

  Sheffield

  1·84

  2·14

  2·43

  2·48

  Bradford

  2·26

  2·61

  3·00

  3·11

  Calderdale

  ·71

  ·82

  ·92

  ·97

  395

  LEA

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Kirklees

  1·62

  1·85

  2·11

  2·20

  Leeds

  2·55

  2·97

  3·35

  3·46

  Wakefield

  1·02

  1·19

  1·33

  1·35

  Gateshead

  ·69

  ·78

  ·88

  ·91

  Newcastle

  ·95

  1·12

  1·29

  1·38

  North Tyne

  ·58

  ·67

  ·74

  ·78

  South Tyne

  ·53

  ·64

  ·70

  ·72

  Sunderland

  1·03

  1·23

  1·40

  1·43

  Isle of Scilly

  0·01

  0·01

  0·01

  0·01

  Avon

  2·80

  3·24

  3·77

  3·94

  Bedfordshire

  1·94

  2·27

  2·58

  2·70

  Berkshire

  2·52

  2·91

  3·39

  3·55

  Bucks

  1·96

  2·31

  2·70

  2·83

  Cambridge

  1·96

  2·36

  2·73

  2·89

  Cheshire

  2·99

  3·53

  4·01

  4·12

  Cleveland

  2·22

  2·58

  2·91

  2·95

  Cornwall

  1·21

  1·44

  1·65

  1·74

  Cumbria

  1·39

  1·62

  1·83

  1·90

  Derbyshire

  2·91

  3·40

  3·91

  4·02

  Devon

  2·72

  3·19

  3·68

  3·89

  Dorset

  1·63

  1·93

  2·23

  2·36

  Durham

  1·94

  2·23

  2·56

  2·66

  East Sussex

  1·80

  2·08

  2·47

  2·58

  Essex

  4·36

  5·07

  5·82

  6·03

  Gloucestershire

  1·56

  1·83

  2·07

  2·18

  Hampshire

  4·68

  5·51

  6·31

  6·58

  Hereford and Wye

  2·02

  2·34

  2·67

  2·80

  Hertfordshire

  2·96

  3·49

  3·95

  4·08

  Humberside

  2·95

  3·42

  3·87

  4·03

  Isle of Wight

  0·32

  0·37

  0·43

  0·45

  Kent

  4·65

  5·41

  6·20

  6·41

  Lancashire

  4·83

  5·64

  6·48

  6·70

  Leicester

  3·21

  3·74

  4·28

  4·47

  Lincolnshire

  1·69

  1·97

  2·30

  2·40

  Norfolk

  2·03

  2·41

  2·76

  2·90

  North Yorks

  1·95

  2·28

  2·64

  2·75

  Northants

  1·82

  2·14

  2·46

  2·57

  Northumberland

  0·82

  0·99

  1·13

  1·17

  Nottinghamshire

  3·45

  4·05

  4·63

  4·77

  Oxfordshire

  1·79

  2·12

  2·43

  2·54

  Shropshire

  1·34

  1·54

  1·78

  1·84

  Somerset

  1·29

  1·51

  1·73

  1·82

  Staffordshire

  3·14

  3·67

  4·16

  4·28

  Suffolk

  1·81

  2·14

  2·40

  2·52

  Surrey

  2·93

  3·39

  3·87

  3·98

  Warwickshire

  1·58

  1·85

  2·08

  2·14

  West Sussex

  1·80

  2·09

  2·41

  2·52

  Wiltshire

  1·74

  2·05

  2·34

  2·44

  Total

  164·00

  191·50

  219·10

  228·00

  Note 1: The control total for the youth service provision component of the education GRE incorporates expenditure on youth service provision and on other educational services which include European social fund sponsored courses, and expenditure on sports, outdoor, activity and residential study centres.

  Note 2: The control total is distributed half in proportion to each LEA's population aged 11–17 and half in proportion to 11–17 population adjusted by the additional educational needs index.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report for each local education authority in England and Wales the expenditure on youth service provision for the years 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information is given in the table. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  LEA recurrent expenditure on youth and community services

  Local education authority

  1986–87

  1987–88

  £ million

  £ million

  Barking

  0·64

  0·59

  Barnet

  0·87

  n.a.

  Bexley

  0·67

  0·74

  396

  Local education authority

  1986–87

  1987–88

  £ million

  £ million

  Brent

  3·17

  3·56

  Bromley

  0·52

  0·62

  Croydon

  0·74

  0·84

  Ealing

  0·75

  n.a.

  Enfield

  0·68

  0·69

  Haringey

  1·76

  n.a.

  Harrow

  0·27

  0·29

  Havering

  0·75

  0·70

  Hillingdon

  0·70

  0·71

  Hounslow

  0·69

  n.a.

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  0·38

  0·40

  Merton

  0·24

  n.a.

  Newham

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Redbridge

  0·65

  0·75

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  0·30

  0·34

  Sutton

  0·42

  0·48

  Waltham Forest

  1·21

  1·29

  ILEA

  27·19

  30·54

  Birmingham

  1·45

  3·49

  Coventry

  0·85

  0·91

  Dudley

  0·68

  0·84

  Sandwell

  0·58

  0·66

  Solihull

  0·32

  0·39

  Walsall

  1·81

  1·96

  Wolverhampton

  0·64

  n.a.

  Knowsley

  0·43

  0·49

  Liverpool

  1·93

  2·10

  St. Helens

  0·05

  nil

  Sefton

  0·51

  0·61

  Wirral

  0·90

  1·03

  Bolton

  0·80

  0·91

  Bury

  0·53

  0·84

  Manchester

  2·17

  2·24

  Oldham

  0·36

  0·62

  Rochdale

  1·12

  1·32

  Salford

  0·51

  n.a.

  Stockport

  0·65

  0·53

  Tameside

  0·84

  1·04

  Trafford

  0·46

  0·54

  Wigan

  0·86

  0·82

  Bamsley

  0·57

  0·52

  Doncaster

  1·12

  1·32

  Rotherham

  0·76

  0·89

  Sheffield

  2·62

  n.a.

  Bradford

  2·42

  2·83

  Calderdale

  0·51

  0·93

  Kirklees

  1·22

  1·33

  Leeds

  2·74

  2·59

  Wakefield

  0·64

  0·68

  Gateshead

  0·59

  0·79

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1·02

  1·16

  North Tyneside

  0·50

  n.a

  South Tyneside

  1·37

  1·55

  Sunderland

  0·71

  0·73

  Avon

  3·36

  3·72

  Bedfordshire

  0·97

  1·06

  Berkshire

  1·85

  n.a

  Buckinghamshire

  2·11

  1·94

  Cambridgeshire

  1·48

  1·63

  Cheshire

  1·62

  1·74

  Cleveland

  1·95

  2·35

  Cornwall

  0·43

  0·53

  Cumbria

  1·04

  1·26

  Derbyshire

  2·85

  4·51

  Devon

  2·36

  2·62

  Dorset

  1·32

  1·47

  Durham

  0·95

  1·10

  East Sussex

  0·96

  0·98

  Essex

  3·25

  3·39

  Gloucestershire

  1·35

  1·48

  Hampshire

  2·56

  2·86

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·99

  1·19

  Hertfordshire

  2·05

  2·44

  Humberside

  2·74

  3·18

  Isle of Wight

  0·40

  0·42

  Kent

  1·90

  2·29

  Lancashire

  3·46

  4·05

  397

  Local education authority

  1986–87

  1987–88

  £ million

  £ million

  Leicestershire

  2·23

  2·62

  Lincolnshire

  0·93

  1·01

  Norfolk

  1·08

  1·36

  North Yorkshire

  1·27

  1·41

  Northamptonshire

  1·44

  1·61

  Northumberland

  0·68

  0·70

  Nottinghamshire

  3·80

  4·26

  Oxfordshire

  0·93

  1·10

  Shropshire

  1·33

  1·55

  Somerset

  1·24

  1·93

  Staffordshire

  2·20

  2·42

  Suffolk

  1·54

  1·97

  Surrey

  1·76

  2·07

  Warwickshire

  1·06

  1·44

  West Sussex

  1·27

  1·39

  Wiltshire

  1·30

  1·50

  Notes:

  1. The expenditure is based on LEA returns to DOE and includes the cost of salaries and wages, premises and transport related expenses, supplies and services. It does not include the cost of central administration, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2. "Youth and Community Services" covers youth clubs, residential and non-residential youth centres and the employment of youth leaders.

  3. The LEAs who have not submitted expenditure returns are marked "n.a".

  Headteachers
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many headteachers would

  Public expenditure on higher education, calendar year 1984 (provisional estimates)

  Country

  Year of data

  Current expenditure at 1984 prices1

  Typical length of course

  Excluding student support and welfare and R&D

  Student support and welfare

  Per qualifier

  Per student

  University

  Other

  (£ thousands)

  (£)

  (Years)

  (Years)

  France

  1983

  5·9

  180 (loan + grant)

  4

  2

  Germany2

  1984

  10·0

  70 (loan only)

  4

  3

  Italy

  1983

  n/a

  40 (grant only)

  5

  2

  Japan3

  1982

  14·5

  30 (loan only)

  4

  2

  Netherlands

  1984

  14·4

  360 (loan + grant)

  5

  4

  United Kingdom4

  1984

  9·1

  750 (grant only)

  3

  2 to 3

  United States of America5

  1982

  19·2

  270 (loan + grant)

  4

  2

  n/a Not available.

  1 At purchasing power parity; data prior to 1984 have been adjusted via consumer price indices.

  2 Revised coverage of source statistics.

  3 Excludes public subsidies to private education and qualifiers in the private sector. Private sector course characteristics suggest lower cost.per qualifier overall.

  4 Excluding expenditure and students on nursing and paramedical courses at DHSS establishments. Also excludes tuition fees and in-service teacher training secondments and costs.

  5 Provisional, includes capital.

  Sources: Statistical Bulletin 4/87

  UNESCO Statistical Year Book

  OECD Comparative Statistics

  Correspondence

  Veterinary Education
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what will be the number of new posts and additional pupils created by proposals to rationalise veterinary education at(a) the university of Liverpool, (b) Bristol university and (c) the university of London; and if he will make a statement;
  398
  receive a salary increase of more than £2,000 per annum on the implementation of the 1989 report of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government have accepted the recommendation of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions that salaries of heads and deputies should be increased by 7·5 per cent. from 1 April 1989. As a result some 2,050 head teachers will receive salary increases of more than £2,000 per annum.

  Higher Education Courses
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish tables showing for each EEC country, the United States of America, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and such other OECD countries for which data are available (1) the estimated per annum(a) total cost and (b) cost to public funds of (i) tuition, and (ii) maintenance in respect of courses in universities and other institutions of higher education of United Kingdom first-degree standard, (2) the average length of courses in each country, (3) the wastage rate, and (4) the estimated cost to public funds of (i) tuition and (ii) maintenance of each successful graduate.

  Mr. Jackson
  The readily available information is given below and covers public expenditure on higher education as a whole. Data on wastage rates are not generally available.

  (2) what will be the costs of rationalisation of veterinary education at (a) the university of Liverpool, (b) Bristol university and (c) the university of London; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what will be the effect on staff and pupil numbers of monies expended in rationalising veterinary education in Scotland; and if he will make a statement;
  399
  (4) what will be the effects on the total numbers of staff and pupils of the proposals to rationalise veterinary education in England; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what costs will be incurred by the rationalisation of veterinary education in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is in the University Grants Committee report "Veterinary Education into the 21st Century", a copy of which is in the Library. The principal recommendations are to reduce the number of veterinary schools from six to four by merger of the Glasgow and Edinburgh schools on the Edinburgh site, and the cessation of para-clinical and clinical teaching at the Cambridge school; and that each of the four schools should, principally through redistribution of posts, have a clinical staff of 36 and have the capacity for an intake of 75–85 home students, a total of 300–335. Current intakes are towards the bottom of this range. The 1987 intake totalled 306 with the following figures for individual schools: Bristol—42; Cambridge—41; Edinburgh—54; Glasgow—54; Liverpool—45; and London—70. The report estimates the cost of the recommended rationalisation to be some £20 million.

  These recommendations are currently out for consultation. Decisions will be taken by the new Universities Funding Council which takes over full funding responsibilities for universities on 1 April.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the representations he has received concerning proposals to terminate paraclinical and clinical teaching at the veterinary school at Cambridge; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning proposals for the closure of the veterinary school at Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  In respect of each proposal, we have received about 300 letters, including many from hon. Members. In addition, I am meeting some hon. Members.

  Foreign Students
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide the figures for the numbers of foreign students attending full-time courses of higher education in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is shown below. Before 1984–85 the definition of a student from abroad included those charged a fee at the overseas rate. From 1984–85 students from abroad have been defined by domicile. Where available, adjusted figures are shown for comparison of number by both definitions.

  Full-time and sandwich students from abroad in higher education in the United Kingdom

  Academic year

  Thousands

  1977–78

  58·0

  1978–79

  59·1

  1979–80

  56·2

  1980–81

  51·6

  1981–82

  50·7

  1982–83

  46·7

  147·9

  1983–84

  46·5

  146·9

  1984–85

  48·6

  400

  Academic year

  Thousands

  1985–86

  53·7

  1986–87

  57·1

  1 Adjusted.

  Source: Education Statistics for the United Kingdom (HMSO).

  Private Schools
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children and young persons currently attending private schools within the Wakefield metropolitan district are normally resident in other local authority areas.

  Mr. Butcher
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Secondary School Teachers
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the survey of secondary school teachers was completed; what were its conclusions; and when it will be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The 1988 secondary school staffing survey has not yet been completed—validation and processing of the complex survey data are still in progress. Key results are expected to be available by about the end of April.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the cost of the survey of secondary school teachers.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The exact cost of the 1988 secondary school staffing survey is not yet known, as work on the survey is still continuing. However, the eventual cost is expected to be about £250,000 (excluding any costs to schools and teachers participating in the survey).

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what it his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conway (Dr. Thomas) today.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Relocation
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will meet executives of Nottingham Development Enterprise to discuss the relocation of parts of his Department to Nottingham as part of the policy on relocation of such posts away from the south-east.

  Mr. Maude
  Under the policy which my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, announced on 31 March
  401
  1988, my Department is now reviewing the location of its work with a view to finding sites offering easier labour markets, value for money and increased operational efficiency. Where appropriate, areas which are the focus of the Government's regional and urban policies, such as Nottingham, will be considered. My officials will be consulting local representatives in relevant sites as appropriate.

  Single European Act
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the impact that the Single European Act will have on his Department's operation of domestic policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Single European Act has had an impact on many areas of my Department's work. All new and existing departmental policies and initiatives take our obligations arising from the Act into account. In particular our "Europe—Open for Business" campaign is designed to alert business to the need to prepare actively for the completion of the single European market.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions within the Doncaster district(a) British Telecom engineers and (b) other specialist engineers, have monitored telephone conversations on domestic telephone lines in the last year for which figures are available; what were the comparable figures in 1978; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The arrangements for the interception of the public telecommunication system are governed by the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The information that is available is given in the annual report of the commissioner appointed under section 8 of that Act.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list(a) the main post offices and (b) the sub-post offices in (i) the Doncaster area and (ii) South Yorkshire as a whole which have opened or closed since 1979, showing those which have gone onto a part-time basis since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have consulted the Post Office, which has supplied the following information. There are currently 10 main post offices and 266 sub-post offices in the Doncaster post code area, and 10 main post offices and 365 sub-post offices in the South Yorkshire postal address area. There has been no change in the provision of main post offices in these areas since 1979. During the same period one sub-office has been opened in the Doncaster post code area, 13 have been closed and 18 sub-offices have been converted to part-time (community) offices. In the South Yorkshire postal address area 15 sub-offices have closed and 10 have been converted to part-time (community) offices.

  The sub-offices concerned are as follows:

  Doncaster post code area

  Opened—1

  Wybers Wood
  402
  Closed—13

  Redbourned

  Haighton Avenue

  New Clee

  Hatcliffe

  Kexby

  Ladborough

  New Conisborough

  Town Moor

  Wiseton

  Woodlands East

  Whitton

  Barnby on the Marsh

  Asselby

  Conversions—18

  Bigby

  Waddingham

  Grasby

  Austerfield

  Badsworth

  Hooton Pagnell

  Womersley

  A1. thorpe

  Eastoft

  East Stockwith

  Slotton

  Babworth

  Bole

  Balne

  East Lowick

  Sykehouse

  Laxton

  Howden Dyke

  South Yorkshire postal address area

  Opened—0

  Closed—15

  New Conisborough

  Town Moor

  Wiseton

  Woodlands East

  Cranemoor

  Ickles

  Bridgehouse

  Upper Allen Street

  Carbrook

  Thorpe Salvin

  Walkley Road

  Shirelygreen

  High Hoyland

  Frederick Street

  Burgoyne Road

  Conversions—10

  Hooton Roberts

  Austerfield

  Brodsworth

  Hooton Pagnell

  Womersley

  Wadshelf

  Dunford Bridge

  Crow Edge

  Stantree

  Woothorpe

  British National Space Centre
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what payments have been made to British Telecom International from the British National Space Centre budget; and for what purpose.

  Mr. Atkins
  None, except for services purchased on a commercial basis. However, under arrangements instituted at the time of formation of Eutelsat in 1978, the BNSC shares the United Kingdom subscription to that
  403
  body with British Telecom International. The BNSC payments, which are made through the European Space Agency, have so far amounted to £7·99 million.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the value of the activity undertaken by the United Kingdom space industry as a direct output of the British National Space Centre civil space budget for the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90, excluding the value of sub-contracts placed outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  Space expenditure falls to the budgets of the individual Departments and research councils who are partners in the BNSC. Their total contributions to the European Space Agency's programmes are estimated at £90 million in 1988–89 and £82 million in 1989–90. Some 80 per cent. of these contributions will, in accordance with ESA rules, return to United Kingdom industry in the form of contracts. In addition, the national programmes of BNSC partners amount to about £50 million per year. These include expenditure on space science in universities and research institutes. The proportion spent in industry is between 40 and 50 per cent.

  Iraq
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current rating of Iraq in respect of the export credit guarantee scheme; what consideration is being given to increasing cover to Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  ECGD cover for Iraq is presently available for United Kingdom exports ranging from consumer goods and raw materials to capital goods and projects.

  The United Kingdom/Iraq financial protocol, negotiated on an annual basis, governs the level of support for contracts eligible for extended credit terms. The last protocol was signed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in November 1988. This provided additional United Kingdom credits of £340 million for contracts placed in 1989. These facilities have yet to be utilised and no further increase in support is presently being considered.

  Harmonisation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to assemble any observations sent by British enterprises, trade associations, or similar bodies to the Commission of the European Economic Community for consideration during the pre-publication stage of the proposals it plans to present to the Council of Ministers within the scheduled programme of harmonisation.

  Mr. Maude
  It is most important that business makes its concerns known to the Commission, both directly and through Government channels, if possible before particular proposals are published. Business usually keeps Departments informed of direct contacts with the Commission, and this is extremely helpful. My Department and other Departments with responsibilities in this area take business concerns fully into account in our contact with the Commission before the publication of proposals and during subsequent negotiations.

  Licensed Trade
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into licensed trade will be published.

  Mr. Maude
  The report will be published as soon as possible.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) today.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid (Environmental Factors)
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how environmental factors are assessed in consideration of overseas aid projects.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  All programme managers in the Overseas Development Administration are required to ensure the environmental soundness of projects. A manual is being published this week to help them to do this. I shall place a copy in the Library.

  Lomé IV (Negotiations)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Community, African, Caribbean and Pacific ministerial negotiating meeting on Lomé IV in Brazzaville.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The meeting, which I attended, identified the main areas of agreement and disagreement and set a framework for the next stage of the negotiations.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for a successor to the third Lomé convention.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The ministerial negotiating meeting on a successor to Lomé III in Brazzaville on 16 and 17 February identified the main areas of agreement and disagreement and set a framework for the next stage in the negotiations.

  Development Budget
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of the United Kingdom overseas development budget at current prices in 1979; and what is the planned level for 1989–90.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  At today's prices the net aid programme stood at £1,489 million in 1979–80. The aid
  405
  budget for next year will be £1,430 million plus additional provision for Nigeria which I currently expect to be a further £47 million.

  Iodine Deficiency
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the British aid programme is making to cure the problem of iodine deficiency in developing countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Both UNICEF and the World Health Organisation support work to prevent and control iodine deficiency disorders. During this financial year we have contributed £7·5 million to UNICEF's general resources, from which projects to correct iodine deficiency disorders will be funded.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what projections his Department has made of the impact of AIDS in assessing the overseas aid needs of central African countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  More research is needed before we can estimate the impact of AIDS on developing countries. We are supporting work in this field. It is one element among many which we use in assessing a country's assistance needs.

SCOTLAND

  Information Technology
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement of progress on the introduction of information technologies to facilitate internal communications in his Department and the provision of information to the public concerning those areas for which he is responsible; and if he has any further plans to apply the newest technologies in these fields.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Scottish Office has made steady progress with its strategy of exploiting information technologies to improve its efficiency by developing systems which support the management and policy priorities which are identified in departmental and divisional management plans.

  Communications have been improved by the introduction of an office automation system providing word processing and electronic mail facilities linking the offices of Ministers and senior officials in Edinburgh, London and Glasgow, and by the installation of a digital telephone system covering the main Scottish Office buildings in Edinburgh and linked to the Government telephone network.

  Computer systems have been developed to support financial and personnel management and the diverse needs of the office. Some 500 microcomputers are in use together with 600 visual display units linked to the mainframe computer in Edinburgh. A number of these visual display units enable officers who are in direct contact with the public to provide an improved service.

  The Scottish Office strategy for information technology is endorsed by its top management and subject to refinement, monitoring and review by the standing
  406
  committee on information technology services. That committee considers plans and proposals for further projects as necessary.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the average number of hours worked per week in Scotland by(a) primary school teachers, (b) secondary school teachers, (c) National Health Service doctors, (d) National Health Service nursing staff, and (e) employees of the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information is as follows:

  Average hours per week

  (a) Primary school teachers

  25·9

  (b) Secondary school teachers

  27·4

  (c) National Health Service doctors

  n.a.

  (d) National Health Service nursing staff

  32·0

  (e) Employees of the Scottish Development Agency

  n.a.

  Notes:

  Figures at (a) and (b) are from 1984 and relate only to the timetabled working hours in school in a normal working week. Due to industrial action schools comprehensive data for subsequent years was not collected. Data from the 1988 School Census will become available later this year. In January 1987 new conditions of service for teachers, including working hours, were agreed in the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education.

  Figures shown at (d) are estimates based on recorded hours worked in the period ended 30 September 1988. They include data for part-time staff and staff in training. No corresponding information is available for doctors.

  Comparable figures are not available for staff of the Scottish Development Agency. The majority of SDA staff are in salaried non-overtime grades and usually work considerably more than their contracted 35 hours. All but the most junior grades are contracted to work 35 hours per week plus hours governed by the exigencies of the work.

DEFENCE

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the accuracy of Mr. Gorbachev's estimate of the Soviet chemical weapons stockpile as 50,000 tonnes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Soviet claim that its stockpile of chemical warfare agents is no larger than 50,000 tonnes has not been backed up by any supporting data. We assess, in common with other Western estimates, that total Soviet chemical warfare stocks are several times higher.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions nuclear submarines docked in British ports in the last three years; and if he will list those ports.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of occasions during the last three years on which nuclear-powered submarines have docked in British civil ports are as follows:
  407

  Number of visits

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Cardiff

  2

  0

  3

  Liverpool

  4

  2

  4

  Southampton

  0

  1

  1

  In addition nuclear-powered submarines have made use of offshore berths at the locations listed below. Data on the use of these is recorded as an aggregate of numbers of days rather than by number of visits:

  Days in use

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Rothesay

  4

  7

  8

  Loch Striven

  13

  0

  0

  Loch Goil

  0

  0

  1

  Brodick Bay

  7

  1

  3

  Portree

  6

  2

  15

  Broadford Bay

  0

  2

  6

  Torbay

  0

  3

  6

  Offshore berths are covered by public safety schemes or special safety schemes, as are all ports where nuclear-powered submarines actually dock.

  Obsolete Nuclear Shells
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, pursuant to his reply of 9 February,Official Report, column 767, he will discuss with the United States Government plans to scrap obsolete nuclear shells held in Great Britain and with the British armed forces in NATO; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measurements have been made of noise levels on the ground caused by military jet aircraft overflying at 100 ft and speeds of up to 550 knots within 20 miles of the RAF station at Finningley; and what compensation has been paid where dwellings are subject to noise levels from military aircraft of 125 db(A) or more in that area.

  Mr. Neubert
  No such noise measurements have been made within 20 miles of RAF Finningley, but I refer the hon. Member to my replies of 26 January to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) at column 753 and of 6 February to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) at columns 447–48.

  Royal Navy Mechanics
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy mechanics served in each of the following branches:(a) air engineering, (b) marine engineering and (c) weapon and electrical engineering, in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Neubert
  The numbers of Royal Navy mechanics serving in air engineering, marine engineering and weapon and electrical engineering each year since 1983 are given in the table. All figures are at the 1 January point.
  408

  Year

  Air engineering

  Marine engineering

  Weapon and Electrical engineering

  1983

  1,915

  6,561

  8,803

  1984

  2,079

  6,275

  8,937

  1985

  1,979

  6,046

  8,929

  1986

  1,721

  5,512

  8,579

  1987

  1,639

  5,248

  8,262

  1988

  1,654

  5,103

  7,954

  1989

  1,665

  5,079

  7,799

  Note: Weapon and electrical engineers include air and marine engineers with electrical qualifications.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total outflow of Royal Navy mechanics in each of the following branches in 1988 and how many of these left prior to the completion of their engagements:(a) air engineering, (b) marine engineering and (c) weapons and electrical engineering.

  Mr. Neubert
  The total outflows of Royal Navy mechanics from the air engineering, marine engineering and weapon and electrical engineering branches during 1988 were as follows:

  Air engineering

  Marine engineering

  Weapon and Electrical engineering

  203

  548

  790

  Of these, the numbers who left to completing their engagements were:

  Air engineering

  Marine engineering

  Weapon and Electrical engineering

  158

  433

  576

  Engagements for naval ratings are generally open ended, up to a maximum of 22 years and ratings may leave at any time after an initial period at 18 months notice.

  Note:

  1. Weapon and electrical engineers include air and marine engineers with electrical qualifications.

  2. Promotions to officer have been excluded.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mechanics qualified to serve in the following branches of the Royal Navy in 1988(a) air engineering, (b) marine engineering and (c) weapons and electrical engineering.

  Mr. Neubert
  The numbers of Royal Navy mechanics who qualified to serve in the air engineering, marine engineering and weapon and electrical engineering branches in 1988 were as follows:

  Number

  Air engineering

  91

  Marine engineering

  345

  Weapon and electrical engineering

  659

  Notes:

  1. Weapon and electrical engineers include air and marine engineers with electrical qualifications.

  2. These figures may be incomplete due to reporting delays.

  Aldermaston and Burghfield (Audit)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what methods of communication and consultation were
  409
  used between his officials and the British Nuclear Fuels plc team carrying out the audit at Aldermaston and Burghfield during the month of January 1986.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 22 December 1988 at column 380 and on 18 January 1989 at column 199.

  Soviet Naval Activity
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on changes in the level of Soviet naval activity in the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since the end of 1985, there has been a significant reduction in the overall deployment level of Soviet naval combatants away from home fleet waters world wide. We believe, however, that in home waters the level of naval activity has remained at least constant, or indeed may have increased. The modernisation of the Soviet fleet has also continued, and its ability to conduct wartime operations has not diminished.

  Royal Navy (Training)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of man weeks allocated to formal individual training in 1979 and 1974, across all categories of Royal Navy personnel, for each of the following areas:(a) new entry training, (b) specialisation training, (c) sub-specialisation training and (d) routine top-up training.

  Mr. Neubert
  Information on man weeks allocated to individual training was not produced in the form requested for the years up to and including 1979. Much of the detailed information over this period is no longer held. So far as later years are concerned, I refer the hon. Gentleman to answer 6 provided to the Defence Committee on 3 February 1988, reproduced on page 25 of the Committee's sixth report of Session 1987–88.

  Sea Time
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average time spent at sea by(a) chief petty officers and petty officers, (b) leading ratings and (c) able ratings.

  Mr. Neubert
  Average sea time (that time during which a rating is drafted to an operational ship) is currently:

  Per cent.

  Chief petty officers and petty officers

  42

  Leading rates

  59

  Able rates

  64

  It does not follow, however, that such time is spent entirely at sea; ships spend a proportion of their operational time at their base ports.

  Norton Manor Camp
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why a private security firm has the responsibility of patrolling Norton Manor camp, near Taunton; whether he proposes any changes in security at the camp following recent Irish Republican Army bombings at Army camps; and if he will make a statement.
  410
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A private security firm is employed at Norton Manor camp on routine and strictly-defined security tasks. Its presence constitutes only one element of the physical security arrangements in force at the camp. Security arrangements are constantly reviewed in the light of our assessment of the terrorist threat.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what allowance he has made in his Department's budget for each of the next five years to provide for the substitution of HCFC 22 for chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants covered by the Montreal protocol; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbons refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (3) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is our policy to reduce the use of chlorofluorocarbons wherever possible. The information requested is not available centrally and cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Live Bombing Exercise
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the next live bombing exercise is to be conducted in the Moray Firth; where, in relation to recognised danger areas, and British territorial waters, the exercise will take place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 2 March 1989]: There are no plans to drop live bombs in the Moray Firth.

TRANSPORT

  Relocation
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet executives of Nottingham Development Enterprise to discuss the relocation of parts of his Department to Nottingham as part of the policy on relocation of such posts away from the south-east.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Under the policy which my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General announced on 31 March 1988, the Department is reviewing parts of its work with a view to possible relocation. Where appropriate. areas which are the focus of the Government's regional and urban policies, such as Nottingham, will be considered.

  Nottingham has been selected for relocation of the headquarters staff of the driver testing and training division in mid-1990.

  Manchester Airport (Rail Link)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about a railway link to Manchester international airport.

  Mr. Portillo
  My officials have recently received a joint paper from Greater Manchester passenger transport
  411
  executive and British Rail which seeks to demonstrate that the proposed rail link is commercially viable. The paper will be discussed at a meeting between the relevant parties and the Department at the end of this week.

  Seafarers (Taxation)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the extent of refund to shipping companies of personal taxation and social security payments made by their seafarers made by the Danish and Swedish Governments; what estimate he has made of the value of this concession to the running costs of Danish and Swedish ships engaged in international trade; and what steps he proposes to take to enable British shipping companies to meet this challenge.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am advised that Danish nationals serving on ships registered on the Danish international register are exempted from the full rate of income tax with the savings passed on to shipping companies. The Swedish Government rebate to shipping companies income tax and social security payments made in respect of Swedish seafarers serving on Swedish flag vessels engaged in long distance shipping, at an estimated cost for 1989 of 550 million Swedish kroner. The Department has asked the EC Commission to consider the compatibility of the Danish arrangements with the Community's competition rules. The question of state aids to shipping is also under consideration as part of the second stage of the Community's shipping policy.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of local bus services outside London are now provided by private operators.

  Mr. Portillo
  Of the local bus miles outside London run during 1987–88, 58 per cent. were provided by operators which were in the private sector by March 1988.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report following the inquiry on the proposals to increase the tolls on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Not before the inquiry has been concluded and the report has been written.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.
  412
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) today.

EMPLOYMENT

  Relocation
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet executives of Nottingham Development Enterprise to discuss the relocation of parts of his Department to Nottingham as part of the policy on relocation of such posts away from the south-east.

  Mr. Lee
  Under the policy that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General announced on March 1988, the Employment Department is now reviewing the location of its work with a view to finding sites offering easier labour markets, value for money and increased operational efficiency. Areas which are the focus of the Government's regional and urban policies, such as Nottingham, will be considered. My Department already has large concentrations of headquarters staff in three such regional locations at Runcorn, Bootle and Sheffield and the study taking place is giving particular attention to those locations; but other sites in assisted and urban programme areas have not yet been ruled out.

  Wages
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the average wage for(a) full-time male employees, (b) part-time male employees, (c) full-time female employees and (d) part-time female employees, for each of the last 10 years, for each economic region both in real and cash terms; if he will publish a further table showing average regional wages on the same basis for (i) manufacturing industry, (ii) the leisure industry and (iii) other service industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply he was given on 20 October 1988,Official Report, column 869. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a table of 1988 data for part-timers which was not available at the time together with the available information by industry, copies of which have also been placed in the Library.

  Labour Statistics (Sheffield)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage unemployment has fallen in each of the Sheffield parliamentary constituencies since June 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is also available in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in June 1987 and January 1989 for each of the Sheffield parliamentary constituencies, together with the percentage change over the period. The figures are affected by seasonal influences as well as by the change in coverage of the count due to new benefit regulations from September 1988 for young people aged under 18.
  413

  Constituency

  June 1987

  January 1989

  Percentage change

  Sheffield Central

  9,729

  7,282

  -25·2

  Sheffield Attercliffe

  5,801

  4,117

  -29·0

  Sheffield Brightside

  7,537

  5,610

  -25·6

  Sheffield Hallam

  4,425

  3,133

  -29·2

  Sheffield Heeley

  7,011

  5,012

  -28·5

  Sheffield Hillsborough

  5,524

  3,942

  -28·6

  Jobs
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the new jobs which have become available since 1983 are part-time and what proportion were filled by men and women.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job gains and job losses. Between September 1983 and September 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the workforce in employment in Great Britain increased by 1,989,000. Of this net increase 1,167,000 (59 per cent.) was attributable to growth in part-time employment, 649,000 (33 per cent.) to growth in male employment and 1,339,000 (67 per cent.) to growth in female employment.

  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. In classifying the work force in employment between full and part-time, all programme participants are counted as in part-time employment.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time and part-time jobs were created in the United Kingdom in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job gains and job losses. In the year to September 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the work force in employment in the United Kingdom increased by 404,000. There are no estimates of full-time and part-time employment in Northern Ireland for these dates, and therefore no estimates for the United Kindom.

  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.

  Labour Statistics (Salford)
  Ms. Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the figures for female part-time jobs in the Salford area.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information taken from the September 1984 census of employment indicates that there were 17,700 female part-time employees in employment in the Salford local authority district.

  Labour Statistics (Luton)
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the percentage fall in the number of unemployed has been in the travel-to-work area covering Luton in the last 12 months; how many people are currently registered as unemployed in Luton; and how many known job vacancies there are there.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the Watford and Luton travel-to-work area 414
  was 12,773 compared with 20,858 in January 1988, a fall of 8,085 or 38·8 per cent. The comparison is affected by the change in coverage from September 1988 due to new benefit regulations for those people aged under 18 years. There were 4,022 unfilled vacancies at jobcentres approximately covering the Watford and Luton travel-to work area in January 1989. Vacancies at jobcentres do not represent the total number in the economy. Recent research shows that nationally only about one third of all vacancies are notified to jobcentres.

  Private Employment Agencies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many private employment agencies he has investigated since 1979 which accept fees from job applicants for counselling or other services; and what: action he has taken in each case.

  Mr. Lee
  All private employment agencies are routinely investigated for breaches of any of the provisions of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and regulations, including the provision prohibiting the offer of a job-finding service conditional upon the use of other services, such as counselling, for which job applicants may legally be charged a fee. There have been about 25,000 such inspections since 1979. If any infringement of the legislation is found, action is taken to ensure that it is corrected. If the infringement persists, prosecution would be considered.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will produce a breakdown of the responses to his consultation document "Wages Councils", setting out(a) the total number of responses, (b) those in favour and those against, and (c) the responses of employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 15 February,Official Report, column 233.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the mid-year unemployment figure each year since 1979; and what was the increase or decrease in unemployment in each year both in numbers and in percentage terms.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is also available from the Library. The table shows seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom for each June from 1979, together with the change in numbers and percentage terms on the previous year.
  415

  Unemployment: Seasonally adjusted, consistent with current coverage in the United Kingdom

  Date

  Number

  Change (over 12 months)

  Percentage change

  June 1979

  1,069,000

  -83,900

  -7·3

  June 1980

  1,275,200

  206,200

  19·3

  June 1981

  2,177,400

  902,200

  70·7

  June 1982

  2,523,100

  345,700

  15·9

  June 1983

  2,807,400

  284,300

  11·3

  June 1984

  2,900,900

  93,500

  3·3

  June 1985

  3,027,600

  126,700

  4·4

  June 1986

  3,130,200

  102,600

  3·4

  June 1987

  2,857,200

  -273,000

  -8·7

  June 1988

  2,324,100

  -533,100

  -18·7

HEALTH

  Child Minders
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has of the extent of unregistered childminding carried out by children aged under 16 years; if he has any plans to legislate in relation to childminding carried out by children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not possible to provide an estimate. Local authorities have a duty under the Nurseries and

  Estimated average gross weekly earnings1

  Full-time

  Part-time (per head)

  Grade

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  £ pw

  £ pw

  £ pw

  £ pw

  Non supervisors and chargehands

  Scale A

  114·49

  132·11

  54·84

  57·49

  Scale B

  113·36

  133·11

  62·55

  59·27

  Scale C

  138·00

  162·90

  71·25

  387·96

  Scale D

  3140·46

  156·59

  79·18

  2

  Supervisor

  Scale I

  141·89

  148·54

  79·39

  2

  Scale II

  145·73

  179·29

  96·53

  2

  Scale III

  134·71

  181·00

  2

  2

  Scale IV

  3154·36

  182·26

  2

  2

  1 The other information requested is not available—without incurring disproportionate cost.

  2 Numbers of staff in these grades are too small to provide reliable figures.

  3 These averages are based on relatively small numbers.

  Resource Management
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resource management initiative select studies he considered when drawing up the relevant proposals in "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I had available internal progress reports from the six resource management initiative pilot sites and three assessments of progress on resource management from the National Health Service training authority, the joint consultants committee's sub-group on resource management and the NHS management board's director of resource management.

  Plastic Surgery
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the waiting time for plastic surgery in the Leicester health authority; what are the comparable figures for waiting times in(a) other authorities in the Trent region and (b) nationally; what assessment he has made of the
  416
  Childminders Regulation Act 1948 to register as child minders persons who for reward look after in their own homes child ren aged under five. We would not expect a local authority to register a child aged under 16 as a child minder. The Government will be introducing amendments to the Children Bill (now in the House of Lords) relating to the registration of child minders by local authorities.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the number of ancillary staff employed in the National Health Service as of 30 September 1988, excluding nurse auxiliaries, (b) the number of whole-time equivalents in England, (c) the average hours of ancillary staffs by grade together with average pay by grade and (d) the average hours of part-time ancillary staffs by grade and average pay, broken down by male and female for each of categories (b), (c) and (d).

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest figures available are:(a) and (b) September 987

  (a) 1 57,3 00

  (b)Male 41,500; female 73,500; total 115,000.

  (c) and (d) 1987–88.

  reasons for these levels; and what steps he is taking to reduce waiting times in Leicester health authority for plastic surgery.

  Mr. Mellor
  The median waiting time for plastic surgery in-patients treated in 1987–88 in the Leicestershire health authority, other authorities in the Trent region and England is given in the table. Some patients do however wait considerably longer than the times shown, as plastic surgery waiting lists comprise cases with widely different degrees of urgency. Epidemiological changes and medical innovation have led to substantial increases in plastic surgery workloads.

  A total of £69,000 has been made available to the Leicester health authority from the waiting list fund in 1987–88 and 1988–89, which has enabled them to treat an additional 350 plastic surgery patients from the waiting list. The regional health authority propose to continue to fund Leicester's plastic surgery waiting list fund project in 1989–90.
  417

  Median waiting time (weeks)—plastic surgery in-patients cases treated 1987–88

  Weeks

  Leicestershire

  5

  South Lincolnshire

  5

  Nottingham

  6

  Sheffield

  10

  Trent region

  7

  England

  7

  Note: Other districts in Trent did not treat plastic surgery patients during the year.

  Medical Secretaries
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had with regard to the shortage of medical secretaries in the National Health Service; and whether he has discussed this with the Whitley Council.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received about 180 letters since the beginning of March 1988 about medical secretaries. Negotiations are taking place in the administrative and clerical staffs Whitley council on management side proposals which include a scheme to supplement the national pay scales where recruitment and retention problems are experienced.

  Geriatric Wards
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds are provided in long stay geriatric wards in the National Health Service hospitals in the following regions(a) East Anglia, (b) North East Thames, (c) North West Thames, (d) South West Thames and (e) South East Thames.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information given in the table relates to general wards for elderly patients.

  Average daily available beds in general wards for elderly patients, National Health Service hospitals, by selected regional health authorities, 1987–88

  Regional health authority

  Available beds

  East Anglian

  2,539

  North West Thames

  3,386

  North East Thames

  4,260

  South East Thames

  3,535

  South West Thames

  2,832

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which sets of Korner data will be collected from National Health Service hospital trusts; and if similar data will be required from hospitals in the private sector.

  Mr. Freeman
  We shall be giving detailed consideration over the coming months to the information which will be needed centrally when National Health Service hospital trusts are established.

  Single European Act
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact that the Single European Act will have on his Department's operation of domestic policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The main impact is in the extent to which it facilitates the introduction of European Community 418
  legislation contributing to the establishment of the single market in areas falling within the Department's responsibilities and in its requirement that in proposals affecting health a high level of health protection shall apply. As far as can be foreseen at present the main effects of European Community legislation and legislative proposals on the Department's domestic policy will be in the areas of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and tobacco products.

  AIDS
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums have been allocated to all aspects of treatment., research and education related to AIDS and HIV for the current and next three financial years.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the current year, we have made available to health authorities in England £58·6 million as a contribution towards the additional costs of providing treatment and care for people infected with HIV and with AIDS. For 1989–90 a total of almost £130 million is being made available towards those costs. Details of the distribution of resources to regional health authorities were given in health circular HC(88)66.

  A number of Government-funded organisations are supporting HIV-related research, on which over £13·2 million is expected to be spent in this financial year. The Medical Research Council is the main agency through which we support biomedical research in relation to HIV and AIDS, and is funded through grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. The MRC plans to spend, through its directed programme on AIDS:

  £ million

  1988–89

  5·0

  1989–90

  7·0

  1990–91

  8·0

  1991–92

  8·5

  The Department is providing the MRC with an additional £1,050,000 this year and £1·7 million in 1989–90 principally for epidemiological research on HIV. We are making available separately an estimated £593,000 for HIV-related health and personal social services research projects this year, and will be deciding shortly the Department's budget for such research for 1989–90.

  In respect of health education related to HIV and AIDS, the Department has allocated £8·7 million in 1988–89 to the Health Education Authority, and £1·3 million to the national AIDS helpline, which provides a free, confidential telephone advice service. The Department's budget for health education work in 1989–90 has yet to be decided. No decisions have yet been made on the Department's allocations for treatment, research and health education in future years.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what national data exists on which people known to be HIV positive develop AIDS.

  Mr. Mellor
  No national data are available showing which HIV-positive individuals develop AIDS.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any people in the United Kingdom have been diagnosed as having AIDS without the presence of HIV.
  419
  Mr. Mellor
  Of the cases of AIDS reported to the communicable disease surveillance centre and the communicable diseases (Scotland) unit, 88 per cent. have been tested for the presence of antibodies to HIV or for HIV. Of these, results were positive in all but five individuals.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on whether test for Epstein-Barr, cytomegalo lymphoma hepatitis B, herpes simplex viruses or anti-bodies in people with AIDS are routinely performed.

  Mr. Mellor
  These tests are not routinely performed. However, if the clinical findings suggest that any of these conditions may be present, the tests would be carried out in accordance with clinical judgment.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any evidence that virus infections such as leukaemia and lymphoma retroviruses can result in selective damage to specific cells of the immune system, and in particular to white blood cells known as T and B lymphocytes.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that there is a considerable scientific literature on the possible effects of retroviruses on elements of the immune system.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in what percentage of people with Kaposi's sarcoma has HIV been isolated;

  (2) what percentage of people with AIDS are infected with syphilis.

  Mr. Mellor
  I regret that these data are not available.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what criteria he authorises spending on research and public education programmes which identify HIV as the sole cause of AIDS.

  Mr. Mellor
  The overwhelming consensus of expert opinion is that HIV is the causative organism of AIDS.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer on 10 January,Official Report, columns 605–8 about the AIDS education campaign, if he will state the value of the AIDS advertising budget; and how many times advertisements have been placed in the newspapers and journals set out in his answer.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: The amounts spent on mass media advertising from the inception of the Government AIDS public education campaign to 31 December 1988 were as follows:

  Department of Health (to 31 December 1987)

  £

  Press

  3,196,047

  Radio

  880,939

  Television

  3,461,985

  Cinema

  855,284

  Poster

  1,865,599

  Miscellaneous

  94,568

  Total

  10,354,422

  420

  Health Education Authority (to 31 December 1988)

  £

  Press

  1,120,367

  Television

  2,300,000

  Posters

  880,694

  Total

  4,301,061

  A list giving the advertising insertions in the national and regional press and magazines for this period has been placed in the Library.

  If my hon. Friend would like details of advertising insertions and associated spending from 1 January 1989, he may wish to approach the Health Education Authority for this information.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement of progress on the introduction of information technologies to facilitate internal communications in his Department and the provision of information to the public concerning those areas for which he is responsible; and if he has any further plans to apply the newest technologies in these fields.

  Mr. Mellor
  Personal computers are used extensively throughout the Department, and many already communicate via an electronic mail service or over local area networks.

  We are refining further our information technology (IT) strategy, which includes the development of a centrally maintained IT-based information centre. This system draws data from the NHS for use by top management and Ministers.

  The Department's information technology branch keeps abreast of developments in the IT field and plans are constantly updated to improve our internal communications facilities where appropriate.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria were used in selecting the audiences of National Health Service staff addressed by him following the launch of "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Those invited were people who would be closely connected with the implementation of the review, such as health authority and FPC chairmen and senior managers and professional staff and those who needed to be informed at first hand about the contents of the White Paper and to be able to question Ministers about its proposals.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which district medical officers were invited to the roadshow launch in the west midlands of "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The district medical officers invited were:

  Dr. M. C. T. Wilkes, Kidderminster HA

  Dr. H. V. Duggal, Mid-Staffordshire HA

  Dr. M. E. Summerly, North Staffordshire HA

  Dr. J. S. Dodge, Rugby HA

  Dr. R. K. Griffiths, C Birmingham HA

  Dr. M. J. Carpenter, E Birmingham HA

  Dr. S. Gyde, N Birmingham HA

  421

  Dr. G. T. Pollock, Coventry HA

  Dr. J. Middleton, Sandwell HA

  Dr. G. M. Singal, Walsall HA

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if any instructions, verbal or written, were given to managers or other National Health Service staff about their comments to the press or media following the launch of "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is the responsibility of individual health authorities to determine policy on how their staff should deal with questions from the press and media, including questions on "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the names of the press/public relations company responsible for the launch of the White Paper "Working for Patients"; if a process of competitive tendering was used before choosing the company; and if the press department at his Department was considered for the task.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  NML Presentations Ltd. was contracted by the Department to provide organisational, production and design services in connection with the NHS review launch communication programme. It was chosen from a number of companies which were asked to compete for the job. My Department's information division supervised and monitored the contract.

  Management Consultants (Cost)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give each district health authority the spending on buying in advice from management consultants in the latest available year, giving this sum as a percentage of each district health authority's total revenue spending.

  Mr. Mellor
  The employment or use of management consultants is a matter for individual health authorities and their annual accounts do not separately identify any expenditure consequently incurred.

  Water Supply (Contamination)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan of 27 February, if he will give the total number of qualified members of (i) the medical and (ii) the scientific staff of his Department dealing with matters related to contamination of drinking water by(a) micro-organisms, (b) chemicals, and (c) radiation.

  Mr. Mellor
  The numbers of qualified medical and scientific staff in post in the divisions which deal with

  Hospital and Community Health Services, England—Percentage increase in net current expenditure

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Percentage increases in cash limit

  19·4

  31·9

  10·3

  7·7

  5·1

  5·7

  5·3

  7·4

  10·5

  Percentage required to fully cover HCHS pay and price inflation

  20·5

  28·0

  8·2

  6·5

  5·1

  5·8

  5·2

  6·9

  8·1

  Effective charge in purchasing power

  -0·9

  +3·0

  +2·0

  +1·1

  0·0

  -0·1

  +0·1

  +0·5

  +2·2

  The table is based on HCHS net current (outturn) expenditure figures for the years in which HCHS pay and prices information is currently available. These figures do not, of course, take account of income from cash-releasing
  422
  matters related to the contamination of food, drinking water and the environment are set out in the table. These figures do not include the chief medical officer and his deputies and the two medical heads of divisions, senior principal medical officers (SPMOs). SPMOs deal with selected issues according to their nature and importance.

  Contamination by

  microorganisms

  chemicals

  radiation

  Medical

  2

  7

  1

  Other scientific

  2

  16

  4

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the age distribution of screening examinations for cervical cancer in England and Wales in 1988;

  (2) how many women had a first cervical cancer screen in England and Wales in 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available at present. However, we hope to he able to provide figures for 1988–89 towards the end of this year, following the introduction of new cancer screening returns in April 1988.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of screening examinations for cervical cancer in 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in the form requested but following the introduction of a new cancer screening return from April 1988 it is hoped to be able to give details of women screened in 1988–89 towards the end of this year.

  In 1987–88, in England and Wales, 4,322,345 cervical cytology cases were examined. A woman who was tested more than once was counted on each occasion, but where more than one smear was taken from the same patient at the same session, they were counted as one test.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each year since 1978–79 the percentage increase in the cash limits set for hospital and community health services which was intended to cover pay and price inflation and the percentage increase which would have been required fully to cover pay and price inflation in each year.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is as follows:

  cost improvements which, in the years since 1984–85 provided a significant contribution to the margin available for service development.

  Dental Charges
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the effects of the introduction of charges on the take-up of dentists' invitations for routine inspections.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information is not yet available which would enable a comparison to be made between numbers of courses of treatment commenced before and after the introduction of the dental examination charge.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any evidence to indicate that the full cost to public funds of private residential care is less than that which would be incurred if similar care were provided by local authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are aware of certain studies of the costs of residential care. However, the very limited scope of the studies and the difficulties in making comparisons means that we are unable to draw general conclusions as to the relative cost to public funds of provision in different sectors.

  Cook-chill Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, following the advice from his chief medical officer that all cook-chill food should be re-heated until piping hot before consumption, what action he is taking about those supermarkets which continue to retail cook-chill chicken labelled "ready to eat".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The chief medical officer's advice that cooked chilled meals and ready to eat poultry should be re-heated until they were piping hot was directed at pregnant women and certain others at special risk. As far as the rest of the population was concerned, he said that provided good hygiene practices were followed there was no need for them to change the types of foods that they regularly ate and enjoyed.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy towards the acceptance by health authorities of commercial sponsorship of the publication of newsheets relating to cook-chill catering.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is a matter for health authorities to determine their use of commercial sponsorship in the publication of any news sheets that they wish to issue provided they do not contravene current health policy.

  Food

  Salmonella SP

  Clostridium Perfringens

  Staphylococcus Aureus

  Bacillus SP

  Total

  Fish

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Meat

  8

  24

  1

  2

  35

  Vegetables

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eggs

  6

  —

  1

  —

  7

  Other foods

  Chicken

  24

  5

  2

  2

  33

  Turkey

  15

  4

  1

  1

  21

  Poultry

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Other mixed foods

  14

  5

  7

  15

  41

  Information is not readily available on all cases involved in these outbreaks. Provisional information on outbreaks associated with these foods in 1988 suggests that, with the exception of eggs, there was no significant
  424
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will direct Wakefield health authority to ensure that future editions of "Catering Update" relating to cook-chill catering are produced without commercial sponsorship by companies closely associated with the introduction of such catering.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Editorial control of such publications rests with the DHA.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) today.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the full annual cost to local authorities of supplementing the incomes of residents of private homes whose resources, including income support, fall short of their residential fees.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is not available centrally.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will break down the figures for food poisoning according to numbers and types of cases associted with(a) fish, (b) meat, (c) vegetables, (d) eggs and (e) other foods.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 14 February 1989]: A suspected food is identified in only a small proportion of reported outbreaks. The following table gives details of outbreaks of food poisoning reported to the public health laboratory service in 1987, where a suspected vehicle of infection and causative agent has been indentified.

  difference in the numbers reported. However in 1988 the public health laboratory service received reports of 60 outbreaks of food poisoning, involving about 1,600 people, associated with the consumption of eggs.
  425
  Mr.Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of food poisoning from salmonella enteritidis have been reported over the past 12 months, broken down by the general circumstances of kitchen hygiene, catering or domestic.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 14 February 1989]: Reports of food poisoning cases are not routinely broken down by general circumstances of kitchen hygiene. Reports of outbreaks give information on such contributory factors. Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 is associated predominantly with chicken and eggs. The number of reported food poisoning outbreaks linked with eggs, but not with chicken, showed a marked increase in 1988. Information suggests that while inadequate kitchen hygiene may have been a contributory factor in some of these outbreaks it cannot account for the marked increase in the total number of egg-associated salmonellosis reported in 1988.

ENVIRONMENT

  Teenage Mothers (Council Houses)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the provision of council accommodation to teenage mothers.

  Mr. Trippier
  The allocation of council housing to tenants is a matter for local housing authorities.

  Homeless Persons (London)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of men and women who are currently of no fixed abode within Greater London.

  Mr.Trippier
  It is not possible to make a relaiable estimate.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will recommend the use of(a) mobile pollution detectors as used by a division of Wessex water authority and (b) the new anti-pollution vessel Thames Bubbler as used by Thames water authority, to other water boards in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  These are both interesting developments whose operational performance will, no doubt, be carefully assessed by the individual water authorities concerned.

  After Royal Assent of the Water Bill, the National Rivers Authority will take over the water authorities' regulatory functions. I would expect it to wish to review the scope for using mobile pollution detectors and oxygenating vessels more widely.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the location of each intermediate variation order currently under consideration by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to each of the water authorities.

  Mr. Howard
  Details of applications made under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, including those for 426
  time-limited variations, are held on the individual water authorities' registers. These may be inspected, free of charge, by anyone at all reasonable hours.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long he expects consideration of each application for intermediate variation orders to take; and by what date he expects all those applications received by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on or after 28 March to be processed.

  Mr. Howard
  It is not possible to say how long consideration of each application for a time-limited consent variation will take. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will consider applications and where applicable, grant time-limited variations as quickly as possible. The inspectorate will remain responsible for issuing discharge consents until the National Rivers Authority is established.

  Legionella (House of Commons)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 582, specific tests for legionella have ever been undertaken in the air conditioning system and standby generator serving the underground cm park of the House; and if he will construct a table showing the numerical result of the last bacteriological count undertaken.

  Mr. Chope
  No specific tests for legionella have been necessary following the regular bacteriological sampling counts.

  The results of the last count, taken on 16 February 1989, are shown in the table.

  Microbiological services report (Standard analyses)

  Sample details

  K Plant Tower (air conditioning system)

  Emergency generator (underground carpark)

  Aerobic Bacteria

  Klebsiella spp (Highly significant potential slime former in industrial systems)

  Bacillus spp (Spore and potential slime formers)

  Other potential slime formers (Enterobacteria, Pseudomonads, Flavobacteria etc)

  <102

  <102

  Other Aerobic bacteria

  <102

  <102

  Total Aerobic bacteria

  <102

  <102

  Anaerobic Bacteria

  Dissimilatory Sulphate-reducers (Principally Desulfovibrio but includes other corrosive SRSs)

  Not detected

  Not detected

  Total Anaerobic bacteria (Includes Clostridia, facultative anaerobes and aerotolerant strains)

  Microfungi

  Mould-like forms (Significant as potential slime formers)

  Not detected

  Not detected

  Yeast-like forms (Unicellular microfungi, less significant as slime formers)

  Not detected

  Not detected

  Total Microfungi

  Not detected

  Not detected

  Information Technology
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement of progress on the introduction of information technologies to facilitate internal communications in his Department and the provision of information to the public concerning those areas for which he is responsible; and if he has any further plans to apply the newest technologies in these fields.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Department of the Environment (Central) operates, in accordance with its strategic framework for using information technology, a central computer bureau which runs a number of systems covering the Department's wide-ranging activities; this is supported by an extensive communications network. In addition, the Department operates office automation systems and standardised word processing facilities designed to expedite internal communications. All these developments assist with the provision of appropriate information to the public.

  The Property Services Agency has its own information technology strategy and has embarked on a major programme of computerisation. This is being developed against the back ground of my announcement on 25 May 1988 to put PSA on to a more commercial footing, and move to a trading fund status by 1993. Procurement of hardware began in November 1988 and some computer applications are currently being trialled in PSA's southern region, which includes the group and estates offices in Bournemouth.

  The IT strategies of both parts of the Department are subject to continual refinement, monitoring and review. The newest proven technologies will continue to be applied, where they support the Department's business and policy priorities and provide value for money.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the recently published expenditure plans for the London Docklands development corporation take into account the securing of essential social infrastructure, and the need for London Docklands development corporation to be more effective in securing this provision, identified in the National Audit Office report on urban development corporations, paragraph 2.27.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government's expenditure plans 1989–90 to 1991–92 (Cm. 609) take full account of LDDC's priorities, which include helping to improve social infrastructure. The LDDC is constantly concerned to use the resources which can be made available to it in the most effective way.

  Sewage Disposal
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will exercise his powers to call in for public inquiry the current proposals of the North West water authority for sewage disposal in Morecambe bay.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend will consider the need for an inquiry when he has considered North West water authority's applications for discharge consents under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, together with the large number of representations made to him.

  Seal Products
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government intend to support an indefinite extension of EEC directive 85/444 banning the importation of the skins of bluebacked and whitecoated seal pups and products derived there from.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 15 February 1989 at column 281.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate allegations that blueback and whitecoat seal skins have been illegally imported into the United Kingdom in contravention of EEC directive 85/444.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Enforcement of the prohibition on commercial importation into the United Kingdom of harp and hooded seal pup skins and products stemming from directive 85/444 (EEC), is the responsibility of Customs and Excise. It has no evidence to support allegations of illegal importation, but would be prepared to consider any such evidence made available to it. No licences have been issued for imports into the United Kingdom that were contrary to the ban.

  Water Supply (Contamination)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish immediately(a) the terms of reference and (b) the membership of the independently-led inquiry into cryptosporidia contamination in the water supply in the Oxford and Swindon areas.

  Mr. Howard
  Mr. Terry Dick, chairman of the western consumer consultative committee of the Thames Water region, will conduct the independent investigation established by Thames Water into the cryptosporidia contamination of the water supply in the Oxford and Swindon areas. Mr. Dick will be able to obtain whatever support he needs from within or outside Thames Water. The investigation has the following aims:

  (i) to describe the events which called into question the purity of the water supply;

  (ii) to review Thames Water's handling of the incident, from both the technical and customer relations standpoints; and

  (iii) to assess the effectiveness of the remedial measures taken.

  The findings of the investigation will be made public.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the occasion of the forthcoming international conference on "Saving the Ozone Layer" on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the use of R22 in preference to R12 in refrigeration plant; and if he will give guidance to those making immediate international decisions for refrigeration plant with a life of 10 or more years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's policy on the use of CFC22 is set out in its reply to the first report from the Environment Committee (Session 1987–88 HC 270–1) on air pollution (Cm. 522).

  "Environment in Trust"
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the "Environment in Trust" leaflets published on 1 March; how many have been printed; and what was the total cost of the hire and use of the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre on 1 March.

  Mr. Ridley
  The one-off costs of creative design and artwork for the "Environment in Trust" series of leaflets are £117,594. The initial print of 25,000 leaflets has cost £99,760. The cost of the hire and use of the accommodation at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre for the reception on 1 March 1989 was £2,571.

  This is remarkably good value for money.

  Water (Privatisation)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals exist within the North West water authority for mounting a pre-flotation advertising campaign; what would be the budget for such a campaign; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals exist within the nine water authorities other than North West water for mounting a pre-flotation advertising campaign; what would be the total budget for such campaigns; and if he will make a statement.

  Properties taken into possession in period

  Building Societies (United Kingdom)

  Local authorities (England)

  Year

  Number

  Percentage of loans at end of period

  Year

  Number

  Percentage of loans at end of period

  1979

  2,530

  0·048

  1980–81

  1,000

  0·14

  1980

  3,020

  0·056

  1981–82

  1,100

  0·16

  1981

  4,240

  0·077

  1982–83

  950

  0·14

  1982

  5,950

  0·105

  1983–84

  840

  0·13

  1983

  7,320

  0·123

  1984–85

  570

  0·10

  1984

  10,870

  0·171

  1985–86

  630

  0·13

  1985

  16,770

  0·250

  1986–87

  490

  0·12

  1986

  20,930

  0·296

  1987–88

  330

  0·10

  1987

  22,930

  0·319

  1988

  16,150

  0·216

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the annual cost to date of the publicity material promoting the right to buy council properties.

  Mr. Trippier
  Annual expenditure to draw attention of council tenants to their right to buy under the Housing Act has been as follows:

  £

  1980–81

  655,000

  1981–82

  239,000

  1982–83

  84,000

  1983–84

  —

  1984–85

  1,306,000

  1985–86

  300,000

  1986–87

  670,000

  1987–88

  25,000

  1988–89

  175,000

  1 Provisional.

  430
  Mr. Moynihan
  This is a matter for the individual water authorities and I suggest the hon. Member approaches them direct.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals exist within the Water Authorities Association to mount a national, centrally co-ordinated campaign before flotation; what would be the budget for such a campaign; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The water authorities are currently undertaking a national corporate advertising campaign. The details are a matter for the Water Authorities Association.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the number of repossessions of properties purchased by ex-council tenants who have exercised their right to buy.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest information on all building society and local authority repossessions is given in the table. Information separating repossession of ex-council houses from other repossessions is not available.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of Ordnance Survey.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Ordnance Survey financial targets for the four years from 1986–87 to 1989–90 which were announced on 30 October 1986 have already been met, indicating the excellent achievements made by management and staff. In acknowledgement of the commitment to full cost recovery in the longer term, I have now set new targets for Ordnance Survey:

  (1) To recover by the end of 1991–92 a minimum of 55 per cent. of the total annual cost of core activities.

  (2) To recover the total cost of Public Sector repayment work at home and overseas.

  (3) To maximise revenue on small scale and specialist products recovering not less than 110 per cent. of the total costs of that category.

  I have today approved the Ordnance Survey plan for 1989–92 based on these targets and I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Strategic Guidance for London
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish his strategic guidance for London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today published the draft strategic guidance for consultation. Comments are invited by 26 May. I hope to publish the guidance in its final form before the summer recess.

  The draft sets out guidance on those planning matters which must be dealt with on a Londonwide basis, in order to assist the boroughs to prepare effective unitary development plans for their areas. Its aims are to facilitate development and employment; regenerate rundown areas; maintain the vitality and character of established town centres; sustain the amenity of residential districts; allow for a wide range of housing provision; and accord high priority to the environment by maintaining the green belt and metropolitan open land, and by preserving fine views, conservation areas and surrounding countryside. The draft guidance includes the number of additional dwellings for which each borough should make provision in the 1990s. The proposals take account of the advice put forward by the London planning advisory committee, with the agreement of the boroughs. The boroughs will have discretion in their UDPs to identify suitable locations for housing development and to indicate densities and parking standards so as to ensure that such development can be accommodated without detriment to the local environment.

  Copies of the draft guidance have been sent to all London MPs and placed in the Library of the House.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications for his policy on safe destruction of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons in the United Kingdom of the decision of European Community Ministers to eliminate most chlorofluorocarbon gases by the end of the century.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Policy on the destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) is not affected by last week's Environment Council resolution agreeing that production and consumption of certain CFCs should be eliminated by the end of the century.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what allowance he has made in his Department's budget for each of the next five years to provide for the substitution of HCFC 22 for chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants covered by the Montreal protocol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As refrigeration and air conditioning systems in Government premises need replacing or servicing, full advantage will be taken of the best available alternatives to the Montreal protocol CFCs. This does not require any separate budgetary provision.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department.

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.
  432
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas).

  Rent Assessment Officers
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is being given to rent officers in assessing eligible rent in (1) boarding accommodation and (2) supportive accommodation as a result of the changes being implemented in April of the current year.

  Mr. Trippier
  Where the rent paid by a housing benefit claimant includes an amount in respect of board, the local authority will make a deduction in respect of that amount in accordance with the housing benefit regulations before referring the rent for consideration by the rent officer. Any other services provided—including supportive services—will be identified by the local authority in its application to the rent officer. Under the draft orders now laid before Parliament the rent officer will be required to determine the value within the overall rent of any of those service items which are ineligible for housing benefit.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 2 March.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside, represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.

  Following the initiative of the United Kingdom, the Council agreed on the need to reduce production and consumption of the CFCs controlled by the Montreal protocol by at least 85 per cent. as soon as possible with a view to phasing them out by the end of the century, and to strengthen the protocol accordingly. This represents substantial and welcome progress since the Environment Council 24 November. The agreement gave a clear signal to this week's "Saving the ozone layer" conference and to the first meeting of the parties to the protocol in Helsinki in May. It puts the European Community firmly in the lead in trying to convince the rest of the world that tougher international measures are needed.

  I am pleased to report that the Council reached agreement on the municipal waste incineration directive, which sets sensible but appropriately rigorous standards for new municipal waste incinerators in line with the regime likely to be imposed for domestic reasons by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution when they come under its control at the end of March under regulations to be laid before the House within the next few days.

  The Council had a further useful discussion of the proposal for a directive on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms. A considerable number of points were resolved, and the proposal was referred back for further consideration of remaining issues.

  A proposal to introduce controls over discharges of four dangerous substances to waste was also discussed.

  The Council gave preliminary consideration to proposed technical amendments to the air quality directive on smoke and sulphur dioxide emission which do not affect the United Kingdom.
  433
  The Commission noted progress on the global transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste convention which is currently under negotiation under the auspices of the United Nations environment programme.

  A preliminary exchange of views took place on a communication from the Commission on measures to improve the conservation of the African elephant.

  Ministers also discussed the conference to be held in The Hague on 11 March and agreed a declaration stating that any member state attending the conference would not be asked to enter into international commitments liable to affect the environment policy of the Community as a whole.

  Civil Servants (Political Activity)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff within his Department in the category "intermediate", as defined by the Civil Service pay and conditions code, have permission to engage in local or national political activity.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 27 February 1989]: My Department operates a block permission scheme related to the types of work on which staff are engaged. The number of staff employed in these areas varies over time. In November 1987, a total of 11,801 posts in the PSA and 1,165 in DOE (Central) were covered by permissions. More recent figures are not available.

  Thames Water Authority
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of(a) the report on water quality and (b) the operational response of the Thames water authority referred to in "Thames Water Board News" of 16 September 1988.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 2 March 1989]: No. I understand that the documents are internal papers of the Thames water authority which were submitted to the authority's board meeting in September 1988.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how Thames water authority has performed over the last eight quarters in relation to its potable water quality targets;

  (2) if he will make a statement relating to the quarter ended 30 June 1988 and for subsequent quarters on the performance of the Thames water authority in relation to (a) the European Community directive on quality of water intended for human consumption, (b) his Department's report 71 on the bacteriological examination of drinking water supplied and (c) World Health Organisation guidelines for drinking water.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 2 March 1989]: I am making inquiries of the Thames water authority and will write to the hon. Member shortly on these two questions.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of(a) the average cost per household, and (b) the overall cost in England and Wales of installing individual water meters in each dwelling; to what extent this is to be at the charge of (a) the Exchequer and (b) the consumer; and what
  434
  estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of meter installations where the householder is in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 3 March 1989]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a reply 1:0 my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) on 20 February at column 495, it will be some time before the metering trials provide reliable estimates of the average cost of installing meters on a wide scale. This will depend on a number of factors including the extent of complex plumbing, the number of common supply pipes, the siting of meters and the type of meter technology used.

  Where a water undertaker decides to introduce compulsory metering of existing properties, the cost of installing meters will be met by the water undertaker and recovered, in so far as they are reasonable, through charges to its customers as a whole. The amount of costs which they will be able to recover in this way will be subject to an average cash ceiling per installation set by the director general. There will be no charge on public funds.

  Bathing (Warnings)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require local authorities to fly red flags, or similar clear warnings of danger to be displayed, along all beaches where bathing may be hazardous to health, according to information available to him through the European Community or his own Department

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 3 March 1989]: A total of 67 per cent. of our bathing waters now meet the standards of the EC bathing water directive and water authorities are developing improvement programmes for the remaining waters. However, failure of a bathing water to meet these standards does not mean there is a serious health hazard. This would only arise in exceptional circumstances and it would then be for local environmental health officers to advice on appropriate action, including the provision of health warnings.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on proposals for the privatisation of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service research and development.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no plans for the privatisation of the research and development service of ADAS.

  Bees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will expand the use of the set-aside scheme so as to assist the bee industry by returning fallow land to a flower-rich environment by seeding with nectar and pollen-bearing plants.

  Mr. Ryder
  Land left fallow under the scheme must be kept in good agricultural condition. The detailed management rules forbid the use of insecticides and fungicides and require the establishment of a green cover crop (such as clover, which is particularly attractive to
  435
  bees). Farmers may sow conservation or wildflower mixes and are advised to consider doing so in the scheme literature. There is thus already ample opportunity under the scheme for the creation of set-aside land of conditions attractive to bees and other wildlife.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the monetary value to agriculture of British bees as pollinators.

  Mr. Ryder
  We recognise that honey bees play a significant role in pollinating some major agricultural and horticultural crops, but is it not possible to put a monetary value on this because of other factors involved.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department is doing to prevent the starvation of bees in the summer months in areas of intensive farming where pasture, woods and hedgerows have been eliminated as a source of nectar.

  Mr. Ryder
  Feeding of bees and similar matters of bee management are for individual beekeepers who can seek advice if necessary from the bee unit of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.

  ADAS advice on conservation matters is generally freely available, and when giving commercial advice to farmers, advisers seek to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of agriculture and conservation considerations. My Department also provides grant aid towards the cost of new hedge planting and farm woodlands.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) of 27 February, what is the cost of his new programme of research and development into bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and how this programme is being funded.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Decisions will be taken in relation to possible new areas of research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the light of advice received from the newly established research consultative committee.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many miles of hedgerows have been replanted in the northern region in the last three years; and at what cost in grants.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that figures relating purely to hedge replanting are not available. Neither do we have details of hedge planting carried out without grant aid. Grant paid between October 1985 and September 1988 in the Ministry's northern region under the agriculture improvement scheme for hedge planting, hedge laying and associated gates and stiles amounted to £407,494 on eligible expenditure of £911,685. This broadly equates to 275 miles of hedge planting.

  Beef Premium
  Sir. John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the beef special premium, due 436
  to replace the beef variable premium from 3 April, will be payable direct and in full to those engaged in finishing beef in the traditional manner.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Community special premium for beef is payable to beef producers on up to 90 head of male animals per year at a rate of £28·42 per head. The detailed Community regulations implementing the decisions of the January Agriculture Council are currently being finalised. As we are required to apply the new scheme by 3 April, I have concluded in consultation with the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland that we should, at least in the first instance, make use in Great Britain of the option to apply the premium when cattle are sold at live markets for slaughter and at slaughterhouses, as we already have an administrative system for that in place. This will enable those finishing beef to continue to sell cattle through live markets and slaughterhouses and to receive the new premium at a similar marketing stage to the old variable premium.

  Farming and trade interests would, I know, see advantage in applying the premium on farm. I shall review in consultation with the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland the practicability and cost-effectiveness of moving in due course to an on-farm basis. A separate announcement will be made shortly about the arrangements to apply in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he expects the new beef special premium, due to come in on 3 April to replace the present beef variable premium will apply to the first 90 male animals in a herd only, compared with the present payment on all graded animals regardless of sex, to affect the specialist beef finisher; and to what extent he expects the smaller finisher in the traditional manner will lose premium.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As my right hon. Friend explained in his reply to my hon. Friend today the new special premium is to be paid at the same marketing stage as the old variable premium. The rate of payment is £28·42 per head on male animals up to 90 head per producer. The old variable premium varies according to market circumstances and the weight of the beast with a typical value range of about £40 to £54 per beast. With a fixed rate for the new premium, beef finishers will be able to take it more predictably into account in their planning. They will also know that the quality standard which matters is not the certification standard imposed by scheme rules, but the demands which are imposed by market needs. I believe that beef finishers will find that the new premium will enable them to concentrate more on meeting the quality demands of the market. Finishers marketing less than 90 head of male animals per year will be able to claim the new premium on all of them and the payments they receive may well be higher than they would have received at times when the variable premium was paid at less than the maximum rate.

  Animal Research
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he is giving to the representations of the Animal Diseases Research Association regarding the need to continue funding research programmes into euzootic abortion, cryptosporidiosis listeriosis and toxoplasmosis.
  437
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A letter on this subject from the Animal Diseases Research Association was received in my Department on 2 March and is receiving careful attention.

  Salmonella
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will itemise which of the 17 measures he has announced to counter salmonella in poultry since December 1988 require(a) new primary legislation and (b) new secondary legislation before becoming operative;

  (2) when he intends to introduce (a) secondary or (b) primary legislation for each of the 17 measures he has announced to control salmonella.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on Friday 3 March at columns 373–74.

  Salmon
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make representations to the Republic of Ireland about the threat to salmon stocks caused by Irish fishermen in international waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Minister of State at the Scottish Office and I had informal discussions with our opposite number from the Irish Republic. The United Kingdom fisheries Departments regularly monitor the effects of the Irish salmon fishery and the relevant enforcement bodies of our respective countries, along with those of Northern Ireland, will continue to work in close co-operation against any illegal fishing for salmon.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will place in the Library the text of the advice given by the Veterinary Products Committee to his Department on an application by Monsanto to produce the genetically-engineered hormone bovine somatotropin to boost milk production in cows.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No. The advice on individual applications which the committee gives from time to time is confidential under the terms of the Medicines Act.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) today.

  Vine Stocks (Fungus)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the spread of the eutypiose 438
  fungus upon vine stocks is expected to have upon wine production in the European Community; and what steps are being proposed to contain the spread.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 2 March 1989]: Eutypa lata has been fairly widely distributed in the traditional wine producing countries for many years. I am not aware of any proposals from the European Commission specifically concerned with its treatment or containment. There have been no confirmed cases in which it has been identified in this country but ADAS horticultural advisers and plant pathologists have been alerted since 1987 to watch for possible signs of the disease.

  Agriculture and the Environment
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether he will give details of the work which will be undertaken by the Agricultural and Food Research Council in its £5·4 million plan for co-operative research on agriculture and the environment.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The AFRC, in conjunction with Economic and Social Research Council and Natural Environment Research Council, will shortly start a programme of research on agriculture and the environment. Funds are divided equally between the three research councils. The AFRC will take the lead in supporting work on herbivore/plant interactions and vegetation dynamics.

  Collaborative Research
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give details of the work which will be undertaken by the Agricultural and Food Research Council under its £3 million plan to expand its LINK scheme for collaborative research with the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The AFRC will be co-sponsoring the control of plant metabolism and protein engineering programmes. It is also considering co-sponsoring the eukaryotic genetics., molecular recognition, molecular sensors and food sciences programmes.

  Institute for Animal Health
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give details of the work to be undertaken by the Agricultural and Food Research Council in its £11 million plan to restructure the Institute for Animal Health; and over what period such work will) be carried out.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Plans are well advanced for the first phase of the restructuring of the AFRC's institute of animal health on. to two sites. This will involve the relocation of poultry disease research from the Houghton laboratory to the Compton laboratory, requiring the provision of new poultry housing for experimental and production flocks as well as new laboratory accommodation for scientific staff. It is expected that this work will be completed within the next three years. Plans are also being made for the refurbishment of the Pirbright laboratory.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) today.

  Discrimination
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, in his consideration of legislative proposals to deal with discrimination in Northern Ireland, attention was given to problems of discrimination on grounds of age, disability or ethnicity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 3 March 1989]: The Government's consultative paper on equality of opportunity in employment in Northern Ireland considered whether combined legislative and other measures should be taken on discrimination on grounds of religion, sex and disability. In the light of responses received, however, the Government decided that legislative action should concentrate on religious equality of opportunity.

  DNA Profiling
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on published 440
  research on the possibility of obtaining sufficient DNA for DNA profiling by mouth swabs by rubbing the area between lip and gum with a bud of cotton wool without recourse to taking scrapes from the inside of the buccal cavity, or using the polymcrase chain reaction test.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 21 February 1989]: I am not aware of any published research which specifically addresses the point raised by the hon. Member, although I understand that the application of the technique of DNA profiling to mouth swabs generally has been mentioned in a number of publications.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the research by scientists from the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory on DNA profiling by mouth swabs will be published; in which scientific journal it is expected to appear; and if he will make it his policy to subject the papers to peer review prior to publication.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 21 February 1989]: I understand that it is at present too early to say when a report of the results of work done by the laboratory on DNA profiling of material from mouth swabs will be available for publication. Nor has any decision been taken as to the scientific journal to which this report may be offered. Whether or not the report is subject to peer review will be for decision in the light of the policy of the particular journal in which it is published.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been confirmed in cattle in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Ten cases to 28 February 1989.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Transitional Protection
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have lost transitional protection at the most recent date.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have lost transitional protection at the most recent date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) earlier today.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants were awarded a transitional addition in April 1988 and how many of these as a result will receive this April(a) reduced uprating, and (b) no uprating.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Precise information is not available. An estimated 1·4 million claimants were awarded transitional additions in April 1988. It is further estimated that 3¼ million claimants will receive their full increase at this year's uprating; approximately 610,000 will receive a partial uprating and 570,000 no increase.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in respect of each Department of Social Security region how many claimants were awarded a transitional addition in April 1988, and how many of these as a result will receive this April(a) reduced uprating, and (b) no uprating.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners receive less than the full pension unprating in April 1989 due to having current protected transitional income support payments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Precise information is not available, but we estimate that of the 1·7 million pensioners on income support 1·2 million will receive the full increase and 0·3 million a partial increase.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what level the basic old-age pension would now stand if it had been uprated in line with earnings since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  Based on annual upratings in line with earnings, the current weekly value of the basic retirement pension would be £48·80 for a single pensioner and £78·15 for a pensioner couple. The key indicator of the priority that this Government give to pensioners' income is the 23 per cent. real-terms increase in pensioners' average total net income during our first seven years in office.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the level of basic pensions in April 1989 for single persons and couples had they been uprated in line with earnings since 1980.

  Mr. Scott
  Based on annual upratings in line with earnings since 1980, the level of basic retirement pension in April 1989 would be £53·20 for a single pensioner, and £85·20 for a pensioner couple.
  442
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what level the basic old-age pension would now stand if it had been uprated in line with earnings since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows:

  Value of retirement pension if increased in line with average earnings since 1979

  Uprating dates

  Single

  Couple

  £

  £

  November 1979

  23·20

  37·15

  November 1980

  27·35

  43·80

  November 1981

  30·50

  48·85

  November 1982

  33·05

  52·90

  November 1983

  35·95

  57·50

  November 1984

  37·75

  60·40

  November 1985

  41·05

  65·70

  July 1986

  43·35

  69·40

  April 1987

  45·25

  72·45

  April 1988

  48·80

  78·15

  April 1989

  53·00

  84·85

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the current level of retirement pension for a single pensioner and a pensioner couple if uprated by prices or earnings, whichever was the higher, each year since 1980.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 February 1989, e. 682]: I regret that the figures provided have been found to contain an error. The figures assume that the upratings which took effect from November 1983 and November 1984 were based on the increase in prices or average earnings over the periods November 1982 to November 1983, and November 1983 to November 1984.. The increases should have been measured over the 12 months to May in each case.

  The amended figures are as follows:

  Up-rating Dates

  Value of Retirement Pension if increased in line with the higher prices or average earnings

  Single

  Couple

  £

  £

  November 1980

  27·45

  44·00

  November 1981

  30·75

  49·30

  November 1982

  33·30

  53·40

  November 1983

  36·20

  58·05

  November 1984

  38·05

  61·00

  November 1985

  41·40

  66·35

  July 1986

  43·70

  70·05

  April 1987

  45·60

  73·15

  April 1988

  49·20

  78·95

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what level the basic old-age pension would now stand if it had been uprated in line with earnings since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 February 1989, c. 758]: I regret that the figures provided have been found to contain an error. The figures assume that the upratings which took effect from November 1983 and November 1984 were based on the increase in average earnings over the periods November 1982 to November 1983, and November 1983 to November 1984. The increase should have been measured over the 12 months to May in each case.

  The information requested, with the amended figures, is as follows:
  443
  Based on annual upratings in line with earnings since 1979, the current weekly value of basic retirement pension would be £48·80 for a single pensioner, and £78·15 for a pensioner couple.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the social security budget is spent on the elderly.

  Mr. Moore
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) earlier today.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's spending plans on support for the elderly as outlined in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–92" White Paper Cm 615.

  Mr. Scott
  Spending on benefits for the elderly continues to increase, and is planned to rise to nearly £28 billion in 1991–92.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the social security budget is spent on the elderly.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the level of public expenditure on the elderly is now; and what it was in 1978–79.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friends to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 2 March at column 323.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when computerisation of the social security system will start to provide savings in administration costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The operational strategy—the Department's programme to computerise social security administration—is already producing some small savings in administration. These are expected to rise to £150 million per annum by 1995.

  Mr. Wyn Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures on the anticipated cost and savings of his Department's computerisation programme.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 5 December 1988 at column 61.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of public expenditure is taken up by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) earlier today.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why applications for loans from the social fund are being turned down.
  444
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  To the end of January 1989, 61 per cent. of applications for budgeting loans and 90 per cent. for crisis loans were successful.

  My hon. Friend will no doubt be pleased to note that over 6,000 loan applications were refused because social fund officers awarded non-repayable grants instead. This is further evidence that social fund officers are properly considering whether individual needs can instead be met by a community care grant. This presents a rather different picture from that which opponents of the social fund would have us believe.

  I have set out in the table details of the full reasons for refusal.

  Reason for refusal as percentage of total applications processed

  (11 April 1988—31 January 1989)

  Reasons for Refusal

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  0·10

  0·01

  Not in receipt of IS

  4·29

  —

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  11·71

  —

  Excluded items

  3·33

  0·35

  Excluded persons

  0·08

  0·08

  Amount less than £30, not travelling expenses

  1·06

  —

  Adjusted amount less than £30, not travelling expenses

  0·36

  —

  Total debt of £1,000

  0·02

  —

  Previous application and SFO decision for this item

  1·63

  0·36

  No serious damage or risk to health or safety

  —

  5·95

  Inability to repay

  1·32

  0·76

  Help available from another source

  0·30

  1·34

  Insufficient priority

  11·88

  0·22

  Suitable alternative available

  0·26

  0·43

  Loan refused—CCG awarded

  1·02

  0·03

  Other

  2·30

  1·50

  Notes:

  IS—Income Support

  SFO—Social Fund Officer

  SF—Social Fund

  CCG—Community Care Grant

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the cost of loans from the social fund in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Questions of expenditure from the social fund in respect of Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Social fund gross expenditure to the end of January 1989 in respect of loans for offices in Great Britain is as follows:

  £ million

  Scotland

  19·0

  England

  70·0

  Wales

  8·5

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the correlation between the level of applications for support from the social fund and the percentage disposal of social fund total budgets from his Department's offices; and if he will make a statement.
  445
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are closely monitoring the operation of the social fund. Information for each local office relating to the numbers and financial values of applications processed and awards made and the budgets remaining at the end of each month is placed in the Library at monthly intervals. A note explaining the basis on which the 1988–89 allocations were made is also in the Library.

  Spending Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's spending plans as outlined in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–92", Cm. 615.

  Mr. Scott
  We plan to increase spending on social security from £47·6 billion in 1988–89 to £51 billion in 1989–90, rising to almost £60 billion in 1991–92. This programme is by far the largest in Government, accounting for over 30 per cent. of the total.

  The plans imply a growth rate in spending on benefits of over 2 per cent. each year above the assumed increase in prices. This is on top of the 33 per cent. real terms increase in expenditure on social security which has taken place since 1978–79. The plans also take account of the continuing fall in unemployment, which more than accounts for the £900 million fall in expenditure this year, compared with previous plans, and which saves over £1·5 billion in each of the next three years. This has enabled us to keep the planning total for 1988–89 much the same as in previous plans despite plans to spend more on other parts of the programme, in particular on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled, where spending has already increased by over 90 per cent. in real terms since we took office in 1979.

  The extra package of help for poorer pensioners which we announced on 24 November last year is additional to the programme described in the White Paper. This adds almost £100 million to the totals in 1989–90 and £200 million a year thereafter.

  It is thanks to the growth in the economy and to the success of our economic policies that the country is able to afford the massive resources devoted to social security spending which are detailed in the White Paper.

  Family Support
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much expenditure on support for the family has increased since 1978–79.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the level of public expenditure on support for the family now; and what it was in 1978–79.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From 1974–75 to 1978–79, support for families, excluding extra help needed because unemployment was rising, fell by 7 per cent. in real terms. Under this Government, family support has risen by 27·3 per cent.—again in real terms. Expressed in 1988–89 values this means that between 1974–75 and 1978–79, family support fell by £500 million from £7,250 million to £6,740 million and then rose by £1,840 million to £8,580 million in 1988–89.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what support is provided in the United Kingdom and in other European Community countries for families with children.
  446
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Department's publication "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities (Position at 1January 1988)", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases, of which he ha; knowledge, those aged 16 and 17 years have ceased to receive income support without taking up a job or employment training at the most recent date.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) earlier today.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to seek to improve the level o public comprehension of the income support system.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are already a number of indications that the public are finding the new income support scheme much simpler to understand. However, we are continuing to monitor and we will seek to take action to improve comprehension should it become necessary.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of income support recipients among(a) pensioners, (b) unemployed (c) long-term sick or people with disabilities and (d) single parents who will receive no increase in their benefits, due to still getting transitional addition payments, in each year from 1989–90 to 1999–2000, and beyond.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Precise information is not available. Estimated numbers derived from the technical annex to the White Paper "Reform of Social Security" (Cmnd. 9691) for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are in the table. No estimates are available beyond these dates; the numbers involved are expected to be tiny.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Pensioners

  200,000

  50,000

  Unemployed

  210,000

  70,000

  Long-term sick or disabled

  10,000

  10,000

  Lone Parents

  40,000

  10,000

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the latest figures for the number of income support recipients awarded transitional additions for 1988–89 and the number who will still be receiving transitional additions in 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Precise information is not available. It is estimated that around 1·4 million claimants were awarded income support transitional additions in April 1988, and that some 600,000 will continue to receive them following the April 1989 uprating.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of the number of transitional addition payments for 1989–90 by Department of Social Security region, and for Greater London.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Statistics on income support transitional protection are obtained through the annual statistical inquiries which follow uprating exercises and are
  447
  based on an examination of 1 per cent. of cases in receipt of benefit. The 1989 inquiry will be held in May and the information from this is necessarily not yet available.

  Information on housing benefit transitional payments will become available later this year, but this will be on the basis of local authority areas and not social security regions.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate the number of claimants in receipt of income support for each of the following categories (1) unemployed claimants, (2) claimants not required to register for work, (3) pensioners and (4) young people aged 16 to 18 years; and if he will indicate the number of claimants in receipt of each premium within each of the above categories.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available information is as follows:

  1. 1,559,000

  2. 1,186,000

  3. 1,671,000

  4. 137,000 (estimated figures for age 16 to 18 inclusive).

  Number of claimants receiving Supplementary Benefit or Income Support: 1979 to 1988

  Thousands

  Social Security Region

  1 1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  2 1988

  North Eastern

  475

  530

  636

  717

  735

  780

  789

  809

  793

  694

  London North

  466

  520

  627

  706

  734

  779

  791

  812

  803

  655

  London South

  432

  471

  548

  623

  645

  683

  699

  722

  703

  574

  Wales and South Western

  395

  427

  500

  560

  574

  617

  625

  637

  618

  532

  Midlands

  457

  520

  648

  747

  777

  819

  825

  848

  826

  694

  North Western

  450

  496

  594

  674

  697

  735

  744

  765

  753

  671

  Scotland

  294

  320

  385

  439

  461

  492

  501

  549

  548

  498

  TOTAL

  2,969

  3,284

  3,938

  4,466

  4,623

  4,905

  4,974

  5,142

  5,044

  4,318

  INDEX (using 1982 as the base year)

  66

  73

  88

  100

  103

  110

  111

  115

  113

  97

  1 Figures quoted for 1979 to 1981 are reworked data.

  2 Figures for 1988 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Sources: November/December Quarterly Count of cases in action, which include a number of cases where benefit payment has ceased but other action is continuing. The data from the Annual Statistical Inquiry used in the reply on 1 February cannot be reworked in the way requested.

  Families (Policies)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he intends to bring forward policies of social security designed to strengthen the family unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  One of the major objectives of the social security reforms introduced last April has been to focus additional help on families with children. We are continually looking at the social security system to ensure that benefits meet the genuine needs of families and do not harm the people they are trying to help by creating disincentives to independence.

  Single Parent Families
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, if he will make a statement on the disregard rules for single-parent families.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  To help those lone parents who choose to work, £15 of a lone parent's net weekly earnings is disregarded in calculating their entitlement to income support and housing benefit. Under family credit lone parents are entitled to the same credit as couples and their
  448
  I regret that information about the number of claimants in receipt of each premium within specified categories is not yet available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest figure for the full annual amount paid in income support to residents of private residential homes within the Wakefield metropolitan district.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not routinely collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central,Official Report, 1 February, column 293, he will (a) rework the data for 1979, 1980, 1981 in terms of 1982 regions, (b) present a table showing claimants in each 1982 social security region from 1979 to 1988, provisional taking 1982 as the base year.

  Mr Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 14 February 1989]: The information is as follows:

  one-parent benefit is wholly disregarded. We shall continue to monitor the benefit system and the incentives and disincentives to independence that it provides.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to review his Department's proposal for residents of those homes for the elderly, presently not requiring registration under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to change benefit rules for elderly people in such residential care and nursing homes.

  Young People
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's spending plan on support for young people outlined in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–92" White Paper, Cm 615.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Young people who have left school and are under 18 do not normally have title to social
  449
  security benefits in their own right. As the White Paper explains in paragraph 38, income support was withdrawn from this age group in September 1988, except for certain restricted categories. These include young people unable to take up a place on a youth training scheme (for example, lone parents) or, for a short period, young people not working, but seeking a youth training scheme place, who either have no home, or are unable to live there, or who would unavoidably be in severe hardship if income support were not paid. We expect the benefit expenditure on these groups to be quite small.

  Heating Allowances
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the regional distribution of heating allowances in percentage terms in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table gives the information requested on supplementary benefit heating additions for the last three years for which information is available. These additions do not form part of the income support scheme which replaced supplementary benefit on 11 April 1988.

  Region

  1984

  1986

  1987

  North Eastern

  16·91

  16·54

  16·53

  Midlands

  17·05

  16·95

  17·12

  North Western

  14·72

  14·51

  14·92

  London North

  15·89

  16·14

  15·49

  London South

  12·90

  13·38

  12·62

  Scotland

  9·93

  10·02

  11·02

  Wales and South West

  12·60

  12·46

  12·30

  Great Britain

  100·00

  100·00

  100·00

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries. The information was not collected in 1985.

  Board and Lodging Payments
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the planned changes in board and lodging payments, paid to those in adult placement schemes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 20 February at column 475.

  Maintenance Payments
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received any recent representations on the need to increase the number of fathers making maintenance payments in respect of their children.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department receives representations on this issue from time to time from individuals and organisations, including the National Council for One Parent Families. The Government are naturally concerned that for three quarters of the lone parent families receiving income support the absent husbands and fathers who should be helping to support them pay no maintenance at all.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retirement pensioners (i) aged 450
  65 to 70 years and (ii) aged 80 years and over both receive income from an occupational pension and receive housing benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Latest information shows that in 1986 approximately 440,000 pensioner tax units1 where the head was aged 65 to 70 were in receipt of income from an occupational pension and received either a rent or rate rebate or rent allowance. The relevant figure for pensioner tax units where the head was aged 80 or over was about 220,000.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.
  1A pensioner tax unit is either a single person of state pension age or over, or a couple where the man is of state pension age or over.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have an income in excess of £125 per week; what percentage they represent of all pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 21 February 1989]: In 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, about 1·25 million (19 per cent.) pensioner tax units' had gross incomes in excess of £125 a week.
  1A pensioner tax unit is either a single person of state pension age or over, or a couple where the man is of state pension age or over.

  Source: 1986 Family Expenditure Survey.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would have been the level of the retirement pension for(a) a single person and (b) a married couple in each year from 1979 to 1989 had upratings in each year been in line with increases in the retail price index or with earnings whichever was higher in each year.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows:

  Value of retirement pension if increased in line with prices or earnings

  Uprating dates

  Single

  Couple

  £

  £

  November 1979

  23·20

  37·15

  November 1980

  27·35

  43·80

  November 1981

  30·65

  49·05

  November 1982

  33·20

  53·10

  November 1983

  36·10

  57·70

  November 1984

  37·95

  60·65

  November 1985

  41·30

  66·00

  July 1986

  43·60

  69·70

  April 1987

  45·50

  72·75

  April 1988

  49·10

  78·50

  April 1989

  53·30

  85·25

  Pension Ages
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received seeking equalisation of state pension ages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We received a total of 363 representations between 10 February 1988 and 7 February 1989. The Government are fully committed to the principle of equal treatment for men and women. Equalisation of state pension age involves the consideration of a number of important issues, including long-term
  451
  demographic and economic trends. Proposals for equalisation of pension age continue to be under consideration.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will now take steps to increase attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to increase attendance allowance except in line with the movement in prices.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what information he has regarding the numbers of families in Cornwall in receipt of attendance allowance prior to 6 April 1987 who will be expected to repay benefit under the Social Security Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has regarding the levels of repayments being required from families in Cornwall for overpayment of the attendance allowance prior to 6 April 1987; what is the minimum sum of repayment requested; and what is the maximum.

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

  Information Technology
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement of progress on the introduction of information technologies to facilitate internal communications in his Department and the provision of information to the public concerning those areas for which he is responsible; and if he has any further plans to apply the newest technologies in these fields.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department already uses information technology extensively to improve service to the public, to improve efficiency and to enhance the working conditions for staff, and the major programmes of information technology which are now under way will further improve the Department's operations. The computerised benefit systems being developed under the operational strategy will enable clients to obtain information regarding their claims more quickly, while computer printouts will provide clear explanations of how the benefit is calculated, and of entitlement. Progress is also being made on improving communications by upgrading the telephone systems, the widespread use of facsimile machines and the increasing use of new telecommunications devices, such as electronic mail, throughout the organisation.

  Supplementary Benefit Live Load

  (1)

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  E

  2,073

  3,280

  4,245

  4,701

  4,923

  5,246

  6,650

  7,000

  Edinburgh City ILO

  A

  1,290

  1,377

  1,664

  1,877

  2,130

  2,408

  2,544

  2,800

  P

  2,361

  2,368

  2,341

  2,193

  2,254

  2,228

  2,230

  2,271

  E

  2,169

  3,434

  4,074

  4,254

  4,018

  4,026

  4,354

  4,373

  Edinburgh East ILO

  A

  1,950

  2,127

  2,270

  2,609

  2,896

  3,153

  3,414

  3,832

  P

  2,717

  2,866

  2,921

  2,629

  2,962

  3,013

  3,176

  3,490

  E

  1,998

  3,205

  3,552

  3,499

  3,886

  4,255

  4,902

  5,188

  Edinburgh North ILO

  A

  1,263

  1,385

  1,750

  1,932

  2,223

  2,392

  2,649

  3,223

  P

  2,654

  2,672

  2,689

  2,482

  2,553

  2,403

  2,465

  2,636

  E

  1,806

  3,057

  3,789

  4,301

  4,332

  4,398

  4,659

  4,819

  Edinburgh South ILO

  A

  1,533

  1,641

  1,992

  2,477

  2,688

  2,955

  3,170

  3,340

  Overpayment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the bringing into force of section 53 of the Social Security Act 1986 by the Social Security Act 1986 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 1959) and its effect on claimants who used due care and diligence to avoid overpayment as specified in section 119(2) of the Social Security Act 1975 prior to the Social Security Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  None. The provision was brought into force from 6 April 1987 by the Social Security (Payments on Account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 491). On or after that date all decisions made by the independent adjudicating authorities on whether an overpayment of benefit is recoverable have been subject to a common test of misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice local social security offices have received from his Department regarding the retrospective application of section 52 of the Social Security Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I assume that the hon. Member intended to refer to section 53 of the Social Security Act 1986. Section 53 has no retrospective effect. It applies only to decisions on overpayments made by the independent adjudicating authorities on or after 6 April 1987, the date on which the Social Security (Payment on Account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 491) came into force.

  All decisions on whether overpayments should be recoverable are made by the independent adjudicating authorities. Guidance to adjudication officers is contained in the "Adjudication Officer's Guide" which is published by HMSO and a copy is in the Library.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide the live load figures of supplementary benefit for each of the following categories (1) unemployed claimants (E load), (2) claimants not required to register for work (A load) and (3) pensioners for each of the six local offices in Lothian region for the years April 1980 to April 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:
  453

  Supplementary Benefit Live Load

  (1)

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  P

  2,369

  2,434

  2,512

  2,477

  2,632

  2,745

  2,955

  3,106

  E

  1,630

  2,744

  3,301

  3,578

  3,964

  4,120

  4,877

  4,835

  Edinburgh West ILO

  A

  1,548

  1,759

  2,055

  2,318

  2,603

  2,831

  3,194

  3,406

  P

  2,874

  2,972

  3,021

  2,895

  2,881

  2,814

  2,793

  2,966

  E

  2,353

  4,702

  5,825

  6,701

  6,413

  6,306

  6,387

  5,746

  Bathgate ILO

  A

  1,743

  2,072

  2,933

  3,590

  3,980

  4,273

  4,628

  4,928

  P

  2,825

  2,980

  3,149

  2,885

  3,334

  3,109

  3,368

  3,535

  Note (1)

  E = unemployed claimants.

  A = claimants not required to register for work.

  P = pensioners.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action, which include a number of cases where benefit payment has ceased but other action is continuing.

  Family Income Supplement
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate the number of claimants and the number of dependants and the percentage take-up of family income supplement for the years April 1980 to April 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information about awards of family income supplement current on each of the dates shown is as follows:

  Claimants (Thousands)

  Partners (Thousands)

  Dependent children (Thousands)

  April 1980

  88

  38

  191

  April 1981

  106

  52

  227

  April 1982

  142

  77

  306

  April 1983

  189

  110

  402

  April 1984

  204

  123

  431

  April 1985

  203

  120

  423

  April 1986

  209

  123

  432

  April 1987

  220

  128

  457

  Family income supplement was replaced by family credit on 11 April 1988. Immediately prior to the changeover 216,000 awards of family income supplement were current, but information about the numbers of dependants is not available.

  The available information about estimated take-up is as follows:

  By caseload

  By expenditure

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1981–82

  48

  53

  1983–84

  54

  65

  More up-to-date information is not yet available.

  Citizens Advice Bureau Volunteers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his policy to investigate the social security claims of citizens advice bureau volunteers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no special arrangements for investigating such claims.

  National Insurance Cards
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the plastic national insurance number cards now issued to all 18-year-olds are capable of being used or adapted for use in cash dispensing machines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Plastic national insurance number cards are not capable of being used in cash dispensing machines and there are no proposals for inclusion of further information on the magnetic strip.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) today.

  Sickness (Self-certification)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any evidence of employers refusing to accept sickness self-certification forms SCI.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. It is up to the employer what evidence of incapacity he requires from his employees when sick. But the employer cannot require a doctor's statement until a period of sickness has lasted seven days.

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

Motor Industry: Investment
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give figures for investment in the motor industry for the last five years.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I have the following figures for investment in the motor industry for the years 1983 to 1987, expressed in 1985 prices. In 1983 investment was £546 million; in the following years it was £631 million, £659 million, £649 million, and in 1987, £563 million. Firm figures are not yet available for 1988 but are expected to exceed the 1987 level.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Secretary of State for that reply and especially for giving the House those figures. Can he possibly advise the House whether there is an increasing trend in imports? If that is so, can he say what proposals the Government have to redress the balance?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is true that imports accounted for 56·4 per cent. of the market last year, compared with only 51·68 per cent. for 1987. The reason for that was the unparalleled prosperity and growth in demand. In fact, the manfacture of car production has risen, and last year it was at its highest level since 1977. With continuing investment in this country, we can see UK car manufacturing figures continue to rise. It is to be hoped that the increase will be sufficient to keep pace with demand.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, regarding the figures which the noble Lord has given us, can he tell the House what percentage represents British investment and what percentage is foreign investment?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. In my view that is an irrelevant matter because investment is investment. We are concerned about the amount of investment in British industry and the jobs and wealth creation which that actually creates. Whether that investment is provided by American, Japanese or British companies is not, in actual fact, relevant to that particular point.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the French are contravening the Community rules by forbidding the entry of Nissan cars into France? Further, can he say what Her Majesty's Government are doing to try to correct that situation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, Nissan is a Japanese-owned British car company in just the same way as Ford is not necessarily owned by British people, although the company has some British shareholders. There are very clear rules within the Community that apply to the EFTA countries. If 60 per cent. of value is either within EFTA or Europe there is free access to the market. The Commission has already ruled that if there is over 60 per cent. value—Nissan cars has over 70 per cent.today—there should be free access to the Community. That is allowed by all the Community countries, with the exception of France. I am asking the Commission, who are the relevant authorities, to ensure that France complies with Community rules.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it would be most unfortunate if anything contained in the forthcoming Budget were to discourage the sale of cars and investment in the car industry? Can he give the House the assurance that he will do everything he can to ensure that his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequeur will do nothing in the Budget which would injure the car industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord has been a Member of your Lordships' House for far too long—and indeed was a Member of another place for even longer—to know that that is a question which I cannot possibly answer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that certainly investment is cross-frontier? Of course we acknowledge that there will be cross-frontier trade in the motor industry. However, will the noble Lord agree that the important thing is that we in the United Kingdom should maintain our fair share of that business, and that we should not run a continued deficit?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, when it comes to investment from overseas countries as such, the United Kingdom has more than its fair share. That seems to me to be a position that we should strive to maintain. I believe that 94 Japanese companies have already decided that the United Kingdom provides the best environment in Europe in which to manufacture goods. That is a trend we should like to see continue.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend the Secretary of State in a position as yet to give the House positive information as to the possibility of the Toyota company starting manufacturing in this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is very much a commercial matter for the Toyota company. The company is continuing its investigations into different sites within the United Kingdom. I hope that the company will find a site which will be suitable for its purposes because it would be most welcome within these shores.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in one of his answers the noble Lord mentioned the Ford Motor Company. Can he say whether he, or anyone in his department, has had discussions with Ford at Dagenham about the transfer of the manufacture of the Sierra car from the United Kingdom to Belgium? Can he also say what the implications of that transfer are in terms of employment, and other matters? Further, is not the Minister rather complacent about the decline in the manufacture of motor cars in this country by British-owned companies? Where we once led the world in the manufacture of cars, today we certainly do not lead the world. Indeed, we do not even lead Europe. Can he say something about that situation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is true that the Ford Motor Company has decided to move the assembly of one model from the United Kingdom to Belgium. However, at the same time the company decided to expand substantially the manufacture of engines within the Principality—something to which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition cannot object too strongly. It is a great pity that the number of British manufactured cars has fallen over the past two decades. That is largely because the cars which were produced were not attractive to the customers. That is a lesson which I believe we have learnt today. In 1984 and 1985 we were manufacturing 900,000 cars per year; last year the figure exceeded 1–2 million, and I believe that the number will continue to climb very substantially. Therefore we are on a rising trend, and it is important that we should keep it that way.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as a corollary to stimulating investment in the motor industry, will the Minister use his best endeavours to ensure that we have an adequacy of roads on which to use those cars?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall certainly pass the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I may share them.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, when about four years ago I bought a make of car which is well known in this country I found a small slip of paper on the back seat saying "Made in Spain". To what extent are British car manufacturers selling imported goods?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is one of the ways in which the motor industry has changed over the past years and in which it is becoming internationalised. Many car companies, including Ford and others, manufacture different components in different parts of Europe and assemble them here. It is becoming increasingly difficult to say whether a car is British, French, Spanish or Italian. That is part of the changing way in which our world is developing.

Central Europe: Defence Strategy
2.45 p.m
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of reports that the United States chiefs of staff have recently informed the United States Secretary of Defense that in the event of war the strategy of forward defence with conventional forces in Central Europe would have to be abandoned after seven days because of the lack of strategic lift and nuclear weapons would have to be used, they will state what action they are taking.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, reinforcement from North America plays an important part in NATO's strategy for deterrence, and the provision of adequate strategic lift is kept under regular review within the alliance.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, has a communication similar to that from the American chiefs of staff to the American Executive, as outlined in my Question, been made to the Government by the British chiefs of staff?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I presume that the noble Lord is referring to a report about the representations that have been made to the former American Defense Secretary published in an American defence magazine. No such representations have been received by British Ministers from the British chiefs of staff.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely that is not surprising information. Did we have to wait for the American chiefs of staff to tell us that? Did not our chiefs of staff and those of NATO tell us over 30 years ago that the positions that we had taken up in Europe would be totally untenable for more than a week in the event of war? Have not we been sitting happily in that bluff position ever since?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is correct in that assertion. First, the responsibility for the transport of reinforcements rests with each of the allies concerned, and thus responsibility for transport across the North Atlantic of American reinforcements rests with the United States. In any event, in recent years there has been a considerable increase in the stocks prepositioned in Europe and so the position is nothing like as grim as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is it not possible that what is meant by Central Europe is both the Germanys? If there should be a Russian breakthrough from East Germany through West Germany towards France, which NATO forces could not hold, would a nuclear weapon be used irrespective of the fact that it might wipe out a few million German civilians as well?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the whole basis of our defence policy is one of deterrence—to deter such aggression in the first place.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, will the Minister tell us who the United States Secretary of Defense is? I am sure that we should all be very interested.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was careful to refer to the former Defense Secretary, who was Mr. Frank Carlucci. I understand that the next Defense Secretary has not yet been confirmed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in view of the fact that of late Mr. Gorbachev has been cutting arms unilaterally, is not the Government's best line to abandon modernising nuclear weapons and to seek greater parity with conventional forces in Europe?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should welcome an approach to greater parity of conventional forces in Europe. Taking tanks, for example, the present Soviet fleet, including those of its allies, is something like 55,000 tanks, while the Western fleet is something like 20,000; so we have a good way to go yet.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, while everyone agrees that NATO needs a powerful strategic lift, will the Minister bear in mind that it is the habit of military men in all countries to make rather alarming statements for largely budgetary reasons?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord served with distinction in the Ministry of Defence some years ago. If that was his experience then, I have to tell him that things have not changed too much.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Minister have a shot at answering the following question? I say "have a shot" because it is a complicated one. Will he tell the House, as nearly as he can within the limits of security, how long he thinks NATO forces on the land in Europe would be able to resist an all-out conventional attack from the other side, given the number of ships now available to the United States for the Atlantic lift, to Britain for the Channel lift, and to all the European countries for civilian supplies?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that would depend entirely on the scale of the attack.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I said "all-out".

DoT: London Area Model
2.50 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will explain the discontinuation by the Department of Transport of the London Area Model.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the London Area Model was developed by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory to assist in the analysis of strategic policy options.
The department was concerned about a number of deficiencies in the model, in particular its failure to
1258
reproduce the effects of policies which have been pursued in recent years. An audit was commissioned from external consultants who reported in May last year. The department concluded that the model could not be relied upon to provide robust forecasts of the impact of future policies and withdrew the model from use.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed Answer. Is it not the case that the London Planning Advisory Committee decided, when it commissioned the TRRL report, that this was the best model available in view of the time factor? In a subsequent testing exercise, have not the consultants said that they saw no reason to doubt the original decision to use the TRRL model?
Is it not surprising that on two occasions the noble Lord's ministerial colleague, the Minister for Roads and Traffic, said on 15th and 27th February that the base scenarios did not represent current government policies? Does this suggest that what the Government really want is an inquiry to reach conclusions that fit the Government's own desires?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no, not at all. There is not much point in using a model if it does not reflect the policies which the Government are adopting, because the results of the work are likely to be of no great value. As I said in my original Answer, we commissioned an independent audit of the model which threw up a number of failures in it including, for instance, the prediction that subsidies would rise between 1982 and 1986 when, of course, they actually fell. So I am afraid that it is not a very good model on which to base future projections.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister for clarification for those of us on these Benches? I am not alone in not having had the privilege of being introduced to the London Area Model. Exactly what is it all about?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it still exists. It is a not very large computer disk sitting on somebody's desk.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister said that the department had commissioned independent consultants to make a further test. Has that test been set against the original testing exercise of the consultants to the advisory committee? Did it discover just where the mistakes had occurred, if there were mistakes, bearing in mind that the TRRL is the Government's own research laboratory?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I should have said earlier that the audit to which I referred in my original Answer and which was produced for us by the external consultants is available in the Library. It is public knowledge and noble Lords may wish to consult it. No doubt the noble Lord will wish to read it to see what it said.

Consumer Protection Act: EC Directive
2.53 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to amend the development risks defence in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 now that the EC Commission is beginning proceedings against them for failure properly to implement the relevant directive.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there are no plans to amend the Act. We remain of the view that the directive has been properly implemented and that the present wording of Section 4(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act interprets the meaning of the directive with greater clarity. No formal notification of proceedings has been received from the Commission: when we do receive notification we shall of course consider it carefully.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I wish to thank the Secretary of State for that Answer, unsatisfactory though it is. Does the noble Lord recall that the House amended the relevant clause of the Consumer Protection Bill so as to make it conform to the directive? However, in another place right at the end of the Session and after a brief discussion the wording was restored against which we are told that proceedings are now to be instituted by the Commission. Could not the Government admit that in the hurry they got it wrong? Were they to do so they could avoid a prolonged period of uncertainty which is only too likely to end in another defeat in the European Court.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think that we should put this into perspective, because it applies to so much of our record within the European Community. When the Commission issued the directive, we were the first nation in the Community to implement it. When before Christmas—no doubt as part of its housekeeping—the Commission issued a press release confirming that proceedings were to be taken against 11 of the 12 member states, for nine of those 11 it was for not implementing the directive at all. It is said that the Commission may well take proceedings against us because of the way in which we implement it.
However, our position is quite clear; we believe that we implement it fairly and in a way which is effective. I think that we should wait to find out—if and when the Commission comes to us—precisely what the complaint is about the way in which we implement the directive.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, although the Secretary of State was not the Minister responsible at the time, does he recall that we are discussing an amendment of mine which was passed by this House two years ago on 9th March 1987? It was subseqently removed by the Government. I protested strongly at the time along similar lines to those on which the EC Commission is now protesting.
1260
Further, does the Minister recall that at Question Time on 29th October, when I asked him whether he would have a word with the then Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, about the background to the whole matter, he gave me what I can only call a most contemptuous Answer? I took strong exception to his attitude.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very sorry if I offended the noble Baroness in any way. I cannot recall doing so and I shall have to consult the record to find out whether I did. It is not my way to be contemptuous of anyone in your Lordships' House.
I fear that the Government remain convinced that the defence we adopted in the Bill is the only one which would avoid stifling innovation. I suggest that we all wait to see the precise complaint from the Commission. At the moment this is the situation. We know no more than that a press release was issued before last Christmas by the Commission. That was at the time of the previous Commissioner. If the Commission is going to take steps no doubt it will do so in due course. But first, of course, it should take steps against the nine of the member nations who have not implemented the directive at all.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that uncertainty of all kinds should be removed. Will he accept the offer from the Opposition that when the Government admit that they are wrong and produce a Bill to amend the Act, in order to fulfil the Council directive—not the Commission directive—we in the Opposition shall give it a very fair wind?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who is most helpful, as ever.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that the Commission has two other grounds on which it believes that the Act does not implement the directive? Is it his intention to brave it out on those two grounds as well?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think that the first step should be for the Commission to tell us in what respects it is not happy with the Act. I look forward to receiving a communication from the Commission rather than just a press release.

Medway Tunnel Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, before I move that the House do resolve itself into a Committee, perhaps I may offer an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I understand that a

1261
consultative document which I issued last Wednesday and which was put in the Library of the House was not sent to him. I apologise for that lack of courtesy, as I do to the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and any other Members of your Lordships' House who did not see a copy of the document. I shall ensure that that procedure does not happen again.
I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 257:
Before Clause 132, insert the following new clause:
"Designated agencies.
("(1) In section 114 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (Power to transfer functions to designated agency), after subsection (9) insert—
"( ) The designated agency shall publish a Code of Practice setting out guidance on the application of such general principles and such Code may be used as evidence of any departure from the general principles but breach of a provision in the Code shall not of itself constitute a breach of the rules and regulations of the designated agency.
Provided that the rules and regulations which a designated agency proposes to make may take the form of a statement of general principles embracing inter alia those set out in Schedule 8 to this Act."
"(2) In Schedule 7 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (qualifications of Designated Agency), in paragraph 3, at end insert
"(3) The system which any other body or person as mentioned in paragraph 2 has in order to perform on behalf of the agency the functions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) may be founded upon a statement of general principles embracing inter alia those set out in Schedule 8 to this Act." ").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the remarks made by my noble friend on the Front Bench were not totally germane to this amendment. I must confess that I have recently become a very deaf old grandfather and I did not hear what my noble friend said. However, I shall move my amendment. If I need to be corrected in some way, I have no doubt that my noble friend will do it with his usual charm and courtesy.
I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 257C, standing in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston. Amendment No. 257 takes us to Part VIII of the Bill. Although Part VIII is described in the Bill as containing miscellaneous provisions, it contains a very important subheading:
"Amendments of the Financial Services Act 1986".
I think it will be within the recollection of Members of the Committee in all parts of the Chamber that on Second Reading of the Companies Bill on 16th January several noble Lords took advantage of that occasion to refer to the Financial Services Act and to draw attention to some of the untoward consequences that flowed from that Act. I say they were untoward because I feel tolerably certain, having taken part in some of the proceedings on the
1262
Bill, as it then was, in another place, that what has happened does not bear much relation to what the Government at the time thought would happen.
In our debate in January my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, the noble Lords, Lord Benson, Lord Elton, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate all spoke to the effect that the Act had become quite unreasonably bureaucratic in its implementation. We warned of the growing expense of complying with the Financial Services Act. I have no doubt that a number of Members of the Committee will have received from their financial advisers lengthy documents which they are required to read and sign. They will not have been surprised to find that they are having to pay rather more for that advice than they did in the past.
We warned of what was happening in terms of the numbers of independent intermediaries. The Committee will remember that during the passage of the Financial Services Act a great deal was made of the importance of the independent financial intermediary in the financial services of this country. We warned of the difficulties which are now facing the providers of financial products and services. The Standard stated in its opinion column on 14th December 1988:
"It's a funny way to promote investor protection."
On Second Reading I declared my interest as chairman of a major mutual life insurance company. I do so again to put that firmly on the record. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde, in his reply to that debate, dealt with great thoroughness with a large number of the points that had been made. He referred to what many see as the real problem, which is the sheer complexity of the rules. I quote what he said in relation to the rules which are laid down by the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulating organisations. My noble friend stated:
"Both the SIB and the SROs must have rules governing the behaviour of the business they authorise. The SIB must be satisfied that the SRO's rules afford protection to investors at least equivalent to that afforded by SIB's own rules."—[Official Report, 16.1.89; col. 80.]
Some discussion followed. It became apparent that my noble friend was going to refer to the source of complaint that had been voiced, particularly I believe by my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. They said the problem was that the SROs had slavishly to follow in every detail the rules which had been established by the SIB. There was some exchange, which was reported at column 80 of the, Official Report. At the foot of that column my noble friend stated:
"I do not wish to rule out amendments to the Act to ease such simplification if this should prove necessary."
I took some encouragement from those words. I took advice as to how we on this side of the Chamber could best help the Government to achieve what seemed to be becoming their objective. I was informed that one important source of the complexity which both the SIB and the SROs impose on the industry is to be found in a somewhat obscure paragraph of the seventh schedule to the Financial Services Act 1986. That paragraph is paragraph 3 of Schedule 7. I shall read out part of that paragraph as

1263
I need it to explain my argument. It states under the heading "Monitoring and enforcement":
"3.—(I) The agency must have a satisfactory system—

(a) for enabling it to determine whether persons regulated by it are complying with the obligations which it is the responsibility of the agency to enforce; and

(b) for the discharge of the agency's responsibility for the enforcement of those obligations."

I have received advice on these matters. I believe it is the advice which the SIB's own lawyers have consistently given to the board. That advice states that each and every rule must be separately justiciable. Every rule must spell out precisely the obligation it creates and the offence committed if it is broken. The advice stated that otherwise the SIB cannot know whether:
"a person is complying with the obligations".
or,
"be able to enforce those obligations".
It was with that in mind that I tabled Amendment No. 257. Amendment No. 257 seeks to do several things. First, it makes clear that the SIB's rules can take the form of a statement of general principles. Secondly, it provides for a code of practice:
"setting out guidance on the application of such general principles".
Thirdly, it provides that the code can be used as evidence of a breach of any of the principles. But contravention of a provision of the code itself, of itself, would not constitute an offence. The proposed subsection (2) of my amendment links paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 to the new system of general principles and a code of practice. I believe that the Committee will recognise that my model, if not in drafting at any rate in concept, has some relation to the Road Traffic Acts and the Highway Code. The Acts state the offences—for example, driving dangerously. The Highway Code spells out the rules of good conduct on the road. One cannot be prosecuted for a breach of the Highway Code, but the code can stand as evidence that one has committed one of the offences contained in the Acts.
I concede straight away that the drafting of my amendment is no doubt flawed because those who helped me with it would not consider themselves parliamentary draftsmen. But I hope I have made the intention clear. My amendment was tabled on 13th February. But that was not, of course, the end of the story. My noble friend, no doubt bearing in mind the remarks of his noble friend Lord Strathclyde about the legislation, recognised that he would have to face this debate at some stage in the proceedings on the legislation. He therefore decided that it was time to do something. He has published a consultation paper dated 1st March which is entitled Possible Changes to the Financial Services Act 1986. It would be quite inappropriate for me to try to read even substantial portions of the consultation paper to the Committee. But, much to my astonishment, it seems to have received very little publicity in the press. That may be because it is primarily of interest to the specialist press.
The title looked hopeful, as did paragraph 4:
"This consultative document … invites views on a proposal to amend those provisions of the Act relating to the recognition of SROs
1264
so as to facilitate the incorporation of common Principles in the rule books, providing flexibility to achieve appropriate levels of investor protection in different sectors, having regard to the costs of complying with the rules".
That too is a hopeful portent.
That point was spelt out in slightly more detail in paragraph 12:
"The intention is that SIBs should be able to approve an SRO's rules if they provide an adequate level of investor protection"—
I ask noble Lords to hold on to the word "adequate"—
"taking account of the circumstances of the investors concerned in the markets where the SRO's members operate. The Government therefore proposes to amend the Act so that where an SRO has incorporated into its rules those rules designated by SIB as Principles of Conduct SIB will be able to recognise it if satisfied with the rules as a whole, including but not limited to the Principles of Conduct, on the basis of the level of protection offered to investors".
The present law requires that SROs' rules should have equivalent effect. The proposal is that they should be adequate. Although there may be a change of only one word, that clearly offers much greater flexibility for the individual SRO in drawing up rules to suit the particular businesses which it is intended to regulate. I believe that, if legislated, that proposal would meet the case made by my noble friend Lord Elton and by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I have to say with some gratitude that it goes part of the way to meeting the purpose of my amendment.
I also give a warm welcome to the proposal contained in paragraph 17 of the consultation paper:
"The Government for its part proposes to add a new provision, similar to those in Schedules 7 and 8 to the Act, that SIB itself must have arrangements to enable it to take account of the costs of compliance in formulating its own rules".
That is an extremely valuable innovation. Hitherto there seems to have been the view that every conceivable loophole must be blocked, notwithstanding that that may impose considerable additional costs for only a marginal benefit. Of course the costs eventually have to be paid by that very same consumer whom it is the intention of the Act to protect.
It would be nice to be able to sit down at that point, say thank you and move on to the next business. However, I fear that it is not quite as simple as that. As I said a moment ago, the consultation paper goes only part of the way. The proposals stop short of my wish to see this form of regulation take what I might call the Highway Code form—a statement of justiciable principles matched by a code of practice which could be used as evidence as to whether or not one of the major principles had been breached.
Apparently it is not yet the Government's view that that is feasible. Paragraph 11 of the consultation paper says:
"it is clear that the Principles of Conduct on their own cannot constitute the only rules governing the conduct of an SRO's members. In some cases it will be necessary to amplify them by means of detailed rules setting out how the principle is to be applied in practice".
I therefore have to ask my noble friend whether that is really the case. Is it not possible in this field to draw up principles which are of sufficient clarity to form the basis of the justiciable part of that code of regulation? Is it not possible for that detailed guidance to take the form of a code of practice? Why was it possible to proceed on that basis in the labour

1265
legislation which has gone through Parliament in recent years and yet not possible in relation to financial services? Is it really essential to regulate financial services by means of masses of detailed rules rather than by main principles and a code?
I do not wish to appear in the least bit churlish towards my noble friend on the Front Bench. His consultation paper is very welcome. However, has he finally rejected the solution of some relatively straightforward statements of principle with guidance in the form of a code? I believe that that is what a great many people in the industry would have liked to see and what a large number of Members of both Houses thought they were getting when they passed the Financial Services Act.
Am I right in saying that, if we were to have such a solution, paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 would need to be amended so as to make clear that such a structure complied with the Act?
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Croham, who, in an earlier manifestation as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, when giving evidence to a Select Committee of another place was asked whether, as a very senior civil servant, he could give a definition of bureaucracy. After a pause for thought the noble Lord replied:
"The infinite search for perfection".
That is quite a good definition of bureaucracy. The important word is "infinite".
The SIB and the Financial Services Act, and in particular the SIB's rule book, are extremely good examples of the noble Lord's definition. Far from achieving perfection, however, in its infinite search, the SIB has achieved massive overregulation. Complexity is piled upon complexity, expense is added to expense to the point where the main objective— better consumer protection—is lost in a welter of words. There are over 900 pages of the SIB's rule book alone.
The amendment is one way out of that morass. I hope that the Government may feel able to give it the most careful consideration before the Bill comes back at the next stage. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As I said at Second Reading, we are sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, proposes. My amendment—which I do not intend to speak to in any great detail—is on the same lines. I accept that perhaps it is not so well drafted as that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, but the objective is the same, particularly with regard to the SIB.
I should like to concentrate on a somewhat different point. The noble Lord, Lord Young, was kind enough to apologise for not having sent me and other interested noble Lords a copy of the consultation document when it was produced. The fact that it was produced on St. David's Day may be interpreted as being somewhat machiavellian since the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and I were otherwise occupied on St. David's Day. Nevertheless, it is a fact that on 1st March, when the Bill was well through the Committee stage and we had almost
1266
reached Part VIII, suddenly, without it in any way being foreshadowed at Second Reading, either in the speech of the Secretary of State or in that of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Government without notice issued a consultation document.
That places us in a rather difficult situation. Both the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I tabled amendments to that part of the Bill without knowing that a consultation document was in the pipeline. Had we known, we might well have saved ourselves the intellectual effort of drafting amendments. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would have saved himself the oratorical effort of spending rather a long time introducing his amendment. It seems to me that we have now to wait to see what the Government produce at the end of the day.
However, the end of the day is rather a long way away. The time given for consultation expires at the end of May this year.
Lord Elton: I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the SIB consultation paper for which the consultation period ends on 31st May. The Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the consultation period for his paper finishes on the 31st of this month.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful. I am sorry; I accept that I got the two muddled up.
Nevertheless, having reached 31st March, we shall find ourselves at the Report stage of the Bill. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he believes that government amendments will be available at the Report stage in your Lordships' House., because, if not, we shall have what we had on the Financial Services Bill; namely, government amendments tabled at all stages until the final stage and then not given proper discussion either by noble Lords or in another place.
I do not intend to move my amendment formally when we come to it. As I said on Second Reading—I do not want to repeat my argument endlessly—I support the general principle behind these amendments. We believe that there should be much more flexibility in the way the markets operate. As we come to these amendments, we believe that the SIB should be given a much firmer superstructure. In the hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us the timetable for future government amendments as a result of this consultation, I support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. With that, I shall sit down.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: In supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I intended to make a number of observations in the context of the well-known overregulation arising from the Financial Services Act 1986. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his apologies for not providing me with a copy of his consultation paper. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I did not know that there was such a consultation paper in being. As somewhat of an amateur in this field, it would certainly have saved me a great deal of trouble in researching to support this amendment. In those circumstances, I do not propose to detain the Committee any longer except to say that I strongly

1267
support what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has so ably presented.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I should like to add something to what has already been said. I entirely support what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has said in moving this amendment. Like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I must declare an interest as chairman of Britannia Arrow Holdings and chairman and director of a number of other companies involved in financial services and banking.
I was certainly one of those who welcomed the original legislation in so far as its purpose was to find a firm and flexible way of protecting the investor, particularly the small investor. The Committee will recall that there were some people who, at the time, feared overregulation. As the noble Lord, Lord Lever, said on the Second Reading of the Bill on llth July 1986:
"if we set up a network of regulation, it is our duty to watch that we are not causing more anxiety and expense to honest men than we are to the crooks".—[0fficial Report,11/7/86; col. 611.]
With the benefit of hindsight, we may consider his speech well worth rereading, not least the conclusion, which stated:
"In short I utter a certain amount of what I hope will not look too eccentric a warning to the House: beware the road to a large and ineffective bureaucracy is always paved with perfectionist good intentions"—[col. 613]
As the noble Lord, Lord Lever, had been in the Treasury, no doubt he had heard the definition of bureacracy of the noble Lord, Lord Croham. As for the welter of words to which my noble friend referred, I would say only that the "welter of chaotic verbiage" that was said to constitute the rent Acts reads like plain English compared with this legislation.
As my noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate said on Second Reading:
"while the original concept was correct it is growing like an octopus out of control and sucking within its tentacles the creativeness and vitality of the financial services community".—s[Official Report, 16/1/89; col. 48.]
My noble friend made a number of constructive points in that speech and I know that he wished to follow them up in Committee and would have done so but for the sudden tragic death of Lady Stevens. Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State has taken due note of what was said in that notable speech. In the course of my remarks, I should like to refer back to some of the points that were made.
This is not a cri de coeur from interested parties. It was the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading, Sir Gordon Borrie, who last year drew attention to the "scale and complexity" of the SIB rule book and,
"the impenetrability of the language"
which was such that the,
"full implications of rules are likely to prove difficult to understand, both for those to whom they apply and those affected by them".
You can say that again! It is important to note that Sir Gordon Borrie's report not only highlighted the costs of compliance and record-keeping; it also drew attention to the potential anti-competition effects—the very reverse of what I understand the Government intend. Thus, the report stressed that
1268
the costs were likely to make it more difficult for new firms to be set up while driving smaller firms out of business or into amalgamations which could distort competition and limit consumer choice as well as resulting in additional costs being inevitably passed on to the investor.
The Stock Exchange pointed out that the new regulatory burden was increasing transaction costs in London in a way that would affect not only private client business but also London's competitiveness as an international capital market. Sir Nicholas Goodison and other members of the Stock Exchange uttered at the same time an important warning, which I believe is still relevant, to the SIB and Whitehall; namely, that the single European market in financial services will bring no benefit to this country unless the regulatory corset of the Financial Services Act can be made more compatible with the looser girdles employed in the rest of Europe. I hope that the Secretary of State, who has done such a tremendous job in launching 1992 and making people understand what is involved, will have borne that point very much in mind.
It is fortunate for all of us that when Mr. David Walker took over the office of chairman of the SIB he recognised very quickly that the existing rule book needed a radical review. In his words, it was:
"over-long, over-complicated and over-specific".
So we had last year—and, after all, it is in advance of the consultative document—The SIB Rulebook: A New Approach,which placed a greater reliance on principles. I am bound to say that I see a certain danger, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has also indicated, in reliance on principles if overregulation is to be replaced by legal uncertainty. I find the distinction between principles of conduct and rules of conduct confusing to a degree in the way in which it has so far been presented by the SIB and in the consultative paper.
Nor am I helped by an article in the February issue of Butterworth's Journal of International Banking and Financial Law—in which I have an interest, being a member of the editorial board— in which Mr. David Walker had this to say:
"The status of the principles under the New Approach rules is important. The essential features of this status are that—the principles form part of the rules so that, in principle, they can be enforced in the same way as other more detailed rules; but where a more specific rule is derived from a principle, anything expressly legitimated by the rules is also taken to comply with the principle".
When Committee Members read Hansard tomorrow, they may follow that more clearly than I have so far been able to do.
At least this amendment makes the point that the breach of a provision of the code will not in itself constitute a breach of the rules and regulations of the designated agency. I very much hope that the Secretary of State has taken on board what my noble friend Lord Jenkin has said. I feel very strongly that laws that can result in penalties should be clearly and specifically drafted. If I may say so, with respect, that is one principle that is often ignored in much modern legislation.
Against that background, like my noble friend, I warmly welcome the consultative document. It would not be appropriate now to comment on it in detail,

1269
but—bearing in mind that it takes some time for such documents to get into the hands of those who have to read them in detail and that Easter is approaching—I do not think that what are in effect 18 working days are adequate for consultation. I believe that the present situation is so bad that we should make a determined effort to get it right this time. I cannot believe that time is so much of the essence that we cannot have a little more time to consider the consultative document in detail because, with all due respect, as it stands, it offers some prospects of further confusion added upon that that already exists. Some of the concepts, such as cost benefit analysis, may have to be looked at rather carefully. All this is as well-intentioned as the Act itself but it would be a grave error of judgment not to allow more time for thought.
Another point that is now recognised is that a further impediment to the operation of the financial services industry is the fragmentation of the regulator structure which derives from the divergences between the various rule books. As I understand it, I gather that the Government are now suggesting that we should remove the legal requirement for all the present five self-regulatory organisations to have rules which ensure an equivalent standard of protection to those of the SIB. How one translates equivalence in practice is very difficult.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: If my noble friend will forgive me, we are moving away from equivalence. We are moving towards principles. It was because we have equivalence and rule books that had to give the same level of protection that we got ourselves into this difficulty.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I gather that the Government are moving away from this position and have this point in mind. What has happened is that equivalence has tended to be translated as identical. Against that background Mr. Walker said that he would like an attempt made to reach a common code of principles for all the rule books. That may seem a step forward and it would help to achieve a level playing field for those who now have to consult a number of rule books.
Perhaps I may suggest — it is the last point I wish to make— that the Government might consider the simpler suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Stevens in the Second Reading debate; namely, to abolish all the SROs. At present it is quite common for a City institution to be regulated by three or four SROs and by the SIB as part of its business. Accordingly such institutions have to report to two or three bodies and the SROs concerned themselves report to the SIB. If all the SROs were abolished, as my noble friend Lord Stevens suggested, everyone could then read the same single and, it is to be hoped, simple, rule book and report only to one body.
Finally, I suggest with respect that the Director General of Fair Trading—who is after all independent and not representing a special interest but who drew attention in the first place to what was going wrong—should be brought in at a very early stage to vet the rule book. If that were done, we have
1270
a good chance under the Government's proposals to have a rule book which would be more practical, sensible and appropriate than it is now. Above all it would be less restrictive, and distortive, and less preventive of competition.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I too should like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Jenkin of Roding. There can be no doubt of the strength of general feeling that the burden of regulation and its enforcement is very much greater than many of us envisaged when the Financial Services Act was being debated. It is good to find that the Government themselves have recognised and accepted this. Indeed, that was not only shown by something that was said during our Second Reading debate on the Bill, but has also been proved by the consultative paper that has just been published.
I am in a difficulty because until I arrived here barely an hour ago I had no idea that such a document had been published or that it was intended to publish it, let alone to have had a chance to look at it. Therefore my preparation for what I wish to say has been done against the background of not knowing that such a paper was about to appear or had appeared. It is also impossible to judge how far it goes. From what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has said, it appears to go part of the way. Whether it goes halfway or more I cannot tell. However, it does not go all the way that this amendment desires. Until I have had a better chance to consider the consultative document I must press for going the whole way because it seems to me that the method proposed in this amendment has a great deal to commend it.
In considering this matter it is perhaps helpful to go back briefly to base. Base in this matter is the review of investment protection prepared by Professor Gower from which this legislation stemmed. I believe that I quote accurately when he said in that review that regulations should:
"not be greater than is needed adequately to protect investors and this, emphatically, does not mean that it should seek to achieve the impossible task of protecting fools from their own folly. All it should do is to try to prevent people being made fools of. And, in deciding how far it is desirable to go to achieve that, of paramount importance are … (i) that it would be self-defeating to impose restrictions so severe that they cannot be complied with except at disproportionate trouble and expense and (ii) that it would be detrimental to the national interest if controls were disproportionately strict in comparison with those of other financial centres to which the business could move".
I do not think that there can be much doubt that we have been breaching both those two criteria laid down by Professor Gower in his initial review. I very much doubt whether the level of regulation enforcement that we have is necessary for sensible consumer protection. Indeed, I go further than that. The sheer volume of information required to be given to the customer is such as to be counter-productive. We therefore have the appearance of a level of production and protection without the reality of that protection fully matching up to the appearance.
I apologise if I did not make this declaration at the beginning, but I have often made it. I am a director of the Prudential and was chairman of the company for five years until a few years ago. I therefore have that interest. Sometimes interests can give one

1271
knowledge and experience. However, I understand that at the point of sale a life office may well need to supply each customer with five or six pages of information on the policy that the customer is buying. Subsequently another five or six pages of cancellation notice papers have to be sent out which repeat much of the information given at the point of sale.
In the second half of 1988 alone the industry sold over 5 million policies to which those rules applied. Let us consider those sheets of paper multiplied 5 million times in the last six months of last year. Were the recipients of those pieces of paper capable of finding the time or the concentration required to read them all and fully to understand what they were or were not being given by way of protection? Speaking personally, whenever the time came to sign the necessary letters which my stockbrokers— who have dealt with my affairs for as long as I can remember— said that they had to send me, I waded through them all and was not clear at the end. I could not find time to read them all over again but I had a sneaking feeling that all that small print was just as likely to be used against me as for me if the crunch ever came.
I believe that we are not providing the reality of consumer protection that the legislation purports to provide at least to the majority of relatively sensible but nonetheless, in these matters, inevitably fairly simple consumers throughout the country.
Furthermore, I understand that the present rules to which I have just referred on life policies are too rigid properly to cover the wide variety of investment contracts in the market place and thus may actively reduce— not increase—real investor protection.
I therefore believe that reform is necessary. I believe that it would be a great tragedy—almost a scandal—if we were to lose the legislative opportunity that we have in this Bill to make the amendments that we ought to make.
I repeat that I have not had the chance to read the consultative paper. It alarms me somewhat that this has been produced, and that we have been given a very few working days in which to consider it. But even if we take that number of working days we shall be in grave danger of missing the bus on this Bill, certainly in this Chamber. It may be dealt with by a series of messy amendments produced in another place which will come back here and so forth. As we know from past, bitter experience on other Bills, that does not provide good, lasting legislation.
I beg my noble friend to give serious thought. If the Bill has to pass a bit more slowly, it could be a case where less haste would mean more speed and better achievement for the consumer, in whose interests we are doing this. I believe that the combination of moving from a level of detailed precept to a practice of statement of principles, backed by a code of practice plus effective enforcement, is the best way forward for the consumers of this country. We must put ourselves at the other end of the telescope and look through the consumers' eyes at us, at government departments and the way we legislate, instead of looking at them perhaps through the
1272
wrong end of the telescope so that the cosumers look extremely small. We ought to put the other end of the telescope to our eyes and think much more of what is practicable and useful to the consumer.
I believe this concept of a code of practice amplifying a statement of principles, as long as it is effectively enforced, is the best way to provide consumer protection. I ask the Committee (and above all my noble friends on the Government Front Bench) to think very carefully before they refuse to accept that principle or ask us to settle on what may appear, if my noble friend is right, to be a halfway house between where we are at present, and where we ought to be.
The reality is that in practice it is far more difficult for those who wish to get through the net at the expense of the consumer to circumvent broad-based principles than it is to pick a route through apparently tightly drawn, formal rules. I should have thought that all our history over many decades of tax evasion or avoidance shows that the more detailed the rules become, the more those who wish to get through the spirit of them find a loophole to worm their way through somehow. On every ground of consumer protection I ask my noble friend to think carefully before rejecting the principles of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: I too am glad that my noble friend has put this amendment down on the Marshalled List because it has given us the opportunity for this debate. I am glad also to hear that he will not press it because it will give us the opportunity to hear what comes from the consultation on the Government's paper published last week. I also have to declare an interest. I am chairman of one of the self-regulatory organisations which was set up under the Financial Services Act and which is most closely affected by these proposals. It does not have the effect of putting the wrong end of the telescope to my eye; but it does have the effect that I and my colleagues receive over 4,000 letters direct from consumers and we are very well aware of their feelings.
As the industry has until the end of the month to give its comments, I shall mention briefly four matters arising from the consultation of which I believe the Committee should be aware at this stage. I seek not to pre-empt the position which I may wish to adopt at the end of the consultation period. The Government were for a while in doubt as to whether the Act needed any alteration to permit flexibility. I was one of those who sought to convince them that it did, and I am therefore delighted that they have taken this step. I believe that it will eventually produce further certainty and therefore greater consumer protection. I hope that they will test all the proposals that emerge from the consultation against those two criteria—simplicity and certainty—before they put them into effect.
The first area that I wish to consider is the proposal to create a hierarchy of prescription with principles at the top and rules underneath. That is interesting and will need careful consideration. The Government's proposal is that the principles themselves should have the force of law and thus of rules. I believe that this

1273
would have precisely the effect that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding wishes to see: permitting beneath the level of principles with the status of rules codes of practice that have the status of guidelines. This can be inverted and 1 believe could and would be inverted to provide that degree of flexibility at the interface with the consumer and the regulated company.
There is another school of thought that would prefer the principles to be declaratory rather than mandatory. My second request is that before Her Majesty's Government finally close their minds on the subject, they will consider very carefully indeed which of the relationships between the two levels will secure the smallest amount of interpretative litigation and choose that one. I am not talking about litigation under Section 62, the terms of which have been altered. I am talking about the litigation that arises from uncertainty when two levels of authority coexist. Regulators already know from hard experience that the orderly but extensive revision of the rulebook is demanding and expensive. All of us know that litigation is also demanding and expensive.
Moreover, litigation can itself give rise to the need for further revision and amendments to the rulebook; and a protracted cycle of litigation and revision is not a cost-effective way to proceed. Avoidance of it would he entirely consistent with—indeed I think it is demanded by—the Government's admirable and very welcome commitment in paragraph 10 of their paper to imposing on the industry the minimum burdens necessary to achieve proper or adequate levels of investor protection and their commitment to cost-effectiveness generally.
The Government's proposal is, as I understand it, for the principles which stand, as they put it, at a higher level of generality as well as having the force of rules to be transported wholesale into the rulebooks of each SRO. They will then he separately exemplified by each SRO and SIB in sets of rules and perhaps guidelines or codes that may be different in some respects in each case. The normal test of their sufficiency will, it seems, be whether or not they cover the whole of the area covered by the principles. So far there is little to provide the added flexibility for which we were looking. We appear however to have the demise of "equivalence" and the welcome arrival of "adequacy". Furthermore, paragraph 11 proposes to provide not only for the amplification of the principles where necessary, but also for derogation from them where appropriate. That is an important provision and SROs will need to consider how this latitude might be used.
The Committee will have to consider how authorisation for it is to be expressed in statute so that it can be defended in court. The extent to which these matters are justiciable will depend not only on the relationship between principles and rules, to which I have referred, but also on the answers given to and the decisions taken on the questions raised in paragraph 16 of the paper. These deal with the nature of SIB's power to enforce conformity with its wishes on the SROs, and the SROs will be giving that their close attention,
Again. I must ask Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind the desirability of keeping litigation to
1274
a minimum consistent with justice. By that I do not mean that an SRO should never have the power to go to court for its defence. That is consideration. In that consideration however it would be well to remember that when the regulatory system settles down, it should be even clearer than it now is, and that it is a single system with a single aim and not a collection of rival teams with a supervising and sometimes unpopular referee and conflicting rulebooks.
I have said that revising rulebooks is expensive. That expense does not arise simply from the task of revision. It results also from its impact upon the members who have to obey the rules in the rulebook. Every time one of those rules is changed they have first to understand and then to re-learn the provision. After that they have to adjust their practices—and sometimes their computer systems—yet again to fit. This can represent a major and costly upheaval and also leads to periods of uncertainty that can be periods of risk for investment. I therefore very much welcome the proposal to allow each SRO to choose when within an interim period it will adopt the new system in place of the old.
My fourth request to Her Majesty's Government is that they take great care to make that period long enough. I am clear in my own mind that some of the numerous amendments to my own SRO's rulebook result from its having been written to too short a deadline. Very many more result from the need to follow changes made in the SIB's rule book, which I suspect were made for the same reason. Even though we made extensive and expensive use of consultants in drafting a whole section of our rulebook, experience since April of last year has revealed many necessary changes.
Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State—and it is a pleasure to have him in the same Committee because most shouts are sent down a speaking tube and one never hears anything but the faintest squawk from the other end— that in deciding the length of the period he should have in mind his own experience. I hope that his advisers will also do so. From that they will know that even a very efficient department, with considerable resources, needs a lengthy lead time to draft quite a modest Bill. They will also be aware that once it emerges from the department any Bill of substance, no matter how well it is drafted, is altered in many particulars during its passage through both Houses of Parliament. It need not be as large as this Bill in order to attract scores of amendments in your Lordships' House alone before it becomes an Act of Parliament.
An SRO regards its rulebook as being the equivalent of an Act of Parliament, and it can be of an equivalent length and complexity. Brevity and simplicity are highly desirable, but neither can be achieved in haste. I hope that Ministers will agree that such instruments should be carefully prepared and that SROs do not have nor ought to have the same drafting capacity as government departments. That must be so as regards SROs because drafting rules should not be a continuous activity—as, regrettably, it appears to be in every government department except the Foreign Office. Nor do they have the untiring labours of both Houses of Parliament to help them in their task. Therefore,

1275
SROs need a considerable time to get their rules right, and I ask Her Majesty's Government to ensure that they have it.
I should like to mention the third aspect of the discussion paper which is most welcome. It is the recognition of the need for co-operation between SROs. My noble friend Lord Rippon has spoken at length about the matter. To obtain compatibility among five or six sets of rulebooks will take a great deal of time and a great deal of exchange of information.
I have not referred to the SIB consultation paper issued in tandem with this paper but there is a link between the concepts of compatibility and of fairness referred to in Part III of the annex to that paper. Paragraph 3(3) proposes that:
"rules, taken together with the principles, should be fair to different firms and to different kinds of business".
Although we are regulating one industry, each SRO has a different kind of member. If the separate sectors are to be equally capable of survival it is important that there should be fairness between the SROs regarding the practices permitted to their members.
On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding referred to the fact that there was doubt about how small a proportion of the independent sector would survive as a result of the tilted playing field. I am happy to say that that stage is being left astern of us. I hope that the Government and the SIB will remember that danger and act upon it.
My final comment is a heartfelt welcome to the Government's intention of making clear in legislation the fact that costs of compliance should be taken into account in the making of the rules. I do not share the hesitation of my noble friend Lord Rippon in respect of that aspect of the paper, although I say that it must never stand in the way of the paramount need for adequate consumer protection.
My final request is that in that context the Government take into consideration not only the direct costs of enforcement, but also the costs of the various tiers of authority which impose it. In one respect they will not yet be in a position to come to a view on the matter. Accountability for cost is various across the system. It is too early to say whether it will be equally effective in controlling cost at each level. I assume that the Government will consider the whole performance of the Financial Services Act in a year or possibly two years. By that time it should be possible to see whether adjustments are also necessary in this area.
I welcome the Government's initiative, and hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I hope that my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will forgive me if I do not address my remarks specifically to the amendments. They appear to me to have been overshadowed by the Government's consultative document which I welcome.
I should like to remind my noble friend Lord Jenkin that the document was published on Wednesday, although it had been foreshadowed for
1276
several days. The Independent, the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times carried extensive articles on Thursday, and the heavy weekend press also carried articles about it. Therefore, the document should not come as a great surprise. If there is a surprise it is that the Government have given only until the end of the month for representations to be made. Presumably they will be embodied in the Bill, although I do not know when. Perhaps the Committee will recall the interest which I must declare in the matter because we ran into much the same problems.
I suggest to my noble friend the Secretary of State that it will be disappointing if the Committee does not have ample opportunity for investigating such extremely serious matters. I am not surprised that the Government have sought to revisit the working systems of the regulatory system. When the Financial Services Act was introduced, the Government stated that it was an entirely new framework intended primarily for the protection of investors. I believe that some Members who have spoken have been a little unkind. It was new territory when we discussed and eventually passed the Financial Services Act. A number of noble Lords have been proved right in their forecasts, most notably on complexity and cost. But that bears little relationship—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does the noble Lord include Members of the Opposition among his group of noble Lords who have been proved to be right?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I was referring to Members of your Lordships' House wherever they sit; and that is so. However, that does not mean to say that the principle with which we were then dealing was wrong. I do not believe that it was, nor do I believe that the intentions of the Government were wrong. However, I believe that the adjustment which must now be made was inevitable. It is purely and simply because of the unforeseen costs and complexity. More particularly, I believe that it is due to the complexity of the financial services market. The new opportunities which have been given have induced further complexities. I believe that the consultative document reflects consideration of the anxieties that have been growing. The Bill provides the opportunity to put such reflections into the law.
I do not wish to stray into discussing other matters which will arise in connection with Amendment No. 257E in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The amendment to Section 62 of the Financial Services Act has a bearing. However, in considering the Government's paper, it will be essential to investigate how the incorporation of principles into a rulebook can be achieved. For example, will it allow greater flexibility in adapting a rule to the particular circumstances of a market? My noble friend Lord Elton outlined the different types of consumers, the different types of products and the different types of members of the various SROs.
Will it be possible to draft suitable principles or will they again turn out to be equally as complex as the existing rules? I believe that those questions will essentially have to be dealt with by the SIB—and the new director general has made clear the direction in

1277
which he wishes to go with the SIB, and more importantly, with the various SROs. I believe that that will be very much their responsibility. Those SROs together with the SIB will again be concerned with the arrangement for assessing the costs and benefits of regulation. I believe that it will be possible to assess those costs and the various benefits.
If the UK financial services sector is to succeed in an increasingly competitive environment and if the burden of compliance with the rules of our regulatory system is much higher than elsewhere, then I believe that the sector will suffer to no-one's benefit in the UK.
We have the opportunity, as has been mentioned, of the single European market and we shall have to ensure that we do not place ourselves at a disadvantage in taking those opportunities. At the same time, we must ensure that not only is the balance between effective investor protection and the international competitiveness of our financial services properly struck but that it is understood and seen to be so.
My noble friend Lord Rippon talked of the timescale and the 31st March as the end of the consultation process. He said that this time we must get it right. I would not put that charge on the Government, on the SIB or on the SROs because I do not believe that we shall get it right. I do not believe, if the Committee sat here for another six months, that it would be right at the end of that time. I suggest that we should get it more closely correct than last time and have it in such a state that it will be even more correct in one or two years' time as the market-place changes, as it inevitably will.
I believe that both amendments are out of place in the Bill as it now stands and I look forward at the earliest time to government amendments to put right that which was wrong and which has been proved to be wrong since we passed the Financial Services Act.
4 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for the way in which he introduced his amendments. Perhaps I may offer him my personal congratulations on being a grandfather, if I heard him right. That is a most desirable state of mankind, as I can certainly testify.
There are many occasions on which I am—dare I say it?—criticised in the newspapers, strange as that may seem, for being interested in publicity. This is one case in which I thought I had become a total failure. When we published this consultative document, I saw the press. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas who obviously read what I said—and he is almost alone in that in your Lordships' Chamber. However, it was fairly extensively published in the press and a copy was put in the Library. However, I shall come on to the reasons in a moment.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Rippon. Perhaps I may say to him that I came into government with a mission to deregulate. When I took up my present position I was very well aware of the complaints of many people operating regulation in the City. We cannot go back to a world in which
1278
there is no regulation, but on the other hand it should not be over-bureaucratic and over-expensive. Many of the changes over the past two years have not been forced out of the Government but they are changes which—and I say no more than this—I recognise very well indeed. It is part of a continuing process in which we adjust the way in which the regulation works to the desires and needs of the market. I believe that other Members of the Committee have said that. I regard one of the important parts of this consultative document to be something about which my noble friend Lord Rippon was worried; that is, the compliance cost. When we look at all these regulations, we have to look at and examine the cost of complying with them. That is a burden which we shall certainly take very much into account.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Carr that I agree with him that the type of regulation which perhaps the SEC in the United States made famous—regulation which gives so much detail that one is swamped—is not one which we should try to emulate in the slightest.
Perhaps I may say to both my noble friend Lord Carr and my noble friend Lord Rippon that a regulatory system without the SROs would be simpler. However, it would also be less flexible and more bureaucratic. It would reduce the contribution which practitioners can make to producing appropriate requirements which reflect the realities of the financial markets because the legislation which my noble friend Lord Lucas helped to bring through your Lordships' Chamber some years ago relied very much on self-regulating organisations. If my noble friend Lord Carr feels that that is over-bureaucratic, then perhaps I may point out that his own chief executive was and still is one of the leading lights in the SIB and, indeed, the responsibility for many of the regulations lies with practitioners. Indeed, that was one of the particular problems.
Both I and the Governor of the Bank of England, when we jointly appointed David Walker, very much had that matter under consideration. We have seen a series of changes which have come through and which I hope will make this a more workable system. Indeed, I ask all Members of the Committee to read the consultative document very carefully because I believe that it will show the system to be quite flexible and will make an improvement.
I accept that 18 working days is not very long but in this particular instance and in dealing with this matter I believe that it is long enough for consultation. Of course, I should have preferred to have given more time, but I am concerned to ensure that we use this Bill to make the necessary amendments in order that we may press on quickly. I hope that it may be possible to come back with those amendments while the Bill is still before your Lordships' Chamber. Of course, that very much depends upon the nature of the response which we receive to the consultative document. However, it is very important indeed that we press on with these changes and do so with all possible speed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We, on these Benches, are quite prepared to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, that we should postpone

1279
the last day of the Report stage until the Government are ready with their amendments on this issue, because it is important that your Lordships should have a proper opportunity to consider them. We cannot amend them other than on Third Reading so that if we miss that opportunity on Report then we miss it altogether and it will go to another place.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for his generous offer and I shall certainly consider it. However, I should first like to see the response to the consultative document.
Perhaps I may make one more general remark before I deal with the detail because I should like to show the problem we have and also to put it into perspective. I suspect that if we compare the rule books as we have them today, particularly the modified SIB books, and compare them with the Stock Exchange rule book and regulations, which have been mentioned, I believe that the SIB rules would read like Enid Blyton in comparison. I suggest that before we look at that, we should look at the comparison and look at the other rules. It is important that we have a system which is not too burdensome on the industry, which provides protection for the amateur investor and probably a slightly different standard of protection for the professional. I believe that the amendments which we should like to see, and which we hope the consultative document will support, will achieve that.
Amendment No. 257, in the names of my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Rippon, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, proposes that the rules which the designated agency is required to submit before the transfer of powers to it may take the form of a statement of general principles including, if appropriate, the principles prescribed in Schedule 8.
I appreciate my noble friend's concern that the rules made by the designated agency should be as simple as possible but I am afraid that this first element of his proposal would not be practicable. The difficulty lies not in Section 114, which he seeks to amend, or in the principles in Schedule 8 to which it refers, but for other reasons.
The rules and regulations made by the designated agency serve two functions. They serve as a benchmark for the rules made by SROs. But they also apply directly to the conduct of business by directly authorised persons, because some are directly authorised by the SIB. The principles in Schedule 8 would not themselves be suitable for this purpose since they are essentially cast in judgmental terms, setting out particular matters which the Secretary of State has to consider in delegating or continuing to delegate his powers. They do not as such lay down any standard; but I accept that provisions which were apt to govern the conduct of business could be expressed in similar terms. Principle 2, for example, (due skill, care and diligence) is taken very largely from Section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, which implies a contractual term to that effect in any contract for services. I am not aware of any difficulty which that section, or others in that Act
1280
in similarly broad terms, has given. Indeed, it must apply to a large range of the contracts governed under the Financial Services Act. There is nothing inherent in any legal proposition which means that it has to be expressed in legalistic terms.
My noble friend Lord Rippon reminded the Committee that the Director General of Fair Trading has commented on the terms of the rules of the SRO. He is empowered to do so under the procedure in the Financial Services Act. He is the one to test, first, that the rules are reasonable in the circumstances. It was not a case of his volunteering to do so but part of the procedure which the last Act laid down.
However, not all of the principles are so readily reduced to rule form. Principle 11, for instance, provides that,
"the conduct of business rules must require the keeping of proper records and make provision for their inspection in appropriate cases".
That principle expresses the objective which rules about record-keeping are to achieve; but as a rule itself it lacks clarity and certainty. What does "proper" mean in an individual case? Who is to decide whether it is "appropriate", and so on?
There is also, I suggest, an understandable desire on the part of those affected by any provision to desire apparent certainty at the expense of broadly defined provision. I say "apparent" because it is by no means always the case that greater detail produces greater certainty in practice. This desire is likely to be particularly strong where breaching the rules can lead to the deliberately tough disciplinary and other sanctions, in addition to civil liability. It would therefore probably not be desirable to rely solely on provisions in such general terms as those used in Schedule 8 to form the rules which the designated agency must make.
The amendments also propose that the designated agency should have an obligation—perhaps even a power—to publish a code of practice, which would not itself have any legal force, giving guidance on the operation of its rules. I should remind my noble friend Lord Carr that in Gower's review of investor practice the one thing that Gower himself could not stand was codes of conduct because of their impreciseness. The SIB is already able to publish such guidance. That element of that amendment is therefore unnecessary. Moreover, for the reasons I have given above I am doubtful whether practitioners themselves would be content to be governed only by broadly based principles, without further provision which they could rely on for the purposes of establishing clearly to themselves whether or not there had been a breach.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said about paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7. 1 have heard a number of the provisions of the Act blamed for the structure of the rules that have emerged, but never before, I fear, this particular one. The paragraph in question simply provides that the SIB may delegate its monitoring function to another body which is able and willing to perform it. It does not require the rules to have any particular structure, and perhaps that is a matter on which my noble friend may care to reflect and include in his response to the consultative document.

1281
The Government have no desire to restrict the freedom of SROs to adapt the rules to suit the kinds of business carried on by their members. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Elton and I am grateful for his support of the document we have just issued.
There are potential problems if the diversity of rules between SROs becomes too great. Some firms—indeed, more than some—may belong to more than one SRO. It may not always be clear which set of rules should apply; and complying with both may be unnecessarily burdensome. It may be difficult for investors to sort out which rules applied to their transactions with the firm. If unhelpful diversity of this sort can be removed without reducing flexibility it would be of considerable benefit.
As all who have followed this matter will know, the SIB has published revised drafts of its rules. The proposed new version adopts a different structure in which most of the detailed rules are grouped under rules at a higher level of generality, known as principles of conduct. I should like to pay tribute to the work of David Walker in seeking to simplify the rules under the SIB. Perhaps I should make clear at this point that the distinction between these principles of conduct and those referred to in Amendment No. 257C is that these principles are themselves intended to be rules and will have legal effect as such.
The Government welcome the spirit behind this new approach, which offers the prospect of a set of rules more readily understood by practitioners and investors alike. We believe that the adoption by SROs of a similar approach is to be encouraged.
The Government propose that a new basis of assessment should be available to the SIB when considering the rules of an SRO which has incorporated in its rules the principles of conduct laid down by the SIB. For the reasons I have outlined, rules at such level of generality may not be suitable to constitute the only rules governing an SRO's members. In some cases they will have to be amplified by means of detailed rules applying them in practice. In other cases, the detailed rules might derogate from the general rule in particular circumstances.
To take account of all these complications the Government propose that where an SRO has adopted the SIB's principles of conduct the SIB should be able to approve those rules if it is satisfied that they provide an adequate level of investor protection, having regard to the circumstances of the investors concerned in the markets where the SRO's members operate. I am glad to be able to say that the cost of compliance would also be a matter to be taken into account. As my noble friend Lord Elton said, the SIB has published a paper outlining the way in which this assessment test might be applied.
I hope very much that we shall be able to look at the results of this consultative document while the Bill is before this Chamber. However, as I have said, until such time as we have had responses to it I cannot give any firm undertaking.
I am afraid that even in this all too lengthy reply it has only been possible to give a brief description of the Government's proposals. These are set out at
1282
rather more length in the consultative document and we have invited comments on these proposals by the end of this month so that this Bill can possible be used to make the necessary changes. We shall naturally, in considering responses to our proposals, also take into account the views expressed in this afternoon's debate. I hope that on that basis my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and all noble Lords who have tabled amendments will feel that they can be withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: I listened with great care to my noble friend the Secretary of State in his response to the amendments and I should like to try to draw him out a little with regard to his legislative ambitions.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made clear that there are considerable procedural difficulties on this Bill for the simple reason that, as I understand it, the Report stage is pencilled in for Monday 20th and Tuesday 21st March, which is before the end of the consultation period. The third day is pencilled in for Thursday 6th April, which gives only three days for my noble friend to table amendments.
The Third Reading is scheduled for Tuesday, 11th April. I suggest that it would be churlish if any amendments to the Bill were put down at such short notice. On top of that, there is only the opportunity for one say on any matter, to put it crudely, at the Report stage. There might be many Members of the Committee who wish to make amendments to any legislation that is tabled. We all know that if it is tabled in another place then it is impossible or very difficult for this Chamber to amend it. I ask my noble friend whether he will seriously consider having a word with the business managers of the House to postpone the Report stage of this Bill?
Lord Young of Graffham: I am not sure that the dates that my noble friend read out were the latest ones. In any event, I have to see the results of the consultative document before we know how far we are to take the matter. The last day of the Report stage is 11th April and not 6th April. I will certainly bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Where there is some difficulty as regards amendments tabled by the Government and there has not been satisfactory notice for their full examination, I believe that there is a procedure known as recommitment. In view of the importance of this matter, I wonder whether Part VIII of this Bill—I am not an expert on procedure—can be recommitted. It will give Members of the Committee an opportunity to speak on more than one occasion.
Lord Young of Graffham: I have heard that there is such a procedure, though in my own experience I have not put it into effect in the Chamber. I shall certainly look at all these points. But, as I have said, the first matter is to look at the consultative document and the reponses that we get to it.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am in some difficulty on this matter because I understand that the Report stage will be 20th and 21st April. Have those two dates been cancelled?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Through the usual channels we have written out the pencilled dates produced by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. It is true that we shall have one day at Report stage before Easter and the Recess. After that, there will be space. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has mentioned the possibility of recommitment. It is a Motion in the Chamber to recommit and it is one that any noble Lord can move. It is a debatable Motion. When we come to it we may find that there is such a Motion and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will bear that in mind.
Lord Elton: It might well be inadvisable for any Member of the Committee to do that. I beg any Member not to recommit the whole of Part VIII of the Bill otherwise we shall be here until the Summer Recess!
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I appear to have been more fortunate than some Members of the Committee in that I was able to get a copy of the consultative document from the Library on Thursday. In other respects I appear to have been less fortunate. I have been learning a good deal about the future programme of this Chamber of which I "wotted" nothing until I was given the dates by my noble friend Lord Morris and others.
Since the rule hook is as easy as Enid Blyton, I must tell my noble friend that I do not propose to give it to my new granddaughter to read, though I am extremely grateful for his kind remarks. I believe that this debate has proved the value of the amendments that we have been discussing. I say no more than this. We shall want to study my noble friend's speech with great care because he went to some considerable trouble to spell out precisely how the Government see the best way forward in this area.
I repeat that I hope that he will not rule out the possibility of inverting the process and having broad principles which are justiciable and guidance that can help the court or the authorities to decide whether a breach has taken place. I recognise that, forced by the existing structure of the Act, the SIB has not been able to go down that road. Whether it is paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 or whatever, it feels obliged now to write out a series of rules. I do not believe that is what Parliament envisaged when the Act was put on the statute book, and certainly not in the complexity that it has.
When I heard my noble friend Lord Rippon read the passage from David Walker's article in which he tried to spell out the interaction of the present structure of principles and rules—some principles being justiciable if they had no rules underneath them and others being not justiciable because they have rules beneath them—I could not help feeling that that is almost the worst of all worlds. I hope that the Government will take further time to think of this matter. This is an opportunity to get what is widely
1284
acknowledged, and by my noble friend himself, as unsatisfactory legislation. It needs amendment. Would it be impossible for the amendments to be tabled and discussed in another place? That would give the Government more time. We can then discuss them when they come back to this Chamber as amendments that have been passed in another place. It seems that to table what may be quite complex amendments in time to allow this Chamber to consider them at the Report stage on this part of the Bill at the beginning of April, is trying to rush things a great deal too fast.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that we cannot amend Commons amendments when they come back to us. We can only approve or disapprove.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: That seems a lacuna in our procedures. I thought that we could suggest another amendment in its place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We can table alternative amendments.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: That is a way of doing it. I should have thought that with the ingenuity of my noble friend on the Front Bench and his parliamentary advisers that it would be possible to do that. It is so important that we get a workable structure that achieves the overall purpose of consumer protection without throttling the industry in a mass of detailed regulations which I do not believe anyone envisaged would be the result. We shall study my noble friend's speech with great care. He has gone part of the way to meet us with his consultative paper and it would be quite wrong to divide the House.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 257A:
Before Clause 132, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of functions.
. Section 114 of the Financial Services Act 1986 is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), leave out "corporate-;

(b) in subsection (2), line 1, leave out "first";

(c) in subsection (2), line 3, leave out "limited".").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, for the convenience of the Committee, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 257D and 262. As I said at Second Reading, it was the Opposition's objective to make sure that the superstructure of the financial services' regulatory system was as strong as possible. The Committee will remember that when the Financial Services Act was a Bill before us, it started off as a Bill that envisaged a number of possibly competing organisations that would have a chance to go for the regulatory role. When the Bill started in another place, there was no mention at all of the Securities and Investments Board. It seems to us that this board must be considered as a part of the landscape of the financial services regulations. What we are proposing in these amendments is essentially to tidy up the landscape and to make sure that the SIB is a permanent feature and that it is seen as such.
This objective is achieved by a number of relatively small amendments. In Section 114 of the Financial Services Act we should like to omit the word "corporate". We should like the SIB no longer to be considered as a corporate body. We should like to leave out the thought that this is the first delegation order; that there is a delegation to the SIB of the Secretary of State's powers, and that that is the end of the matter; and that the SIB is therefore permanently in situ. We should like to leave out the expression "limited". We believe that the SIB should not be a limited company but that it should be a properly established Crown body.
Amendment 257D is established by the schedule that governs the designated agency. In Paragraph 1(1), line 1, we propose that the SIB or designated agency shall be considered as a Crown agency. Schedule 9 1(1) of the Financial Services Act reads;
"A designated agency shall not be regarded as acting on behalf of the Crown and its members, officers and servants shall not be regarded as Crown servants".
We propose that the designated agency shall be regarded as acting on behalf of the Crown and that its members and officers shall be regarded as Crown servants; in other words, it should be a Crown body with Crown immunity provisions applying, as we discussed a long time ago when the Bill was before your Lordship's House.
I should like to refer briefly to Amendment No. 262 which seeks to delete Section 115. That allows the Secretary of State to retract the delegation order when he decides that the Securities and Investments Board or other designated agency is not fit for its task. We believe that that should not be part of the Act.
These amendments are designed to recognise what I believe is now the status quo. In our view they improve the position of the SIB by giving it and its servants Crown immunity. No doubt some noble Lords will object to the fact that salaries would fall under the supervision of the Treasury. That is rather an old chestnut. The Treasury, with regard to certain agencies, is much more liberal than might be thought about the level of salaries it is prepared to approve. We must recognise that the SIB should have proper staff and that we should remunerate them in a manner which is competitive with staff elsewhere in SROs and in the businesses from which these people will no doubt come, or from which they will be seconded.
These relatively simple amendments tidy up the Act and do much to give security to the SIB and to the financial services financial regulatory system. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, will, I am sure, forgive me for remarking that this set of amendments bears a striking similarity to amendments that he put forward during the passage of the Financial Services Act two and a half years ago. I am sorry to have to tell the Committee that, in consequence, my remarks will have a familar ring. The reason for this is quite simple: the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was misguided on that
1286
occasion and I fear that he is misguided now, for reasons that I shall endeavour to explain.
Underlying this set of amendments is the noble Lord's desire for the Securities and Investments Board to be given some kind of statutory status, although the details have never been entirely clear. I shall return to that broader question in a few moments; but it might be helpful at the outset to outline some of the consequences that would flow from the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Amendment No. 257A, among other things, would have the effect that the only body to which functions under the Act could ever be transferred would be the Securities and Investments Board. I should like to make clear that I have no intention in the present circumstances of transferring functions to any body other than the Securities and Investments Board, which is doing a fine job. But it would be foolish entirely to rule out this option for the future.
It may be, for instance, that in the light of developments in the market, which is evolving and very fluid, it will become desirable to amend Schedule 1 of the Act to extend markedly the definition of "investments". If that were to happen—and I stress that I am talking hypothetically—it may well be that SIB would be unwilling or unable to take on the task of regulating this new area of business or that there was another body better placed so to do. In such circumstances it would be sensible to have available the option, but no more than the option, of transferring functions to that other body while leaving the SIB doing what it is doing at present. Moreover, should it ever prove necessary to resume some or all of the functions transferred to the SIB, it would be sensible to have available the option of transferring them to another body rather than requiring the Secretary of State to exercise them.
The last point leads me to the noble Lord's proposal in Amendment No. 262 that Section 115 of the Financial Services Act should be repealed. That is the section which allows for functions which have been transferred to a designated agency to be resumed in certain circumstances.
It is worth recalling four circumstances in which functions can be resumed. First, functions can be resumed at the request of, or with the consent of, the designated agency. Secondly, they can be resumed if the then Secretary of State considers that the designated agency no longer satisfies the conditions laid down in Schedule 7 to the Act. These are the conditions which have to be satisfied before the functions are transferred in the first place, and it does not seem to me to be unreasonable that, if they are no longer satisfied, the functions should be withdrawn. Thirdly, functions can be withdrawn if the agency is no longer able or willing to perform them. Again, it does not seem to me to be unreasonable that functions should be resumed in these circumstances. Fourthly, functions may be resumed if the agency's rules do not provide an adequate level of investor protection or do not comply with the principles laid down in the Act.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would have the rather startling effect that, once

1287
transferred, functions could not be resumed by the Secretary of State in any circumstances. Once again, I think I should say that the question of resuming powers is, for the moment at least, an entirely hypothetical one. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord really means what his amendment says. Is he telling us that he thinks that an agency which had shown itself unable or unwilling to do the job, or which has produced rules which failed to achieve an adequate standard of investor protection, or which did not have proper monitoring or enforcement arrangements, should be left in the position that those functions could not be withdrawn from it and transferred to another body which could do the job better? I have to tell the Committee that the ability to withdraw functions from the designated agency is an essential safeguard in ensuring that the functions bestowed under the Act continue to be carried out in the way in which Parliament intended. I must also admit to some surprise that the noble Lord should seek to delete one of the provisions designed to ensure that those operating the system are ultimately accountable to Ministers and Parliament.
As I have said, at the heart of this group of amendments is the status of the SIB. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord has said on this matter but I fear that he has still not answered what, for me, is the fundamental question. Let us suppose that the SIB was part of a government department. Can anyone identify a single function which it would then be possible for the SIB to carry out which it cannot, by reason only of its status, exercise now? The SIB can make rules which have all the force of law; it can impose restrictions on businesses which can be enforced through the courts; it can appoint investigators with far-reaching powers; it can disqualify individuals from employment in investment business.
I could go on listing the SIB's powers for several minutes but I hope that I have made the point. I put it to the noble Lord that the powers of the SIB are as extensive as would be the powers of a government department doing the same job. In those circumstances, I apply a simple test. That is, is the SIB doing the job efficiently, and would the job be done any better by a government department? I believe that the answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second is no. Therefore I do not think that there is any advantage to be had in changing the SIB's status—and, indeed, in all the circumstances, it may well be damaging to do so. I must therefore ask Members of the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am afraid that the noble Lord and I seem to live in slightly different worlds. His arguments seem to be wholly fictional: whether there could be another body to which these tasks could suddenly be given overnight, without there being an enormous crisis within the whole system. I simply cannot understand that happening. If there were a crisis in the whole system, I have absolutely no doubt that the Secretary of State would intervene to make sure that the SIB was up to doing the job that it had to do. As Members of the Committee have said, the board does the job perfectly well now; but if
1288
it fell down on the job this provision would cover it. There is simply no question at all of removing the functions from the SIB and transferring them to someone else.
There is one point that I should mention because the noble Lord asked me a question in this respect. Indeed, I mentioned it as long ago as the Second Reading debate on the Financial Services Bill when it came to this Chamber. It concerns the question of immunities. We understand that the SIB has immunity in the United Kingdom; but the SIB being a private body—as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech—has no immunity, and members of the board have no immunity, outside the United Kingdom in foreign jurisdictions which of course Crown servants have. I made the point, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will certainly remember, that the body, the SIB, is a Crown body and has an immunity which the present SIB does not have. Therein lies one of the advantages.
The other advantage of the system that I am proposing is perfectly simple; namely, that the whole fictional world in which the noble Lord seems to live is eradicated, and it becomes a Crown responsibility. It is the job of the Secretary of State to make sure that the SIB carries out its job properly. Moreover, if it does not do its job properly, the Secretary of State can fire all the members of the board if he wishes to do so and produce new ones. In my view, that is a very fundamental point.
We have had a long debate on the previous amendment and I do not intend to detain Members of the Committee on the matter. Nevertheless, I think that on the first debate it was shown that the points which I and some of my noble friends made when the Financial Services Bill was under consideration in this Chamber about the whole system of complexity which we thought would result from the legislation have been proved to be right. The noble Lord may repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas (who said at the time that we were misguided) when he says that we are misguided on the question of the Crown status of SIB.
However, I am sure that he will come to recognise our views. I have absolutely no doubt that in 10 years' time the SIB will be a Crown body, and that it will operate as a permanent feature of the landscape. At that time we may have switched places, but I am quite certain that it will be proved that we from this Dispatch Box were right at the time. As I said, I do not wish to detain Members of the Committee at this stage, so for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 257B:
Before Clause 132, insert the following new clause:
("Takeover offers
.—Before section 172 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (takeover offers) insert—
"Regulatory panel.
171 A.—(1) The Securities and Investments Board shall establish a panel to regulate the conduct of takeovers.s
(2) The members of the panel shall be chosen by the Securities and Investments Board in consultation with the Bank of England.
(3) The Securities and Investments Board shall publish a Code of Practice setting out general principles on the conduct of takeovers and from time to time the panel may issue guidance on the application of the general principles but breach of a provision in the Code shall not itself constitute a breach of regulation issued by the Securities and Investments Board. Such guidance shall lie outside the provisions of section 114 (10) of this Act.
(4) The Securities and Investments Board may also issue regulations governing the conduct of takeovers under the powers delegated to it by virtue of section 114 of this Act.".").
The noble Lord said: We now come to an extremely important amendment. Again, I hope that the Secretary of State will not reply to my introduction by simply saying that we are having a re-run of the debate that we had when the Bill was before this Chamber. However, it is of course more or less the same problem; namely, the status of the Takeover Panel.
I have no criticism, as I said in 1986 when we were debating the matter, of the way the Takeover Panel has operated from 1968 to 1986—other than in the context of the Guinness affair which we were discussing at the time where, in my view, the Takeover Panel had fallen down on the job. On the whole, it has worked fairly well, but of course in 1968, when it was set up by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, when he was Governor of the Bank of England—I am sorry not to see him here in his place today—it was operating, and designed to operate, an entirely different system. The system was completely different from the one which we introduced in the Financial Services Act.
We now have two parallel arrangements: we have a statutory system for the regulation of the issue of securities and the conduct of investment business; and we have a non-statutory system for the regulation of takeover offers. I argued at the time, and I still maintain, that the two systems have difficulty in running in parallel.
Let me take head on the argument that Members on the opposite side of the Committee will undoubtedly adduce—quite rightly—about the Takeover Panel; that is, that it has great flexibility in its operation. We do not wish to destroy that flexibility. The possibility that guidance can be sought and given without having recourse to the courts is one which we should like to maintain. That is why, in Amendment No. 257B, I seek a construct. That construct is not dissimilar to the one which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, put forward on the general problem of financial services regulation where the SIB can set up a code of practice—which is equivalent in my view to the takeover code—and can give guidance on the matter.
Moreover, such guidance will not necessarily have to be reported to the Secretary of State, as is required under the Act at present; yet there can be rules and regulations which are statutory when those are required. That provision seems to me to mirror the existing operation of the Takeover Panel. Nevertheless, it would give the Takeover Panel the assurance that it has the umbrella of statute and the umbrella of the penalties that the SIB can inflict should there be any infringement of the rules and regulations which the provision sets up.
I have not so far mentioned the 13th Company Law Directive, but I must now do so. I must say that I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for sending me a copy of the document as soon as it was available to the department. The directive introduces a suggested regime for takeovers in the European Community. It is a directive which will be considered under Article 100A. As I understand it, that is the article which allows a qualified majority for the Council to approve a directive, and it will therefore not be subject to veto by any one member country.
It is a directive which in my view, and I think in the view of most commentators, adopts a lot of the principles which we are used to in London. Indeed, it is not surprising that it should be so because a high proportion of the takeover activity in the Community takes place in London. But it has the effect, because it is a directive, of putting some of those matters into statute. In particular, Article 1 makes quite clear that this is a directive and that the member states must comply with it. Moreover, Article 6 also spells out in a little greater detail exactly how that will be achieved.
Article I says that,
"Co-ordination measures prescribed by this Directive shall apply to the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to takeover and other general bids".
Article 6 says perfectly clearly that,
"The authorities and, where appropriate, the associations or private bodies referred to in paragraph I must have all the necessary powers to ensure that this Directive is put into effect".
Therefore it looks to us as though we are going into some sort of statutory system if the directive is adopted by the Council. I have read articles in newspapers which state that the Secretary of State will be encouraged to challenge the whole basis of the directive to make sure that the voluntary system—if that is what we have here—should rule throughout the Community.
I wish the noble Lord great success if he can manage to budge a directive which has been adopted by the full Commission and submitted to the Council. I doubt whether that would happen in real life. What we must do is to make sure that the panel which we have at present is, so far as possible, flexible within the terms of the statute but that it should, nevertheless, be brought into line with what we have in the Financial Services Act and with what the directive will impose upon us.
We believe that the amendment, although badly drafted—I make no apology for that—succeeds in that intent. So far as concerns the statutory provision, Section 171A(1) asks that the Securities and Investment Board should establish a panel to regulate the conduct of takeovers, and therefore the panel becomes a dependency of the SIB. We recognise that the Bank of England has a role to play in the panel and, because it is now influential in choosing the members of the panel, it should be influential in choosing the members of the future panel.
In subsection (3) we set out how the general principles—a code of practice—could be established. In subsection (4) we provide for rules to be set out where they are necessary. We believe that those

1291
proposals meet the requirements of present day life in the City of London. It answers the problems that have been raised, not least by the chairman of the Takeover Panel in articles published earlier this year; it complies with the directive with which we shall have to comply. It will give us an altogether more harmonious system of regulation in an important part of consumer protection. It is vital that if we are to have a full system of consumer protection in all other areas, we should have a full system of consumer protection when it comes to takeovers, because that it where many people feel that they are being less well protected than they might otherwise be. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, talked so positively about what I believe is known as the 13th Directive a copy of which I received from the Secretary of State. I thank him for sending me a copy as soon as it became available to his colleagues in the department.
It is essential that the Government somehow indicate as far as possible—I see the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in his place—what their position is in relation to takeovers as set out in that directive. If I had had a copy of the directive earlier I should have pressed the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, much more than I have, to try to have some of the parameters of the Treaty of Rome, especially the well-known factors which arise under Articles 85 and 86, put into the Bill. My valiant attempts were met by grace and charm from the Minister, but we received no further commitment. I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, in congratulating the Secretary of State on the great effort he has put in to increasing industry's interest in what will happen after 1892.
Lord Peston: 1992!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I usually get my figures wrong. The Secretary of State is to be strongly congratulated on that matter.
With the leave of the Committee I should like to mention Amendment No. 257EC which is almost an epilogue to the Bill. I am trying to tempt the Minister to postpone the operation of Part VI, which deals with mergers, until such time as the 13th Directive on takeovers and general bids, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has drawn to our attention, has been finalised. If the Minister can deal with the 13th Directive in some detail I may be able to save a considerable amount of time by not moving the amendment that I have tabled.
Lord Roskill: Ten days ago when I spoke to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I disclosed an interest. Perhaps I may disclose the same interest again because I am, and I have been, as I then told the Committee, chairman of the Takeover Panel Appeals Committee for the past 18 months. It is perhaps irrelevant to mention it again because holding that position has enabled me to observe the workings of the Takeover Panel from a
1292
distance for the past 18 months. I am not a member of the panel but it allows me to attend its meetings. From time to time it discusses its problems with me. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, is unfortunately still out of the country and therefore what I say will be less happily said than if he had said it.
If one wanted to summarise the difference of opinion between the noble Lords who tabled the amendment and those of us who do not believe that it is right, it might be said that it is a difference of opinion between pragmatism and dogma. The Takeover Panel is one of the best examples of working pragmatism that I have ever encountered. One of the matters that one learns in a long experience of the law is that if one can get people to do something of their own free will it is much better to leave them to do it that way than to introduce an element of compulsion which will almost invariably lead to resentment, legalism and the bureaucracy about which the Committee has heard so many complaints from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who moved an earlier amendment.
One of the astonishing things about the Takeover Panel is the way that it works. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that he had only one criticism, which it would not be right for me to repeat. I was delighted to hear that because the panel works extremely well. It works because people agree to do the things that the panel enjoins that they should do. Its decisions are obeyed because they command respect. They command respect because of the people who operate the panel and constitute its members. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, what he suggests the statutory body which he proposes should be set up should do that is achieved almost every day at present in the interests of the protection of shareholders by the panel working as it does.
There will of course be criticism from time to time of the panel. Anyone who has had even a short experience as a judge, let alone a long one, knows that a judge is fortunate if only one party is discontented at the end of his decision. If one sits on the panel one deals with conflicting interests over a wide spectrum of business, finance and the City as a whole. A decision will affect not just a predator, an offeror or an offeree; it will also affect merchant bankers, brokers, bankers and all the rest and yet they will obey the decision. One has seen that happen again and again. One asks what on earth would be achieved by substituting the statutory panel.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that he accepts that the Takeover Panel is flexible. So indeed it is. The situation in the financial markets, as the Committee knows far better than I do, changes week by week and day by day. If we have a statutory provision and an unusual case arises that case will often have to be forced into some rather procrustian bed into which it does not properly fit, and then litigation follows. The worst thing that can happen—it may seem odd for a lawyer to say this—is that such matters become involved again and again in the type of litigation which has haunted takeovers in the United States, Australia and one or two other countries. We cannot have an efficient shareholder protective system if people are going to run to the

1293
courts every time. Rightly or wrongly, the Takeover Panel has been held by the Court of Appeal to be amenable to judicial review. So be it. That is probably a good thing because otherwise it would be suggested that it was beyond and above the law.
It is interesting that there have been only three attempts to tackle the panel by means of the weapon of judicial review. The first two failed and the third never got as far as the review because the application for leave was refused. The truth is that the law tends unhappily to be, and the criminal law long has been, a rather blunt instrument when it comes to matters which require to be dealt with quickly. As the Committee knows, I spent two and a half years as chairman of the Fraud Trials Committee. We tried to sharpen the criminal law. It remains to be seen how sharp it now is. I venture to think that it will soon be found to be a great deal sharper than it was in the past. However, the criminal law is necessarily a long stop and it cannot hope to be as effective as the Takeover Panel when it comes to dealing with matters swiftly and in a hitherto unknown and unexpected situation.
I wish to say one word more, if I may, about the EC position. I do not wish to discuss it at length because I know it is a delicate matter. It is somewhat ironic that one finds—at least I am so told; and this accords with my own reading—that the requirements of the takeover code are in many respects a great deal stricter than those which would be imposed if the directive became part of the law of this country.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, we are ahead of the forms of control which the EC seeks to impose. It would be quite disastrous in my view if there were a lessening, a lowering of the standards which have been voluntarily accepted in this country over the past 20 years and particularly in the past three or four years when so many of these controversies arose, and if we were compelled to fall into line with a law which demanded lower and less effective standards than those which have prevailed in this country in recent times. I hope that the noble Lord in whose name the amendment stands will forgive me if I invite the Committee emphatically to reject the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Boardman: First I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Takeover Panel. That gives me the advantage of a not inconsiderable experience of sitting on the panel and hearing many cases. I shall not detain the Committee by going over the ground so admirably covered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill. He has painted the advantages in a way which I think is clear and in my experience entirely accurate.
I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, had ever been able to see the panel operating—but perhaps he already has.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, I have been a practitioner in the market for a long time—ever since 1966; so I have seen the panel in operation.
Lord Boardman: Then I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to confirm from his own experience the results so ably outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill.
I think there are three courses which may be taken in dealing with takeovers. The one I highly commend is the one in force and in play today. There is the argument, with which I do not agree, for a fully statutory system. Some would argue for that but I believe it would be completely wrong. At any rate, it is one for which there has been argument. The third, which is encompassed in the amendment of the noble Lord, is a hybrid of both, with the worst of both. I suggest it would be quite disastrous.
There is one further point which I wish to add on the merits of the panel to which the noble and learned Lord did not refer. It is the advantage the panel has for prior consultation. It is open to people who are uncertain, the professional practitioners who are not quite certain of the appropriate course to take. It is open to them to consult the panel in advance. That would be quite impossible if it were a legalistic system. People could not do so. One cannot consult a judge in advance to find out how he would rule if one brought a case before him. This is very important.
I shall not go over the ground which has been so ably covered except to say that the amendment would be very unfortunate and a disservice to commerce, industry and the investors. After all, those are the people whom we are most concerned to protect and it would be a disservice to all of them if we should depart from the system which is working so well.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask whether he confirms what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, has been saying about the position when the thirteenth directive of the EC becomes operative. That is particularly having regard to the single European market.
Lord Boardman: Yes. At the moment it has been conceded that this is a suggestion contained in the directive which is open for discussion, and I understand (and certainly hope) that the Government will strongly oppose it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, has said, these regulations would produce a less effective and less stringent control than we have at present. I think it would be very unfortunate if we were to accept a lowering of standards in order to comply with some EC-imposed regulation. I hope that we shall not reach that situation.
Lord Elton: I also declare an interest as a member of the panel, though of much more recent date than my noble friend. I have another interest which I have already declared, as a member of an SRO which is part of the system. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was referring to that when he said that the two systems had difficulty when working in parallel. If that is the case, I can assure him that I am not aware of the difficulty. If the two systems were not in parallel, I should presumably be doing the splits.

1295
The other matter I wish to point out is that it is very nearly the 21st birthday of the panel. During its almost 21 years of existence, the panel has monitored well over 5,000 takeovers. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, only takes exception to one of its conclusions, I think that is a much higher success rate than might be expected from any statutory body.
Lord Cockfield: It had not been my intention to intervene in the debate, but in view of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, I am compelled to do so. He made two comments about the thirteenth company law directive, the first of which I entirely agree with: that it is premature to be discussing the directive. The second point he made, I suspect, is wrong. The directive would not compel an individual member state to adopt lower standards than it wishes. It prevents a member state imposing on other member states standards which are higher than those prescribed by the directive. That is an important point. I am sure that once a directive is examined in detail it will be seen that it does not undermine the operations of the Takeover Panel. We went to quite extraordinary lengths to ensure that the Takeover Panel was left untouched as far as possible by the thirteenth directive.
Without wishing to debate the directive in detail, we must bear in mind that Community legislation applies to all 12 member states. It is one thing to have a voluntary system for ourselves, but there are very soon complaints about voluntary systems operated by other people. It is for that reason that we need at least a minimum framework of Community law. The thirteenth directive set out to provide no more than the absolute minimum framework that was required.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I do not wish to discuss the thirteenth directive, which I understand is still being debated and on which the Government still have to express a clear view. As I understand the amendment, I believe it reflects a growing anxiety in the public mind about the nature, the conduct and the extent of takeovers and mergers in recent years.
We would all agree with the Members of the Committee who have already spoken that every case must be considered, in the last resort, on its merits. But I do not believe that we have a system yet whereby the public interest and the interests of shareholders are best protected. There is a case for new ground rules. Having been concerned myself in a hostile takeover bid against me and occasionally in takeover bids against others, two things worry me very much. First, I am concerned at the deterioration in standards in the conduct of takeover bids, largely as a result of the aggressive tactics of some merchant banks which almost encourage bids and take large fees and commissions from the companies involved. Secondly, I am concerned at the behaviour of institutional shareholders who—unlike, for example, their German counterparts—increasingly regard share certificates as casino chips to be used to secure short-term capital gains rather than long-term investments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has acknowledged, and as the noble and learned Lord,
1296
Lord Roskill, has so clearly demonstrated, for over 20 years the Takeover Panel has made a substantial contribution in protecting shareholders. But it is not concerned with the financial and commercial merits of takeovers. Questions of public interest are dealt with by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry.
We must look at this problem in a world where takeover activity is both increasing and taking new forms, such as management and leveraged buy-outs. In this situation, the panel has been looked at more closely perhaps than in the past two decades. I, like other Members of the Committee, have every confidence in the chairman of the panel, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and in his colleagues who have spoken here today in their various capacities. But there are inevitably nuts and bolts issues with which they are not very closely or personally involved.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, said that theTakeover Panel is one of the best examples of working pragmatism. That may be so. I acknowledge that the flexibility it has is necessary, to a large degree, to deal speedily with novel circumstances. However, there are so many novel circumstances and so many takeover bids that some of us who are involved one way or another feel that areas of uncertainty are now arising in respect of many matters.
I must confess that I do not much care for putting the Takeover Panel under the SIB. Therefore, I could not vote for the amendment as it now stands. It may be more sensible to argue that another alternative could be the case for putting the Takeover Panel on the same kind of statutory footing as the SIB itself. Then the Secretary of State would have the power to make takeover rules but would delegate that power to the Takeover Panel.
I come now to the point raised in the amendment about codes of practice. We need a system whereby the Government and the panel have regard to the wider dimensions—the ease or the difficulty of takeovers in other jurisdictions. Other Members of the Committee, as is sometimes customary in our proceedings, find little fault in our own system. But whatever view we take of the 13th directive as it now stands, I believe that we must create a fairer playing field in Europe for the good of British companies. There are anxieties in that field to which noble Lords have referred in various debates during the progress of the Bill.
Meanwhile, I take the view that it would be unwise to change the present tried and tested system unless we are sure we have something better to put in its place. I do not think that that case is yet made out. As to the code of practice setting out general principles, to which the amendment refers, I feel that there is a case for some new approach. When I raised this matter in another place nearly three years ago on 12th March 1986, I suggested we should study action that has been taken in other countries to regulate takeovers. In America, for example, a number of states apply criteria that many people feel we might now usefully adopt. In Colorado, an independent board of directors has to vet a bid for a financial

1297
institution and a 25 per cent. holding is deemed to be a change of control which it will investigate. In Minnesota, the single most important component of company law is the requirement that acquiring companies must disclose their operational plans for the target company.
In Germany, a company's workers have an absolute right to be consulted on decisions that will have an effect on their future, such as mergers. In Canada, action has been taken to ensure that bids over £250 million have to be referred to the equivalent of our Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
After the 1986 debate, I received written assurances from Ministers in the DTI that its review of mergers law and policy would involve examining a number of countries including Canada, Germany and the United States. Among other things the department was to consider the merits of the pre-merger notification requirements of American and German law. As a separate issue I was told that the review would consider how the department could best support the Takeover Panel further in its job of regulating takeovers.
I may have missed some paper along the way, but I do not think I have seen any significant results from that review or any clear indication of the conclusions of the study that was to be taken of action in other countries. I hope that the Secretary of State has a copy of the letter I received. I hope that he can give some indication of the results of that review and that he will agree to publish them.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boardman: I hope it will help if I inform my noble friend that there is a working party within the Takeover Panel which is looking at a great range of points which the noble Lord has mentioned.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I am delighted to hear that. I hope that it will not take as long as the Department of Trade and Industry to publish the results of its conclusions. But the very fact that there is—
Lord Young of Graffham: The noble Lord should listen to my reply before he draws conclusions.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I very much hoped that that would be the case. No doubt my hopes will be fully realised. I am not making any criticism of the Secretary of State. I am saying that I hope that the Takeover Panel will produce those results soon. The very fact that it has a working party shows that it has at any rate an appreciation of the public's anxieties in this regard. While I do not feel that we can make a structural change at present of the kind suggested in the amendment, there are some fundamental issues which have to be tackled. Consideration should be given to new guidelines, whether they are expressed in a code of practice or in some other way.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I have some sympathy for the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with regard to the status of the SIB in five or 10 years' time. However, I cannot believe that at this moment it
1298
would be right to burden that body with another set of duties, such as appointing a panel to take over from, or to run alongside, the existing Takeover Panel.
When we debated this matter some three years ago, I was sturdily of the view that the panel was at that time the best kind of regulatory authority we had because of its flexibility and because it was practitioner-based. I must confess to having been swayed over recent years. I now believe that we need something a little sterner than that. We need something that is more easily recognised by the participants over which that body is to preside.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, said that it was a pragmatic success. I do not dissent from that view. However, my noble friend Lord Rippon made the point very succinctly that there have been a number of takeovers, on which the panel may have given advice one way or another, which have been greatly disturbing to some shareholders. Some takeovers and mergers have contributed nothing to the wealth of the country. In relation to wealth I am not talking in terms of money. So much of what has gone on has meant that a lot of money has been chasing a lot of other money, not necessarily to the long-term benefit of the community.
I hope that I have interpreted the remarks of my noble friend Lord Boardman correctly that the Takeover Panel is currently looking at the way in which it operates and therefore the way in which it is seen by others to operate.
Lord Boardman: I am grateful to my noble friend. I am not a member of the working party. It is considering various issues such as the threshold for compulsory bids and other matters which have been debated widely outside this House.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to my noble friend. No doubt the working party will take note of the comments made in your Lordships' Committee.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cockfield for his explanation of the 13th directive. In the light of the 13th directive I think that it is perhaps premature to press the kind of argument which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has presented this afternoon. It is my understanding that a directive sets the minimum standard and it is left to member states to interpret the directive into domestic law so that domestic law should not have a lower value than the directive prescribes.
I believe that it would be best to leave the Takeover Panel as it is in the hope that it can improve its presentation and have regard to the longer-term issues involved.
Lord Young of Graffham: In listening to the very interesting debate on the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I very much regretted the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, whose wise counsels on this day would have been very welcome to your Lordships' Committee. I regret even more the sad reason for his absence today.

1299
The primary concern with regard to any system for the supervision of the conduct of takeovers is that it should work. It must ensure that the interests of shareholders are protected while maintaining an open and efficient market for takeovers. The important point about the Takeover Panel is that it does work: it achieves its objectives. Few would dispute the fact that it has performed its function well since it was set up in 1968, perhaps with the one exception to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred.
During debates on the Financial Services Bill there were some who argued that the panel could not be expected to cope with the recent increase of takeover activity, and that takeover regulation should be brought within the Bill. That was some two years ago. Since then the panel has gone from strength to strength under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. It continues to exercise authority over those it regulates, and the level of compliance with the code is high. Of course there will always be isolated cases of non-compliance, as with any regulatory system. However, there is no suggestion that the occurrence of such cases is widespread, and I believe that the panel has proved itself to be an effective regulator.
The performance of the panel since the passing of the Financial Services Act confirms that Parliament was correct in its decision not to bring takeover regulation within the ambit of the Act. That was confirmed by my noble friend Lord Boardman in recounting his experiences as a member of the panel. Indeed, to some extent, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, appear to accept that. The intention seems as much to be to bring the Act's regime more into line with that of the panel as to bring the panel into line with the Act. However, the past two years have shown that the panel and the supervisory bodies under the Act work excellently side by side without the need for any formal statutory link.
My noble friend Lord Rippon has referred to a review of overseas mergers and other reviews which were occasioned by the debate in your Lordships' House some two years ago. There were two aspects. One was a review of mergers policy. It was in that context that overseas practice was considered. The results were used in the preparation of the Blue Paper on mergers policy which I published at the beginning of last year.
In May 1987, my predecessor as Secretary of State announced the outcome of a review of the operations of the Takeover Panel. That review, which I believe was the review referred to in the letter mentioned by my noble friend, was undertaken not only by my department but included the Treasury, the Bank of England, the SIB, the Stock Exchange and the Takeover Panel itself. The conclusion, announced in May 1987, was that the panel should continue in its existing form, but that certain measures should be taken to strengthen its hand. As a result of the review steps have been taken to ensure that the panel has the benefit of support from the SIB, the Stock Exchange and appropriate self-regulating organisations, as my
1300
noble friend Lord Elton has already testified this afternoon.
The SIB and the self-regulatory organisations have made it clear that their sanctions are available to be used against authorised persons who show themselves not to be 'fit and proper' by breaking the takeover code. They have adopted 'cold-shoulder' rules requiring investment businesses not to act for individuals or companies who the businesses have reason to believe will not comply with the code. They also have rules requiring authorised persons to co-operate with the panel in inquiries and investigations.
The composition of the panel now includes the Securities Association and IMRO in addition to FIMBRA and the Stock Exchange, which were already members. In order to facilitate co-operation between the panel and the bodies under the Act, the panel has been designated to receive regulatory information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. In the light of these steps, I do not believe that it can be argued that there has been any difficulty in the panel operating outside but in a close relationship with the Act's regime. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, has paid tribute to the flexibility of the workings of the panel.
It is impossible to tell with certainty whether the current self-denying approach of the courts towards the panel's rulings could continue unchanged if the panel were to have a formal status under the Financial Services Act. I suspect that the special reasons justifying that approach would no longer exist. Moreover, any increase in access to the courts would result in an increase in litigation used for purely tactical and delaying purposes during takeovers.
That is why I believe that my noble friend Lord Rippon is mistaken in this matter. I believe that putting the panel on a statutory basis would in the end undermine it. It would provide a whole new armoury of legal devices which would be used both by the aggressor and the defender in bids and we should find that the whole process of takeovers would fall into disrepute.
I say to my noble friend Lord Lucas that I am not sure how putting the matter on a statutory or non-statutory basis would repair the damage of which he complains. I should be grateful to receive more evidence of such damage because I confess that I regard the whole process of bids as being entirely healthy. In fact it serves to keep boards of management on their toes and ensures that the performance of companies does not lag behind.
I should like to comment on three elements of the operation of the panel on any non-statutory basis. First, as I have already said, the panel's own sanctions are effective. I need only turn to its rulings on the Guinness-Distillers and the AE-Turner and Newall takeovers for that evidence. The second of the elements is flexibility. The code imposes very high standards of behaviour by being expressed in strict terms. The consensual nature of the rules allows dispensation to be made where shareholders' interests are not at stake. I am not sure that that would be the case if they were statutory rules.

1301
The third element—which I must confess, living in my very statutory world, I rather envy—is speed. The panel interprets the rules, allowing definitive rulings to be made very quickly. The Court of Appeal has recognised the importance of that element in takeovers and that is why it has constrained itself from attempting to reverse decisions made by the panel. I must confess that I am not sure whether that would continue to apply if there were an underlying statutory basis for the panel itself.
That brings us to the speculation regarding the 13th company law directive on takeovers which has just been published by the European Commission. The speculation about the effectiveness or the operation of the 13th directive is no reason for supporting the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Cockfield has testified, it is premature. The central issue in relation to the directive is whether it will be compulsory and must be implemented through legally binding rules. We have by far the most active Stock Exchange in the Community. Our financial system is as advanced as any. We should like to see a voluntary system for ourselves with other countries free to adopt it on either a voluntary or a compulsory basis. We believe that it is in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the wider single market in Europe that the directive should allow for non-legally binding rules in all member states which wish to follow that particular route.
I believe it is important that the directive should not increase litigation in relation to takeovers in the Community. That would erect new barriers to takeovers rather than eliminating existing ones. But the Government believe that that point must be addressed in the directive and we are encouraged by the fact that the Commission is not without sympathy for our concerns. We shall continue to discuss the subject with it and the other member states in order to arrive at an acceptable solution, but at the moment it is far too early for us to legislate in an attempt to anticipate the implementation of the directive.
I therefore believe that the case for change has not been made. Furthermore, the past two years have made it more difficult than it was in 1986 to argue that the takeover regulations should be brought within the ambit of the Financial Services Act. The panel's authority has not been undermined. Far from it; it has increased. The provisions of the Financial Services Act have not cut across those operated by the panel. They have worked side by side to their mutual benefit, as my noble friend Lord Elton has testified. The advantages of a consensual code have been emphasised. The speed and flexibility of the working of the panel are not diminished. The lesson is that, rather than changing the system in the United Kingdom, we should, with all the power at our disposal, encourage our European partners to follow our example.
In commenting on an Opposition amendment on takeovers during the Third Reading of the Financial Services Bill, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said that there was no point in mending something that was not broken. I make no apology for repeating that point because there is no reason to believe that the system of regulation under the
1302
Takeover Panel will break. We should not undermine it by making an unnecessary and undesirable change, and I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to Committee Members who have taken part in the debate. I expected to hear only one or two spokesmen from the Takeover Panel, but we have heard three—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill and the noble Lords, Lord Boardman and Lord Elton, all of whom are members of the panel. Alas, none of my noble friends enjoys that privilege because we on this side of the Chamber do not seem to be appointed to the panel. That may say something about the panel or about us; I do not know. I leave the matter at that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, made the traditional defence, and we respect what he says. I do not believe that the Takeover Panel's present sanctions—the tap on the wrist and the wigging, as it is called—are tremendously effective. As a practitioner, I know that a number of people regard it as a mark of their ability to slide as close to the wind as they possibly can. If they get rapped over the knuckles by the panel, they say, "We nearly defeated the panel the other day". That is what happens.
On the question of agreeing with all decisions, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, got me wrong. I did not say that I agreed with all the panel's decisions; I simply disagreed rather violently with one of its decisions which I mentioned. That does not mean to say that I agreed with all the others. As a practitioner—I speak in this case in the Committee as a practitioner—I have been on the wrong side of many of the panel's decisions with which I have profoundly disagreed. If it always agreed with me, I should have thought that I would agree with the panel, but unfortunately one has to take the rough with the smooth.
I agree with one point made by the Secretary of State; namely, that in one sense in this amendment and the previous ones that we moved we are trying to bring together the two systems—the Act and the panel. That point is very important. We are trying to do that and it is sensible to have a coherent system. I still do not believe that the two systems can run for ever in parallel. All the curious arrangements that the Secretary of State described—such as people getting together and arranging for cold-shouldering—are pretty artificial ways of trying to make sure that the gap that exists between one system and the other is narrowed rather than eliminated altogether.
As a matter of interest, among the practitioners whom I know in the City of London—I know quite a few after all these years—I know no one who believes that cold-shouldering means very much at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, said he was worried that prior discussion could not take place if there were a statutory body. Over the years, I have had many prior discussions with the Office of Fair Trading on mergers and deals in which I have been involved, but I have never had any problems. Perhaps that is because of my personal friendship with Sir Gordon Borrie, although it may be that he is more flexible than others. As regards prior discussion with a statutory body, there is no problem whatsoever.

1303
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, made some interesting general points, many of which I agree with. I believe that he has a good argument, on which we would do well to reflect, when he says that the Takeover Panel as presently constituted, including its philosophy, has not addressed the genuine worries of people in this country about the way in which takeovers are conducted. In my view, that worry is quite widespread.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, again returned to some of the arguments that we heard when the Bill was before the House on a previous occasion. I was glad to hear him say that he thought there might be some substance in what we said at the time. I reiterate what I said on the Third Reading of the Financial Services Bill in the same way as the Secretary of State reiterated what the Minister said; namely, that it is not a question of something being broken, but of making a system work rather better than it does at the moment.
I believe that the bringing together of the Act and the panel will lead us into the 13th directive quite properly and sensibly. Ultimately, the consumer will never be satisfied until takeovers are conducted on a statutory basis. That is the fundamental principle on which I shall ask the Committee to decide.
5.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 257B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO. I

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Ampthill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Buckmaster, V.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mais, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Mountevans, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Northfield, L.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fitt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L[Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Galpern, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

White, B.

Hirsfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hooson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

1304

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Long, V.

Aldington, L.

Lyell, L.

Allerton, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Arran, E.

McAlpine of West Green,

Auckland, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beloff, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bessborough, E.

Manton, L.

Bethell, L.

Margadale, L.

Blatch, B.

Marley, L.

Boardman, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cockfield, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Coleraine, L.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pender, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Craigavon, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Pym, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Quinton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Reay, L.

Dundee, E.

Rees, L.

Elibank, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Elles, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rodney, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

Roskill, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gridley, L.

Shannon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale. L.

Strange, B.

Halsbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicolls, L.

Strathspey, L.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hemphill, L.

Suffield, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinton, E.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hood, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trafford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Joseph, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Wynford, L.

Kimberley, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 257C and 257D not moved.]
Clause 132 [Restriction of right to bring action for contravention of rules, regulations &c.]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 257E:
Page 125, line 22, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: In a way this is a probing amendment to elicit a government explanation

1305
about what Clause 132(1) means because the innocent reader of the Bill would have great difficulty in understanding exactly what is meant.
The new section in the Financial Services Act which it is proposed to insert, distinguishes between a private investor and presumably someone who is not a private investor. It is up to the Secretary of State to make regulations to define what a private investor is. It is no secret that when the Financial Services Bill was in another place, Mr. Michael Howard rejected a possibility that was put forward by Mr. Tim Smith of a distinction between professional investors and small scale investors. Perhaps I may quote from what he said. He was the Minister in charge of the Bill at the time.
"I came to the conclusion that it would be extraordinarily difficult to arrive at such a distinction, because of the difficulties of defining a professional investor in that context".—[Official Report Commons, 11/6/86; col. 425.]
Presumably something has now changed to make it easy for the Government to arrive at a distinction between a private investor and an institution investor. I shall be interested to know what has changed since those days. No doubt the Secretary of State will be able to enlighten me.
The second difficulty that I have with this new clause is that it is up to the Secretary of State to define what is meant by the private investor. In other words, we have a new clause in the Financial Services Act that is left in an incomprehensible state until the Secretary of State produces regulations to make it comprehensible. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, particularly in view of Section 62A(3) which concerns the regulations that the Secretary of State may make. He,
"may make different provision with respect to different cases".
In other words we do not know what different classes of investor or even different investors will be defined in one category or another.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to convince us that this provision is, first, necessary and, secondly, operable. I could understand it, if he adopted the view that all investors are able to sue or that an investor is able to sue. Both those are comprehensible. We may argue the merits of each position, but to have some being able to sue and others not being able to do so seems an odd system and possibly rather odd in law. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: When we were discussing an earlier amendment I indicated that I thought that this amendment on principles was somehow linked. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, described the amendment as a probing amendment. I wonder whether against that background I might make a few comments for the Committee, primarily to enable the Government to give further consideration not only to the discussion document, but to the questions that inevitably arise when a new section is inserted into a Bill.
The Government are right to bring forward the provision to amend Section 62. Those who are responsible for implementing and maintaining the system will be glad to see the provision. I understand
1306
that among many others the Securities Association has formally and publicly welcomed the proposal.
Whether it was right or wrong, Section 62 has been seen as a prime cause of much of the complexity surrounding the introduction of the new regulatory system. But the threat that any breach of a rule made by a regulator could lead to legal action under Section 62 has had adverse consequences. Regulators have had to devise rules to cope with any contingency. They have drawn rule books which will satisfy lawyers, first and foremost, faced with possible court actions. As a result this has led to what I understand the Americans call "safe harbours".
The comprehensibility of the regulatory system as a result has suffered. I do not believe we can blame the regulators. We talked about them a little earlier this afternoon. But any alleged breach of an SRO rule can lead to expensive court action at the suit, not only of the professional but also of what I might call the Aunt Agatha. A professional could use the threat of action to his advantage. One might almost say, in the privilege of this Committee, that this is a weapon more usually associated with commercial blackmail.
One can hardly blame the regulator for his attempts to achieve maximum provision, nor the authorised business for its attempt to build in as much protection to its position as possible. My noble friend Lord Elton described this protection in terms of customer documentation which I believe lessens the confidence that the buyer of the product has, not only in the product but in the purveyor of the product—what I might call the small print syndrome.
In welcoming the new clause I would make so bold as to extend a word of caution, because the extent to which rule books can be simplified will depend on the content of the regulations to be made under the provisions of this clause. My advice to my noble friend the Secretary of State is to draw quite clear distinctions. If the definition of "private investor" leaves any grey area, any area where investors and investment businesses are uncertain of the applicable category, there will have to be qualifications in the rule books. Surely the objective of the simplification will then be much diluted and investors will again not be certain where they stand.
In discussing these matters with the Securities Association, whose advice I have drawn on heavily for this part of the Bill, I have discovered that it is looking for regulations which will tend to be quite simple. Perhaps I may suggest therefore that a good starting point might be the concept that a private investor is a natural person. That concept would have to be developed, but I do not believe that this Committee is the right place to develop it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is a natural person also a person who invests through a unit trust?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: A natural person is the investor, however he goes about it. Whether he allows his investment to be discharged by others is a different argument and one which I do not propose to be drawn into by the noble Lord.
I was suggesting that the clause as written leaves it open for there to be exceptions to the rule for non-

1307
private investors—I suppose that these are the professional institutes. We find these rather ridiculous descriptions of people, so I will stay with what I would call the non-private investor. He cannot bring an action. I hope therefore that we can recognise quite quickly that if we are not careful we shall build into the regulatory system a two-tier system. As soon as one has a two-tier system, that of the private investor "except for" and the professional investor "in addition to", the pitfalls are perhaps wider and larger than those we have already. Quite clearly there have to be categories of actionable and non-actionable rules that are easily distinguished in all cases. That is no easy task and the scope for confusion will be great. That surely is the job of the Minister's department together with the SIB and the SROs. We are engaged, by virtue of the consultative document, in something of a tidying-up and cleaning-up exercise.
If we can get this part of it right, it will do much to achieve the objectives of fair and flexible protection for investors which is also, if I may use a popular but not nice phrase, user friendly, to those whose business is regulated by them. I do not believe that in assenting to the clause as it is written the Committee will in any way be diluting investor protection. We have to consider the regulations that will be made under the provisions of the clause. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would be glad to hear exactly the areas in which the Government expect to make regulations and also upon whom those regulations will bear. Then we might have the opportunity of revising the new clause, if revision is then deemed to be necessary.
6 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like to explain why I put my name to the amendment dealing with the restriction of right of action. It is a probing amendment. I could not understand the full significance of the first paragraph to which the proposed amendment refers. I am unclear about the effect of the proposed Section 62A on rights of action which may accrue otherwise than because a breach of the rules alone. For example, there may be a breach of an SRO's rules which may also give rise to a liability under the general law. It may be a matter of negligence.
It is assumed that under the section there is no intention to remove a plaintiff's rights under the general law. However, the paragraph provides that no action shall lie in respect of a contravention to which Section 62 applies and which is, arguably, wide enough to have that effect. Many SROs do no more than restate the law. Perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify the position.
Lord Young of Graffham: The amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams, Lord Peston and Lord Lloyd, would, by its operation, destroy the modification to Section 62 of the Financial Services Act 1986 which I announced last November. It may be convenient therefore if I say a little about our reasons for proposing this modification. Section 62 is
1308
the provision which makes it explicit that investors can sue for damages if they suffer loss as the result of an authorised person breaching either requirements imposed under the Act, most notably the rules and regulations concerning conduct of business and other matters, or the corresponding rules of a recognised self-regulating organisation or a recognised professional body. This is a provision to which the Government have always attached considerable importance. It is little comfort to an investor who has lost money because a firm has failed to meet the standards of conduct expected, even if the firm concerned suffers the harshest form of disciplinary action possible and has its authorisation revoked. The investor has still lost money as a result of that misconduct. Section 62 provides a mechanism for recovering that money, subject to proper judicial safeguards.
I shall look at the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. However, it is not intended that we should remove any other rights: the right is only that by virtue of suing under Section 62.
When the Financial Services Bill was before your Lordships' House, the debate on the provision understandably concentrated on the nature of those safeguards. It was made explicit that the defences available in a Section 62 action would be the same as those in actions for breach of statutory duty. Nevertheless, experience gained since the Bill received its Royal Assent has highlighted a rather different and unforeseen problem. It concerns the consequences of making Section 62 available as between practitioners; market competitors, for instance. I have to say that it is by no means clear that it does so apply.
One of the principles of action for breach of statutory duty is that it enures for the benefit only of those for whose protection the duty is intended and against losses of the kind at which it is directed. Market competitors almost certainly do not come into that category. But there is a category where the issue is less clear cut. For example, large institutions or in some cases counterparties in the market. I think it is clear that it will be worthwhile for a private investor to pursue a Section 62 claim only where he has a genuine case.
Where dealings between professional investors are concerned, however, there is a much greater danger of persons looking for technical breaches and then using Section 62 actions as a means of securing commercial advantage. It has been represented to me that this produces two undesirable effects. The first is that it encourages a generally litigious attitude on the part of the professional investors. I do not believe that that is a healthy development for the reputation of our financial markets. Secondly, concern about the operation of Section 62 seems to have led practitioners and their legal advisers to press for the new rule books to be much more detailed and legalistic than we originally envisaged.
Today the Committee has spent a long time debating the consequences of that. I believe that the concern arose before people saw Section 62 as having to be defined precisely in legalistic terms. Members of the Committee will be aware of the Government's

1309
support for the current efforts being made to simplify these rule books.
In the light of those representations, we have considered it right to modify Section 62 by making it possible for the right to sue to be removed from practitioners and professional investors. The announcement of that conclusion last November was widely welcomed throughout the financial services community, not least by those who would lose the right to sue. I remain convinced that that is a desirable modification.
The professional investor will not be able to rely on the fact that a course of conduct was a breach of a rule. However, if the conduct was actionable on other grounds—in other words, breach of contract, agency law, or negligence—even without reference to the rules he would be able to sue on those grounds. We are now dealing specifically with the rights to sue under Section 62.
The proposition referred to when the Financial Services Bill was in another place related to defining professional investors in the Act and of excluding such businesses from the Financial Services Act. It may give comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Williams—on the other hand, it may not—to know that we propose to make the definition precise in secondary legislation. I know that the noble Lord is not fond of secondary legislation. He has that peculiar quirk in his nature and at this hour I shall not attempt to remedy that—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Lord would not be so fond if he were in opposition.
Lord Young of Graffham: I hope not to have that experience; but we shall see. We incorporated the definition in secondary legislation, first, because it is more amendable to change; and, secondly, our proposed definition would be for limited purposes only. I believe that it will deal with the legitimate anxieties expressed by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
We still believe that it would be wrong to exclude professional investors from all of the Act's provisions. However, I believe that by adopting the course which we are undertaking, and by the general welcome received from those who, apparently, would lose their right to sue, it will be a key amendment enabling the simplification of the rule book. That is widely welcomed by all sides of the Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the Secretary of State indicate what he means by a "professional" investor and a "private" investor? I do not want the regulations on the Table today but I should like to know roughly what he means.
Lord Young of Graffham: It is self-evident: "professional" investors are professional investors and "private" investors are private investors. However, I hope that the rules which we bring forward at the time of secondary legislation will define the terms. They tend to vary from individual market to individual market.
1310
We are looking at those who could be described as "innocent" investors. They are those to whom it was envisaged the full protection of the Financial Services Act should apply. Those who invest as "amateurs"—for want of a better definition—would have the full rigour of the Act. We should look at those who would lose the right to sue. The policy refers to practitioners or professional investors; the two terms being interchangeable.
The new Section 62A operates by defining a "private" investor in secondary legislation. Secondary legislation will also be able to specify circumstances in which the right to sue is retained even for professional investors. In some cases that follows from the need to comply with Community obligations. However, the precise definition is something at which we must look very carefully and define from market to market and according to the circumstances of the case. In essence it is simply this: an amateur investor will continue to have the full protection of Section 62 and the person whose business it is to invest money will not.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may probe further. I do not like the expression "amateur investor". It implies that private investors are amateur although they may be very professional in the way they go about investing. However, let us suppose that an individual investor invests through a unit trust. Presumably he is no longer a private investor. The unit trust is the vehicle and is therefore the professional investor. Am I right in that assumption?
Lord Young of Graffham: I assume that a private investor is covered by Section 62 in his investment in that unit trust. The unit trust itself in its operations in the market will surely be a professional investor.
Lord Peston: I believe that the noble Lord has now arrived at the point we wanted to reach. Many of those he calls professionals and practitioners are ultimately operating for, to use his expression, the "innocent" investor. Therefore, that distinction does not seem to be as clear-cut as the noble Lord suggests. I am an "innocent" investor. I certainly never act on my own behalf. However, others, whether engaged in unit trusts or pension funds, are acting on my behalf as an "innocent". Therefore I do not see —and this is what my noble friend asks—why this right of innocence is not transmitted forward to the professionals acting for us.
Perhaps I may pursue this further. Is there any possibility that before he frames the regulations the Secretary of State will have consultations on this matter? It seems to me that it is rather complex, and it may be useful to consult various bodies which typically concern themselves with the interests of private investors as to their views.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Let us suppose that the professional, whether he is a unit trust manager or a practitioner, in the completion of a document, makes a technical error. The recipient sues for breach of

1311
contract, incorrect contract or something of that nature. The "innocent" may very well make an error of the same kind but could not be sued in such a case. Perhaps I may go back to an analogy which comes quickly to mind. When I practised business in the retail motor car industry which concern used motor cars, if the seller described a motor car as a 1960 model XYZ and sold it into the trade and it was subsequently found that it was not of such a description and the trader took that person to court, the court would probably throw out the claim on the basis of caveat emptor. However, if one sold the same motor car with the same description to a private individual who subsequently found the description to be incorrect, then the private individual would probably have the court's decision in his favour. Surely, that is what we are trying to decide in this clause. We take away the technical errors which an expert or somebody with expertise should be expected to see and to accommodate whereas the "innocent" would not.
Lord Young of Graffham: I can give a categorical assurance to the Committee that should the occasion arise, I would certainly buy a used car from my noble friend. I am grateful to him for his description because it encapsulates what we are talking about.
Perhaps I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to lose a little of his innocence in putting this point to him. We are not talking about taking away any investors' rights in the normal corpus of law, be it tort, contract or whatever. We are talking about a specific right under Section 62 which protects the amateur or occasional investor but not the investor whose full time occupation it is to invest in the market. That is what we are talking about.
To take the example the noble Lord gave, if I wished to invest my money in the unit trust and I was not given all the facts I should have been given because it did not comply with whatever the regulations were, then I should have a right to sue that unit trust for any resultant loss. However, the unit trust fund managers when dealing with other professional people in the market, should not be able to rely on Section 62. That is the universal point. We should not have professionals using it against each other.
I give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and to all Members of the Committee that my department will consult widely before we frame these regulations. We know how important they are, and I very much hope that as a result of the consultation there will be an adequate and satisfactory definition.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We believe that it is important that there should be wide consultation. I still tend to agree with Mr. Michael Howard's remarks that this matter will be extremely difficult. However, we accept that the Department of Trade and Industry will do its best and we look forward to the draft regulations coming before us. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 132 agreed to.
1312
Clause 133 [Requirements for recognition of investment exchange]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 257EA:
Page 126, line 21. after ("procedures") insert ("in relation to transactions on the exchange").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment and relates to the Government amendment of Schedule 4 to the Financial Services Act 1986. That deals with requirements for recognition of investment exchange and to paragraph 2 of that schedule entitled, "Safeguards for Investments". That is consequently a matter of some importance and significance.
I have been advised by the Law Society that it is experiencing difficulties with the words, "to deal with" in sub-paragraph 2A(2)(b) of the Government amendment. That sub-paragraph states:
"The references in paragraph 2(4) above, and elsewhere in this Act, to ensuring the performance of transactions on an exchange are to—(b) having procedures to deal with the consequences of the default of a person party to such transactions".
The Law Society advises me that it is concerned lest the words "to deal with" go too far. Its reasons for suggesting that this is a more suitable amendment to deal with this matter is that the consequence of the default in question in this section may extend beyond areas within the competent or control of the exchange and its procedures. Therefore, it was suggested that the wording of my amendment in relation to transactions on the exchange should be helpfully introduced after the word "procedures". That would help to confine the obligation within satisfactory limits. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The purpose of the new subparagraph 2A(2) which this clause inserts into Schedule 4 of the Financial Services Act is to clarify the meaning of the expression:
"ensuring the performance of transactions"
used there. The intention is to make it clear that the exchange is not itself required to guarantee the completion of a transaction in the event of a default.
In order to provide a proper level of investor protection, it is important that an exchange's default procedures deal effectively with a member's contracts with his investor clients, as well as his contracts with other members of the exchange. While a member's contracts with other exchange members will clearly be transactions on the exchange, his contracts with investors may not be. The wording used in the new sub-paragraph 2A(2)(b) is wide enough to cover such off-exchange contracts with investors. The noble Lord's amendment would narrow it. It has not been put to us that the clause would cause any difficulty in the context of the clarification it makes. However, I am prepared to look at the matter further.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am obliged to the Minister. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 133 agreed to.

1313
Clause 134 [Set off in bankruptcy]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 257EB:
Page 126, line 41, at end insert—
("(3) Without prejudice to subsections (I) and (2) above, parties concerned may waive the benefit of statutory set off.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a technical matter in regard to set-offs in bankruptcy. Clause 134, which the Government propose to amend, deals with set-offs but seems to leave unclear the position in regard to statutory set-offs. Again, it has been brought to my attention by the Law Society that the Government may have overlooked a recommendation made by Sir Kenneth Cork, an ex-Lord Mayor. He has a great reputation for dealing with insolvent companies and was very good at avoiding insolvency. His attitude was always to seek to assist companies to avoid such difficulties.
The Cork Committee Report, at paragraph 1342, pointed out that difficulties have arisen because of a Court of Appeal decision in 1972 in National Westminster Bank Limited v. Halesowen Presswork and Assemblies Limited. In his report he suggested that that Court of Appeal decision should be reversed. I will not bother the Committee with the main reasons, but I point out that as long ago as 1972 that recommendation was made.
It may be that it has been overlooked because the difficulties have not arisen too often. My amendment suggests, therefore, that the Court of Appeal decision to which I have referred should be reversed so that it is possible for parties to waive the benefit of statutory set-off in insolvency cases. Of course, my wording may be improved upon but the wording that I suggest should be considered is:
"Without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2) above, parties concerned may waive the benefit of statutory set off".
I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The aim of this clause is to clarify the position regarding set-off, which it has been suggested is unclear as a result, in part, of an attempt to update the language of the 1914 Bankruptcy Act in the 1986 Insolvency Act.
This clause is for a limited purpose. It is designed to overcome uncertainty which has been expressed as to the meaning of the word "due" in the present section. The opportunity has been taken to reword the provision to clearly link the debts and liabilities capable of being set off to those capable of proof as a bankruptcy debt. These debts may be present or future, certain or contingent. This amendment would go further.
The amendment suggested by the noble Lord would alter the existing law by enabling parties to contract out of set-off. This would effectively reverse the decision of the leading case on the subject mentioned by the noble Lord; namely, National Westminster Bank Limited v. Halesowen Presswork and Assemblies Limited, which decided in 1972 that set-off was mandatory.
A similar proposal was rejected during the passage of the Insolvency Bill in 1985–86 and we are not
1314
satisfied that the existing law is in this respect unsatisfactory. Any change could lead to debtors pressing their creditors unreasonably to accept compromises of their debts. Also, when applied across to the winding up of companies., it might lead to manipulations between members of a group of companies to the detriment of creditors outside the group. We feel it would be undesirable to effect such an amendment to the provisions relating to set-off, and in the circumstances I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I will read what he had to say to see whether the matter should he raised at the next stage. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 134 agreed to.
Clause 135 [Restriction of duty to supply statements of premium income]:
On Question, Whether Clause 135 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 135 stand part of the Bill because I am not clear what this clause is dealing with and the reason for its introduction. At this hour I am only anxious to discover what is the policy behind the insertion of this clause.
Clause 135 states:
"Schedule 3 to the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 (provisions with respect to levies on authorised insurance companies) is amended as follows".
I do not follow why it is necessary to amend the 1975 Act, an Act of 14 years ago, in the manner proposed. For example, at the top of page 127 of the Bill there is a proposed new paragraph to Schedule 3 of that Act which reads:
"The Secretary of State may by notice in writing require an authorised insurance company to send him a statement of—
(a) any income of the company for the year preceding".
I need not read the rest. Arising from that, why is the Secretary of State intervening at this stage in a matter which is clearly for the Inland Revenue?
There are other aspects of this rather long and complicated proposed amendment by the Government. However, at this late hour of the evening—I know we are delaying other work—if the noble Lord deals with that question I shall be in a better position to know what to do.
Lord Peston: I do not wish to keep matters going unduly, but the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is right to raise this matter and I hope that we do not rush through too rapidly and not clarify it.
The noble Lord put his finger on the central issue: that it is difficult to understand the point of the Government's proposed amendment in the Bill, in particular the circumstances in which the Secretary of State will demand in writing this information on income. What is the Secretary of State up to? What problem does he feel that it would solve?

1315
Further, when this clause was drafted in the first instance, or after it was published, did representatives of the insurance industry make representations to the department? If so, and without specific revelation of what any individual said, one would be interested to know what is the view of the industry. My understanding is that this is a complicated subject and that there is more than one valid view to be held on the Government's amendment. Again, in the interests of speed, one does not necessarily insist on a full answer now, but if the noble Lord writes to us that will be acceptable. This not a trivial matter.
6.30 p.m
Lord Strathclyde: There is a very short answer to the question raised. This is a straightforward measure of deregulation. However, I am sure that Members of the Committee will not be satisfied with that. Without going into too much detail perhaps I can explain what it is that the Government are doing.
The background is this. When the Policyholders' Protection Act was passed in 1975 the administration of the time appears to have taken a rather more pessimistic view than turned out to be justified of the number of times the levy arrangements provided for in that Act would need to be activated. This levy is based on the premium income of authorised insurance companies, and it is therefore clearly necessary before a levy can be made that the Policyholders' Protection Board should know what that premium income is. Erring perhaps on the side of caution, it was felt that the best way of dealing with this problem was to require annual statements from each individual company.
However, as it turned out insolvencies among insurance companies have been infrequent, and only once—in 1976, after the collapse of Capital Annuities Ltd.—has it been necessary to place a levy on the industry. Since then such insolvencies as have occurred have been dealt with by the Policyholders' Protection Board from the funds left over after settlement of the capital annuities claims, and no further levies have been required. The requirement for an annual statement of premium income has accordingly become an unnecessary burden upon companies and we are taking this opportunity to abolish it. Instead there will be a power to require companies to make returns of their premium income on a one-off basis as and when required.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked me if the insurance industry had been consulted on this issue. I am sure that as many people as possible were consulted at the time.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that careful explanation of the position. It always amazes me how useful are so many of his speeches to matters that I raise. I do not quite know how to get out of this position. I am not going to move that this clause do not stand part.
Clause 135 agreed to.
Clauses 136 to 138 agreed to.
Clause 139[Commencement and transitional provisions]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 257EC:
Page 129, line 11. after ("Part") insert ("VI (mergers and related matters) shall come into force on such days the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument but not before the proposal of the Commission of the European Communities entitled 13th Council Directive Concerning Takeover and General Bids has been finalised.
(1A) Part.").
The noble Lord said: This afternoon many Members of the Committee have indicated quite clearly how necessary it is to introduce new guidelines into the Companies Bill arising out of the operation of the Treaty of Rome. I shall be considering what they had to say very carefully before the Report stage. In those circumstances I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 257EC not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 257F:
Page 129, line 16, at end insert ("hut before making such an order in respect of Part I of this Act he shall consult representative bodies of the auditing profession.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I hope that I am pushing at an open door. When the Bill becomes an Act it will have far-reaching consequences as we debated earlier at Second Reading and in Committee. It will make considerable changes to the lives of the auditing profession and it will have great consequences for accountants.
I speak very much as a layman, but as I understand it Part I of the Act will come into effect as the result of an order. I assume that the accountancy profession is already engaged in a great deal of activity, but there will be a great deal more to be done. For all I know it is always the case before placing an order of this kind that the noble Lord's department consults with a view to seeing that it is not acting prematurely. I am not suggesting that we wish to delay this Bill in any way particularly as regards its many constructive parts. I am sure that the relevant bodies will come forward if the department is rushing ahead too rapidly and they will say "Look, hold your horses". We wish for a little reassurance that the noble Lord's department is aware of the possible dangers and that it will take due account of them. 1 beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: We are as keen as the accounting profession to discuss together the commencement arrangements for Part I, which concerns company accounts. This is simply a continuation of the close consultation with the profession which has gone on throughout the preparation of this part. I am happy therefore to give the noble Lord an assurance that we shall consult on the arrangement for bringing it into force. On Part I we shall consult both the accountancy profession, as the noble Lord's amendment suggests, and the representatives of other interested parties with whom we have been in discussion.
I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that this assurance meets the noble Lord's point, and that no purpose would be served by including a

1317
purely transitory provision in primary legislation. 1 hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for his answer which is exactly as I expected. I entirely agree that, given his assurance, there is no need for what he rightly calls a transitional amendment to be included in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 139 agreed to.
Clause 140 agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Repeals]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 258, 259, 260 and 261:
Page 206, line 13, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 88(6), the words from "the relevant parties" ' to the "and" immediately following paragraph (c).").
Page 206, line 28, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 169(5), the words from ", during business hours" to "for inspection)".
In section 175(6)(b), the words from "during business hours" to "period".
In section 191— (a) in subsection (1), the words from "(but" to "for inspection)"; (b) in subsection (3), paragraphs (a) and N.").
Page 206, line 32, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 219(1), the words from "during" to "for inspection)",
In section 288(3), the words from "during" to "for inspection)".
In section 318(7), the words from "during" to "for inspection)".
In section 356— (a) in subsection (I), the words "during business hours", (b) subsections (2) and (4).
In section 383— (a) in subsection (1), the words "during business hours", (b) subsection (2); (c) in subsection (3), the words from "at a charge" to the end.").
Page 207, line 15, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 13, in paragraph 25, the words from "during" to "for inspection)".").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are additions to the schedule of repeals. Amendment No. 258 simply repairs an omission from the list of consequential repeals. Amendment No. 258 simply repairs our omission from the list of consequential repeals. The substantive repeal is in paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 15. Amendments Nos. 259 to 261 are purely consequential on Amendment No. 234E, to which the Committee agreed at an earlier stage. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 258 to 261 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 not moved.]
Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill
6.39 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 7 [Application to the High Court]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) in relation to a member of a district council-

(i) the district council,

(ii) any person who would be entitled to vote at an election to any council in Northern Ireland held on the date of the application,

(iii) any other member of that council, and

(iv) the Attorney General, and

(b) in relation to a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly-

(i) any person who would be entitled to vote at an election to the Assembly held on the date of the application, and

(ii) any other member of the Assembly, and

(iii) the Attorney General.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3
Under the Bill it is left to individual councillors or electors for the district, or to the council itself, to bring court proceedings against a councillor for a determination that he has breached his declaration against supporting terrorism.
We believe that it is unreasonable and dangerous to place the burden of enforcement on individual citizens because this could place them in a position where their lives and those of their families are endangered.
The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Attorney General, who would be beyond the reach of intimidation, to be one of the parties who can bring the High Court action. Amendment No. I would also make it possible for any person who is entitled to vote at an election to any council in Northern Ireland to bring proceedings.
There was considerable sympathy in Committee with the underlying principle of this amendment. We were particularly gratified that it was supported by an impressive speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook. The Minister undertook to reflect on what has been said during the debate. Last week a number of us had discussions with the Minister and his colleague Mr. Needham, but, I regret to say, to no avail. I express some disappointment, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook had indicated his support for the amendment which was before the Committee, that the Government have been unable to meet the concerns which were expressed in Committee.
If there is one thing that we have learned over the last 20 years, it is that people in Northern Ireland are exposed to fear and intimidation. This fact was referred to by a High Court judge in the Crown Court in Belfast only last week. That is why the jury system has ceased to function in respect of terrorist offences. Nevertheless, the Government appear to believe that individuals will stand up to intimidation and bring proceedings under this Bill. We acknowledge the courage shown by the people of Northern Ireland, but we are not confident that they will stand up to intimidation and bring proceedings under this Bill.s
Lord Prior: The noble Lord has stressed the point about individuals. I wonder whether it would not be more realistic in Northern Ireland terms to say that it would be very unlikely that an individual would bring such an accusation, but more likely that a group of people would bring an accusation. As I understand it there is nothing in the Bill as drafted to prevent a group of people, members of the locality where the council sits, from bringing such an accusation if they wish to do so.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, although I have referred to the individual, I accept that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a number of individuals from bringing an action. We had discussions with the department to see to what extent one could have had, as it were, a class action, where five or 10 or more could bring proceedings. However, subject to what the Minister will say to your Lordships' Committee, the department was unable to accept that suggestion. Therefore, it seems to me that we are concerned with the individual applicant, although there may be more than one application.
We are not confident that the Government are interested in enforcing the declaration. They have adopted a casual attitude towards its enforcement. This emerges clearly from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, when he told the Committee:
"Whether somebody feels that they wish to take that remedy is entirely up to them".—[Official Report. 23/2/89; col. 718.]
When the Minister explained to the Committee that a complaint of a breach of a declaration should be placed before the court, he said:
"If that is the will of any person who may be affected".—[Official Report, 23/2/89; col. 765.]
Although Ministers have constantly stressed that the declaration involves a vital point of principle, it is surprising that the Government do not consider that
1320
they have a direct interest in enforcing the declaration. Accordingly, when it comes to enforcement, there will be complete inactivity on the part of the Government. We are saying that the Government also have a direct interest in ensuring that the democratic process is not undermined by violence or threats of violence, and that they have an interest in ensuring the orderly conduct of a council at meetings. It is for that reason and the fear that individuals may be exposed to intimidation that we say that the Attorney General should be in a position to take enforcement proceedings if no one else is prepared to do so.
We are also saying in the first amendment that every citizen in Northern Ireland has an interest in stamping out declarations made by councillors in support of violence. That is why we should like to give the right to bring proceedings to any person who would be entitled to vote at an election to any council in Northern Ireland.
When the Attorney-General proposition was put to Ministers, it seemed that the Government were shifting their ground. We were told that the Attorney-General should not be involved at any price because it would be interpreted by people in Northern Ireland as an interference by the Government in the internal affairs of councils. We should have thought that that is an interference which can be fully justified. In any event, if that argument had any merit, it has not prevented the Government from introducing into council affairs the declaration which is contained in this Bill, a declaration which has already been condemned by Sinn Fein as a British-inspired intervention to prevent Sinn Fein councillors from representing its electorate. We fear that the Government lack the will effectively to stamp out open declarations by councillors of their support for terrorism. If they had summoned up the will to do so. it would not be enough to pass a Bill requiring councillors to sign a declaration unless it was effectively backed by enforcement proceedings. The Government seem to us to cling to the hope that signing the declaration will resolve the problem. That appeared to me to be the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, when he told Members of the Committee:
"They"—
meaning the councillors—
"will also know that they have solemnly signed the declaration which is designed to help them exercise their judgment".—[Official Report, 23/2/89; col. 767.]
It is virtually certain that some councillors will not perceive the piece of paper which they have signed to be a solemn declaration. Indeed, it is certainly not an oath. As I said, they will not perceive it to be a solemn declaration. It is virtually certain that some of those people who sign the declaration will do so with no intention whatever of abiding by it. So. they having signed it, cynically, it is safe to assume that there will be breaches of the declaration. That will be so if it is thought that they will get away with it—if it is thought that it is not enforceable.
Unless the Government are prepared to strengthen the enforcement procedure by making it possible in particular for the Attorney-General to institute the proceedings, especially where no other party is

1321
prepared to take the action because it fears intimidation, we say that the declaration will turn out to be hollow. Hollow declarations will not help to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Lord Prior: My Lords, I must say that my experience of Northern Ireland is that nothing is absolutely sure or unsure. One can never be quite certain how anything will work. Certainly for an Englishman to assess the likely consequences of a certain measure in Northern Ireland is an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do.
I have read the previous debate and I apologise for the fact that I was not here during the Committee stage. I have read the speech made by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook and other speeches made by noble Lords on the opposite Benches. I have thought most seriously about the whole issue of intimidation. However, I have had to put against the seriousness with which one always listens to the arguments about intimidation the equally serious arguments of whether one considers that the Attorney-General is any more likely a figure in Northern Ireland to be regarded as a reliable man in this context. After all, he is a long way away; he will not know all the facts and they will have to be given to him. Moreover, he is up to a point a politician, but, more important, he is a member of the Government. None of those aspects will necessarily endear him to the people who are concerned in an application to the High Court.
I have come to the conclusion that the Government are right to stay where they are and not accept the amendments. I do not think it is fair to say that the Government arc not serious about such matters because they have come under considerable criticism in certain areas for introducing these measures in the first place. It is absolutely clear that the Government earnestly wish to see that the declarations made by councillors are honest declarations. If they are not, and such people still support terrorism, they must be dealt with. Therefore to that extent I think that the Government need to he, and should be, supported.
I turn now to the actual arguments, of which there are two. The first concerns the Attorney-General. As I have already said, he is a politician and a member of the Government. Any action brought by the Attorney-General would certainly be perceived as being political. It certainly would be perceived as being intervention by the Government in the affairs of councils. Moreover, it is equally true that the nationalists in particular would resent such action; and if they resented it that would undoubtedly increase the sympathy and support for the councillor concerned and a great deal of propaganda would be made out of it by the nationalists as a result.
The Attorney-General operates a long way from the district councils. He would therefore be bound to depend upon information given to him by other people. I have no doubt that some of that information would be inspired by malice. Indeed, it is almost inevitable that that would happen. In such
1322
circumstances I do not think that the Attorney-General can win: he is political if he acts, or, if he fails to act to enforce the law, he will have problems for failing to do so.
The other amendment would allow anyone entitled to vote at an election to any council in Northern Ireland—not just the council concerned, but any council—to apply to the High Court. That creates an absolute mare's nest. I can imagine that a member of a council or a person in Northern Ireland, together perhaps with a few others, would seek to raise the problems of a councillor in another district. I should have thought that such a provision was asking for trouble. There will certainly be enough people in each district who will wish to raise the issue of a particular councillor's loyalty without having to get members of a council or electors in another area to do so. Therefore that provision is quite unnecessary and could be disastrous in stirring the whole matter up.
The councils are very closely fought. Of the 26 councils, 18 are unionist and eight are nationalist or evenly balanced. In five councils the loss of a single seat could change the complexion of the council and in three others it would take two seats. My view is that the intimidation can largely be overcome by electors applying in groups. I do not think that an elector has to apply individually. Indeed, there is nothing in the Bill which says that they must apply individually; so they can apply in groups of, say, 10, 20, 30 or 40. They can apply together. Moreover, the more who apply together the less likelihood there is of intimidation. However, if one person applied I think that there would, or could, be intimidation. But I would not expect that situation to arise. I think that one would find that there would be quite a large number who would apply together. That would help to get over the intimidation problem.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, took the view that there would be intimidation. No one can rule that out in the Northern Ireland context. However, I do not think that one will avoid problems on this legislation simply by the inclusion of the Attorney-General; nor do I think one will avoid problems by saying that any elector will be allowed to bring a case. My view is that we should give the legislation a chance. The Government are sincere in what they are seeking to do. I do not necessarily say that we always get it right, either in this Chamber or in another place, on the subject of Northern Ireland, but I think it is worth giving this a try.
I hope that your Lordships will give the Government, who have thought very seriously about the matter both there and in another place, a chance. Certainly in another place they were able to explain their point of view, especially in Committee. In view of that I hope that the Government will not give way on these amendments.
7 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, II should like first to take up a point made by my noble friend Lord Prior who talked about the acceptability of the Attorney-General. He seemed worried about how the Attorney-General would he perceived by those in breach of the declaration. The people of Northern

1323
Ireland believe that those who are in breach of the declaration are those who without doubt support terrorism. Their view of the Attorney-General will not change whether he is in London, Northern Ireland or the council chamber.
I put my name to the amendment because I see its acceptance as the minimum change necessary for this part of the Bill to be effective. In the earlier stages of the Bill Her Majesty's Government made the mistake of not making the offence a criminal one. Sadly, that opportunity has now been lost and I feel that the Government will regret the legislation's lack of effectiveness.
It cannot be insignificant that on Second Reading and in Committee every speaker proposed the reinforcing of the Bill, first, by making the offence a criminal one and using the DPP; and, secondly, when that failed by proposing the Attorney-General's introduction into the equation. The Government may not wish to introduce the latter. All I can say is that they should have given more thought to the criminality of the offence in the first place.
We are, after all, talking about support, by word or deed, for terrorism. Sadly, we are beyond that point. The amendment is a last ditch effort to give the Bill effective teeth. To refuse to do that, seems to me, and many in Northern Ireland, to show a severe lack of resolve by the Government. It is not a wrecking amendment. We must be aware of the feeling which will be portrayed outside Westminster, especially in Northern Ireland, should we have a Division tonight. It would be seen as a disunited front in Parliament's determination to defeat and reduce support for terrorism.
Whatever happens tonight the outside world must be clearly shown that your Lordships' House is united behind the Bill's intentions. The intention is to write into the Bill a system which will be effective in the last analysis. The Government's view seems to he that the introduction of the Attorney-General will be unnecessary as the person or persons already specified in Clause 7 will happily take the matter to court. As an individual specified in the clause, although I hope that the Government are correct, I sincerely believe that they are being naive. If by chance the Government are correct, the Attorney-General will not have to act because those at present specified will have already done so. If, as I perceive, they are wrong then, as it stands, the proposed legislation will clearly show the law to be a fool.
By the introduction of the Attorney-General, the amendment merely seeks to give the Bill, and the Government, a safety net or a last ditch fail safe. As it stands, the Bill can only add to the frustration and agony of a province which cannot help but feel that the Government lack the determination to make their legislation effective.
Lord Prior: That is grossly unfair.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, in addition the Government are yet again asking the people of Northern Ireland to do something that they are not prepared to do. For example, they rightly refuse to sit
1324
down and do business with pro-terrorist organisations, but they expect democratically elected councillors to do so. They now say, "Here is another matter we will not, or cannot, take action on; but we will sec how you all fare. With your experience and fear of the judicial system, go to the person specified, spend all your time and, more importantly, put your lives on the line in an attempt to make the legislation work. We will stand on the sidelines and record the amount of intimidation and the number of knee jobs and head jobs, or whatever price you have to pay."
I beg your Lordships to believe that this is not a detached individual view of someone who wishes to undermine the intentions of the proposed legislation; I reflect the views of the vast majority of my fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
I have also spoken to solicitors who feel that they might be unwise, or, at the very least, would be uneasy about putting themselves and their families at risk by taking up cases of breaches of the declaration. It is all very well to sit in your Lordships' House with the belief that in a normal law-abiding society such people can defeat terrorism on their own; Northern Ireland does not fall into that category, which is why I support the intention of the proposed legislation; and, secondly, appeal to your Lordships' House to add the necessary additional power of the Attorney-General to make it function.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I readily understand the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and his supporters and my noble friend Lord Brookeborough feel for the safety of people bringing an action under this clause. I confess to having a great admiration for people who have the courage to take prominent parts in public life of this nature in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord's argument when introducing a similar amendment at an earlier stage, echoed by his introduction of the amendment at this stage, rested principally on the fact that an action had to be brought by an individual. That was his impression, and I understand that he has had that impression confirmed by advice. I too have taken advice, and it is different from the advice that he received. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will be the umpire; but if one refers to Section 6(c) of the Interpretation Act 1978 one will discover that in any statute the singular embraces the plural. Therefore "any person" which in conversation means one person means in law what is often seen on by-law notices—"any person or persons". It is plain to me that the Bill does not put those people at the type of risk that the noble Lord is concerned about.
If that were the noble Lord's only reason for placing the amendment on the Table, it would not seem to be valid and therefore worth proceeding with. However, he may have other reasons for wishing to proceed with the amendment, beyond that which all of us have, which is to do for God's sake anything helpful in that terrible situation. When one is in that mood, it is important to see that one acts not out of desperation but out of wisdom. We must consider rather more closely the Attorney-General's proposed role.

1325
The general idea of Westminster overturning elections in Belfast or Armagh is striking enough in principle but would be a great deal more dramatic in practice. That belief arises from two factors. The first is the present composition of the 26 elected councils in the Province referred to by my noble friend Lord Prior. The control of three of them depends upon a majority of two seats only, and the control of five rests upon a majority of just one seat.
The second factor is Northern Ireland's electoral system. Noble Lords from other parts of the United Kingdom may need to be reminded that it is not the first-past-the-post system with which we are familiar here; it is the single transferable vote system of PR for which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will again declare his admiration in a moment or two, if he runs true to form.
The result of that system is that a by-election called to fill a vacancy caused by the departure of a member of one political party is often bound to result in the return of a member of another political party. In at least five constituencies and possibly eight, therefore, the amendment would make it impossible for the Attorney-General to demonstrate his impartiality. The rest of the Province and indeed a good deal of the rest of the world would be watching to see what he did in each of them. What would the watchers think they saw? If for instance an action against a member of the Nationalist party with a majority of one would result in the election of a Unionist and the Attorney-General brought it, he would be accused of acting, and he would be believed by many of the opposite persuasion to be acting, on behalf of the Unionists.
If the result of bringing an action against a member of the Unionist party with a Unionist majority of one would result in the election of a Nationalist and the Attorney-General did not take the action, exactly the same conclusion would be reached. If in each of those cases he took the opposite course, he would naturally be seen by others in the community as, in some sinister way, acting not with justice but in pursuit of some imaginary secret agenda hatched under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Both factions have their terrorist wings and both factions would take every conceivable advantage of that situation. The only question remaining would be which of the various terrorist organisations would profit most from this juicy propaganda gift.
Therefore, I have to conclude that logic, appearance and emotion, all three, combine to show that either of the formats of the amendment which the noble Lord has put before us, far from strengthening the Bill and democracy, would undermine its principal purpose. It would turn the provision from a modest measure of support for democracy to a powerful engine for discrediting it. As the Bill stands, I believe it brings a very small but real improvement to the conduct of local politics in Northern Ireland within possible grasp. As the amendment would leave it, I think it would be a generous gift to those who wish to discredit the elections. I hope that I have made it clear that although I speak with reluctance in the debate I speak with conviction. I share the aims of others in the House to do, for God's sake, anything we can to help. I do not think this would help at all.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, in prefacing his remarks, said that it was difficult for an Englishman to forecast whether any election in Northern Ireland would be a success or a failure. That has been adequately illustrated this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, said that he did not think that the amendment was necessary. It would not in any way enhance the provisions of the Bill. He is a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I listened to him with great interest.
However, the noble Lord's predecessor as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, told us an entirely different story. As another Englishman, he takes an entirely different view. During the Committee stage, the noble Lord said:
"Secondly, if this Bill goes through as it is, it seems to me that there will be an open invitation to the IRA to say, 'Here is the British Parliament passing a Bill at the request of the Government of the day, making it an Act of Parliament, and we can destroy it. We can make sure that the Act does not work.' All they have to do the first time anybody makes an application to the court is to shoot that chap and then there will not he any more. I do not think the Government ought to invite Parliament to pass a Bill which they know can be destroyed by the very people whom the Bill seeks to control".—[Official Report, 23/2/89; col. 778]
Two former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland have expressed views.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? I know from conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, that he was then under the impression, as I was, that any application to the court would have to be made by a solitary, lonely figure. I think that alters the case.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, would have been here this evening to add his voice to the objections which he so forcibly expressed on a previous occasion.
I am not an Englishman, I think that can be accepted. I have lived most of my adult life in Northern Ireland. 1 was a member of the Belfast City Council for nearly a quarter of a century. I fought 22 elections in Northern Ireland and won 19 of them. I cannot be said to be unaware of the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland. Only today took part in a phone-in programme being broadcast in Belfast on which I expressed the reservations which I express here tonight. It was a programme called "Talk Back". The noble Lord, Lord Prior, will be aware of it. The overwhelming majority of responses were fully in support of the amendment. That is how the people in Northern Ireland see it. I am quite certain that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, will confirm that.
Let us take away a good deal of the waffle on the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, has spoken as an Englishman. Is it not interesting or informative that all the speakers from Northern Ireland represented in the House are in support of the amendment and of the inclusion of the Attorney-General? I cannot understand the reasoning of speakers who support the Government that the involvement of the Attorney-General would be seen as unnecessary interference in local government.

1327
We shall be renewing the 1973 Northern Ireland Act in a few months' time. Under that Act every single facet of life is under the control of the Government. There would be no local government in Northern Ireland, were it not for the 1973 Act; there would be no PR legislation or PR for electoral purposes were it not for that Act. Every single facet of everyday life is under the control of this Government by way of direct rule.
Why, all of a sudden, should we say, "Well, we don't want to involve the Attorney-General any more"? The Attorney-General is already deeply involved, not only in Ireland but in Northern Ireland. It is the Attorney-General who makes applications to the Government of the Republic to have Patrick Ryan brought back here. It is the officers of the Attorney-General who are in Dublin this very day asking for the return of a person to Northern Ireland, a Mr. Finucane.
It has been said that the Attorney-General is far away from Northern Ireland. But he is far away from Cardiff; he is far away from Liverpool. He is only an hour away by plane, if we bring distance into the matter. The Attorney-General acts in this country on the advice of the arresting authority, the witnesses, the people who will give evidence in court. The Attorney-General does not have to be on Fermanagh County Council or in Belfast City Hall or on any other local authority. His officers will be there and the printed word will be used.
If a breach of the declaration takes place and it is reported in the local press, then everyone in Northern Ireland will be aware of it. Why are the Government so hesitant about involving the Attorney-General? It has been said this evening and previously that one person need not necessarily act on his own in making the application. It could be 10, 20. 30 or 40 people. First, the one, or 10, or 20, or 30 would have to go to a solicitor. That is the only way in which civil proceedings can be begun in the case. The first action the solicitor would take would be to take down one or two names or five, 10 or 20. Then an application would be made to the court. When the case came to court, those names would have to be made public. It would not be necessary for the IRA or any other paramilitary organisation to intimidate 20, 30 or 40 people. All the IRA has to do is to intimidate one and the rest would back out.
Perhaps we can imagine the situation where a case is taken by 10, 20, 30 or 40 people. During the course of the proceedings one of the signatories may not actually be killed; but he is beaten up or his house is wrecked by a petrol bomb thrown into it. What will the other 29, 39 or 49 do? They will naturally run away. That is why we have the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. Juries were intimidated and they could not be given protection by the security forces. That was why the Government had to resort to single judge courts. There will be intimidation. The most powerful weapon in the hands of the IRA and other paramilitaries has been intimidation. We know about Semtex, machine guns and all the other military hardware that the paramilitaries have. But if they did not have the weapon of intimidation, all the other weapons would be of no use.
1328
It is intimidation which enables the IRA, as has been said in another place, to have at its disposal almost £4 million of illegal money in Northern Ireland. That was referred to in another place in relation to another Bill. It is intimidation which allows the IRA to demand protection money from businesses in Northern Ireland. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Prior, to consider how many businessmen there are in Nothern Ireland. He must know of the dozens upon dozens of businessmen in Northern Ireland at the moment who are paying money every week, every month or every year to the IRA or Loyalist paramilitaries because they are frightened for their lives. The Government know about that and are bringing measures under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill to prevent it.
Lord Prior: My Lords, I am following the argument of the noble Lord very carefully. One accepts of course that there is intimidation in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, there is an extraordinary number of very brave and honourable people who are not intimidated. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is one of them. He has never been intimidated. Some members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have never been intimidated. There are Catholic policemen serving with the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have never been intimidated. I do not believe that the fear of intimidation in this particular case is as high as it is in a number of other cases, particularly with businessmen who experience a loss of profits through intimidation. But I believe that in Northern Ireland there will always be a sufficient number of people who, despite possible intimidation, will stand up for what they believe to be right. I have always thought that was one of the strongest points in favour of the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, that is too great an onus to put on the back of anyone in Northern Ireland. We cannot merely stand here and say there are very brave people in Northern Ireland and that we hope they will put themselves at an even greater risk than they have experienced hitherto. I think that is very unfair. I no longer live in Northern Ireland. I was intimidated out of it. I live in England because the IRA burnt my home and everything in it. That body would have been glad if I had formed part of the contents of my home at that time.
The IRA has engaged repeatedly in intimidation. Noble Lords who have had any connection with Northern Ireland will recall that it was a Labour Government I believe who brought out the new theme of the Ulsterisation of the security forces. That meant that the security forces would be composed mostly of members of the UDR and the RUC. That was interpreted in Northern Ireland as the British Government saying that they did not care how many UDR and RUC men were killed, so long as British soldiers were not killed. I was in Northern Ireland at that time. I remember making speeches protesting against that measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Prior, has experience of these matters. In 1982 when I was still a Member of Parliament, the noble Lord, who was a Member of

1329
another place too, very courageously in my view tried to introduce an initiative into Northern Ireland—that was the assembly Act 1982. The noble Lord tried his best. I think it is on record that of all the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament at the time I was the only one who gave him my full support. That was a year after the hunger strikes. In 1982 at the assembly elections Sinn Fein, living as it was on the previous year's terrible emotional torment that had engulfed Northern Ireland, succeeded in getting five men elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Once they were elected, they refused to have anything to do with the initiative. They said they did not want an assembly or any structured share in Northern Ireland created by a British Government. They said they wanted the British out.
Much to its shame the SDLP—the party I had founded and formerly led—agreed with that. It refused to recognise the Northern Ireland Assembly which had been so painstakingly set up by the noble Lord, Lord Prior. The noble Lord will also agree with me that in this legislation, as it stands, the SDLP will under no circumstances ever lay a complaint against Sinn Fein. We can wipe that from our minds. The SDLP will not lay any complaints against Sinn Fein because Sinn Fein and the SDLP are from the same tribe. They come from the one political side of the political divide in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Prior, has quite rightly said, their PR is in elections. People will go to elections to vote for Sinn Fein and they will give their second, third or fourth preference to the IRA or to the SDLP. Some people will give their first preference to the SDLP, but their second, third or fourth preference to Sinn Fein.
The only people who will take action against someone who is in breach of this measure will be members of the Protestant, Loyalist or Unionist community for want of a better word. They are already targets. The Protestant community in Northern Ireland has faced a campaign of genocide since 1970 and 1971. 1 am not a Protestant, a Loyalist or a Unionist, but I have every sympathy with the terrible tragedy that that community has faced over the past 20 years. To ask that community to go through that experience yet again and to put itself at risk again is to add further to its burden.
I remember in 1969 trying to pilot a Bill through the old Stormont Parliament. It was entitled the Incitement to Hatred Bill. It was a Bill just such as this. There was not a great deal of teeth in it. I tried to give it teeth. The Government was then under Terence O'Neill, who is now the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine. Under the Bill one prosecution took place and then it was found wanting. It was never used again. It would be a real tragedy if this Bill were to reach the statute book only to find that the IRA laughed, sneered and jeered at it.
In another part of this building there are those with whom I completely disagree. When legislation such as this is brought forward, they engage in my view in their own political attitudes rather than trying to ensure peace in Northern Ireland. Every speaker from this side of the House has wanted to help the Government. They have wanted to defeat the men of violence. I am certainly trying to do everything I can
1330
to make life more difficult for all the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.
I have tried my damnedest to understand why the Government are so reluctant to include the Attorney-General in this legislation. The Attorney-General travels on aircraft with bodyguards. When he goes to Dublin, he takes his Special Branch officers with him and he is met by Special Branch officers in the Irish Republic. When he goes to Northern Ireland, he is met by Special Branch officers. He is given 24 hours-a-day protection whilst he is there. That protection would not be available to someone who may be seething with anger at the activities of a Sinn Fein councillor, for example, who was in breach of this legislation. But that complainant cannot say that he will lay a complaint against the Sinn Fein councillor so long as 24 hour-a-day protection, such as is given to the Attorney-General, is provided to the complainant. We, on this side of the House, are trying to help the Government by means of this amendment. We are trying to help the people of Northern Ireland. I do not think it would be in the interests of the Government or of the people of Northern Ireland if the Government were to reject this amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, shall speak as briefly as possible because I suspect that the House would like to reach a conclusion on this matter. I listened with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Prior. He said that he had considered the matter very carefully but had come to a conclusion which was contrary to that reached by his noble friend Lord Colnbrook. He said a number of things with which I agree entirely.
There are indeed many gallant people in Northern Ireland. He instanced a number: Catholics in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, members of the UDR, many retired police officers who choose to spend their retirement in Northern Ireland knowing that they will have no form of adequate protection.
However, I came to a contrary conclusion. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has just pointed out, we are asking a number of people to volunteer to take a course of action which could easily lead to their assassination. The question arises as to whether as members of this House we feel it is responsible to do so. I for one do not. I think that it is unfortunate that we are discussing this matter in a relatively thinly attended House, but that is inevitable given the time of the evening. It could well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said last week, that the first person who makes an application to the courts may lose his life.
I accept that the legislation enables groups of people to make applications. That was one of the matters which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and I discussed with the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. The noble Lord suggested that there may be something to be said for insisting on class actions in which five or ten people would be required to make a complaint. However, some of the problems involved in the joint application which is favoured by the noble Lord, Lord Prior—and I believe by the

1331
noble Lord, Lord Elton—are spelt out in a letter which I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I am sure that I would have his permission to quote from that letter. He said:
"The object of the proposal advanced yesterday would be to reduce the risk of intimidation still further, by ensuring that electors are compelled (rather than, as at present, permitted) to bring actions only in groups.
"Paradoxically, however, the requirement of a minimum number of applicants seems to make the task of the would-be intimidator easier, rather than more difficult. He needs only to intimidate one of the group of 10 for the action to fall".
Later the Minister makes a point which is even more relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Prior said. In the other place Mr. Needham devoted a fair amount of time and attention to the question of legal aid. The applicant who wishes to go to the High Court, unless he has very substantial resources, will want to make an application for legal aid. If there are a number of people making the application the problem will be significant.
In his letter to me the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said:
"We attach also considerable importance to the availability of legal aid for actions brought by electors. I am advised that legal aid would not be available for the kind of action which we are considering, unless each individual applicant met the criteria. This circumstance seems most unlikely to arise, and the effect of the proposal would be to make legal aid, in practice, unavailable for actions brought by electors".
That demonstrates some of the problems inherent in the collective approach.
We consideredthe matter after our meeting with Ministers. In the light of what we had been told by Mr. Needham and the noble Lord we decided not to proceed with an amendment of that kind.
I find some of the arguments which have been deployed against the first of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, rather thin. The amendment does not require the Attorney-General alone to bring the action, it simply adds him to the list of people who can bring the action. What conceivable objection is there to that? I have not heard a single argument deployed in this debate which in any way answers that particular point.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me what will happen if, as he predicts, nobody is willing to make a collective objection? Will not the Attorney-General be in exactly the position which I described in my brief (but I hope clear) speech, thus demonstrating it would seem to observers that he could not be impartial?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I did not predict that no one would use the legislation. It may be that they will and it may be that they will not. It would be foolish for me to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, made the point—and I agree that it is extremely difficult to predict precisely what will happen. All I am saying is that the risks involved in bringing the action will be very substantial.
If a person makes a witness statement to the department of the Attorney-General they run the risk of being a witness in a High Court case. However, different issues are involved if they are appearing as a witness rather than as the plaintiff in the action.
1332
That is a point which in my view has not been answered in the debate.
Lord Elton: Can the noble Lord explain the difference between intimidation so that there are no witnesses to support the action—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect, most Members of the House will be aware of the very substantial difference between a person making a statement to the authorities which causes the Attorney-General to take proceedings and being the plaintiff in the proceedings themselves. They will have to go through the whole process of making application for legal aid with all the delays that will result giving the terrorist organisations longer to plan their response, and more time to intimidate.
I will conclude by saying that I do not think that any of us can predict with certainty what will follow the passage of this legislation. However, in what I concede is a difficult matter of judgment, I believe that this legislation stands a better prospect of success with the inclusion of the amendment we are now debating. It gives any elector the opportunity to bring proceedings rather than simply an elector in a district council area, which is far too narrow a provision. It also gives the district council the opportunity of bringing the proceedings and adding the Attorney-General to the action.
I very much hope that, in the light of what has been said today and at Committee stage when, I remind the House, every single Northern Ireland peer who spoke supported the position we are adopting in the amendment, the House will agree to it.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I think that we must go back to what the Bill originally attempted to achieve; namely, to bring about the democratic processes of representation in local government in Northern Ireland. For a number of years, sadly, the situation has deteriorated deplorably.
I listened with interest and great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his ministerial experience in Northern Ireland, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who served at the Home Office with a marginal interest in Northern Ireland affairs. I have taken into consideration the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about what the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, had to say on 23rd February, when he said:
"I do not think that the Government ought to invite Parliament to pass a Bill which they know can be destroyed by the very people whom the Bill seeks to control".—[Official Report, 23/2/89; col. 778.1]
At the same time I have listened with interest to the reservations expressed by noble Lords. I must go back to the position which I adopted at Second Reading and Committee stage. I was also one of the noble Lords who were invited to meet the Minister and his honourable friend Mr. Richard Needham.
It appears to me that the main point at issue at this stage is the involvement of the Attorney-General in the proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the arguments adduced have been thin. Quite honestly, I would concur with that and add the phrase "very disappointing". When we met the Minister and his honourable friend we felt that,

1333
although they were reasonable and courteous in their approach, their arguments were repetitious. They came forward with nothing new and we have heard those arguments repeated in the House this evening.
Despite the debates in this House and in another place and the consultations that have taken place, Ministers have not faced up to the crucial issues of effective enforcement and the inevitable implications of intimidation. I noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and return to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Prior. He is quite right. He said that there were brave men and women in Northern Ireland. Those who represent the UDR, the police, the law and ordinary people going about their work and seeking to be public representatives are brave people, but none of them wants to put their families or their grandchildren on the line. That is where this issue comes in. Many of those people will go out tomorrow and face up to terrorist issues, but they will not pledge their families to such destruction. That is the issue with which we are faced this evening.
I should like to think that I would applaud in some degree the Government's good intentions in attempting to provide some redress to those who have to sit in council chambers beside people who have refused to condemn murder and terrorism. At the same time, I must say that I, like other noble Lords, am sadly bemused by the blinkered attitudes of the Government, who have had to cope with the widespread ramifications of violence and terrorism. They are familiar with the blunt end of terrorism. They know the problems that they face when travelling backwards and forwards. Ministers know what it is like to go to bed at night when there are decisions to be made.
The point is that, instead of the state undertaking some element of the prosecuting measures against the offending elected representatives, the Government have offloaded their responsibility to ordinary citizens on to councillors. They are offloading their responsibility as a state. I do not blame the Minister or any individual Minister. I simply say that the Government have a collective responsibility in this matter. The cost in terms of litigation and the risk to life have been mentioned, as well as the human suffering which will be borne totally by individuals, and perhaps by some ratepayers, rather than by the state whose duty it is to protect law-abiding citizens and to represent the public interest. That is the duty of the Attorney-General.
I say, without any sense of vindictiveness towards the Minister or his ministerial colleagues, that the Bill as presented to the House and in its present form demeans democracy rather than enhances the democratic processes. I shall be brief. During our consultations with the Minister and his honourable friend, Mr. Richard Needham, mention was made of an opinion poll which was carried out on Friday, 2nd September. It asked:
"Do you think that all elected politicians, including local councillors, should have to publicly reject violence before being allowed to take up office or not?"
One could predict the outcome of that poll. We are all against violence. Those people who were approached, whether in their homes or on the street, would naturally have reacted to the question, but it
1334
did not explain to them how they would have to bear the brunt of the implementation of this legislation. That survey does not reflect the feedback that I receive from councillors and other people in public life in Northern Ireland regarding the implementation of the Bill. What I say has been echoed not only by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies but also by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who has faced up to this in no uncertain way as a citizen and resident of Northern Ireland.
The issue of the Attorney-General is the main question. We have gone down the road of asking, first, what the declaration will do for local government. When the declaration is violated in some way, a High Court action might be taken but after that brave men and women will lake action. After that, there will be an election on proportional representation. The terrorists would perhaps feel that they should not risk violating the declaration because of the possibility of court action and of losing the seat as a result of proportional representation. That is the thin argument that is presented to us. We have not worked out how a High Court action will be taken or what will be involved. Nor have we mentioned the position of local government officers who are expected to advise on such issues. They are certainly timorous of legislation that will put them in a serious situation as the servants of local government in Northern Ireland.
In that situation, the Attorney-General is asked to do no more, and, I hope, no less than he is expected to as regards other issues concerning human rights and upholding the law thoughout the United Kingdom. He may be a politician and a member of the Government. He acts in that manner in trade union matters. He acts in certain civil cases by attempting to look at the public interest in matters of this nature. I believe that all that is required is this third element in the prosecuting procedures and the Attorney-General is very necessary in that respect.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Romney: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether, if he feels that he cannot concede the amendment, he will take it back. He must have heard the persuasive arguments of noble Lords opposite and of our noble friends. He must see that it would be very sad for Northern Ireland if the people could see how many noble Lords vote against the amendment, as I am sure many will. Perhaps I may ask him to think again. There will be another chance to bring up this matter and I hope that he will have relented by then, if he has not done so already.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I am very grateful, as I am sure are all noble Lords, for the contributions that we have had to this evening's debate, especially that from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who introduced the case for his amendment.
Since this matter was discussed in Committee on 23rd February, my colleagues and I have undertaken what I hope your Lordships would concede has been a full and, I hope, courteous round of consultation.

1335
I believe that we have had a good discussion of the issues, but to my regret the arguments that we advanced have, for various reasons, failed to convince the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Harris of Greenwich, and other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. By the same token, without disrespect to those noble Lords who came to see us, the arguments that were advanced failed equally to convince myself and my honourable friends. Perhaps I may first address the question that lies at the core of the argument at Second Reading, and was discussed exhaustively at Committee. I hope that my noble friend Lord Romney will take heart that we have heard a great deal of the same arguments at an earlier stage this evening. I am sure that my noble friend will accept that I undertook to consult my right honourable friend and my other ministerial colleagues. It is in the light of those consultations that I shall have some remarks to make this evening.
First, perhaps I may address the central question of the position of the Attorney-General. In any legislation of this nature of course a large element of judgment is involved. But we believe, as we always have, ever since we started the consultation process that has led to the Bill before your Lordships—and that has taken place over four years, and I stress that to every one of your Lordships this evening—that this Bill is the result of nearly four years of consultation with councillors and persons all over Northern Ireland who are involved in local democracy. Certainly we believe that to involve the Attorney-General in actions under the Bill that we are discussing this evening—and the objectives of the Bill are a good bit narrower than some of the objectives that have been mentioned, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough—in practice would be close to dangerous. Secondly, it would not serve the objective of the Bill. Thirdly, it certainly would not make the declaration easier to enforce.
Let us consider the position of the Attorney-General. In spite of the visions of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, of air journeys to Liverpool, or anywhere else, he has no capacity to monitor the day-to-day behaviour of councillors; and that is what we have in the Bill today. The Attorney-General would have to rely upon information about breaches of the terms of the declaration which is before your Lordships in Clause 6 which would be laid by others. In effect people who heard or saw breaches would have to apply to the Attorney for an action to be brought. How is the Attorney-General to reply? First, as I have said, he is far removed from the council chambers of Northern Ireland. Secondly, he cannot employ the Royal Ulster Constabulary, let alone the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to investigate, since the breach, under the Bill this evening, is not a criminal offence. In short, he is not well placed to be the judge of whether the cases are strong or weak. Yet a decision has to be reached. I believe that there are very serious flaws in whatever decision would be reached.
First, if the Attorney-General being a politician and a Member of the Government, decides to bring
1336
an action under the terms of the amendment, he immediately opens himself to the charge that he is acting from political motives. That was brought out by my noble friend Lord Prior and my noble friend Lord Elton. On the other hand, if the Attorney believes that the evidence before him is weak and that no case should be brought, he would be criticised for failing to enforce the law. The possible case would be weakened before it was ever considered by the court. That is the thrust and main element, and the main enforcement in the Bill that we have before us this evening.
Whatever decision he takes, his standing—and more importantly the standing of his office—will be affected. The perceived impartiality of the Attorney-General— in spite of everything we have heard about intimidation and everything else in Northern Ireland—is crucial to public confidence in the administration of justice. We believe that it is wholly wrong to create a mechanism which would encourage challenges, however unjustified. For better or worse, this is exactly what we believe all the amendments would do.
Let us dwell for a moment on the nature of the problem which the Attorney would have to face. Let us look at one effect—and indeed it was pointed out very briefly by my noble friend Lord Elton—of the voting system in Northern Ireland. Were a sitting councillor to be disqualified or removed by the terms of the breach of declaration, a by-election for that single seat will often produce a different result from the result in the local election that took place under the normal rules every four years. I am sure that noble Lords who know Northern Ireland can imagine what would happen if a national councillor who has triumphed in the local election is disqualified as a result of action being taken under the Bill. A Unionist takes his place and there is a Unionist majority on the council. Just imagine that scenario, and the involvement of the Attorney-General.
My noble friend Lord Elton covered the point of the political complexion in the councils and the narrowness of some of the majorities in control of councils in Northern Ireland. I believe he said that eight—and he is quite right—are controlled by a majority of one seat. However, the noble Lord,Lord Blease, made play tonight and at an earlier stage of what he called the duty of the Attorney-General. Can we all recall the objective of the Bill before us this evening? It is to provide responsible councillors and electors with a recourse against expressions which cause offence to them, and possibly to many others, and which disrupt local government.
I stress once again to your Lordships, and earnestly, that it is not the purpose of the Bill to prevent all expressions of support for terrorism by anyone and in all circumstances. For that purpose a criminal offence applying to everyone, not just councillors and Assembly members, would be required. We consider, especially in line with the Bill tonight, that to create such an offence would go too far. In the circumstances we believe it right that an action should be brought, not by the Attorney, but by those who have a direct interest in the behaviour of the elected representatives concerned. I believe that noble Lords will see that set out in Clause 7.

1337
The second main pillar of the debate this evening, at Second Reading and at an earlier stage has been the constant threat of intimidation. I believe that all noble Lords who have spoken have expressed concern about the possibility that applicants under the Bill will be intimidated. Intimidation, let alone intimidation of witnesses, is a problem in criminal cases associated with terrorism in Northern Ireland. However, in such cases—and serious criminal cases—paramilitary organisations use intimidation to protect their members against long prison sentences. It remains to be seen, accepting that sanctions for breach of declaration under the Bill before us this evening do not involve imprisonment, whether the incentive to intimidate will remain.
It has been argued by noble Lords that making the Attorney responsible for the actions will provide protection for the applicants. This seems to be a constant thread through the argument. It misses two central points. I have made both points at Second Reading, and at an earlier stage. I shall be making them again this evening. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not dancing on the head of a pin this evening when it comes to the question of intimidation of witnesses and applicants. Even if it were the Attorney-General who brings the case, witnesses would remain vulnerable. If, as some noble Lords argue, paramilitary organisations are able to halt cases by intimidating applicants, exactly the same argument must apply to witnesses, since witnesses, under whatever scheme is brought forward in the Bill, will have to appear in the High Court. On the argument that all witnesses and applicants would be subject to, let alone buckle under, intimidation, no case would stand up—even one which was brought with the aid of the Attorney-General.
Secondly, someone will have to lay information before the Attorney and ask him to bring an action. In such a case the complainant will be just as vulnerable to intimidation as any applicant. In essence, he is an applicant except that the application is made in the first instance to the Attorney rather than direct to the court. This too was a very strong argument. In such circumstances the introduction of the Attorney would merely be an additional hurdle, while providing little or no real protection to the complainant.
In preparing the Bill of course the Government reflected on the possibility—we had nearly four years to do so—that potential applicants or witnesses might fear intimidation. That is why we built two safeguards into the Bill. First, one public authority—the council itself—is empowered to bring actions. That is an important and valid longstop for councillors or electors concerned about intimidation. That is at the heart of many of the arguments this evening.
Secondly, the Bill provides for actions to be brought, in the words of Clause 7(1) by "any one or more" of the persons specified. My noble friend Lord Elton pointed out that according to interpretation the singular embraces the plural. In Clause 7(2) we have made that quite clear. It is open to electors or councillors who are concerned about the possibility of intimidation—we have heard the word
1338
consistently this evening—to group together and to reduce what risk exists.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, accepts the value of that provision. Electors or councillors who ban together not only reduce fear of intimidation; they spread the cost, and increase the likelihood that the action will be sustained, even if one or two councillors or electors, for whatever reason, drop out from the group bringing the action. It is an important measure of protection for councillors and electors; and it increases the effectiveness of the enforcement mechanism as a whole.
There is one other item that I should like to cover, especially in relation to the remarks concerning criminality made by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. He wished to see a criminal offence in the Bill. If that failed one could then bring a civil action, as we envisage in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned the Incitement to Hatred Act. Statements which breach the declaration may also be criminal offences under public order law, most notably in Article 9 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 which deals specifically with incitement to hatred. If statements caught by the Bill in breach of Clause 6 amounted to incitement, of course it is open to the police as well as to the Director of Public Prosecutions to mount criminal cases in the normal way. But it would be necessary to prove the making of the statement, probably by oral testimony, of a reliable witness.
If any person anywhere in Northern Ireland is witness to expression of support for or approval of terrorism, of course he can offer himself or he can be called as a witness in an action brought by someone who has an interest. I believe that that protection, as well as the provisions of Clause 7(1), which provides that any person or persons or group may come together to bring an action, will answer many of the questions raised at earlier stages by your Lordships.
I hope that in the light of the case I have set out at length tonight, on a previous occasion as well as in discussions and at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, can accept the valid points we make. The noble Lord has suggested—I hope that I quote his words accurately—that the Government are taking a casual attitude to the Bill. That is not exactly accurate, after nearly four years of intensive consultation with councillors and persons involved in local government and interested in it throughout Northern Ireland. That could not possibly be described as casual let alone naive, which was the word used by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. I do not think that we have come to a naive decision after four years of discussion.
I stress again to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, that the Bill is a result of four years of intensive discussion with many people known to him as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, all over Northern Ireland. I have spelt out at considerable length tonight, at Second Reading and at Committee stage why we believe the involvement of the Attorney-General will not help the objectives of the Bill, let alone help to resolve the problem of intimidation of applicants and witnesses. I beg your Lordships not to accept the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. Although the noble Lord, Lord Prior, has been unable to support the amendment, we always listen with great respect to what he has to say because we very much appreciate the contribution he made to Northern Ireland when he held the office of Secretary of State.
There is some common ground between the noble Lord, Lord Prior, and ourselves. He acknowledged that it was a matter of judgment whether or not the declaration could be enforced and therefore whether this part of the Bill is workable. He said, echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, at Committee stage or perhaps Second Reading, that doing the best we can for better or for worse let us give the declaration an opportunity. Let us see what effect it will have.
We have also listened to the Members of your Lordships' House who live in Northern Ireland or who have had long experience of the affairs of Northern Ireland. Their advice very clearly is that the Government are underestimating the risks of intimidation. If we can see that there is in this possible critical flaw in the machinery contained in the Bill, that people will not be prepared to take the enforcement proceedings because they fear intimidation, surely it is for the House to seek to strengthen the enforcement procedure. That is our case. We seek to strengthen the enforcement procedure by making it possible for the Attorney-General to bring the action.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made it clear that the Attorney-General would not be asked to take all the proceedings; but if the other persons named in the clause are not prepared to take the proceedings because they fear intimidation, then the Attorney-General is in the position to take the proceedings. He would be beyond the reach of intimidation.
We believe that the declaration can be of value in Northern Ireland, provided that the enforcement procedure is workable. By involving the Attorney-General we believe that it would be workable. That is the argument we presented at Second Reading and in Committee, but I have sought to deploy another argument in the House this evening. We say that by involving the Attorney-General it would be a clear acknowledgment and a clear signal that the Government consider that they have an interest in the ordinary conduct of council business. That is why I described the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to the enforcement procedure as being casual.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said that it is up to the individual to decide whether to take that remedy. It appears to us that on that basis we can say that the Government are adopting a casual attitude towards the enforcement of proceedings. However, if the Attorney-General were to take the proceedings, it would be a clear signal to the men of Ireland, and to the councillors who support the men of Ireland, that the Government consider they have an interest in the ordinary conduct of council business in Northern Ireland.
However, if the Government are determined not to become involved in the enforcement—and that is the
1340
message which comes from the Government Benches this evening—it should come as no surprise to them if the declaration, although it holds a central place in the Bill, is perceived by the people of Northern Ireland as being empty rhetoric.
For those two reasons we must ask that the amendment be pressed to a Division.
8.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 67.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blease, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Brookeborough, V.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Meston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliflfe, L.

Monson, L.

David, B.

Moran, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Fitt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Romney, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hooson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wise, L.

Kilbracken. L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Astor, V.

Hesketh, L.

Bauer, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Bethell, L.

Joseph, L.

Blatch, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Buckmasler, V.

Lawrence, L.

Butterworth, L.

Liverpool, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Chelwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cross, V.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Denman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Napier of Ettrick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Carmylie

Prior, L.

Gisborough, L.

Quinton, L.

Gray, L.

Reay, L.

Gridley, L.

Renton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

1341

Skelmersdale, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Swinton, E.

Trumpington, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.19 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Disqualification in consequence of breach of declaration]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 1, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("( ) A person who is determined by the High Court to have acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism made by him is disqualified for membership of a district council or of a Northern Ireland Assembly for a maximum period of five years as determined by the Court beginning with the date of determination.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Bill stands nothing less than five years' disqualification will suffice if a determination is made by the High Court that a councillor is in breach of his declaration.
The purpose of the amendment is to give the court a discretion to reduce the period of five years by reference to mitigating circumstances. A councillor will have no ground for complaint about disqualification where he has set out intentionally and wilfully to breach the declaration. We say that in those circumstances he fully deserves the disqualification. However, many of us find it strange and unfair that an unintentional breach of the declaration—a chance remark or an impulsive response in a provocative situation—should lead automatically to the same penalty and the same period of disqualification as that imposed for a wilful breach of the declaration.
The Bill fails to draw that distinction. We believe that the Bill is blunt and unfair in not doing so. We believe that in time it will be perceived by the people of Northern Ireland as unfair. We accept that mitigating circumstances should not be a defence to the proceedings but they should be relevant in deciding the period of disqualification. This amendment allows the court to take into account the mitigating circumstances in deciding the period of disqualification. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who, as we have come to expect, moved his amendment succinctly, briefly and clearly. In the course of the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord suggested that bluntness and simplicity were not necessarily virtues as far as the declaration was concerned. As regards the disqualification period for a breach of the declaration against terrorism, I would suggest that the bluntness and simplicity of the present clause are preferable to the degree of refinement which this amendment seeks to introduce. In taking a fixed five-year disqualification as the appropriate period, the Bill is largely following the existing law on disqualification for council office, both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain.
1342
Under the Local Government Act Northern Ireland 1972, at present a councillor is disqualified for five years from the date of conviction if he is sentenced to three months' imprisonment or more for any offence. This Bill replaces that with a period of five years from the date of release.
A person is also disqualified for five years if he is convicted of acting as a councillor while disqualified, whatever the sentence imposed. He is disqualified for five years if a local government auditor certifies that a sum of more than £2,000 is due from him, and the loss or deficiency was caused by his wilful misconduct. If he has been found personally guilty by an election court of a corrupt practice, he is barred from holding public office for five years.
If someone has been made bankrupt, or has reached a composition or arrangement with his creditors, his disqualification continues for five years from the issue of a certificate of conformity, or from the date on which the terms of the deed of composition or arrangement have been fully implemented.
There is nothing magical or talismanic about the figure of five years. But a disqualification period of five years has the advantage that a councillor or Assembly member who breaches the declaration is disqualified for the life of the current council or Assembly and is prevented from standing at the next general election to those bodies. The Government believe very firmly that this is the appropriate sanction for someone who breaches his declaration, and that it should apply automatically.
As the Bill stands, the High Court will be required to decide whether a councillor's words or actions could reasonably be understood as expressing support for, or approval of, proscribed organisations, or acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. There might be a conflict of evidence. But the issue for the court is essentially a simple one; whether or not the declaration has been breached.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord goes beyond this. It requires a court to decide whether the breach is serious or not; and to select an appropriate disqualification penalty. I am not a lawyer nor have I ever taken part in any matters of law, but I would not say that that is impossible for the courts. I am not saying this would be impossible for the courts to do so. But it does place them in the difficult., potentially invidious, position of having to judge the degree of seriousness in any particular words or actions. It is not clear from the amendment what criteria they would employ.
In effect, if the court has to take a decision as to whether the words or expressions used were serious and what the appropriate sanction should be, that would be a particularly difficult judgment and, for all the reasons we discussed in an earlier amendment, would be tantamount to a political judgment. I believe that it is best to avoid putting the courts in that position. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it is common ground between us that we wish to see that the court takes cognisance of what is said in the council chamber but we believe that the sanction of disqualification for

1343
five years is appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will accept the case which has been set out that the Bill should remain as it is before us.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question so that I am clear on this point. An application is made that a councillor should be disqualified from a particular named local authority. What is the position if he has residence in another part of Northern Ireland in an area with a different district council? Does the first disqualification bar him from all local government elections or only those to the named district council?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply briefly. If the councillor is found guilty by the court of being in breach of the declaration and is disqualified, then I understand that under Clause 8 the councillor is barred from standing again for that council, for any council office and also for the Assembly. That applies throughout Northern Ireland. At this stage I do not wish to become involved in what might happen if he came to Great Britain. I believe that Great Britain is beyond the parameters of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I confess that I am disappointed by the Minister's response. Merely to refer the House to a period of disqualification for wilful misconduct is not an appropriate precedent to be followed in the Bill. The point we are trying to make is that one case will differ from another in gravity; that is bound to be so. It should be taken care of by variation in the disqualification period. I do not believe that this is the time for blunt and simple solutions to the problems of Northern Ireland. I am sorry that the Minister has been unable to accept the amendment which I and those who support me believe is very sensible. I should like to test the opinion of the House on the merits of the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 49.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Brookeborough, V.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Moran, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Fitt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Romney, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hampton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

1344

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Bauer, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Kimball, L.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnock. L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Morris, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hayter, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.38 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Declaration against terrorism]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 5:
ge 11, line 10, leave out ("(that is to say, violence for political ends)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the word "terrorism" is defined in the Bill as "violence for political ends". In our view the definition in the context of this Bill is not helpful. The purpose of the amendment is to remove that definition from the Bill. In our view the definition is unsatisfactory for at least three reasons: it is too wide; paradoxically, it is too restrictive; and it lacks flexibility.
It was pointed out on Second Reading, and also in Committee, that a councillor who took part in an industrial demonstration, in favour of or against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which happened to involve assault and battery on the picket line could be caught by the definition. Therefore, I asked the Minister whether the councillor would be in breach of his declaration. He gave this answer:
"The decision would be entirely up to the court".—[Official Report, 9/2/89; col. 1740.]
Given the definition, I agree with the Minister that that must be a matter for the court, but surely it was never intended that such conduct could be perceived as being support for terrorism. Surely that cannot be within the contemplation of the Government.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, made the very valid point that political violence should not be, and is not, the equivalent of terrorist violence. The definition in the Bill fails to draw that vital distinction. On the other hand the definition is probably too restrictive. For example, does it encompass a councillor who expresses support for violence which has been used against Catholic or Protestant mourners at a funeral? That is not an impossible scene in Northern Ireland. Where does one draw the line between religious and political

1345
ends? If we are seeking to define terrorism, should one draw that line. Again, if a councillor speaks in support of an individual offender who has committed a scheduled offence and who has escaped from longterm custody, in those circumstances is that councillor expressing support for violence for political ends or merely expressing, as he sees it, a perceived humanitarian view?
I raise these three or four questions because they provide food for thought. We submit that probably the definition lacks flexibility. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, that it is not possible to pick, choose or define different types of violence for political ends. He almost said what we are saying about the definition of terrorism, that it is not helpful to seek to pick, choose or define different types of terrorism. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said in Committee and at Second Reading that terrorism is terrorism and people recognise it when they see it. Therefore we believe that a definition will not help the courts and it will not help to make this Bill workable. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly urge the House to accept this amendment for the reasons advanced so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, tonight, and for the reasons put foward by so many members of the Committee of all political persuasions and none at the Committee stage of this Bill when we were discussing an amendment of my own that related to the definition of the word "terrorism".
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, argued last time round that to include what most of us consider to be an unnecessary and, more importantly, unsatisfactory definition of the word "terrorism" is justified on the grounds that the word "terrorism" is also defined, albeit at much greater length, in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984, and in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Three wrongs do not make a right. The Minister went on to argue in the Official Report at col. 767 that the court would have to decide on the merits of any case brought before it. A few moments later he said:
"the court will exercise a degree of judgment which is well within its capabilities and capacity".
By putting into this Bill a superfluous and rigid definition of terrorism that includes matters that should be excluded and that excludes those that should be included, you are going to make the court's task more difficult. That is particularly regrettable as both the court and the public know perfectly well what terrorism is and do not need to have it spelt out for them—least of all when the definition to be included in the Bill is an imperfect one as I contend it is.
I mentioned the dangers of including matters that should be excluded, and excluding those that should be included. At political meetings in the United Kingdom tomatoes, eggs and other missiles have been thrown for at least 157 years; namely, since the Reform Bill 1832 and possibly for a great deal longer than that. We had better steer clear of the subject of eggs because that is rather a delicate matter for the Government at this moment. If the Bill remains unaltered, to throw a tomato in an election meeting
1346
will automatically be deemed a terrorist offence. It constitutes violence for political ends in Northern Ireland though not in England, Scotland or Wales.
Conversely, intimidation is not included. When we discussed this matter in Committee the noble Lord. Lord Fitt, drew our attention to this fact and he has mentioned the word "intimidation" most forcefully again tonight. If an 80 year-old lady is threatened with death for revealing the presence of an Armalite rifle stashed beneath the floorboards of her house or flat, this will not be deemed to be terrorism for the purpose of the Bill. This omission seems to many of us to be most regrettable. I contend that the majority of people in this country would hold that to threaten somebody with death or injury for political purposes constitutes a terrorist act.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, got to this point. I feel I should explain that because we thought that Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 inclusive should take priority, we have done nothing at this stage about the same unsatisfactory definition where it appears in Clause 6. If the principle of this amendment is established and these two amendments are agreed to this evening (as I trust they will be), then Clause 6 can be brought into line at Third Reading.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I propose to speak very briefly, having put my name to this amendment, because I believe that a declaration of this kind should be simple, clear and unambiguous. If our amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, Part B of the two forms will be absolutely clear. I do not believe that there is anyone in these islands who can be in doubt about what acts of terrorism mean when connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. The declaration simply requires someone to say,
"if elected, I will not by word or deed express support for, or approval of," that.
I believe that the words,
"(that is to say, violence for political ends)"
are quite unnecessary. If anything they make the declaration less clear and more ambiguous. Therefore I hope very much that the Government will agree to delete those words as it has been proposed.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I support this amendment for the reason of ambiguity, but also because in my view the sub-paragraph is seriously flawed in the sense that it gives a reasoned purpose and objectivity to terrorism hat is without foundation in principle. No terrorism that I am aware of in Northern Ireland is designed for political purposes. It is designed for genocide, hatred and sectarian reasons. You give terrorism a sense of purpose or political objectivity as is understood by the phrase "for political ends". Will the Minister please explain to me what the political ends are? I am in agreement that the sub-paragraph should be amended accordingly.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, my support for this amendment or a similar one at the Committee stage remains. I fully supported it for the reasons given then.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for moving this amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I believe that there is an air of déjà vu. As I explained in Committee when we were discussing a similar amendment, there are similar though not identical definitions of terrorism, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, explained, both in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.
I explained then and I reiterate tonight that these definitions cannot be read across into the Bill. The definition in the Bill is self-contained.
I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that we are discussing the behaviour of councillors, not some of the more interesting examples that he mentioned. I have no doubt that the court would be able to decide whether or not the throwing of a tomato, an egg, or similar agricultural produce, as a missile would be, for the purposes of regulating the behaviour of councillors, violence for political ends as defined in Clause 6.
The definitions are similar. We do not believe that either candidates or the courts—and this is the nub of the problem—will find the definition in the Bill difficult to interpret. There will be borderline cases. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is not alone in presenting these examples. There would be borderline cases no matter how one defined terrorism. This ground was covered at Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised it at Committee stage. All of us know perfectly well what terrorism is. We think that there is a case for leaving the word undefined. The amendments do not achieve that aim.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out in Committee that the definition of terrorism also appears in Clause 6; yet I note that there is no amendment to remove it. The amendment refers exclusively to Schedule 2. I remind your Lordships that it is Clause 6, not Schedule 2, which defines when a breach occurs. Thus, the two amendments before us would not prevent the courts interpreting the word "terrorism" as we recommend in Clause 6(1)(a)(ii).
The only effect of the amendments would be to introduce a gap between the declaration in Schedule 2 and the enforcement provision, which is what bites, in Clause 6. I think your Lordships will agree that that would be a nonsense, let alone undesirable. We believe there is merit in giving candidates a steer as to what constitutes terrorism. We are dealing tonight with election of candidates for council office, let alone an Assembly seat, and the declaration that they will have to sign before they are allowed to stand as candidates. The alternative would be to leave them entirely without guidance. This would be the worst of all possible outcomes.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, at Second Reading raised the question of civil disturbance, strikes and perhaps violence on picket lines. I said at Second Reading and I repeat tonight that the courts would have to decide whether or not that particular act of violence was committed in pursuit of political ends and, if it was, whether the councillor or member of the Assembly had expressed support for that
1348
violence. The court would look at each and every case to see whether whatever had been said or done met what is in Schedule 2 as well as the provision in Clause 6 which makes the enforcement of Schedule 2 possible. Clearly, the court could take into account some, although not necessarily all, forms of civil disorder. It would be a matter for the court in each and every case. I do not think that we or anyone else should pre-empt the decision of the court. The Bill sets a steer for candidates standing for election to a local council or the Assembly so that they know what they are signing and what they have to avoid in signing the declaration. For that reason I hope that your Lordships will reject the two amendments and leave the Bill as it stands.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord has not replied to my charge that the Government's definition of terrorism in the Bill excludes any question of intimidation. Earlier this evening I spoke to a noble Lord who was a most distinguished QC. He confirmed my supposition as a layman that intimidation, however grave, is not itself an act of violence. That is a most serious omission in the definition as the Bill stands.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that the court would take that into account in each and every case because the description is set out both in Clause 6 and, in two cases, in Schedule 2.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for pointing out that in the event of this amendment being acceptable to the House, we will have to return to remove the definition from every clause in the Bill, wherever it appears.
The Minister has sought to answer our case by claiming that there will always be borderline cases. However, by seeking to define the concept of terrorism, do the Government not see that they are creating more borderline cases? By leaving the matter to the court to adjudicate in the light of the definition, do the Government not see that a fetter is placed on the court? We believe that the definition is likely to prove troublesome for the three reasons which we have given. It is too wide; it is too restrictive; and it lacks flexibility.
The definition which the Government have produced is totally inadequate for a key concept such as terrorism. We would leave it to the court to recognise a declaration in support of terrorism whenever it sees it. We believe that that is a duty which we can leave with confidence to the court to discharge.
We are disappointed by the Minister's response. We will have to consider whether to come back with this amendment at a later stage in the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
House adjourned at three minutes before nine o'clock.

  COVENT GARDEN MARKET
  COVENT GARDEN MARKET
  FRENCH SOFT CHEESES
  FRENCH SOFT CHEESES
  SALMON NETTING
  SALMON NETTING
  NYLON MONOFILAMENT GILL NETS
  NYLON MONOFILAMENT GILL NETS
  CIVIL SERVANTS: OUTSIDE APPOINTMENTS
  CIVIL SERVANTS: OUTSIDE APPOINTMENTS
  FORCES MANPOWER DATA
  FORCES MANPOWER DATA
  EC ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 2nd MARCH
  EC ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 2nd MARCH
  WILDLIFE POACHING IN AFRICA: CONTROL MEASURES
  WILDLIFE POACHING IN AFRICA: CONTROL MEASURES
  ORDNANCE SURVEY
  ORDNANCE SURVEY
  CEGB: PRIVATISATION EXPENSES
  CEGB: PRIVATISATION EXPENSES
  BNFL: OVERSEAS EARNINGS
  BNFL: OVERSEAS EARNINGS