Sitting of 18 October 1989

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

    Constitutional Convention
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Government will now give further consideration to participating in the Scottish constitutional convention.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): No, Sir.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I see that a certain loyal junior Minister has been trying to use the constitutional debate as an alibi for the latest of the Government's economic failures in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Scottish constitutional convention is expressing the positive aspirations of the people of Scotland in a way in which this minority Administration never can and never will? Can we have a bit less of the Secretary of State's ministerial whingeing and will he face up to the clear demand from the people of Scotland for home rule within the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rifkind: The so-called constitutional convention is not having quite the major impact on Scottish opinion that the hon. Gentleman would like to believe. I understand that during the recent Scottish quiz "Super Scot", when the contestants were asked who were the two leaders of the convention, one participant responded that they were my hon. Friends the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). That suggests that the impact is not of the order that the hon. Gentleman would like.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is not the structure of the Scottish constitutional convention such that there is no way in which it can arrive at anything other than the answers that were required by those setting it up? In other words, it was never an attempt to have open discussion on the future of government in Scotland, but was for one, narrow, particular and nationalist issue only.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. It is now evident that the so-called convention is not making an impact on Scottish opinion, and that is not surprising because it is essentially an organisation entirely dominated by the Labour party, with different hats—those of the parliamentary Labour party, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or
    126
    a number of other individuals whose Labour sympathies are well known. Therefore, it is not surprising that they should reach a measure of agreement.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: We should pursue this point. Is it riot the case that the Secretary of State and now the deputy Prime Minister both believe that the Tory party and the Government should listen to what people are saying? Will the Secretary of State now listen to what the majority of the Scottish people say about their wish to look after their own affairs—a fundamental right which should not be denied to the Scottish nation by any so-called democratic Government?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am surprised that the hon. Lady wishes to give the impression that she is a great enthusiast for the convention, because her party has made it clear that it will have no truck with the convention unless it agrees to proportional representation for a future Scottish assembly. The deputy leader of the Labour party described proportional representation, on only 5 October this year, as being a reduction, not an extension, of democracy. He said that proportional representation would provide unrepresentative, small centre parties with disproportionate power, which would give them the opportunity to play cuckoos in the nest of the Labour Government. I know that the hon. Lady might wish to present herself as a flowering contribution to parliamentary debate, but there is little prospect of the convention meeting her party's fundamental requirement in respect of this matter.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the suggestions made by Jim Ross, the secretary of the campaign for a Scottish assembly on the fact that it would levy all the taxes set by Westminster and pass the remainder over? What effect would this have on public expenditure in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: That was an extraordinary proposal because it implied that the assembly, despite all the protestations to the contrary, would have no tax-raising power of its own but would depend entirely on the block grant system. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, will be well aware, even if some of his hon. Friends are not, that one could not fund the sort of expenditure that he and his hon. Friends have advocated as necessary in Scotland through such a system. Only by additional tax-raising powers could the assembly fund such expenditure. Therefore, these proposals would be crucially debilitating to Scottish health, education and housing and to the whole Scottish programme.
    Mr. Dewar: Is there not a strong case for the sort of reform that the convention is considering? The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, has attempted to suggest that the Intel Corporation's decision to go to Ireland was based on the fear of constitutional change in Scotland. Did the Secretary of State hear the interview on Radio Scotland in which the chairman of the Russell Corporation, an American company which is coming to Scotland—which we welcome—dismissed that outlandish theory?
    Is there not a case for constitutional change? Was it not indefensible for the Under-Secretary of State to take such a line and, in effect, to impugn Scotland's attractions as a home for inward investment, even when the Intel Corporation specifically repudiated what he had said? Will

    127
    the Secretary of State ensure that in future his colleague does not again put his partisan responsibilities as chairman of the Scottish Conservative party above his ministerial duty? Better still, will he remove him from one of his posts, given his apparent inability to distinguish between his two roles?
    Mr. Rifkind: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have taken the trouble to read what my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said about the matter. The hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, has shown extraordinary negligence in making such public allegations. My hon. Friend did not say that Intel would not come to Scotland for the reason that the hon. Gentleman suggested. He said:
    "Southern Ireland, with its low rate of corporation tax does offer an attractive long term, low-tax investment environment. After a decade of Conservative tax cutting budgets, we can match that attraction. In Scotland, however, we suffer the ever present threat of the creation of a high spending and high taxing Scottish Assembly."
    That is not only my hon. Friend's view and it is not only my view. It is the view of many within the Scottish business community. The hon. Gentleman should recall the conclusion of the report in the Scottish Business Insider, which was that Opposition parties have to convince indigenous companies of their financial reasoning and find an effective method of conveying the same message to potential inward investors. So far—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall have briefer questions leading to shorter answers. We have spent a long time on Question No. 1.

    Geriatric Hospital, Rutherglen
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct Greater Glasgow health board to proceed with the original proposal to build a geriatric hospital in Rutherglen, owned, staffed and managed within the National Health Service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): No. The Greater Glasgow health board's plans to work in partnership with the private sector could result in a brand new geriatric hospital for Rutherglen in only 18 months and at no capital cost to the board. I regret that the hon. Gentleman does not feel able to support the speedy provision of modern facilities for the elderly in his constituency.
    Mr. McAvoy: I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that he gave it with all the authority of a man who knows that he is the real boss in the Scottish Office. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we in Cambuslang and Rutherglen hold him personally responsible for blocking the plans for a National Health Service geriatric hospital in Rutherglen and replacing them with facilities provided by Takare plc? The health board says that it does not have the capital to build an NHS hospital but it says that if Takare goes bust it will find the capital to buy the facility from it. Will the Minister explain why the board has the capital to pay Takare but is unable to build an NHS hospital?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is not true that the Greater Glasgow health board does not have sufficient capital. Its capital allocation this year is—I speak from memory—about £28 million. The board wishes to ensure that its resources go as far as possible to provide the greatest possible standard of
    128
    care. If it is possible to get a hospital built in the hon. Gentleman's constituency more quickly at no capital cost, that capital will be available for facilities elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman is putting his dogma before the interests of patients.

    Development Agency
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency; and what issues were discussed.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman and the agency board on 22 May and discussed a range of issues of mutual interest.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of the surprise and dismay throughout Scotland at his unprecedented attack on the staff of the Scottish Development Agency? Is he further aware, as I am from my discussions with the chairman of the SDA, that the agency faces two real problems—first, the feeling of total uncertainty because of the Government's uncertainty about Scottish Enterprise, and secondly, the lack of funds to meet the commitments, need and demand throughout the country as identified by the officers of the agency? Both those problems lie at the door of the Secretary of State and the Government, and not with the staff or the SDA board.
    Mr. Lang: I am surprised and dismayed that the hon. Gentleman should think that I had launched an attack on the chairman or the management of the SDA. I have done no such thing. The SDA's recommendations about Scottish Enterprise were largely in tune with the proposals that the Government have since brought forward. I would have thought that today, of all days, the hon. Gentleman might have found it in his heart to stand up and welcome the SDA's decision, announced only yesterday, to launch the Cumnock and Doon Valley initiative in his constituency, to which the agency is committing £9 million over the next five years. It is a useful economic regeneration and environmental measure that would be of great value to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the residents of Cumnock and Doon Valley are extremely fortunate in what the SDA has done? However, does he accept that there is some disquiet in Scotland about some financial arrangements between the SDA, local authorities and private industry which now seem to be in doubt? Can he assure me that those arrangements will be fulfilled in the current financial year?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that there has been some concern about the funding of certain commitments by the agency. Indeed, I expressed that concern to senior agency personnel earlier this year. I am confident that, in the light of the decisions and steps that the agency has since taken, it has the matter under control. By proper prioritisation of the apportionment of funds, it should be able to meet its commitments.
    Dr. Godman: At the meeting was there any discussion about the Inverclyde initiative? Is there not a great deal of concern that the Scottish Office intends to extinguish the initiative in March next year? Will the Minister assure me that the Inverclyde initiative will continue under the

    129
    umbrella of Scottish Enterprise? Does he not agree that it is an important local initiative which should continue beyond March 1990?
    Mr. Lang: I am not aware of any proposal by the agency to discontinue the Inverclyde initiative. Inverclyde is certainly an area in need of specific help, which is why the agency launched the Inverclyde initiative. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have also created the Inverclyde enterprise zone, which has a 10-year life span. The measures that we are taking are beginning to generate results, which is encouraging for the people of Inverclyde.
    Mr. John Marshall: When my hon. Friend met the chairman of the SDA, did he discuss the fear of the Confederation of British Industry that devolution would lead to less investment in Scotland and therefore fewer jobs?
    Mr. Lang: No, Sir, that was not an issue discussed at that meeting. However, we did discuss a number of issues, on which total agreement was reached about the beneficial effects of the Government's various economic policies on the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Dewar: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition are astonished to hear him say that he has not criticised the top management of the SDA? Did he see the report in The Scotsman on 11 October, which quoted him as being
    "seriously concerned for some time about the way the SDA had been handling its budgets."
    Did he see the further report that the SDA chairman, Sir David Nickson
    "protested bitterly to Ian Lang, the Scottish industry minister, about his public attack on the agency's chief executive."
    Will that do anything for morale in the agency? Why did the Minister decide to air his views in such a public way rather than take his concerns to the agency on a private basis in the hope that something could be done if the criticisms were justified?
    The Scotsman report specifically states that the Minister, in arguing for enterprise companies, did so in terms that implied that the case for them was his critical view of the SDA's financial performance and the need to remove most of the agency's projects and place them under the tighter financial control that should come with enterprise companies. Is that an accurate reflection of the Government's position?
    Mr. Lang: I did not attack the SDA's chief executive, nor did its chairman protest bitterly to me. I expressed concern to the agency earlier this summer about the possible overcommitment of agency funds, and the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to criticise me if I had not done so. As a result of steps that the agency has taken, I have every confidence in its capacity to put its house in order and to administer its funds properly.
    The agency and the Government are of one mind on the suitability of local enterprise companies within the Scottish enterprise proposals. The reference in the quotation from which the hon. Gentleman drew was to the fact that each local enterprise company will have its own budget within its own enterprise company area, which will lead to tighter control on a regional and local basis than has been exercised in the past under the overall umbrella of the agency's budget.

    Trade Unions (Meetings)
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official meetings he has had with trade union leaders since assuming his present office.
    Mr. Rifkind: I meet representatives of the trade union movement from time to time on a range of issues. I am meeting the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 10 November to discuss matters affecting the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Brown: Since some 8,000 or more jobs in Scotland are on the line simply because Ferranti is at risk from a takeover bid, is it not vital that the Secretary of State has a special meeting with the union leaders representing that company's workers? Will the Government act as guarantor for the company's independence and see off the predators? That is what the people of Scotland and my constituents in particular want.
    Mr. Rifkind: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his reselection, which has given great pleasure to all Conservative Members.
    I am conscious of the problems facing Ferranti, which is an exceptionally important company for Scotland and for Edinburgh in particular. The company has not asked the Government to act as a guarantor, nor would that be appropriate, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. The Ministry of Defence put out a helpful statement showing the importance that it continues to attach to Ferranti and to its relationships with Ferranti and we look forward to the internal problems that that company has faced being resolved in the near future.
    Mr. Kennedy: Has the Secretary of State had any communication with the management of Aberdeen Journals Ltd. on its dispute with members of the National Union of Journalists? Does he have any comment to pass on what appear to be the reasonable grounds that those NUJ members, both dismissed and still working, have for alleging apparent victimisation in the course of the dispute? Would not management be well advised to adopt a less intransigent attitude in the dispute and to agree to round table talks under the auspices of the Advisory. Conciliation and Arbitration Service, or some other suitable third party, to resolve this most unfortunate industrial dispute?
    Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, we all regret industrial disputes, but it is not appropriate to expect Ministers to express any view on what is essentially a matter for management and unions to resolve. We hope that they will succeed in doing so, but no comment in this Chamber would be likely to help.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware that some of Scotland's trade union leaders were in Falkirk yesterday for the counting of the votes of the Royal Scottish National hospital work force ballot on the hospital's management's proposals for the hospital to opt out of existing arrangements within the NHS? Since 95 per cent. of the work force gave a resounding vote of no confidence in the hospital management's proposals, will the Secretary of State instruct the Forth Valley health board and the hospital management to abandon the disastrous proposals which are an attack on the rights of the 800 mentally handicapped patients at the hospital?
    Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that the Labour party has been disappointed by the growing interest in various parts of Scotland in the opportunities for greater autonomy for hospitals and group practices. We are at an early stage in such matters, but the views of all concerned in the proposals will be of interest. At this stage we look forward to hearing from the various parts of Scotland interested in developing opportunities for greater autonomy for hospitals and group practices and the other opportunities outlined in our NHS proposals.

    Electricity Prices
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in respect of electricity prices from industrial and consumer interests in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend receives representations from time to time on a range of matters relating to electricity prices applying to industrial and domestic consumers in Scotland. The setting of electricity prices for all categories of consumers is, of course, the responsibility of the electricity boards.
    Mr. Darling: Is the Minister aware that on top of the inevitable price rises that will follow the sell-off of the electricity industry, pensioners in particular are being hit by the very high level of standing charges imposed on electricity users? Will he join in the campaign to have those standing charges abolished by the private companies, and will he remind those speculators who clamour for an early sell-off of the industry that they will be seeking to profit from the financial misery suffered by old people who live in a country that has 50 per cent. over-capacity in electricity yet cannot afford to heat their homes in many instances?
    Mr. Lang: As under the last Labour Government, standing charges are a matter for the electricity boards and not for the Government. I do not think that the Conservative party needs any lessons from the Opposition on prices, given that while electricity prices have fallen in real terms over the past seven years, under the last Labour Government they increased by 170 per cent. in cash terms and by 20 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend acknow-ledge that the new arrangements for the industry offer a real opportunity for greater efficiency? Is he aware that those working in the industry want to get ahead with the new arrangements? When will the industry be floated?
    Mr. Lang: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the desirability of floating the industry and putting it into private hands. The timing is still to be decided, but the decision will be taken in the best interests of the industry, and it remains our firm intention to achieve privatisation within the lifetime of this Parliament.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that the House was seriously misled by Ministers about the likely decommissioning costs of Magnox stations, including those of the one in my constituency, which are to be borne by the taxpayer in order to gild the unwanted privatisation lily? In the light of the leaked information that Magnox decommissioning is likely to cost £6·6 billion of taxpayers'
    132
    money, can he throw fresh light on the likely decommissioning costs at Hunterston A and under whose auspices they will be incurred?
    Given the privatisation shambles, when will the Scottish boards be hawked in the market-place? Best of all, can the Minister assure us that that will not be done this side of a general election?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on his leaked speculation, but I shall reassure him that I have no reason to believe that the House was misled over this matter.

    Housing Investment
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities about the case for increasing investment in public sector housing.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): At a meeting with me on 22 September, the convention expressed concern about a possible shortfall in receipts from council house sales in some authorities in the current year. I have also received representations from a number of local authorities concerning the detail of their ongoing programmes, but they mostly appreciate that consideration of future investment programmes can best take place in the context of their housing plans and capital programmes which they are due to submit next month.
    Mr. Sillars: Does the Minister acknowledge that whatever he may be doing this year, the past 10 years have been years of disinvestment in public sector housing in Scotland, and that a reasonable measure of the success or otherwise of that policy is whether it puts decent roofs over families? Does he agree that after 10 years of that policy, 29,000 families are homeless, an increase of 77 per cent. in the past five years; that 192,000 people are on the waiting lists; that we have had a loss of stock of 130,000 homes in the public sector; and that some of our best councils are being turned into slum landlords because of a lack of investment in the public sector? How does he justify the bitter fruit of that policy?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Total gross public investment in Scottish housing has increased in real terms by 2 per cent. a year over the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman supported the last Labour Government in office and during those five years there was a decrease of 8 per cent. a year in real terms, for which he bore part of the responsibility.
    Total gross capital spending in public sector housing in Scotland this year is £968·4 million, as allocated in March. I strongly recommend the hon. Gentleman to make representations about circumstances that affect his constituents to his district council, so that they can go into the housing plan on 3 November and be properly considered. This year, £94·2 million was allocated for investment in council houses in Glasgow, with a further £140 million in covenant schemes. No less than £466 million has been spent on Glasgow through housing associations, of course funded by the Government.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister explain why he has not given local authorities separate and specific moneys to spend on dampness, when hundreds of thousands of Scots are living in homes riddled with damp?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Certainly. Special allocations in recent years undoubtedly helped to focus local authority attention on the need to tackle such problems urgently, but this year those allocations were subsumed into general allocations, along with an extra £29 million, to make it easier for local authorities to tackle problems in the way that they considered most appropriate, and to leave the discretion to the local authorities to concentrate on their most pressing priorities.
    Mr. Baldry: Is it not a constitutional convention in Scotland, as elsewhere in the country, that people should abide by the law passed by Parliament? How can those words possibly lie in the mouth of a representative of a party that has been exhorting people to break the law and not pay the community charge, thus denying local authorities much-needed funds to discharge their housing responsibilities?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is very important that local authorities should have the necessary funding from local taxation. I am very glad that the reminders being sent out are having an effect.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that so far the Government's response on dampness in housing has been totally ineffective? The Minister will by now have had the opportunity to read the report in the British Medical Journal of June this year which established in Scotland the relationship between damp housing and ill health. What is the Government's response to that report? When will the Government put in enough money to prevent damp housing and thus improve the health of the Scottish nation?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that it is for local authorities to choose their top priorities. If dampness rather than homelessness or any other problem is the most pressing priority in his constituency, he should make absolutely certain that that is taken up by the local authority. Of course, I have read the report, which we discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee in the summer.

    Farming
    Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed with farming interests the sheep and beef sectors, with special reference to the hills and uplands; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met the president, council members and senior office bearers of the Scottish National Farmers Union on 7 September. We discussed a wide range of issues of current concern including the state of livestock farming in the hills and uplands.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is grave concern within the National Farmers Union and farming circles that there might be a reduction in EEC funding of the hill livestock compensatory allowance? Does he further agree that in the
    134
    hills there really is no alternative to sheep and cattle production and that if the grant is reduced it will have serious repercussions on the rural economy?
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the current proposal from the European Commission discriminates blatantly against the structure of hill farming in the United Kingdom, and we shall continue to oppose it in the negotiations in Brussels.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State recognise that measures to deal with budgetary problems in the CAP and structural surpluses are quite inappropriate if they remove from those in the hills and uplands their basic economy? Will he examine the possibility of strengthening measures for the regional development of those sparsely populated areas using agricultural techniques?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that structural surpluses are not healthy and need to be dealt with. I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about ensuring a system of support which recognises the particular nature of the agricultural economy in rural areas of Scotland. He will be aware that we have been successful in ensuring, through the Community, development programmes for the north of Scotland which have been widely welcomed and which are responsible for very important infrastructure improvements.
    Mr. McAllion: Has the Secretary of State had discussions concerning another native species which is in great danger in Scotland? I refer, of course, to tigers, and in particular to the Tayside Tigers ice hockey team, so unjustifiably excluded from the premier league. Will the Minister join me in deploring that outrageous decision by the British Ice Hockey Association? Will he undertake to consult his colleagues about bringing pressure to bear on the association to reverse that decision?
    Mr. Rifkind: This is not a matter which the Scottish National Farmers Union has yet thought appropriate to raise with me, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the relevant Minister will he looking into it.

    Pittenweem Harbour
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the development of Pittenweem harbour; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend recognises the importance of Pittenweem harbour for the local community. He has made a financial contribution towards an initial engineering survey, on the basis of which proposals have been drawn up for the harbour's development.
    Mr. Campbell: When can we expect an unqualified endorsement by the Government of the proposals for Pittenweem? Is it a failure by the Government to understand the importance of the proposals for the fishing industry in north-east Fife, or perhaps is the truth that the Government are indifferent to the future of Pittenweem and the fishing industry? Is that why the Secretary of State declined to meet representatives of the fishing industry who wished to press the case for those developments?
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has made a financial contribution of £50,000 towards the initial engineering survey. Subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, he will be prepared to support the project in principle if benefits and a sound rate of return on the investment are likely to accrue. No decision can be announced until Fife regional council reconsiders the proposed development and submits a revised appraisal. The findings of the Parliamentary Commissioners will have to be taken into account, and their decision is expected towards the end of the year.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge the importance of Pittenweem to the fishing industry in Fife, but will my hon. Friend say when the Secretary of State will make a statement on what he is doing about the parlous and critical state of the fishing industry in Scotland in relation to decommissioning, a reformed licensing system and plans for a much better and longer-lasting structure for the industry?
    Mr. Lang: My noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office is well seized of the urgency and importance of all the issues to which my right hon. Friend refers and will give them his close attention.

    "Inside Intelligence"
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for his general policy on initiating litigation of the cost of legal action relating to the book "Inside Intelligence".
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The costs payable by the Government in respect of the legal action relating to the book "Inside Intelligence" have not yet been finally determined. Cost is only one factor to be taken into account in deciding whether to initiate litigation.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the latest cost figure?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The total amount to be paid will be ascertained only when accounts have been lodged and taxed by the relevant authorities. So far, the total sums paid by the Government amount to £64,871.
    Mr. McKelvey: If the Minister is saying that cost is only one aspect of deciding whether a case should proceed, there must be some further examination of what the total cost will be. There must at least be a guesstimate of what the total cost will be.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have told the hon. Gentleman that the total sums paid so far amount to £64,871, but I stress that the issue in this case is whether a person who has undertaken not to write about his work with the intelligence services should be allowed to break that undertaking. It was, and remains, the Government's view that it is important to raise any court action necessary to prevent such undertakings from being broken.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister agree that this is the second time that the Government have made complete fools of themselves in the eyes of the world over such cases? Following Peter Wright, we now have the Cavendish case in Scotland. Is not the serious consequence of this that the Government can initiate such action, which
    136
    costs newspapers much money? For low-level circulation newspapers it is a form of concealed censorship, which should be deplored and withdrawn.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the Government's duty to enforce the duty of confidentiality owed by members or former members of the security and intelligence services. The articles in The Scotsman that prompted the action were based on a book written by such a person. The issue is whether a newspaper that had obtained that book was entitled to publish it. I stress that I cannot believe that the House would wish to abolish the duty of confidentiality owed by members of the security and intelligence services.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Scottish CBI
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last had discussions with the Scottish Confederation of British Industry; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend is in frequent touch with the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland on matters affecting the Scottish economy and industry. He looks forward to a continuing exchange of views.
    Mr. Favell: With Scottish employment up, Scottish manufacturing output up and Scottish exports up, is it not clear to the Scottish CBI that free enterprise suits Scotland very well, just as it suits the rest of the United Kingdom very well? Is it not a fact that the Socialists on the Opposition Benches have been prophesying imminent disaster for Scotland for years, yet the opposite is the case? Would not the biggest disaster for Scotland be a Socialist assembly in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and has made the point extremely well. He was correct to put his finger on the point that a Socialist Government would be the most damaging thing from which the Scottish economy could suffer, bringing, as it would inevitably, high taxation.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: What discussions has the Minister had with representatives of the Scottish CBI about the formation of enterprise companies to ensure that local authority representation is included in any companies that are established? Will he assure the House that representatives from district and regional local authorities will be included in the enterprise companies?
    Mr. Lang: Many member of the CBI are taking a very active part in the formation of local enterprise companies. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks about the representation of local authorities on local enterprise company boards because individuals will be appointed on their merits. However, the opportunity exists for local authorities to become closely involved—as many wish—with local enterprise companies through mem-bership of the companies.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister discuss with the CBI how the real economic needs of the Scottish people

    137
    can be met? What can the Minister say to one of my constituents who faces hard times because of the crisis in the fishing industry? The Government have not addressed that problem. My constituent is running a small business which is being hammered by a high interest rate policy designed to suit not Scotland, but the narrow selfish interests of the south-east of England. Is that not yet another example of a Scottish Minister who can do nothing being overruled by a British Minister who will do nothing for Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman seems to be remarkably unaware of the present circumstances of the economy in Scotland. Of course, there are issues of great concern to the fishing industry, which has experienced several very good years. My noble Friend the Minister responsible for fishing matters at the Scottish Office is giving those issues his very close and urgent attention.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that business decisions—as the CBI is well aware—are made on the basis of confidence in the future and that the flawed and probably fraudulent proposals for various forms of devolution, and the separatism on order from the nationalists, remind us of what happened in Quebec when capital flowed from that area at an alarming rate? We do not want that to happen in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Confidence is critical to the success of an economy. The business community's confidence in this Conservative Government is reflected in the strong investment enjoyed by the Scottish economy in recent years.
    Mr. Wallace: Has the Minister of State discussed with the Scottish CBI recently the proposals for electricity privatisation and in particular the implications for Scotland of announcements made by the Secretary of State for Energy during the recess which would appear to limit the scope of the Scottish boards to export surplus capacity to England? Will the additional costs arising as a result of that be borne by Scottish consumers, including industrial consumers, or by potential shareholders?
    Mr. Lang: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the potential advantage to the privatised industry of increased competition through the sale of electricity down the interconnector to the markets in England. That matter is being examined closely by interested parties north and south of the border, and it would provide a considerable advantage to the Scottish consumer as well as to the electricity companies.
    Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that employment in Scotland is at its highest level since 1980? Has my hon. Friend discussed with the CBI the possible effects of a tax-raising assembly on the Scottish economy and the employment prospects for Scotland?
    Mr. LangI am happy to confirm that the civilian work force in employment in Scotland is at its highest level since 1980 and that, in recent months, almost all the indicators in the Scottish economy have been very encouraging. One thing that would certainly destroy confidence and, therefore, the success of the economy would be the increased tax burden that would flow from a Labour Government with all their high-spending policies and constitutional paraphernalia.
    Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister explain to the chairman of the CBI in the next few weeks the thinking behind the recent very public attack on the integrity and competence of the chief executive of the Scottish Development Agency, Mr. Ian Robertson, in a Scottish newspaper? Does the Minister accept that such an assault will further damage the credibility of the SDA, which is already shaken by Government policy, and in which there is a real morale crisis because of the present membership of the Government Front Bench? More importantly, will the Minister tell the House that Mr. Ian Robertson's job is secure and that the Government have every confidence in his ability to carry out the future work of the SDA? Can we expect the exchange of correspondence between Sir David Nickson and the Minister to be made public at an early date so that we may see what is happening in what is fast becoming a very shabby affair in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman's question is founded on a myth, it hardly calls for an answer. The Scottish Development Agency is enthusiastically embracing the Government's plans for the development of Scottish Enterprise. It is the most exciting initiative to have been brought into the Scottish economic scene in many a year, and it will build on the success that we have already achieved in Scotland.

    Smokeless Zones
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects smokeless zones to be extended to the whole of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is for a district or islands council to decide in the first instance whether to declare a smoke control area. That step is most unlikely for the many parts of Scotland which are sparsely populated.
    Mr. Riddick: I welcome that reply because it will ensure that the inhabitants of the Western Isles and other parts of Scotland will be allowed to continue to burn peat as they have been doing for many years. Is my hon. Friend aware that my local council, Kirklees, intends to extend smokeless zones to cover rural areas in my constituency? That would stop the hearth-holders of the graveship of Holme burning peat as they have done for many centuries. Does my hon. Friend agree that that extension is a major intrusion into the lives of ordinary country folk?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about West Yorkshire, but all areas in Britain must comply with the terms of the EC directive. In Scotland, apart from two districts in west central Scotland—Glasgow and Strathkelvin—the country meets the standards laid down by the EC directive on pollution by sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates. I stress that those two districts have received derogation until 1 April 1993 and that Scotland has made significant advances in that connection.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although hon. Members welcome the sudden interest of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) in the welfare of people in rural communities in Scotland, does the Minister agree that the burning environmental issue in sparsely populated areas is Nirex's proposal to use Scotland for the disposal of nuclear waste? Is he aware that his counterpart in the Department of the Environment has not yet been advised

    139
    by Nirex of the 12 additional sites in Scotland that are likely to be considered? Will the Scottish Office stand idly by and let Nirex use our country to dispose of its nuclear waste?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. Nirex is seeking to investigate the suitability of the geology at Sellafield and Dounreay. No decision can be taken until that has been done. Of course it is possible that neither site will prove suitable and that Nirex will require to reconsider site reselection, but I assure the hon. Lady that the facts in this issue will continually be made public.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will remove from local authorities the discretion to vary the multiples for the setting of the standard community charge; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government believe that the best course of action is the increased local authority discretion which I announced on 26 July. This has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend really confident? I do not share his confidence. Is he aware that some holiday home owners in my constituency do not have inside sanitation, electricity or water but have seen their rates increase from about £10 to more than £400? Local authorities have discretion to apply the standard charge at a lower level, but they are not doing so. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take more direct steps to ensure that the properties that I have described do not suffer from such treatment by local authorities?
    Mr. Rifkind: Until the announcement in July, a local authority which wished to apply a single multiple would have had to do so in respect of all standard homes in its area. We have been informed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that if local authorities had the discretion which, indeed, they will now have, to apply a single multiple to certain categories of second homes for the standard charge they would be inclined to use it. The convention has also given us an assurance that it intends strongly to recommend to local authorities that they use the discretion that has now been made available to them.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State concede that in terms of the poll tax we are moving towards chaos in Scotland, not because of statements that he has made but because of statements that he has not made on matters such as Alzheimer's disease? A concession for those with Alzheimer's disease has now been made, although at the Dispatch Box the Secretary of State repeatedly refused to make concessions. On 26 July the Secretary of State made some statements about local authorities submitting bills for small sums to people who were dead and he seemed to suggest that those could be waived by local authorities. Would he care to clarify that because it needs urgent consideration in the whole of Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend the Minister of State made it clear before the House rose for the summer recess that we had every intention of helping those who have Alzheimer's disease. I am delighted that we have been able
    140
    to announce the way in which that will be done. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that rather than carp about it.
    In reply to the other half of his question, my observation was that I believed it to be inconceivable that COSLA would seek to take action against a local authority that did not pursue a small sum due in respect of someone who had died. I hope that the position is now suitably clarified.
    Mrs. Fyfe: How is it that the poll tax legislation, which went through the House of Commons first for Scotland and subsequently for England and Wales, was thought to be perfect beyond the bounds of any possible criticism, yet now hon. Members are beginning to discover some defects in it? Can it possibly be that Tory Members fear losing their seats at the next general election?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady is under a considerable misapprehension. The legislation approved by the House, both for Scotland and England, will be implemented. The changes announced recently were purely transitional arrangements—[Interruption.] Indeed, at the end of what will be a short transition the original proposals will come into effect in exactly the way that Parliament approved.
    Mr. Jack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition's disinformation campaign on the community charge in Scotland has been unsuccessful? Can he confirm that already 83 per cent. of people are paying the community charge in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: Not only can I confirm that, but I can inform the House that the figure is as high as 95 per cent. in some parts of Scotland. Labour local authorities have themselves said that the level of payment to date is broadly comparable with that under the old rating system at this time of year.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not entirely disingenuous of the Secretary of State to blame local authorities for the financial adverse effects suffered as a result of these poll tax anomalies when local authorities have suffered substantial cuts in grants and would be penalised in some cases if they made available additional expenditure to cover such anomalies? When can we cross-examine the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House on the detail of his statement of 26 July? Has he had a chance to look at the new anomaly created by dragging the bed-and-breakfast operations into the rating system as a result of the standard community charge provisions?
    Mr. Rifkind: The legislative requirements that flow from the recent announcement will be laid before the House at the earliest opportunity. It is extraordinary that, as a Member of Parliament from the borders area, the hon. Gentleman should not mention that under the new financing arrangements for local authorities, the local authorities in his part of Scotland will receive substantially greater grants than in the past and will do so under a system where grant penalties have been withdrawn. If the hon. Genteleman cannot express any welcome for that, it shows that he is a most ungrateful character.
    Mr. Maxton: Although we welcome the long-delayed concession in the poll tax in relation to Alzheimer's disease, for which Opposition Members have fought long and hard, is it not shameful that in Scotland that concession will not be backdated to 1 April this year and

    141
    that the concession will be given to all Alzheimer's disease sufferers from the next financial year only? Is it not obvious from the concessions made at the Tory party conference in Blackpool last week that, as a result of the messages coming from Scotland about the gross unfairness of this tax and the bureaucratic mess surrounding it, the Tories in England are running scared about the effect that it will have on them at the next general election?
    Mr. Rifkind: The chairman of the Alzheimers Disease Society warmly welcomed the Government's announce-ment when he met the Minister concerned. The main political change in Scotland since the introduction of the community charge has been that the Scottish Nationalists have fallen back to third place, which is where they belong.

    Drinking Water
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for increasing the level of funding to local authorities to met the European Economic Community requirements in relation to drinking water.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Resources have been increased already. The 1989–90 capital allocation for water and sewerage services is £126 million, a 14 per cent. increase over the previous year's planned provision. Regional and islands authorities have been asked to provide details of costed action programmes to achieve full compliance with the EC drinking water directive. These will be taken into account when setting next year's allocations.
    Mr. Dunnachie: In view of the promises made to the English water authorities that the standards of water in England will be raised to a standard acceptable to the EEC and that that will be funded by the Government, will the Minister give the same guarantees to Scotland, and if not, why not?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, indeed. Capital restructuring in England is necessary before privatisation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, arrangements in Scotland are different. The implications for Scottish consumers of the debt write-off and the cash injection for the new companies in England and Wales are now being considered.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that Mr. Greir, the director of sewerage for Strathclyde, has said that he is prepared to do everything necessary to clean up the Ayrshire beaches if the Government, and the Minister in particular, come up with the money? Will the Minister give an assurance that more money will be available? Incidentally, can he tell us how he and his colleagues have managed to get through the whole of this Question Time without the advice of their special adviser on Scotland, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), with whom I share a secretary, for his constant advice. The hon. Gentleman's point will be seriously considered when the public expenditure survey is looked at this autumn.

    Handicapped People
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional resources he is making available to health boards to ensure that the needs of handicapped people are provided for in the community.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The bulk of services for handicapped people in the community is provided by local authorities. Between 1979 and 1989 provision in rate support grant for expenditure by social work departments was increased by 65 per cent. in real terms enabling authorities to make substantial increases in the level of those services.
    Mr. Griffiths: Why have the Government done so little to consult those people involved in caring for people in the community? Why is the Government's response to the Griffiths report in Scotland already at the printers?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is either misled or is misinforming the House. The Government have consulted carefully on Griffiths and allowed a substantial period for consultation before publishing the White Paper proposals, which we shall do shortly.

    Industrial and Regional Policy
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met interested bodies such as the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry to discuss industrial and regional policy.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend is in frequent touch with bodies representative of industry in Scotland on matters concerning industrial and regional policy.
    Mr. McFall: When the Minister last met those bodies, did he discuss the scurrilous remarks of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) about the Intel Corporation, which he said was chased away from Scotland by the prospect of high taxes from a Scottish assembly, a statement which was categorically rejected by the company, which said that the issue was never raised once? In any future meetings with those bodies, will the hon. Gentleman ensure the absence of the hon. Member for Stirling and make sure that he does what he has been good at: being the Paul Daniels of Scottish politics, making the Tory party, as well as the person of the Secretary of State for Scotland, disappear "Just like that", as the Prime Minister would say?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has obviously spent most of the recess rehearsing that question. Sadly, it lacked accuracy as well as spontaneity. In my meetings and those of my right hon. and learned Friend with the CBI, one point that has been made abundantly clear is that it favours a low taxation economy. This Government have reduced corporation tax from 52p in the pound to 35p in the pound. Perhaps the Labour party will come clean one day and tell us how much corporation tax will rise under a future Labour Government.
    Mr. Strang: To return to what the Secretary of State said about Ferranti, does the Minister recognise that it is not sufficient for the Government just to point to the statement from the Secretary of State for Defence—welcome though that was? We want an undertaking that

    143
    the Government will intervene, if necessary, to ensure that the financial solution found for Ferranti will provide for major increased investment in Scotland and will enable the company to go forward and win the contract for the European fighter aircraft.
    Mr. Lang: We certainly recognise the great importance of Ferranti, as a major employer, to the Scottish economy. These are difficult and commercially sensitive matters. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are keeping in close touch with progress.
    3.31 pm
    Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your advice on the increasing habit of questions being tabled and hon. Members not being here to ask them? The Minister of State said a few minutes ago that one of my hon. Friends had been rehearsing hard all recess. The new Patronage Secretary's representative on the Scottish team, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), has been earning his corn. There are no fewer than nine questions down—seven from hon. Members south of the border—all in identical terms, showing a most unlikely interest in the views of the Scottish CBI. That may be fair game, but five of the questions from hon. Members south of the border
    144
    appeared in the first dozen or so called today. Only one of those hon. Members—the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett)—withdrew his question. There were four questions running from such unlikely places as Cannock and Burntwood, Amber Valley, Stockton, South and Beverley, for which the hon. Member concerned was not present. Does that not amount to an abuse and should not some guidance be given?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I sometimes hear complaints from the hon. Gentleman about the number of hon. Members representing English constituencies who put down questions. I do not quite get the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument this afternoon. These questions were put down before the recess. The hon. Members concerned notified my office and that is why their names were not called out.

  BILL PRESENTED
    REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
    Mr. Allen presented a Bill to abolish the present composition of the House of Lords and to provide for a new membership based solely on an equal directly elected representation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

Registered Homes (Rights to Residence)
3.33 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the residential security of persons living in voluntary, private residential or nursing homes and for connected purposes.
The proposed Bill aims to introduce a clear legal framework to protect the residential security of people admitted to private and voluntary homes. It seeks to place a statutory obligation on the proprietor or manager of a home to enter into a care contract with a resident prior to admission. The terms of the contract would be governed by regulations and include a requirement that residents being asked to leave the home must be given a specific period of notice. In addition to the resident being supplied with a copy of the contract, the Bill requires a copy to be supplied to the resident's nearest relative or representative and the local registration authority. They will also have to be notified formally if the home asks the resident to leave. The Bill would place a clear duty on the registration authority to ensure that—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please listen to what is being said on the ten-minute rule motion? It concerns an important matter.
Mr. Hinchliffe: The Bill would place a clear duty on the registration authority to ensure that, where necessary, the resident is given advice and assistance to obtain alternative accommodation.
Although paying residents possess certain common law rights of occupation, very few people in private or voluntary homes are made aware of their legal position. As a consequence, it is rare to hear of anyone challenging the legality of an attempt by an establishment to force that person to leave. The Bill aims to simplify the legal position and to ensure that residents of private and voluntary homes, who are often vulnerable and isolated people, cannot be forced to leave before appropriate alternative arrangements for their care have been made. The legal position of a resident in such a home appears markedly different from that of a person in private or local authority housing.
For many people it is clear that entering care significantly reduces or effectively ends the right to residential security that they previously enjoyed, and at a time in their lives when often they are least able to defend their interests. People directly affected by evictions from homes are rarely able to make a stand on the issue, and therefore the extent of the problem that the Bill addresses is difficult to assess because it is largely hidden.
I am particularly concerned that there are worrying examples of people being dumped by private homes. Some time ago I came across a case in my constituency where a private home admitted an elderly lady for a short stay while her family went away for a well-earned holiday. Within hours of her arrival the home determined that her
146
condition was such that it could not care for her. Rather than taking appropriate steps to arrange proper alternative accommodation, the home simply put her in a taxi and packed her off to the local police station.
Elsewhere in Yorkshire a local authority has recently had to threaten private homes with deregistration because of concern about the eviction of residents and the use of what is, effectively, emotional blackmail to pass responsibility for them on to relatives. A report to Sheffield's social services committee earlier this year described how one woman had been dumped at the out-patients department of the city's Royal Hallamshire hospital simply because she had become too difficult to handle. As the hospital's report confirms,
"it is more common to hear of relatives being forced to make alternative arrangements for the care of a relative, often with little, if any, prior notice."
While a marked change in the condition of a resident may mean that in the resident's own interests, as well as those of the home, he or she needs more appropriate care, many evictions arise because of inadequate or non-existent assessment of the person's circumstances prior to admission.
Even more frequent are examples of people being forced to leave because of a reduction in their financial resources and their inability to meet the required fees with their retirement pension and an insufficient income support supplement. This point was raised by numerous hon. Members in yesterday's debate on community care and the Griffiths report. In these circumstances, people who do not have relatives who are prepared to top up their contributions—as many do nowadays—frequently move down market to cheaper and what must be described as less desirable conditions.
I hope that the care contract provided for in the Bill will improve the assessment process before admission and reduce the number of residents with inadequate financial resources who are admitted to care, only to be forced to leave subsequently when they are unable to pay their bills. The Bill addresses a problem facing some of our most vulnerable and dependent citizens. I am sure that, from their experience of cases in their constituencies, many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will see the logic behind the measure, and I hope that they will support its continued progress through Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. David Blunkett.

REGISTERED HOMES (RIGHTS TO RESIDENCE)
Mr. David Hinchliffe accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the residential security of persons living in voluntary, private residential or nursing homes and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 205.]
Defence Estimates

  FIRST DAY'S DEBATE
  [The following Reports from the Defence Committee are relevant: Second Report, Staffing Levels in the Procurement Executive, House of Commons Paper 269; Third Report, The Working of the AWACS Offset Agreement, House of Commons Paper 286; Fifth Report, The Progress of the Trident Programme, House of Commons Paper 374; Sixth Report, The Royal Navy's Surface Fleet: Current Issues, House of Commons Paper 419; Seventh Report, Decommissioning of Nuclear Submarines, House of Commons Paper 316; Eighth Report, The Procurement of the Tucano Trainer Aircraft, House of Commons Paper 372; Ninth Report, The Availability of Merchant Shipping for Defence Purposes: July 1989, House of Commons Paper 495; Tenth Report, The Vertical Launch Sea Wolf Missile System and the Type 23 Frigate Command System, House of Commons Paper 409; and Eleventh Report, The Procurement of the Light Anti-Tank Weapon LAW 80, House of Commons Paper 350]
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members who are now seeking to raise points of order also want to be called in the debate. I hope that they will not delay it.
  Mr. Derek Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is appropriate to raise this with you now. You will know from past defence debates that in my constituency many factories produce defence procurement goods. I believe that some of the investment in those jobs is now under threat as a result of the confusion about the £5 million of proposed cuts in——
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Conway: If I can——
  Mr. Speaker: No. I was hoping to call the hon. Gentleman. He could raise just such issues in his speech.
  Mr. Conway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Heffer.
  Mr. Eric Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Under no circumstances should we ever challenge your ruling, and of course I am not challenging your ruling, but may we have an explanation of why the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and me, among others, which expresses the views of the conference of the Labour party, and is therefore a view held not just by the Labour party but by millions of people in this country, has not been called?
  Mr. Allan Rogers: No, it is not.
  Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) may not know because he has not been a Member long enough, but on many occasions in the past, I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and many others were called to speak when proposals of this kind were made. I would like to ask why—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been here for a long time and he knows that it is not possible for the Chair to select more than one amendment. I have announced my decision about which amendment I will call today. Of course I will do my best to ensure that the hon. Member and his right hon. and hon. Friends who signed that amendment may take some part in this two-day debate.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not for us to challenge your selection of amendments, but did you, Mr. Speaker, when you decided not to select the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), appreciate that it is exactly in line with Labour party policy at its conference? Is it not a great pity that Opposition Members will now be denied the opportunity of supporting their own policy?
  Mr. Speaker: These are all points that could legitimately be raised in the debate. I call Mr. Secretary King.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: As it was not a point of order, I think we should hear the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Brown: It is a serious point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to have a debate about my selection of amendments. I have already announced my selection, which is the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Brown: I have a point of order which is in no way connected with your selection, Mr. Speaker. I want to know, further to the legitimate point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), whether it will be in order, if we catch your eye during the debate, to refer to and debate some aspects of the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Although there are only 10 signatories here, there are another 4,201,000 out there who agree with what he has said.
  Mr. Speaker: As I am sure that the House is anxious that we should get on, I can give the hon. Member a short answer. The answer is yes.
  3.43 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 contained in Cm. 675.
  When preparing for this debate, I took the opportunity to read the Hansard reports of last year's debate. There is a deadly similarity between the position in which we find ourselves now and what happened last year. Last year, I think it was the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who raised a point of order about whether it was in order for the official Labour party policy on defence, which was the subject of his amendment and that of certain of his hon. Friends, to be debated and not——
  Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order for me or a disagreement?
  Mr. Rogers: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it proper for the Secretary of State, after you have ruled that a previous intervention was not a point of order, to waste the time of the House by referring to that intervention?
  Mr. Speaker: I was asked by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) whether it would be in order for these matters to be mentioned in the debate, and I gave the answer: it is in order.
  Mr. King: If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) had done you the courtesy of listening to you, Mr. Speaker, he would have heard that it is in order to debate the amendment. Despite the sensitivity shown so quickly—we all understand why—by the hon. Gentleman, in a short while I shall have a little more to say about that amendment, which was carried with precisely twice the majority that the Leader of the Opposition could raise against the pathetic attempts of the official Opposition to prevent a vote on that amendment at the Labour party conference.
  It is a privilege for me to speak for the first time as Secretary of State for Defence. I hope that I will carry the House with me when I pay a warm tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). Whatever people's political views, as both Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Defence, there was no better liked Secretary of State, and I am proud to follow him in this office.
  We are here to approve the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" and we have before us the report of the Select Committee on those estimates. Tagged with the estimates is a most impressive selection of reports of the Select Committee on a number of items that it has reviewed. I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and the right hon. and hon. Members who serve on the Committee. We have our different responsibilities, and I have no doubt that we shall have our disagreements as well, but I recognise that their responsibility, on behalf of the House of Commons, is to scrutinise the work of my Department. While we shall defend our interests vigorously, at all times we shall give prompt, courteous and, I hope, informative responses to any approaches that my hon. Friend and his colleagues may make to us.
  I welcome the timing of this debate, immediately after the recess. Every hon. Member must share my feelings about the incredible nature of many of the events that have been taking place in the world, particularly in Europe, during this period. It is right that we should, at this early opportunity, have the chance to address, as the House of Commons, the important developments that are taking place in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and their implications for the defence of our country and for western defence.
  During this time we shall need the fullest possible opportunity for consideration of, and informed discussion on, the issues that confront us. I have a specific announcement to make. It is vital that we have the resources that we need to address these issues and to get proper public understanding of them. To contribute to this, I have decided that the Ministry of Defence should help to establish a new centre for defence studies in Britain. A competition was held between universities, polytechnics
  150
  and other institutions to decide where it would be set up. The idea excited wide interest among them, and resulted in many attractive proposals. The final choice was a difficult and close one.
  I can now announce that, subject to satisfactory negotiation of a detailed agreement, the centre will be set up at the university of London. This work will be strictly independent of the Government, and our hope is that, besides establishing a research reputation in its own right, the centre will act as a focal point to draw together and further stimulate the excellent thinking and research on the various aspects of defence issues taking place at other institutions.
  Perhaps I should say something about the structure of the debate.
  Sir Antony Buck: Before my right hon. Friend does that, will he tell us what the arrangements will be with existing institutions that deal with similar topics? I have in mind the independent institutions, the Royal United Services Institute and institutions of that character. Will we have further information from my right hon. Friend at an early date on these matters?
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend's last sentence is the correct answer to his question. I wanted to make an announcement as soon as the decision had been made. There are valuable institutions working on different aspects, and it is felt that there is scope for a central body of the sort that I have described. It will not be working in competition with the various institutions. Instead, it will be engaged in bringing together, enlisting support and, on certain occasions, contracting out certain aspects of its work to other institutions. It will not be funded solely by the Government, but the Government will be making a significant contribution towards the costs of what will be independent activity.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about nine months ago I visited the school of peace studies at Bradford university, and that it promised to send me any leaflets or literature that it produced setting out the multilateralist point of view as opposed to the unilateralist point of view? He will be interested to know that I have received nothing from the school of peace studies. Does he not think that that is disgraceful? May I suggest to him that the new body that he has announced will have to be much more objective than the Bradford peace group?
  Mr. King: I hope that what my hon. Friend suggests will be achieved.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What were the terms of reference given to Professor Lawrence Freedman, if it be him, and what is the financial arrangement?
  Mr. King: The final terms have yet to be established. As I have said, the Government will make a worthwhile contribution towards the cost of the institution. I shall be happy to let the hon. Gentleman have at an early date the terms of reference that are applicable.
  I shall say a few quick words about the structure of the debate, which is scheduled for today and tomorrow. This evening, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be speaking about the areas of his

  151
  responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the start of the debate tomorrow. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces will wind up the debate tomorrow. I shall concentrate mainly on the wider strategic issues. Ministers at the Ministry of Defence will be dealing with their specific areas of responsibility.
  Within two days of taking over my new responsibilities I joined in welcoming the first official visitor to the Ministry of Defence. General Yazov was the first Soviet Defence Minister to visit the Ministry. Nothing could have focused my attention more clearly on the new situation that exists or on the new opportunities that exist for better understanding between our countries. I was pleased to receive an invitation from General Yazov to visit the Soviet Union, and I hope to do so in the coming year.
  A more recent illustration of the increasingly close relationship and the development of better understanding between our countries was the meeting in West Germany last month between the C-in-C of BAOR and the C-in-C of RAF Germany with the C-in-C of the Soviet western group of forces. It was the first time since 1966 that the C-in-C of BAOR and the C-in-C of the Soviet western group of forces had met.
  More recently I had an opportunity to visit Hungary. In addition to being shown something of Hungary's tank and helicopter forces, I had the opportunity at the military institute in Budapest to address 200 senior officers of the Hungarian armed forces.
  These are all signs of what is now becoming possible and of the opportunities for closer contacts. We shall be seeking to develop such contacts between the United Kingdom and the Ministry of Defence with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. There are further developments, with the continuation of the conventional forces in Europe negotiations in Vienna and the resumption of the START talks with the agreed objective of a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear weapons. As a result of the Wyoming meeting, there is agreement in principle on a chemical warfare convention with the aim of working towards a massive reduction of chemical weapons, and progressively their elimination.
  All that points to a time of great optimism in relations between East and West. It is a time of hope in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. I am sure that the whole House admires the courage and determination of President Gorbachev in what he is trying to do through perestroika and glasnost. During recent months there has been the change to a non-Communist Government in Poland and the removal of the iron curtain in Hungary with the promise of free elections and the Communist party changing its name. Those developments were almost inconceivable only six months ago. There is pressure for change in East Germany, which has been marked this afternoon by the resignation of Mr. Honecker. There has been a mass exodus of East Germans who are no longer prepared to tolerate the misery and repression of totalitarian rule.
  Everywhere one may go—I certainly found this when I visited Hungary—there is a wide recognition, even among the most committed Communists, that Communism does not work and that Socialism has failed their countries. There is a desperate desire to move towards a free market
  152
  economy, which might at last give their people an opportunity—[Interruption] I must tell some Opposition Members—not all, because I no longer know where half of them stand—that Hungarian Communists complained to me about the disastrous inefficiency of state industries and public ownership. The only people who still agree with some Opposition Members are Mr. Honecker and Fidel Castro. In general, the world has changed and moved towards those who want the benefits that a free market economy can bring to their people.
  This is a time of change, great optimism and hope, but it is also a time when the West must show great responsibility. It must be prepared to help during these very difficult and dangerous times. It is manifestly a time of great danger because tensions exist within the Soviet Union—a union of 120 different nations. Those tensions are evident in the strikes in the Baltic states, Armenia and Azerbaijan. There are tensions, albeit of a different sort, in eastern Europe and within the Warsaw pact, such as those between East Germany and Hungary and Czechoslovakia about the treatment of the East German refugees. They are the tensions that I experienced during my conversations about the position of Transylvania and the difficulties between Hungary and Romania about the treatment and status of Romanians in Transylvania. There are the difficulties now being posed within the Warsaw pact because of the new non-Communist Government in Poland. When I was in Hungary, Hungarian Ministers were being openly questioned about whether Hungary would go neutral, alongside Austria. What would be the implications of that within the Warsaw pact? A whole range of possibilities exists, and it is a time for great care and constructive thought in the West.
  Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman, like most of his hon. Friends, is now trying to suggest that Labour party members have always agreed with the economic and political system in the Soviet Union. He knows that that is not true. Over the years, most of us have fought strongly against the anti-democratic regimes in the Soviet Union and in east Europe and have defended the rights of all those seeking democracy, but, at the same time, have argued for democratic Socialism in the East and the West. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, so why does he, like Goebbels, persist in a lie?
  Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman does me the courtesy of reading what I said, he will see that I particularly referred to state ownership, state industries and nationalised industries. I have sat in the House long enough to hear the hon. Gentleman's speeches in defence of clause 4 to know how much he subscribes to that and I have listened to Hungarian Ministers telling me what an unmitigated disaster state ownership has been for industries in their country. I understand entirely why the hon. Gentleman is sensitive on that point, but he will understand why history will judge him in the way it will.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Since the Secretary of State is talking about changes in eastern European countries, is it not time to assist that process of change by abandoning the threat of mass extermination with the purchase of Trident, which massively increases our nuclear firepower capacity? Would it not be better to join countries such as Canada, a member of NATO which signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty and which will not have nuclear weapons on its soil?
  Mr. King: I shall come to the nuclear deterrent and I shall seek to explain to the hon. Gentleman precisely why the sort of policy that he advocates shows that he has learned nothing from the success of the policy of deterrence. At the very time that we are debating the triumph of NATO and the resolute position of the West, which for the first time is bringing the prospect of freedom and hope to the people of eastern Europe, he is peddling the old question—why do not we change the policy that has manifestly succeeded?
  It is easy to look at what is happening in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and feel that there is an unstoppable momentum and that we are inescapably moving towards happier and safer times. But, as I have said before, the dread warning of Tiananmen square could occur elsewhere as a result of the tensions, difficulties and challenges that authorities in the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc countries face. This is a time of great danger while we wait to see how those countries respond to the democratic pressures created by the marching of young people and the other pressures that we see on television every night.
  Our greatest comfort has always been the strength and resolution of NATO and its refusal over 40 years—it is its 40th anniversary this year—to give in to blackmail, Soviet pressure, the great arms threat that we have faced and the pursuit of world domination and victory for Soviet economic and social policies. NATO has stood against all that and has proved superior. Such economic policies have failed the Soviet people. Standing firm, strong and united has brought NATO its success. It would be fatal to abandon it or change it until we are certain what the outcome will be.
  The siren voices have started. They were echoed in the amendment that was supported by the overwhelming majority of the Labour party conference and in the remark of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that there is no longer any threat. That is just the sort of dangerous, easy solution that led us to abandon our defences at a crucial time with the consequent disasters of the 1930s.
  Mr. Tony Benn rose——
  Mr. King: At a time of great hope, which I hope we all share, for the people of eastern Europe—[Interruption.] I can understand why Labour Members become very embarrassed by this. The hon. Member for Rhondda has already shown how thin his skin is, and he is showing it again now.
  At a time of great hope for the people of eastern Europe, the worst that we could now do would be to betray them when our firm stand has brought them the hope and opportunity of freedom. We must not betray them now by dismantling our defences——
  Mr. Benn: Quite apart from the fact that the Conservative Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a firm supporter of Hitler, as captured German Foreign Office documents have confirmed—Lord Halifax was sent to congratulate Hitler on destroying Communism in Germany—will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the point of the amendment? Can he give the House a single reason why Britain should be spending more as a percentage of its gross national product on defence than the average for other NATO countries? It would save us between £3 billion and £4 billion a year if we spent the
  154
  same amount on defence as do France, Germany, Italy and the rest. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that question, and will he realise that he is not at Blackpool giving another 10-minute ovation to a dying Prime Minister?
  Mr. King: I find myself in some difficulty in answering that because I am not absolutely clear which amendment I am supposed to be addressing. Is the right hon. Gentleman asking me to address the amendment that all the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen voted against at his party conference? If so, he had better ask them why they thought it unreasonable.
  I shall explain exactly why it is important for NATO to keep up its defences——
  Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has just declared that he is not sure which amendment he is talking about. If he cannot follow his own speech, what chance do the rest of us have?
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can help. We are not debating any amendment yet.
  Mr. King: The uncertainty was on the part of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, not on mine.
  Although we all hope for a successful outcome of the conventional forces reduction talks and for good will, confidence and trust to grow between the East and us, the Soviet rearmament capability continues virtually unabated. The Soviets still produce one new submarine every six weeks and two new aircraft and six new tanks every day. In certain significant respects, they are modernising their capability. SS21 missile launchers have more than doubled in number since Mr. Gorbachev came to office. We must act in good faith, but we must also recognise that there are uncertainties. Dangers will arise from the tensions in the Soviet Union and from the political instabilities in eastern Europe. The House must not underestimate the enormous logistical challenge to the confidence and trust of the West presented by the Soviet Union.
  The unilateral arms reductions to which the Soviet Union has committed itself involve the dismissal of about 100,000 officers—out of 500,000 men—and pose the problem of how to find jobs and houses for them all. How easily can that be achieved? The Soviets' reductions involve the destruction of massive amounts of equipment. What are the chances of these major challenges being met within the proposed time-scale?
  Recognising the important point that a totalitarian state can change direction very much faster than any democracy, it would be grossly irresponsible to dismantle our defences now. It is important to maintain stability. If one examines the relationship between NATO and the Warsaw pact, it is obvious that NATO is crucial to us as our insurance for our defence, but I believe that a strong NATO also benefits Warsaw pact countries because they need a stable and predictable Europe.
  I was struck by a phrase used by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), about the developments in eastern Europe and the relationship between NATO and the Warsaw pact. He discussed the problems of reductions in arms levels and tension and described the two alliances as two great Sumo wrestlers locked in combat. The real problem for Sumo wrestlers in

  155
  disentangling is that, if they move too fast, they can both end up flat on their faces. If super-powers and alliances end up flat on their faces, other people can quite easily get hurt. It is important that we maintain the credibility of our defence. If the Soviets maintain their forward defence capability, it is important that we do, too.
  Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may find my next point more difficult. If we want the process and the opportunity for freedom to develop in eastern Europe, there is a strong argument that in the short term the structure of the Warsaw pact needs to remain as some assurance of stability on that side as we move into this difficult period, provided that President Gorbachev's commitment to non-interference in the internal politics of the countries of the Warsaw pact is scrupulously observed.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose——
  Mr. King: In a moment. I want to deploy this point.
  That is why it is important at this difficult and dangerous time that both NATO and the Warsaw pact remain in post. They are not the same. If course we do not accept any moral comparison between them, but at this time of great political uncertainty and economic danger we do not want to add to the uncertainty and the fear that could stop those encouraging processes. Given those uncertainties, any suggestion of the denuclearisation of Europe is profoundly irresponsible. The Warsaw pact countries do not expect it at present. We have to stand on the defence and maintain the credibility of our flexible response—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), having argued against cruise missiles, having stood shoulder to shoulder with the women of Greenham common, and having been profoundly wrong time after time, has the nerve to sit there and parade his opinions again.
  I profoundly believe that we should maintain the stability and the security of our defences. In the long term, it matters as much to the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union to have stability in the Western Alliance. That is why in the short term we respect the situation in the Warsaw pact.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State answer the very simple question that was put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? Why should Britain spend a higher proportion of its GDP on defence expenditure than any of our European partners? Why should the Germans pay 1 per cent. less, and the French pay 0·25 per cent. less, and why should the average contribution be 1·75 per cent. less? Why should we be subsidising the European defence effort? Why should not everyone contribute equally?
  Mr. King: We should make a proper contribution to the defence of the West. I am proud not only of the cost but of the quality of the contribution that we make to NATO. I am concerned about the financial commitment of some of our allies. It is no secret that we should like some to make a greater contribution. [Interruption.] Instead of bellowing, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) should try to understand my argument. It is profoundly the wrong moment for us to think about cutting arms.
  156
  In the current developments, we have important responsibilities to NATO.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me? I have given way already.
  Cm. 675 clearly shows how extensive our commitments have been in other parts of the world. Our commitment in Northern Ireland has been clear, for which I have considerable admiration and pride. Elsewhere we have commitments in the Falklands, Cyprus, Hong Kong and Belize. The Armilla patrol is less active than it was earlier in the year, but it made a great contribution to ensuring the safety of shipping. I do not know how many hon. Members are aware that currently more than 500 members of the armed services are posted in 30 countries helping to train the armies of our allies.
  Currently, our armed forces are helping in Namibia, and we have talked about the contribution that they made to the work in dealing with hurricane Hugo. The House may like to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have been in contact with the American authorities to see whether Britain can help with the tragic and appalling earthquake in San Francisco.
  Hon. Members who take an interest in the armed forces share my admiration of their professionalism, courage and good humour, particularly in Northern Ireland and other dangerous situations.
  I should like to pay tribute to our reserve forces. I did not appreciate until I took over these responsibilities that in time of war more than a third of our contribution would be made by the Territorial Army. From what I have seen of the reserve forces, I have been enormously encouraged by their good humour and skills. The support of employers for our reserve forces is important. We all have constituents who are prepared to sacrifice their time for the defence of their country, and I hope that their employers will help them to make their contribution.
  Mr. Dalyell: Having moved from Northern Ireland, and before he leaves the subject of Northern Ireland, on reflection does the Secretary of State believe that there is any case for a serious public inquiry into the difficulties at the Kincora boys' home and the case of Colin Wallace? Have his advisers suggested that that might be desirable?
  Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman used to raise that point endlessly at Northern Ireland Question Times. That matter has been examined more times than I can remember. However, if the hon. Gentleman has evidence which he believes should be considered, it should be examined. I have nothing more to add.
  Mr. Conway: With regard to my right hon Friend's comments about the Territorial Army, I am sure that his visit to 49 Brigade was deeply appreciated and warmly welcomed.
  I want to press my right hon. Friend on an important point. If people want to do part-time military service in Ulster, and if the Ulster Defence Regiment is to be made full-time in whatever shape or form, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that those who wish to continue and promote a military career on a part-time basis in Northern Ireland will find other units in the Province which will be expanded to enable them to do that?
  Mr. King: I should like to consider that. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will address that matter later.
  On many occasions I have paid tribute to the work of the security forces in Northern Ireland. While I have been concerned that certain allegations and charges have been made recently—allegations which are under investigation at the moment and, which in the interests of the good name of the UDR, must be properly and fully examined—I pay tribute to the amazing courage and dedication of all the security forces in Northern Ireland who risk their lives every moment of the day and night in their willingness to defend their communities against terrorism. We should always remember that.
  I want to refer to the question of security for all our armed forces. At the present time, they face an evil terrorist threat; and the tragedy in Deal since the House last met is fresh in our minds. The threat poses major challenges for us in terms of living in a democracy and a free society and not in an armed camp. Terrorists have evil ways in which to exploit that situation. We will do our best to ensure that the most sensible security arrangements can be made. I hope that we can all stand together on that and will not try to make party political capital out of a threat to the democracy of this country. It is important that the House stands together on that point.
  Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: No. I have given way a lot already.
  Cm. 675 sets out the resources that we seek to maintain our defences and our success in keeping those defences up to date. In the expenditure in the current year—£20,000 million, which is 16 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978–79—we have sought to modernise our nuclear and conventional forces.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Has the Secretary of State moved on from the question of security at home bases and Deal? I believe a meeting was held in London last week at which the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement was present involving the trade unions involved in security and defence matters and the Ministry of Defence. Will the Secretary of State give us some information which might confirm reports in The Guardian that the attitude of the MOD is beginning to change in relation to this question?
  Mr. King: That is a wonderful leading question. I did not see the article in /The Guardian. If the attitude is that we are determined to do our best in terms of security in facing these difficult problems, that attitude has not changed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement met some union representatives, and he may want to comment on that later if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
  I have made my position about private security guards quite clear. If they can help and be a useful addition to the security arrangements, and provided that they are of the standard of competence that the security forces deserve, they have a role to play. However, I set high standards, and I am not prepared to accept incompetence or inadequacy in such arrangements. We are examining that at the moment. I hope that that will help to make our position clear.
  158
  New equipment has come into service during the past year. We are continuing to modernise and develop our defence capability, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will say more about that tomorrow if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
  The overriding background to our procurement policy has been the progressive development of a more competitive approach. We spend substantial sums of money. The Ministry of Defence is the largest customer in Britain and for that we expect quality. At a time of arms reductions and a reduction in conventional forces, the reliability of equipment will become ever more important, and we shall be stressing that.
  In addition to encouraging a more competitive approach for the major equipment programmes, we are keen to encourage the opportunity for more small businesses to be able to quote for and to supply Ministry of Defence requirements. I am encouraged by the growth and substantial increase in the number of firms now supplying the Ministry of Defence. That competitive and competent approach is one that we apply also to collaborative projects and to the activities towards creating an open European armaments market. The development of the independent European programme group has been encouraging in the past year. In case it might be misunderstood in other quarters, that is not to develop a fortress Europe but to ensure that we strengthen the European contribution to the overall NATO effort.
  In respect of the overall work of the Ministry of Defence, we are developing a new management strategy. My predecessors, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), made key changes in the way that the Ministry of Defence operates. Resources are now allocated across service boundaries and the armed forces are integrated at the top level without diminishing their individual characteristics or denying the healthy rivalry that keeps them on their toes. Further changes are needed in the way in which the Ministry of Defence manages resources away from the centre where local managers can be hamstrung by a host of central controls.
  We are introducing a major change with the new management strategy. Under this, financial responsibility will be put together with executive responsibilities. That will go right across the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces, covering all defence expenditure except for equipment projects managed by the Procurement Executive. Individual managers and commanders will have delegated authority to enable them to make the most efficient use of the resources allocated to them. The objectives and targets set for each of them will come from the Ministry of Defence overall plans, and our target date for implementation of the new management strategy is 1 April 1991.
  The new approach can be a major step forward in obtaining better value for money and reducing some of the frustrations that flow from not giving enough discretion and authority to the people responsible for the different units and activities.
  Under the "next steps" initiative, the Government are developing arrangements under which some functions of Government are transferred to agencies which can operate with greater freedom from central controls. We have been considering what scope there might be for those in defence matters. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement announced recently, the Meteorological Office will become a full "next steps"

  159
  agency next year. That will be followed by an agency formed from the four major non-nuclear research and development establishments.
  Many support activities are an integral part of the overall military capability and may have important links to NATO allies. Clearly they must remain part of the Ministry of Defence. To obtain the benefit of the energy and enthusiasm that can come from the "next steps" approach, we are planning to designate a number of our support organisations as a new category of defence support agencies. They will be run internally on "next steps" lines but would remain within the defence chain of command.
  We have identified five organisations that look suitable to become defence support agencies. The Hydrographic Office at Taunton is planned to start next April; service schools in Germany, military survey, defence accounts and RAF training should start the following year. We are also looking at 10 more activities, ranging from naval stores to chemical defence research, as other possible candidates, and there could be more after that.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): What does my right hon. Friend mean by Royal Air Force training coming under the "next steps" approach? Surely that is of great operational significance. Will my right hon. Friend clarify his remarks?
  Mr. King: We will be looking at the training part of support command within the overall defence chain of command. We have identified ones that look suitable for defence support agencies. We will look at them very carefully. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) agrees that there are great benefits in giving a greater feeling of authority and responsibility to people and for them to be recognised as discrete activities that should have a structure and a clear responsibility channel of their own, but there is more work to be done and we must take more careful note of my hon. Friend's point.
  Mr. O'Neill: From what the right hon. Gentleman has said, is it right to believe that the training of apprentices will now be privatised? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the training of the young men who go into the Army will be taken over by private companies under some kind of agency structure? Is that what the "next steps" policy will be?
  Mr. King: Some of it happens now in different arrangements with outside agencies in any case in terms of release schemes and block release schemes for the training of apprentices. We must consider several aspects when looking at the best ways in which that might be done. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will give the hon. Gentleman a fuller answer. I should like that matter to be looked at in more detail.
  At this time, after many defence debates, we face a quite different situation. The confrontation between the Warsaw pact countries and NATO over many years appears to be changing, and it poses many challenges for us.
  Mr. Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will not give way.
  160
  I am delighted that the House has such an early opportunity to debate such serious matters for our country. Although much has changed, so much of the debate is the same. I read the reports of last year's debate. I said earlier that there were two Labour party amendments, of which the Opposition Front Bench amendment was the minority one. We have exactly the same situation this year. Last year the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) spoke against it and tried to prevent his backwoodsmen from voting as they did. It must have been a great sadness to him that they achieved a majority twice as big as he was able to achieve for the official motion. It is true that that motion was carried by 4·2 million votes to 1·9 million. It was more than a 50 per cent. majority. That majority involved a reduction of £5,000 million from our defence expenditure.
  I heard the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and by the Leader of the Opposition. They said, "Don't worry, it won't happen," but that is what the overwhelming majority of his party actually want to do; there is no question about that. I looked at the Labour amendment which was tabled last year. It was more specific. Opposition Members were not quite so clever last year, because they actually spelt out the sum. They said, "Reduce expenditure by £7,000 million." This year they have tried to dress it up and say, "Reduce it to the average of the western European level of NATO countries," and it is just under £5,000 million. However, Opposition Members keep coming back to that point, and their party conference keeps overwhelmingly voting for it.
  If that is what his party wants, what does the Leader of the Opposition want? [Interruption.] No, he knows exactly what he wants: he wants to get elected. He knows that the policy of leaving this country defenceless destroyed his chances in the general election, as it had destroyed his predecessor's chances, because the British people will not stand for such a policy. If he were elected, what would he do? What does he believe? Who trusts the Leader of the Opposition with the defence of our country?
  The most telling remark in the Prime Minister's speech at the party conference was:
  "if you aspire to serve your country in Downing street a good motto is: to thine own self be true."
  What is the right hon. Gentleman's own self? There is a deep belief that, whatever he says, he is in favour of unilateral abandonment of nuclear weapons and is deeply in sympathy with the amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). That is what motivates the anger of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and his colleagues. Deep down they think that the Leader of the Opposition has betrayed them and that he used to believe as they believe. Deep down he continues to share their belief.
  If we analyse why there is a better prospect for peace in the world and a chance of better relations between the great powers and between NATO and the Warsaw pact, is it not because at last there is a degree of trust and confidence between the leaders of the world? Confidence started with President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev. From their entirely different political philosophies and perspectives they were able to do business. Mr. Gorbachev and our Prime Minister also have different philosophies, but an element of confidence and trust grew. That trust is important not just for allies but for potential opponents. If we are to make progress in reducing conventional arms,

  161
  nuclear arms and chemical weapons, there must be some trust and confidence at the top about where individual leaders stand.
  The profound weakness of the Labour party and of the Leader of the Opposition is that there is no credibility, no trust and no assurance of where they stand. If anybody does not believe what I say, they should read the amendment. It is a pathetic cobbling together of a series of different Labour party aspirations as it tries to jump on one bandwagon or another. To offer that as an alternative credible defence policy for this country is absolutely pathetic.
  What came out of the Labour party conference was a proposal carried by an overwhelming majority to slash the conventional defences of the United Kingdom and negotiate away our nuclear deterrent, leaving us defenceless. These defence estimates show clearly that we are not prepared to leave this country defenceless.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. King: We are proud of what we have done for the defence of this country and of the role we have played in NATO and what that means for a better future in Europe and a safer world. That is why I commend these estimates to the House.
  4.39 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof:
  "believing that the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 has been overtaken by the superpower disarmament initiatives, and supporting those agreed at the 1989 NATO Summit, considers that Her Majesty's Government should undertake a Review to ensure that Britain is defended by properly supported Armed Forces and by the negotiation of verifiable disarmament agreements, to assess future commitments and priorities, to provide Forces and defence industries with a framework to plan future needs, and to examine the allocation of resources which could be released for social and economic purposes; recognising that negotiated disarmament is now more probable, and welcoming progress towards a world-wide treaty banning the possession or production of chemical and biological weapons, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to support NATO in seeking to reduce short-range nuclear forces before complete implementation of any conventional force agreement and to delay a decision on the Lance replacement; urges Her Majesty's Government to seek NATO's abandonment of the destabilising flexible response strategy; demands that Her Majesty's Government indicates its willingness to participate in the next stage of the START process; recognising the impact of government economies and the lack of an industrial procurement strategy on the Services and on major contractors now vulnerable to foreign takeovers, calls upon the Government to establish a Conversion Agency to employ the skills and resources of the defence procurement industry in the civil sector; condemns the cowardly attacks of murderous paramilitary groups; and demands that the Government ends the sacrifice of safety at military bases and establishments by the excessive dependence on private contractors."
  First, may I welcome the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box in his new role and to his new Department? A few months have intervened since his appointment, and I recognise that he has not had the easiest of rides. It may be less bumpy than his previous job, but many of the problems seem to take the same form as the ones that he had to confront before.
  I share the Secretary of State's appreciation of the efforts of the Select Committee on Defence. The Select
  162
  Committee is something of a double-edged sword to everybody: it is independent, it exerts its independence and it speaks with authority. We must listen to it. During the year, I hope that the Secretary of State will offer more time than his predecessor for discussing the Select Committee's reports, because the one report appropriate to today's debate is only one of the many that require more of our attention. If the worth and value of the Select Committee system means anything, we must debate such Committees' well-considered findings.
  I welcome the institution of the centre for defence studies. However, as a Scot, I am not happy about the concentration of defence research institutions in the south-east of England, although I can understand the convenience of that for many of those who wish to avail themselves of the facilities. It is a welcome step and is in line with something started 20 years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he first established departments of defence studies at a number of universities, of which Bradford was one, although I believe that that was funded also by organisations such as the Quakers.
  I advise the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) who was responsible for that silly and mindless attack on Bradford, that hon. Members are ill-advised to attack academic institutions, irrespective of whether they appear to be of one political persuasion or another because we in the House stand for the defence of academic freedom and for the considered judgments of people who should be able to operate without interference from politicians.
  I hope that the easy applause that the hon. Member seemed to get from some of his hon. Friends will be reconsidered in the light of what I have said. Many of those institutions—indeed, all that are involved in defence research in this country—contribute to the debate in much the same way as the Select Committee, and the introduction to their ranks of another such institution is welcome.
  As the Secretary of State said at least four times, this is an appropriate time for such a debate. It is now nearly six months since the publication of the Estimates. Perhaps the Secretary of State will consider trying to get the report out by the beginning of April so that the Select Committee can then produce its report and so that we can have a proper debate before the summer recess. We need to look at the report when the print on it is still relatively fresh and when some of its issues would have more relevance than they do at present.
  The super-powers are finding a great deal more common ground and we recognise that the old order is changing. It would be remiss of all of us not to note the passing to another of Mr. Honecker's leadership in the German Democratic Republic. We can only watch that space with interest, because if the experiences of Poland, Hungary and the Soviet Union are anything to go by, we can look forward with some cautious optimism to what is happening in eastern Europe.
  The optimism that we all share presents us with a challenge because we do not really know how to respond to the changes. We do not want to frighten off the laggards. We want to be able to consolidate the achievements of those who are now enjoying new freedoms. and who look to us for encouragement and assistance. We have had independent gestures followed by constructive responses from both sides. Most importantly, we see the prospect of a major change in the balance of forces in

  163
  Europe. The NATO summit in May was too late to be considered in the White Paper but it must be regarded as the starting point for a new European order.
  The response given by President Bush to President Gorbachev's United Nations speech was both timely and far-reaching. The manner of its presentation left its opponents little room for manoeuvre. Certainly, the Prime Minister and the former Secretaries of State for Defence and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have had to eat their words. Their grudging support for the NATO summit communiqué and the Comprehensive Concept was not enough to prevent them from being isolated from the rest of our NATO partners. It merely served to confirm to the British electorate that in a changing Europe only our Prime Minister and her colleagues still want to live in the cold war—[Interruption.]—a view that was endorsed in the European elections in June.
  The Government's record over the past 12 months has been to rubbish any gesture made by the Warsaw pact members and to seek to stand in the way of changes promoted by the United States and our NATO partners. When faced with a fait accompli, as at the summit, they try to put a totally different emphasis on what has been agreed.
  On the question of the follow-on to Lance, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said on the BBC on 30 January:
  "I hope that by the summertime, NATO will have made a decision with our help."
  On Channel 4 on 27 April, the then Foreign Secretary was asked if modernisation could be put off until after the West German elections in December 1990, and said:
  "I think that's a dangerous proposition."
  However, the Comprehensive Concept, signed by the United Kingdom on 30 May, states in paragraph 49:
  "The question concerning the introduction and deploy-ment of a follow on system to Lance will be dealt with in 1992."
  On the question of the relationship between NATO and the Warsaw pact nuclear forces, the former Foreign Secretary was asked on "Panorama" on 3 April:
  "How can NATO justify to Western public opinion and to Western German public opinion the modernisation of short range nuclear missiles based on West German soil?"
  He replied:
  "Most simply by the extent to which there has been taking place a massive modernisation of Soviet short range nuclear weapons".
  Yet paragraph 44 of the Comprehensive Concept, which was signed by the Government, states:
  "the sub-strategic nuclear forces deployed by member countries of the Alliance are not principally a counter to systems operating by the Warsaw Treaty Organisation".
  On the issue of the need for NATO nuclear forces to compensate for Warsaw pact conventional superiority, the former Secretary of State for Defence said on 12 May:
  "As long as we face an enormous conventional threat, thousands and thousands of tanks facing us, we cannot afford to be without our nuclear shield".
  However, paragraph 27 of the Comprehensive Concept states:
  "The Allies substrategic forces are not designed to compensate for conventional imbalances."
  On the timing of the negotiations on short-range nuclear forces, the then Foreign Secretary, in a memo to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, stated:
  164
  "the Government believe that after the INF agreement and the possible START agreement, the Alliances next Arms Control priorities must he a global ban on chemical weapons and the elimination of the conventional imbalance in Europe. Until these have been achieved, it would be dangerous to embark upon negotiations which might lead to any further reductions in nuclear weapons in Europe".
  Mr. Edward Leigh rose——
  Mr. O'Neill: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my point.
  Paragraph 48 of the Comprehensive Concept states that, once
  "a conventional force reduction is underway the United States, in consultation with the Allies concerned, is prepared to enter into negotiations to achieve a partial reduction of American and Soviet land based nuclear missile forces of shorter range."
  Even after the Government signed the Comprehensive Concept, 14 days after the summit, the then Secretary of State for Defence said in the House:
  "we do not think that it would be sensible to start negotiations for the reduction of nuclear weapon systems until the complete implementation of any reductions under the CFE." —[Official Report, 13 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 691.]
  Not only did the Government not agree with the delay in modernising Lance, as accepted by the rest of NATO; they disagreed with the reasons for the Alliance having those missiles, and even now refuse to believe that the timetable for their elimination is either sensible or safe.
  In virtually every fundamental of the conventional forces in Europe talks, the Government are out of step with the rest of our NATO partners. On the biggest breakthrough of all—aircraft—the Government have shown themselves to be completely out of touch.
  Mr. Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it ironic that there is a certain symmetry in history because 50 years ago in the 1930s—at the time of George Lansbury—the Labour party conference decided to ignore the conven-tional imbalance and to abolish the Royal Air Force and today, 50 years later, the Labour party conference voted by two to one to cut conventional defence spending by one third? Which part of the service, or which service, does the hon. Gentleman think should be abolished?
  Mr. O'Neill: It is always annoying when a queston is asked that has no relevance to what we are talking about. If it could be guaranteed that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) would be here until the end of my speech, I might wait until then to answer his question. However, I shall answer it now and then refer to it later in my remarks.
  Several different resolutions were presented at the Labour party conference. The substantial document on the Labour party's policy on defence and foreign affairs was accepted without a counted vote, such was the overwhelming majority. That is the document on which the next Labour party election manifesto will be based and on which the defence policies of the next Labour Government will be decided.
  Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: No. I made the point clearly enough for the hon. Gentleman and for everyone else.
  Mr. Tom King: It would be helpful for us to clarify this point. W hat is the significance of the 4 million votes at the Labour party conference? Will the point be totally disregarded?
  Mr. O'Neill: That point will not appear in the Labour party manifesto. I shall explain why in a minute.
  I shall return to conventional forces in Europe, which is the form of disarmament that we have to consider now. It is a form of disarmament that owes little to this Government, especially in respect of aircraft. It has been clear that the Soviet Union has been pushing for a long time for aircraft to be included in the disarmament talks. The Soviet Union's aim was to secure the best agreement on both reductions and deployment of aircraft because it believed that it was one of the areas in which NATO superiority was most evident.
  It was also one of the most sensitive questions involving definition, as no one could agree on either offensive or defensive air systems. Yet it was President Bush, a man whom many of us—and I must admit to being one—considered to be merely a timid conservative, who took the bold step of calling for their inclusion. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he stands by the words of his predecessor when he spoke to the Defence Select Committee on 17 May last? He said:
  "I think the calculations on aircraft and types of aircraft and who has got what are still very far from clear … I believe that trying to bring those in at this stage is very likely to bog down the whole enterprise and it would be much better to proceed on the agreed mandate which has been agreed by both sides on CFE to try and make progress on that."
  Within a fortnight, on 30 May, the Government signed the summit declaration, which in paragraph 17 called for
  "reductions by each side to equal ceilings at the level of 15 per cent. below current Alliance holdings of helicopters and of all land-based combat aircraft in the Atlantic-to-Urals zone."
  We welcome the outcome of the NATO summit and the proposals for rapid progress on CFE. We look forward to the first round of conventional cuts and share the enthusiasm of people such as Senator Sam Nunn and Congressman Aspin, the chairs of the Senate and Congress Arms Committee, and people such as Ed Rowny, who have been long-time ambassadors and arms control negotiators. They believe that cuts can go far below the levels that CFE presently envisages and that we could be down to cuts of about 50 per cent. by the early 1990s.
  Before anyone gets carried away, I must say that cuts in themselves do not bring stability. We can have parity, yet still have instability. We need not only changes in numbers, but new military doctrines, to take advantage of the reduced numbers I wecome the remarks of the Secretary of State concerning his discussions with Yazov and the Hungarians. I wish only that some of that could have been anticipated in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates".
  One of the gaping holes in the document is any possible consideration of changes in the military doctrines and strategies behind NATO thinking. I am surprised that some hon. Members have not already started raising questions about force to space ratios, the continued desirability of deep strike capabilities, albeit with far fewer forces, and the prospect of participating in what would be simply a small-scale blitzkrieg. It is depressing to read the defence estimates because there is no fresh thinking on strategic and doctrinal issues. If one speaks to German conservatives or German liberals, right across the political spectrum, one finds that they want to talk about different
  166
  strategies and different doctrines. They want to take the consequences of the possible outcome of CFE and explore them, so that the next range of talks can proceed in a far more constructive way than the already successful progress we have made.
  The question of the prospects for military peace in Europe is underpinned and underlined by what has already happened in the Soviet Union. The proposals made in the United Nations speech in December have been given rigorous analysis in the latest IISS "Military Balance" book, in which the editor, Francois Heisenbourg, writes that the short warning or surprise attack scenario is now barely plausible. Although he says that longer warning scenarios will be less affected, the necessary preparation time for the Warsaw pact will be increased and this in its turn should enhance NATO warning and preparation times.
  The report stresses that a great deal has yet to be done and that false optimism should be discouraged. However, caution does not mean that we always have to move at the speed of the slowest. The most depressing part of the speech by the Secretary of State was perhaps the part where he said that we have to keep things roughly as they are now until we can consolidate on the progress that has been made. I understand the motivation behind that remark and I have some sympathy with the intention, but I must say, with great respect, that this is the wrong time to be putting such arguments. If we go forward too cautiously at this time, we shall end up on the side of the forces of reaction.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House in which particular area the first major breakthrough in this decade took place in arms reduction talks? Will he remind the House that in that area —intermediate nuclear weapons—the breakthrough occurred precisely because the West had decided to be cautious—the hon. Gentleman may say over-cautious—by introducing its own weapons?
  Mr. O'Neill: The intermediate nuclear forces talks and their success can be attributed to many factors. Caution was in some ways justified then. There was no record of constructive dialogue until then. However, since then we have had the success of INF and the progress so far in the START talks. We are reaching a clear understanding on where we are going in CFE. To compare the situation before 1986, which was when the INF business got under way after Reykjavik, with today is to ignore the changes of the past three years. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), in seeking to find a means of defending this Government's caution, wholly misunderstands the nature of the present circumstances compared with 1986.
  There must be an awareness that the Warsaw pact reductions are driven as much by economic necessity as by a revision of East-West relations. Nevertheless, we can all see that it cannot be assumed that a Russian advance through Hungary, Poland and even East Germany would go as smoothly as it might have done some years ago.
  Mr. David Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: No.
  It is fair to say that, in the short term, when we get to the fruits of CFE, the United States and the Soviet Union will have to share the bulk of those fruits. I do not consider

  167
  that the United States burden-sharing argument has any great weight, but I believe that it is important that we get the first round of CFE cuts through as quickly and cleanly as possible. It would be foolhardy for us to try to get a bit of the action, for whatever reason. I realise that there have been calls for the French and ourselves to participate, but although that is attractive, it must not be the highest priority. We should be able to try to ensure that the United States and the Soviet Union can benefit—initially at least —from the CFE talks.
  I do not say that to give credence to American claims about burden-sharing. Probably only 60 per cent. of United States defence expenditure is accounted for by the expenditure on NATO—3·6 per cent. of the United States' gross domestic product. That percentage can be reduced even further, given that it includes expenditure on reservists who are based in the United States but can be used almost anywhere in the world.
  Like Britain, the United States has a volunteer army. This means that service personnel must be paid at least the national average wage. A recent study carried out by the Swedish International Peace Research Institute, which was included in the institute's 1989 year book, suggests that, if countries such as France and the Federal Republic of Germany had a volunteer armed service, their expenditure on defence as a proportion of GDP would rise to about 4·3 per cent. and 3·5 per cent. respectively. The figure for the Federal Republic of Germany does not include expenditure on Berlin. If it did, there would be little difference between the German figure and the figures for the United Kingdom and the United States.
  The other cost that is not calculated when considering the cost of conscript armies is that of the far higher proportion of the productive labour force that is denied to the civilian economy because of time spent in uniform.
  This shows that it is difficult to make a comparison based on a simplistic criterion when talking about defence expenditure. These costs do not include the social and environmental costs in the Federal Republic of Germany of having the towns and countryside damaged by military manoeuvres. They do not take account of the problems associated with having 400,000 troops from seven countries conducting 5,000 field exercises and 600,000 sorties every year over German soil.
  For the United Kingdom, we must take account also of our geostrategic position as an island on the rim of Europe. We have assumed, correctly, naval responsibilities far greater than those of any other European NATO partner. This requires considerable expenditure on capital assets such as frigates and aircraft as well as the most rigorous and expensive training programmes.
  If the United Kingdom were to move to the average level of our western European allies—whatever that means —it would have to slash the pay and conditions of our armed services or introduce conscription. The Labour party will not go down that road. We will seek reductions and economies and pursue a value-for-money policy, but not at the expense of our responsibilities to NATO. No Government faced with the choice of spending money on the Health Service, education or defence will want to deny resources for social expenditure. The present Government
  168
  have succeeded in reducing expenditure from £19·57 billion in 1984–85—using 1987 prices—to an estimated £17·7 billion this year.
  It was surprising that in his lengthy speech the Secretary of State, who tried to poke fun at the Labour party, did not in any way spell out the financial provisions that will be made in forthcoming years to take account of increased demand, if only because of interest rates and exchange rate differentials. It is true that planned defence expenditure will rise by 1·2 per cent. next year and 1·3 per cent. in the following year, but that assumes inflation of 5·5 per cent. this year, 4 per cent. next year and 3 per cent. in 1991–92, with other indicators such as interest rates and exchange rates remaining constant. Defence expenditure in the United Kingdom stood at 5·3 per cent. of GDP in 1984; by 1988 it had fallen to 4·3 per cent.
  The Government now spend more on health and education than on defence. This is reflected in, for example, the numbers directly employed by the Ministry of Defence civilian labour force. There were reductions of 21,000 in 1987 alone, making a drop of 28 per cent. in five years, with basic industrial grades—the lowest paid—losing some 40 per cent. of their jobs.
  The figures for employment in defence-related industries show an even more alarming fall. It has been caused by a decrease in non-Trident, new component spending of 31 per cent. in the past five years and by a fall of 19 per cent. in spending on spares and repairs. The reduction has been most pronounced in air systems, where annual spending has fallen by £1 billion, or 27 per cent. The picture is similar for sea systems, where expenditure is likely to fall by £870 million, or 31 per cent.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. O'Neill: Let me finish the figures, and then I will let hon. Members intervene.
  Expenditure on land systems will fall by £300 million, or 15 per cent. It is little wonder that firms such as Westland despair of ever getting an order for a new generation of helicopters, or that warship yards are hanging on by a thread.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend has referred to Westland. The Secretary of State talked about happenings during the parliamentary recess. He said not one word about what has happened to Ferranti. I know that my hon. Friend has a considerable interest in the future of that important firm. Thousands of Ferranti employees work in Manchester, not least in my constituency. Decisions are to be taken by the Ministry of Defence that will affect security of employment in that firm. My hon. Friend might have thought it appropriate if the Secretary of State had said at least one reassuring word to those employees. Will my hon. Friend press him on that important point?
  Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point about Ferranti. This is the best example of the Government's apparent unwillingness, or inability, to defend this country's defence industry base. Firms such as Westland and the warship building yards are hanging on by a thread. We had thought that we might hear—it may happen tomorrow; we can only hope—about the NFR90 project, which has finally foundered. I hope that the Minister can explain what will be the next round in the process.

  169
  People are very anxious. I speak on behalf of many Labour Members who still have warship building interests in their constituencies. The issue is of such national importance that it should have featured in the speech by the Secretary of State—a matter on which I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I know that the Secretary of State wants to divide the ministerial labour, but there are national economic and industrial matters that impinge on defence, and the House is entitled to know about them.
  Mr. Robert Hayward: The hon. Gentleman ducked questions about the Labour party conference and expenditure levels. Will he comment on a statement in The Times of Thursday 14 September which is attributed to him? He said that production lines would disappear if the Labour party came to power. Will the hon. Gentleman identify—possible in answer to the question put by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)—which production lines and research establishments he expects to disappear under Labour party policy?
  Mr. O'Neill: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman read only that part of the paper which he was given by the Whips Office that was underlined. If he had read the rest, he would have seen that I said more than that and that I qualified my comment. I shall refer to that later and, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to wait, he will hear it.
  The much-vaunted system of competitive tendering which the Secretary of State mentioned at the end of his speech is causing some disquiet—not just because of the delays and because the longer the system continues, the more limited the savings will become, but because of the widespread feeling among many defence procurement firms that price is the be-all and end-all and that quality is taking second place.
  The Secretary of State said that this was not the way in which the system should operate, but ever-increasing numbers of defence manufacturers to whom I have spoken are getting more worried about the problems of providing the quality with which their firms have been associated in the past at the prices that the Ministry of Defence is demanding. Those views are held not by people who have been unsuccessful in winning contracts but by those who have been successful and who are embarrassed by some of the standards that they have to sacrifice to maintain orders and jobs.
  We have to recognise that the other anxiety of defence manufacturers is that there is an absence of long-term planning in the Ministry of Defence. The short-term thinking, the simplistic, free market approach to procurement, may seem attractive to ideologues and right-wing think tanks, but it brings no comfort to designers, planners and defence contractors, or to service personnel who see their NATO colleagues getting more and better equipment than they do.
  The events of this summer have shown conclusively that, not only are the Government indifferent to the production and planning requirements of our defence procurement industry, but they seem to have completely ignored their responsibility to British firms in the restructuring of the European defence economy. We search in vain for any Government prescription for British defence companies. It is the responsibility of the Government to secure the lines of supply for our forces.
  170
  We cannot meet all our own defence needs. We have to import some goods and produce others under licence. We cannot afford to develop all our own equipment. Some of this work must be undertaken in collaboration with our allies. The West German and French Governments realise that. They take an active part in the development of a procurement strategy.
  What was the Government or the MOD position about Plessey in 1987? We were told that it was one of opposition to the GEC bid, but when GEC was joined by one of Plessey's competitors from abroad, the new bid was somehow acceptable. It seems strange that a bid which was unacceptable because it involved the establishment of a British monopoly somehow became attractive when a foreign firm became involved.
  When the board, or more particularly the chairman, started looking at International Signal and Control, the Procurement Executive tried to warn it off. Did the MOD have any involvement the following year when a minority on the board had a report Commissioned that suggested that this was neither an acceptable nor a desirable merger partner?
  Even now, when every City page seems to carry a story about another defence contractor taking an interest in buying the company and plundering its assets, the Secretary of State's policy seems to be one of wait and see —leave it all to Sir Derek Alun-Jones, the man who got it so wrong last time, in the hope that he may get it right this time. Getting it right for whom—the shareholders and the institutions who sat idly by when Guerin conned the board? Getting it right for the board itself, many of whom believed that, were it not for the serious plight of the firm, their heads would be rolling in the boardroom as well?
  There are more people who are interested in what is happening. We have to get it right for the British armed forces, who are dependent on the products of one of our finest companies. Our third largest defence contractor's design team is worried to death about the uncertainty surrounding it.
  The Secretary of State knows of our concern about the future of the firm. We are grateful for the trouble he took when he agreed to meet us. He knows the critical role which the radar system for the European fighter aircraft plays in this sorry business. The contract for the radar was to be signed more than 12 months ago—or, as somebody put it, more than three Defence Procurement Ministers ago. Ferranti won the NATO European Fighter Management Agency assessment on technical merit, with price a secondary consideration. It won the Eurofighter assessment by three to one. In March, the then Secretary of State backed it. In June, the West German Government objected to what they called the perceived risks of ECR90, so a joint study between the Federal Republic and the United Kingdom was set up. It showed that ECR90 was not a higher risk, and probably less risk, than MSD 2000. Then AEG tried to reduce the price by contract manipulation. In the end, that worked against it, and ECR90 was still cheaper.
  Now it appears that the goal posts have been widened once again to allow AEG to improve its technical performance. It has been suggested that the Government have agreed that AEG be given an indication of the technical shortcomings so that it can try to correct them and have another chance at getting Ferranti's order. How long will this farce go on? If we do not get an answer today,

  171
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will be able to tell us more about it tomorrow.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Is it not remarkable that the Minister has had discussions on this issue but has not seen fit either to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) or to give us an indication of his view on this crucial matter?
  There is not only the question of procurement. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan agrees that a strategic analysis of a vital defence industry in Britain is involved here. Will we get an assurance? If the Secretary of State cannot give us an assurance today, will the Under-Secretary of State give us a clear indication of the Government's attitude tomorrow, at the end of the debate?
  Mr. Tom King rose——
  Several Hon. Members: Go on.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. We cannot have one intervention immediately after another. I call Mr. O'Neill.
  Mr. O'Neill: I am happy to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. .Douglas) asks, but I think that the Secretary of State would make a better job of it.
  Mr. King: The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) did me the courtesy of saying that I met him and a number of his hon. Friends who came to see me to express their concern about these serious issues that affect Ferranti. I cannot remember whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was able to be at that meeting.
  Mr. Douglas: No, I was not.
  Mr. King: I think that the consensus that came out of that meeting was that there are difficult issues to be faced and that there is a need for responsible action by all concerned. We are all deeply concerned about the employees of that company. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West chooses to make Ferranti a political football. I excuse him, as he was not able to be with the deputation that came to see me. I am sure that he was not able to be there for a good reason. At that meeting, I expressed my concern, and the deputation expressed its appreciation of the message of assurance that I was able to give to Ferranti, that the Ministry of Defence had issued.
  Ferranti is a valued supplier and contractor to the MOD. It has some £450 million-worth of contracts. We look for an early resolution to the present problems which have affected the company for extraneous reasons not connected with the Ministry of Defence. We hope for a resolution because we value the company, the people who work for it and the skills they represent. We hope that there will be a successful conclusion. I shall say no more today because it might not be helpful to do so in the difficult situation in which the company finds itself at present, and which it has to resolve.
  Mr. O'Neill: I recognise what the Secretary of State has said. The point that I was endeavouring to make is that there has been another turn of the screw in the procurement procedure—the extension of the survey procedure to allow AEG yet another bite at the cherry. We were not able to discuss that on the occasion to which the Minister referred.
  During the early stages of the crisis that faces Ferranti, many of us argued for a speedy conclusion. We now recognise that it will take longer. We do not deny that. What we would like to get from the Minister, if not publicly—I will not push him any further, for the reasons tat he has given—is an assurance that the British Government will give the same support to the ECR90 as the West Germans are giving to the MSD2000. We would like to make sure that the Secretary of State takes a close interest in the merger dealings and proceedings and that he will try to ensure that the merger does not take place before the radar deal is completed, because it is of considerable significance to the future good health of a company which employs a large number of people.
  I have to declare a slight interest in the matter. My father is a beneficiary of the Ferranti pension scheme, having been a foreman there for the best part of 25 years. I therefore have a family interest. If one scratches many people in the east of Scotland, there will be very few who do not have a relative who is employed by Ferranti or a subcontractor to it.
  Although this is a defence debate, a transfer of technology takes place in Ferranti, and this means that many of the civilian products that it makes derive from the work done originally for defence products. Therefore, it would be foolhardy for anyone to try to break up the group. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and to dismantle it, for whatever reasons of the market, would be short-sighted and potentially dangerous for people right across the industrial areas of north Britain.
  The change in the demand for defence equipment is creating problems for the defence procurement industry. It has already resulted in a dramatic loss of jobs. In 1979–80, the armaments industry employed 580,000 people. The last time that figures were published in the defence estimates, three years ago, that had fallen to 465,000. It is common knowledge that all firms engaged in defence activity are looking for civilian markets for future work.
  We hope that the Secretary of State will consider the establishment of an arms conversion agency, which would help those firms in the defence industry that wanted to —there would be no compulsion—to move into new markets, by way of grants, training, and advice on restructuring and markets. The manufacturing base of the United Kingdom is far too narrow. The decline in demand for defence products offers us a chance to broaden our base and to make use of some of the most highly trained and best equipped sections of our work force.
  The impact of the decline in defence expenditure is not confined to industry, but extends to the armed forces. While it is true that the Government have kept faith with the pay procedures that Fred Mulley, the last Labour Defence Minister, introduced, they have consistently ignored the need to improve living conditions and accommodation. I am sure that hon. Members will agree, because many have argued for it, that assistance must be given to armed personnel to enable them to improve their living conditions and to purchase accommodation for when they leave the armed services, so that they have a

  173
  place in the housing market. That is a lot more difficult and expensive than it was the last time that such a scheme was discussed, if only because of the interest rate hike.
  We owe our armed services personnel a great debt. When they volunteer to serve, they give up a great deal and the financial recompense that we make them should reflect the level of the sacrifice. We know that recruitment will become more difficult as the demographic changes that are already under way become more pronounced. We support much of the tail-to-teeth approach adopted by the Government.
  I have spoken to the Secretary of State about the implications of the Deal bombing and the murders in Germany. We deplore them.
  Mr. Richard Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: No, I will not. I want to get this in in one piece because it is important.
  Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way while he is still dealing with terms and conditions?
  Mr. O'Neill: No, I will not.
  The implications of the Deal bombing and the murders in Germany are such that we will not try to make political capital out of these events. We resent the allegations made, in the heat of a conference speech, by the Prime Minister, reading from a press release.
  Mr. Tom King: No.
  Mr. O'Neill: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to check against delivery, but the press release said that some in the Labour party were trying to make political capital out of these deaths. We resent that. We deplore these deaths. They are the work of ruthless fanatics with whom no democrat can have common cause. Those hon. Members who seek to consort with them or their allies deserve our contempt. The Labour Opposition join all who seek to console the grieving and give our full support to those who are pursuing these despicable murderers.
  These tragedies have underlined the problems, especially for the British Army of the Rhine, of making every base and military establishment secure. Our troops in West Germany are there for long periods, so it is desirable that their families are able to stay with them in an environment that strikes the right balance between military and civilian life.
  Things are different in the United Kingdom. There are no soft targets. The atrocity at Deal might have been avoided if, for example, fencing had been constructed on time. The ifs are endless. The presence of some private security firms at gates and on perimeter duty gives a clear sign to terrorists that part of the security is the responsibility of people who do not have access to arms, and who have only a minimum of training and often only the slimmest of commitments to the job.
  The desire to free service personnel for more important and satisfying tasks commensurate with their training is understandable. However, if the work were undertaken by firms that operate proper vetting procedures, pay decent wages, take time to train their staff and can retain them, then their employees could undertake certain duties. However, I am not sure whether it would be as financially attractive for such firms to tender. In the discussions that some of my colleagues in the trade union movement had
  174
  last week with the Under-Secretary—I have a copy of the outline of the minutes taken by the trade union side— it became apparent that a review was going on.
  We recognise that on some contracts that are still in the pipeline, the Government have given commercial undertakings. I hope that we can ensure that no more of these cheapjack firms will be hired and that, when people are sacked from one Department of the Civil Service, they do not reappear in the employ of another some time later.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: We also recognise the Government's desire to control defence expenditure and reduce it where possible, and that desire is shared by all hon. Members. However, we deplore the piecemeal, penny-pinching manner in which they approach it. Morale in the service suffers, and the Civil Service and the Ministry of Defence are in constant turmoil. The defence industries feel manipulated by competitive tendering a way that was never intended. The Government are trying to do too much with limited resources. That is why we are calling for a full defence review—not one held over the weekend and reported only in the Daily Telegraph, but one that will take as its starting point our commitments.
  We need a proper assessment of what is happening with the Trident system. This can incorporate the study by Sir Francis Toombes into the reasons why we can barely construct the facility for the Trident warheads, let alone staff it and produce them. We need to know what the prospects are for the D5 rocket and whether congressional funding for it will be confirmed. What will be the cost consideration for Britain, about which our ambassador in Washington referred in Jane's Defence Weekly last week?
  What is the status of the stories about the vulnerability of nuclear boats to satellite radar? Is it true, or is it merely a piece of United States inter-service black propaganda? The House and the country are entitled to clearer and more explicit answers than the ones given, or than I have been given by the Secretary of State in a letter.
  Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: The next Labour Government will accept the responsibilities, both financial and strategic, of inheriting the Trident programme. We shall keep and deploy our nuclear weapons in accordance with Alliance decisions. We shall work with the United States and the Soviet Union to secure a further reduction in the world nuclear arsenals. We shall participate in whatever talks are available to secure a complete ban on nuclear testing, to widen and strengthen the case for non-proliferation by showing that the existing nuclear powers will use their best endeavours to reduce and eventually eliminate our nuclear arsenals. We hope that the Government will subscribe to this approach, which we know is favoured by Washington and Moscow.
  Our commitment to BAOR will be required to change as a consequence of the conventional forces in Europe talks in Vienna. The review must look at the prospects for force restructuring and for changes in military doctrine, with all the technical and equipment consequences that will follow. The House should be under no illusion. Britain, and only Britain, opposes the kind of disarmament that is on offer in Vienna. We know of the Government's deep-seated opposition to arms control in

  175
  the air, but rather than restrict and obstruct it, we should be exploring ways in which the deployment of the new stand-off missiles can be controlled. We are neither seeking British deployment of these weapons nor prepared to countenance their clandestine deployment in Europe by the United States. Let us talk to the Americans and get a clear and public understanding of what the United States air bases will be used for and what will be deployed there.
  One of the great tragedies is that the impetus for arms control which exists on the continent does not drive the search for maritime arms control in the Atlantic. There must be an urgent review to examine some of the Soviet offers in that area. The forward deployment of Polaris with the attendant ships and aircraft contributes to a provocative maritime strategy.
  There are a number of confidence and security-building measures that could be explored. For example, there is notification of movements, notification of exercises along the Stockholm lines and the possibility of challenge inspection.
  We have also to assess the significance of protecting——
  Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: Madam Deputy Speaker, this individual has endeavoured over the past quarter of an hour to interrupt my speech on a number of issues which bear no relationship to each other. I do not wish, therefore, to have him intervene in my speech. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to keep him in his seat.
  There are a number of confidence and security-building measures that we could undertake. A degree of interest and commitment from Britain would transform the nature of the NATO debate. Apart from Norway and ourselves, virtually no other country, apart from the United States, takes very much interest in maritime matters in the high northern waters.
  We must assess the significance of protecting sea lines of communication. If the CFE agreement goes the way that we all hope it will, the need for back-up support assumes new significance, and the case for a surface fleet will be raised again. I doubt whether, at the present rate of ordering, 35 ships could do the job.
  The defence of the United Kingdom and of the home base will continue to be our closest concern. The problems of building up reserve forces were referred to by the Secretary of State. We support him in his endeavours to get as many employers as possible to agree to support the reserve forces. We are talking of an essential part of the defence of the United Kingdom. We want to ensure that all our forces, reserve and regular, are properly trained and equipped and that they are Britain's highest priority. Out-of-area responsibilities must be continually reassessed. For example, we must determine what the size of the Armilla patrol should be. British forces and ships must be kept out there no longer than is necessary.
  We have a two-day debate in prospect, but the areas that have been covered by the Secretary of State and myself could justify a far longer one. It is clear that there is confusion and muddle in the Cabinet and in the Ministry of Defence. The British Government are at odds with the rest of NATO on major issues underlying strategy, equipment, deployment and the scope and pace of
  176
  disarmament. That is bad enough, but even worse is that that confusion is reflected in the defence industries, in which some great firms are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy because of the delay, muddle and expense that stems from the process of competitive tendering. There are other firms which do not know when they could fall prey to foreign takeovers. They do not know what, if anything, the Government will do to construct a credible strategy for our defence economy.
  Last but not least, what future is there for our armed forces when they see their European counterparts with better equipment, better living conditions and a clearer sense of purpose in their military role? These young men and women are sick and tired of being told that they are the best in the world by a Government whose incompetence, short-sightedness and cheese-paring all too often provide inadequate means to carry out tasks that the rest of the allies no longer think are necessary. Eight years after the Nott report, Reykjavik, Stockholm and the INF, with the prospect of further disarmament to come, we need a review of Britain's role in the world and its future contribution to peace and disarmament. That is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in supporting the amendment.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Mates: I am sure that the entire House will wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on his remarks about the atrocity at Deal. It must be healthy that there is outright condemnation of the horrors that were experienced there from both sides of the House. The House is the better for both sides being able to agree that such matters should be condemned.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Clackmannan also on the way in which he has danced lightly through the minefield of his party's policy. He did so with his usual good nature and good humour. He made what I reckoned to be an impossible job just a very difficult one. There is a serious aspect of what the hon. Gentleman said, however, which I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to consider. He criticised the Government's defence policy. He argued that the Government have not gone far enough, have not done enough and have not maintained the real rate of increase on the basis of the inflation that was expected but which has not materialised. If that was not an exercise in cynical opposition, it was an outline of what the hon. Gentleman is committing his party to if and when it should ever form a Government. His words, criticisms and charges need to be closely examined. Questions need to be asked in the greatest possible detail so that the hon. Gentleman can sustain his claim that a Labour Government will do more for Britain's defence than the present Government have done.
  I am glad to have the chance of congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) on his appointment as Secretary of State for Defence. I look forward to working with him in the years to come. It is appropriate in a defence debate that we should thank him too for his work in Northern Ireland. I do not refer only to the politics of that God-forsaken part of our kingdom. I am mindful of the enormously staunch way in which he supported our forces during his four years as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That was of enormous encouragement to all those I know who served in the Army

  177
  in Northern Ireland and to the services generally. The morale of those in the services depends on the staunch support of political leaders. They could have had no stronger ally than my right hon. Friend, and the House should know that.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the Select Committee on Defence. I am sure that all my colleagues who are members of the Committee will look forward to meeting him, to having him appear before us and to working with him in the years to come. Of course, we have different jobs to do. We have different responsibilities and our aims are not always the same. My right hon. Friend has to defend the Government's policy while members of the Select Committee have to examine impartially, as I hope we do, all the problems of defence in terms of accountability to the House. This means that there will always be a constructive tension between us. If that is handled with good nature, as it has been in the past, I do not see it as other than a thoroughly healthy irritant to the democratic process.
  A defence debate is a time when we who have the good fortune to serve on the Select Committee on Defence can have our wares set out and examined. I hope that the House will have noticed the resumé of our activities which appears on the Order Paper. It sets out 10 of the reports which the Committee has produced this Session. That list does not include the report on the Brigade of Gurkhas, which was attached to the Army debate. We have produced 11 reports and we expect to produce three more before prorogation. The production of these reports is a tremendous tribute to my Committee colleagues for their hard work and their largely bipartisan approach to the Committee's work. With the membership of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), I should say that the approach is tripartisan. The hon. Gentleman's expert contributions are greatly welcomed. The Committee has worked hard and I am the first to acknowledge to all my colleagues how grateful I am for their help.
  I wish to make one other acknowledgement. It is an unusual one, but I hope that it is not out of order. I wish to thank a servant of the House, Mr. Robert Rogers, for his work during the six years that he has been the Clerk of the Select Committee on Defence. His work has been unstinting and his loyalty has been tremendous. He has contributed enormously to such effectiveness as we have been able to show to the House in the depth of detail in the reports that we have submitted. When one of the servants of the House does such sterling work, it is perhaps not out of place to mention him by name.
  The Select Committee on Defence is engaged on two major inquiries. The first one is on military low flying, a subject in which there is a great deal of interest expressed both inside the House and outside. The second inquiry is into the reliability and maintainability of defence equipment. We hope that we shall have substantially completed these inquiries by the Christmas recess. We shall then continue our item-by-item examination of major procurement programmes. We shall examine next year Rapier, the JP233, Blue Vixen and the multiple-launch rocket system. In the context of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Clackmannan, we decided this morning that we wanted to pursue further our inquiry into the physical security of military installations, a subject which we examined in some detail a few years ago.
  178
  If hon. Members read the list that is set out in the Order Paper, they will note that we have increased the number of subjects in which we are now making annual progress reports. We attach special importance to our annual review of the defence White Paper. but we are also taking an annual look at Trident, the Royal Navy's surface fleet and the availability of merchant shipping for defence purposes. I hope that the House finds these annual updates useful, because they reflect the anxiety felt by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about those problems, which do not simply go away because they have been considered once. They need to be considered more often so that we can try to identify trends and report them to the House, as well as merely giving the snapshot view at a particular time.
  I shall allow the Committee's other reports to speak for themselves. I want to pick out one theme from our report on this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates', and that is the subject of personnel covered in part III. Both retention and recruitment, especially of those with key skills expensively taught out of public funds, are showing worrying trends. There is growing disquiet not only about overstretch because of increasing workloads, but about the turbulence that those shortages cause in domestic life. Postings and separations have always been part of the service career, but in an increasingly competitive labour market they may tip the balance towards personnel seeking a career in civilian life; yet we have spent thousands, and sometimes millions of pounds training them to serve the armed forces. The demographic trough —or the birth/dearth as I have heard it called—will be a major factor in personnel policy during the coming years. My colleagues and I will be studying closely the plans that my right hon. Friend has to offset those trends.
  It is vital that we retain the high-quality personnel that we need so much. We rightly focus upon value for money, but that should not blind us to the need to think about money for value. We should not only pay tribute to the services and their civilian support, we should ensure that conditions of service, as well as remuneration, do no t disadvantage them in a more competitive labour market. That is of key importance not only to the services, but to the civilian infrastructure, as is shown in our second report of the session on the truly alarming staffing situation in the procurement executive.
  Although my right hon. Friend said that this was a good time to hold a defence debate, the Committee is disappointed that, once again, it is taking place after the summer recess, so we are debating a document that was published almost six months ago. The Committee finds it difficult to accept such a delay because of the annual rush in the summer to produce its report. The Committee is, given four weeks to do so by the Leader of the House, who then tells us that he cannot guarantee a day more. Therefore, at not inconsiderable expense to the Exchequer, the reports are printed urgently.
  To have the matter put off until the autumn takes away the urgency of the inquiry and the freshness of the debate —and not only on our report, but on the Government's White Paper. I am also aware that our demand to conduct the inquiry in a short time places extra burdens on the Ministry of Defence. I hope that my right hon. Friend will help me this year and try to achieve a timetable that is comfortable for us all and that enables the debate to have the freshness that it lacks after the long summer recess.

  179
  I wish now to speak for myself as a Back Bencher and to return to a subject upon which I touched during the Army debate. It is the way that the community charge is to be introduced in the armed forces. Before my hon. Friends groan, I assure them that I do not intend to cover old ground. I accept that the poll tax will be introduced, but I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends to think about what will happen in the armed forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), who was the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces at the time of the Army debate, undertook to write to me and clarify matters. He did write, but far from clarifying matters, he increased my alarm. The Government's argument is the standard argument on which they have introduced the charge, and which I accept—that they want to increase the direct accountability of local authorities to a wider range of the population. That would be acceptable if the argument could embrace the armed forces, but I hope to show that, in many cases, it cannot.
  In his letter, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford said:
  "To remove the entire body of the Armed Forces from this regime would directly cut across the important link between what individuals pay and the level of local services they are able to enjoy."
  My hon. Friend's letter has been placed in the Library, so some hon. Members may have already seen it. He went on to explain how the system would be introduced, and said that there would be a ceiling beyond which service men would not be charged in high-rated areas, although why that should be £50 a year more than the average I do not know.
  I telephoned my hon. Friend's office and asked how that would operate and how he would work out the average charge. My hon. Friend's office said that they would add up all the community charges payable in all the districts of the land so that they could work out the average. A return will have to be made of every single and married soldier's community charge, wherever he happens to be and for whatever part of the year he happens to be there. As an exercise in bureaucracy that will be extremely difficult, although such things can be done. But done for what? It is so that the tenet of accountability will still apply.
  The Government realise that that will create problems —for example, with the temporary posting of service men. Yet even more extraordinary is the fact that there are different rules for married service men and for single service men, and those rules apply in quite different ways. When a married service man is sent away from his station the community charge in the new place will not be payable if the tour lasts for less than six months, yet single service men posted away from their station will come off their home community charge register after 60 days.
  How can it be that, for example, if a regiment is sent to Northern Ireland for four or five months the married members of the regiment will be treated differently from the single members? Some will come off their home community charge registers after 60 days; others will not be eligible for some months. That does not make sense. They are all in the same boat, having been sent there to do the same job. If there is to be a financial difference in the
  180
  way they are treated for the purposes of the community charge—I am not suggesting that anyone should get out of paying it—that will cause dissent.
  Indeed, there is currently cause for dissent in Scotland, where some members of the armed forces are paying the community charge as well as rates. They have left their families in England and gone to serve in Scotland, where the registration officer is registering them as liable for the community charge although they are still paying rates at home. Added to that is the problem of the way in which the system is being perceived by those serving in Scotland because the senior officers are hundreds of pounds better off while the junior ranks are much worse off. Although that is an effect of the community charge which is part of the general debate, it has always been a tenet of the way in which the services conduct themselves that, as far as is possible, everyone is treated the same.
  There is a simple solution. We have lived through the complexities of the rating system for 50 and more years. and we can do the same under the community charge. No service man should be exempt from it; each must pay his due. However, they should each pay an average for all three services, which could be collected in the same way as the rates are collected now. Currently a married service man pays a rates element in his rent, which is collected and passed on for local government expenditure. The same applies to a single service man. Why change a perfectly good system? Everybody thinks it fair.
  In my constituency there are three major training schools where people come and go. Those responsible within those establishments are bending over backwards to tell the local authority who comes one week and who goes another week in preparation for next April. What an unnecessary complication when there is a perfectly fair and just method of charging service men under the community charge so that they make their contribution to local government in the way that they have been doing.
  I beg my right hon. Friend to look at that matter again. The potential muddle greatly outweighs any benefit that may come from a system based on local accountability. It is desirable for all service men to feel part of the local government and the national process, but I am afraid that that will never hapen. They will make their local affiliations where their homes are, the places from which they come, the places that they go home to for their leave and the places to which they retire, rather than the station in which they find themselves serving for six months or one, two or three years.
  There are so many more complexities that I could have thrown at the Government if I had so wanted, but I want to make one fundamental point in the hope that the matter will be looked at again. If it is, as it nearly always is, the Treasury which is making difficulties, let it be told why a policy which, without fighting old battles, I can say has not been the most popular that the Conservative party has introduced in the 15 years that I have been a Member, would make a bad situation worse by upsetting the soldiers, sailors and airmen. They may always be grumbling, but if the system is fair, it can be ignored; if it is unfair, their grumble is genuine, and that does untold damage to the armed forces.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. John McWilliam: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampshire East (Mr. Mates), particularly since it gives me an opportunity to pay my tribute to the work that Robert Rogers has done as Clerk to the Select Committee on Defence. It is extremely useful to have someone who is as knowledgeable, cheerful and hard-working, and as willing to give advice, help and guidance, regardless of who asks for it, on a completely impartial basis.
  It is always a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East. As hon. Members can see from the number of reports that we have produced in the past few months, we have been extremely busy. However, there are irritants. It is irritating when the Ministry of Defence, for reasons of its own, becomes obstructive on perfectly legitimate questions about its policies and expenditure. It is irritating when witnesses insist on giving in private information which is not secret or classified. We are told that it is commercial, in confidence. When the information is given, one realises why—it is embarrassing. It is also irritating to be given classified evidence in private only to see on our television screens the next morning a complete exposition of what it was, including close-up photographs of the weapon system, which is usually a Soviet one, a complete analysis of its capabilities and details of what is being done to overcome it. We often get more information that way than we are given. That is extremely irritating and I wish that the MOD would stop it.
  Equally, when the MOD sends witnesses to us, I wish that it would send them in a helpful state of mind. It is irritating to have able and intelligent individuals standing before us playing a straight bat and ending up looking positively foolish. It is even more embarrassing when we have to abandon evidence sessions and recall witnesses and a Minister, who has to remain simply because, during the first session, his civil servants would not answer questions. Those are my gripes.
  I too welcome the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) to the Dispatch Box, but I am disappointed in what he had to' say. I am disappointed because he was complacent. He did not seem to be reflecting the challenges and opportunities which now exist for him—opportunities which have not existed for a long time.
  It is all very well for him to claim that the tensions within eastern Europe and the Soviet Union increase the threat to Britain. They do not. As far as I am aware, the independent republics of the Soviet Union are not in a state of war, or undeclared war, with the United Kingdom or any of our NATO allies. As far as I am aware, they make no territorial claims upon the territories of any of our NATO allies. As far as I am aware, all that they want, and all that they are trying to get, is a measure of individual freedom and responsibility and to be able to enjoy choice and a range of goods which consumers in western Europe have been able to enjoy for a number of years. It is the combination of those two pressures which has brought about the changes. President Gorbachev has come to the negotiating table with real offers that have to be looked at seriously.
  But there are other pressures, which the Secretary of State was careful not to mention, such as those in the United States. Over the next five years, because of decisions taken by Congress and the Senate, the United
  182
  States will have to reduce its military expenditure by 20 per cent. Such pressures will have serious implications for the deployment of United States' resources within Europe, quite apart from the burden-sharing argument which some people have introduced. I do not believe that we have anything to fear from the burden-sharing argument. Any analysis of our commitment to NATO and to the Alliance will show that we play a full and serious part.
  However, I am disappointed that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has said, we have begun to crack a bit at the seams. We have shown real weaknesses in the one area that is of most importance to ourselves and to Europe, and that is the surface fleet of escorts, frigates and destroyers. We can forget the figures in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". They are wrong. At the last count in June, of the 47 ships that are supposed to exist, 33 destroyers and frigates were fully operational and eight were available at short notice. That makes 41. Of the 33 that were fully operational, taking into account the commitment to the Armilla patrol, the Falklands, the West Indies and the additional commitment to help preventing drug smuggling and all the other commitments that we cannot discuss, the number of ships which on any day could be committed to NATO is insignificantly fewer than 30.
  The number of ships that we are supposed to he able to commit to NATO is classified; I am not allowed to say. But I can say that the figure that I have quoted is significantly below what we are supposed to be able to declare to NATO on category A—that is, at virtually no notice.
  I notice that in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" the Minister has stopped trying to hide behind the claim of maintaining a surface fleet of about 50 ships. That fiction no longer holds. It is no good the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement shaking his head. That fiction has been presented to us for four years. There can be no argument because the Select Committee report named the ships; any hon. Member can count them. That is a significant failure on the part of the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannen mentioned manpower, as did the hon. Member for Hampshire, East. The Secretary of State was complacent. The shortfalls are worse than they appear and they will get much worse. When we put it to the Ministry of Defence that we should perhaps maintain the Gurkhas, as constituted, to make up that shortfall, the Ministry of Defence reacted by cutting their numbers in half. It has not yet told us how that is to be done, or about the support units, or about proportions, or about where the Gurkhas will be based. All that we know is that their numbers will be cut in half, and that does not make sense out of the context of a defence review. We should have a review of our commitments to determine what we have in the way of assets and responsibilities and then to allocate them according to the review—but this is a defence review by stealth. Who gets cheese-pared depends on who happens to be flavour of the month. That bears no relation to the commitment required of the large number of men and women who serve in our forces, and it must ultimately lead to some loss of morale.
  The Secretary of State was even more complacent about the Procurement Executive. We rely on civil servants to ensure that we are getting value for money and that contracts and specifications are properly drawn up and

  183
  adhered to. Administrative assistants—the basic clerical grade—in London and the south-east are 56·7 per cent. below target. It is their job to shift paper around and to do filing, and if they are not doing that work others must be —people who are being paid much more money to perform other functions. These targets are not the agreed manpower complements; they relate to what the Treasury says should be spent. They are not based on the work study analysis of the number of man hours needed to do these jobs.
  Scientific staff are 17 per cent. below target in the Land Systems Executive and about 21 per cent. below target in the Air Systems Executive, especially in electrical and electronic specialities. No wonder there are scandals and gold-plated contracts and £300 spanners. A little urgency and consideration should have been devoted to this problem when we pointed it out. We did a great deal of work on the report. I understand the Ministry's point of view that this is a Treasury problem. Nevertheless, what is happening shows that the Treasury is throwing good money after bad. It is trying to save money by getting rid of the posts of people whose job it is to save money. That might be all right for short-term accountancy, but it is not good for the quality and reliability of equipment which our armed forces have to use, and it is certainly not good sense for the taxpayer who must foot the bill. This degree of complacency cannot be tolerated.
  I am also worried about business appointments. High-ranking members of the armed forces and high-ranking civil servants walk out of the door and into well-paid jobs with defence manufacturers shortly afterwards. There is supposed to be a review procedure to look after that, but I have looked carefully at the evidence from the Ministry of Defence and I am not convinced. I am not saying that impropriety is taking place. I say that the system is not transparent enough to enable the House to assure itself that no impropriety has taken place.
  Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman will want to remember, too, that not only high-ranking officers but those in middle management—those at the coal face of procurement projects—who do not come under the auspices of the Carlisle committee and who may move straight across from one area to the other may be involved in much more than meets the eye. It would be wrong to nominate for castigation only those of two stars and above.
  Mr. McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman is right to correct me; I was coming to that point. I was going to explain that the people whom we can least afford to lose are generally fairly young married people with young children. Their Civil Service salaries are not enough and they possess good scientific qualifications. They often find themselves at the sharp end of a specification or a final requirement. So there are two causes for anxiety: possible impropriety, and the loss of our ability to ensure that we are spending our money wisely.
  I sincerely ask the Minister to look into this again. It is not good enough for the Government to continue their present policy. That could only be described as scandalous and unworthy of support. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance today that the present obdurate attitude will change. I hope that he will come to the Select
  184
  Committee and discuss more openness with us. We are quite prepared to deal with some of these issues in confidence, but the House must be able to assure itself that the public money which we vote—this is not Government money—is properly spent.
  I am greatly disappointed. The Government have had the opportunity in the past 12 months, because of the changes in the conventional force talks and strategic arms talks, to make a positive contribution. They have not done so, or have done so unwillingly. They have been dragged kicking and screaming into line with our NATO allies.
  I know that my party policy is that we will continue with Trident and deploy it, but the game has changed. Trident is vastly expensive and unnecessary, and represents a huge increase in our ability to deliver strategic weapons. It is widely believed in the United States and the Soviet Union that the strategic arms reduction talks will succeed. If they do, the sea-launched ballistic missile capability of the United States will be reduced, and anyone who thinks that the Soviet Union or the United States will happily allow Britain to acquire 25 per cent. of the United States' sea-launched capability is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The sooner we pitch our weapons into the negotiations the better.
  6.8 pm
  Dr. Alan Glyn: It is a great privilege to follow two members of the Select Committee, both of whom, especially its chairman, have contributed greatly to the defence estimates.
  I want to concentrate on the changing relationship between NATO and the Warsaw pact which has resulted, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, from the changes in Europe that we have just witnessed. In a defence debate—year ago—last October—I said that there had been a change in the Soviet Union. But now the situation is completely different, as we have the actual breakaway. Not only are there changes in the Soviet Union but large nations are breaking away from Communism. That must alter the strategic line of defence between NATO and the Warsaw pact.
  Paragraphs 46–49 will have to be revised, as there are changes not only in the Baltic states but in Poland and Hungary and their military contribution. As a result the Warsaw pact's line of defence has been altered and the Soviet Government can no longer rely on those allies. Although Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania prob-ably will remain in the pact, it is doubtful whether the others could be relied upon. I do not think that that is of great disadvantage to the Soviet Union. It is better to know that some countries are not allies than to have unreliable allies. I do not think that it alters the Soviet Union's position, but it must alter our line of defence.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Soviets are rearming rapidly. They are producing better tanks and they still have overwhelming superiority. The real danger and the real challenge would arise if Germany were to reunite, as that would alter the whole concept of the Warsaw pact and NATO. We do not know whether that will happen, but if it does, I humbly suggest that the whole of our defence policy would have to be altered and our alignment would have to change.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whom I failed to congratulate at the beginning of my speech, mentioned reserves. We have to have reserves. An

  185
  important source of reserves would be an increase in the use of women in the forces, which is mentioned in paragraph 516 of the defence estimates, a policy which the Chief of the Defence Staff, agrees. Now that war is not so reliant on physical combat there are many roles which women could take and thereby free men in the territorial and regular armies.
  The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) mentioned the possible reduction in the contribution by the United States to NATO. Although, under article 223, the EEC is not allowed to make a direct contribution, its contribution could be increased, particularly in efforts to make sure that we standardise our equipment within NATO. The EEC is not supposed to contribute to it, but I do not see any reason why it should have the benefit of defence if it does not pay for it. The removal of the United States forces would create a great vacuum and Europe would be compelled to fill it.
  May I also thank my right hon. Friend for his start on the rebuilding of Victoria barracks, Windsor.
  Finally, these changes in Europe are profound and as the hon. Member for Blaydon said, they stem from people's desire to choose a decent standard of living. We should not do anything to stop them. But at the same time we have to realise that we want disarmament and there is not a single person in the House or outside who does not want genuine disarmament, but we must not be blinded by recent events. We know that the Soviet Union is rearming at a fast pace. As my right hon. Friend said, since Gorbachev came to power it is still rearming at a pace, and producing excellent tanks. We have to make sure that the interests of our nation are protected. Until a genuine disarmament can be achieved, there will still be the need for the nuclear deterrent.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) has brought the debate back to what it should be about—relating our defence policy and expenditure to the real situation in which we live. If we pass the estimates tomorrow, everybody in the country, man woman and child, will be taxed £371 to pay for the estimates that have been put before us.
  I rise to put forward a view which I believe is now becoming more widely shared generally, not just at the Labour conference, although that has been mentioned. The change in the international situation, the economic situation at home and throughout the world and the number of unmet needs in our country point quite clearly to the desirability of diverting some money now spent on defence into meeting those needs. That view at least has to be addressed seriously.
  I have heard Secretaries of State for Defence speak in the House for nearly 40 years and I have never heard a poorer speech than the one this afternoon. If the Secretary of State thinks that the pressure for civil liberties in Poland or Hungary, which Opposition Members have defended for years, has been produced because he has a Trident on hire purchase, he really does not understand what is happening. After war Communism, which in my opinion was sustained by the cold war longer than it otherwise would have been, people now want greater freedom. They also want what I am asking for—the reallocation of money from weapons to meet their needs.
  186
  I thought it was funny that the Secretary of State went back to the old story that Hitler came to power because the Labour party was against the pre-war Conservative Government, when we now know the degree of support that Chamberlain gave to Hitler's objectives, but I shall not go into that.
  Mr. Brazier: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1934, the Labour party, together with the then Liberal party, put before the House a motion condemning the Government on the ground that the level of defence expenditure then was wastefully high. Can I point out the parallels with the speech that he is making now?
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman had better remember that the first time I came to the House was in 1937, when I was 12. I heard Churchill speak from the Conservative Benches and the Prime Minister was Neville Chamberlain. Neville Chamberlain supported Hitler's policies. Of course he did, because Hitler was anti-Communist at home and opposed the Bolsheviks. The hon. Gentleman should read the captured German Foreign Office documents. He would then take a very different view about who really supported Hitler. But I do not wish to go back to 1934, as I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman was alive then and I was very young.
  We are being asked to commit more than £21 billion to defence in 1990–91–3·9 per cent. of our gross national product. We are the third largest exporter of weapons in the world. It would be naive of us to discuss defence without examining the commercial interest in defence. I asked the House of Commons Library to tell me what were the profits made by the major defence contractors and I was given the figures. The 11 top defence contractors in Britain—that is, those with contracts worth £100 million or more—make operating profits of £3,310 million. Nobody can tell me that that does not represent a very powerful commercial interest to maintain defence expenditure at its present level. We cannot be naive about these matters. There are economic systems on which the one in Britain in part depends, whose confidence and success depends on high defence expenditure.
  One of the problems that the Conservative party has never really confronted is that, if the Russians were to reduce defence expenditure, they would be likely to do well out of it, but if we reduced defence expenditure we would create a hole in our economy precipitating problems that could not be met by a Government who do not believe in planning. That point of view is not new; it was put before the first world war about the arms manufacturers and their vested interests.
  Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but he has it the wrong way round. If Russia makes significant reductions in defence expenditure, it will be at far greater cost to its domestic economy, because much more of it is devoted to defence. Try cutting 20 per cent. of a country's gross domestic product and see how many men are put on the street out of work. They cannot all be employed in refrigerator factories.
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman should turn his mint) back to 1945. How many people did we pull out o uniform? Two or 3 million. How many people did we pull out of the arms industry? Two or 3 million. Within 18 months, there had been a massive conversion from war to

  187
  peace, because it had been planned. If defence expenditure is reduced in a capitalist society, many of the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes occur.
  Why is Gorbachev credible? The Russians made many disarmament proposals, but people always dismissed them as propaganda. Gorbachev is credible because he said, "I want to cut defence expenditure to improve the standard of living of the Russian people." People at home say, "We agree. We should like to do the same." The amendment that I tabled has not been called, but I think that I am allowed to read it. It says that this House
  "declines to accept the Defence Estimates; and believes that Britain should reduce its defence spending, initially to equal the average level of other Western European countries, and transfer the savings made to social and economic priorities including the National Health Service, pensions, housing, education and other vital services, the elimination of low pay and poverty, much needed investment in job creation and economic development, and the restructuring of Britain's crumbling infrastructure."
  That is an argument. The Secretary of State said that Germany, Italy, France and Spain were now defenceless and that if the amendment were passed we would be defenceless. I do not know who wrote his brief—perhaps he did so himself—but to argue that, if Britain were to have the same defence expenditure as those countries, it would be defenceless is an absurdity that no one will take seriously.
  I do not want to exaggerate the figures, but the Secretary of State said that if our defence spending were cut to the European average the figure of savings would be £5 billion. I am more cautious, because I believe that it may be between £3 billion and £4 billion. I do not want to spoil the case by exaggerating it, but we spend more than France and Germany on defence.
  Conservative Members should also consider the example of Japan, which spends 1 per cent. of its GDP on defence. It they want to know why the Japanese economy is so strong, it is because it has poured investment into Japanese cars, videos, televisions and other electrical and electronic equipment. How can it be claimed that Japan is weak in the world? It is so strong that it is buying chunks of the American and British economy. Japan and Germany—Germany spends less on defence than we do but more than Japan—are in a powerful position.
  I tried to discover what could be bought with the savings of £3 billion to £4 billion, which is less than the Secretary of State's figure. It is hard to estimate, but the House always tries to do its best. It would probably buy 120 hospitals, 64,000 houses or, for the benefit of Conservative Members, would enable a 2·5p cut in income tax. I am talking not about total defence expenditure but simply the difference between European expenditure and ours.
  According to the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the world spends $1,000 billion a year on weapons—about £1 million a minute. If one looks at other comparable official figures to see whether we are getting our priorities right, one finds that, worldwide, 500 million people are suffering from malnutrition, 800 million people are living in absolute poverty, 14 million children are dying from hunger-related causes every year and 5 million children are dying of diarrhoea, which is a preventable disease.
  188
  Without addressing the arguments that have been put today, the Secretary of State launched into a party conference or hustings speech; he did not turn his mind to the argument. The argument is that big changes are happening in the world. There is no Soviet military threat, whatever view people take of the Soviet system. Members of what is sometimes called the Left of the Labour party were more critical of Stalinism than any other group in this country. When Russia attacked Hungary in 1956, hon. Members on the Left of the party and I wrote a letter to Pravda. It was published, and the Minister can look it up if he does not believe me. I led the Labour party delegation to the Soviet ambassador to protest about the invasion of Afghanistan. Conservative Members should not accuse us of supporting such a system.
  But, as the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead suggested, there is no evidence that the Russians intended to invade western Europe. I always believed that the pressure for change in the Soviet Union would result from the desire of the Soviet people for the civil liberties and democratic rights that we want in Britain. That is what has caused change, not the fact that the Secretary of State can wave a Trident that is on order, which he could not fire without Bush putting on his satellite communication system. Who does he think he is kidding?
  Mr. McWilliam: It would not work.
  Mr. Benn: Even if it did work, it would not go anywhere, which is what the Zircon story was about. The Secretary of State knows that as well as I do. I watched the Zircon film to discover what was secret about it. The Secretary of State and I know that it was secret because the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence said that Polaris was not an independent deterrent. That was what we did not want the Russians to know. The Russians and Americans have satellites, and there is nothing secret about the deterrent.
  The fact is that we have never had an independent deterrent and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) rightly said that Trident will be removed, not by the dangerous Left wingers of the Labour party, but by the Americans, when they do a deal with the Russians because they will not want even the pretence that a British Prime Minister has a weapon.
  We must consider our economic position. Under varying Governments of various policies, there has been long-term neglect of our industrial investment. At no time has that been clearer than at present. Following the high interest rates of 1979, the current high interest rates and the waste of oil revenues, industry will be unable to sustain the standard of living of our people when the oil runs out. We have no choice but to redirect resources into industrial development, and the proposed economies in defence would be a part of that.
  Any hon. Member of whatever party allegiance who travels around the country and meets his constituents is aware of the appalling stress on public services, such as our under-staffed hospitals, the fact that people must wait for treatment and the fact that there are breakdowns in essential public services because of under-investment. Any serious Government of any political persuasion that rationally examined the priorities of public expenditure would know that there are no grounds for this level of

  189
  defence expenditure. There is an urgent need to redirect resources into industrial development, and we must ensure that civil needs are met.
  The old joke that we have the best defended dole queues in Europe is not far wrong. The amendment that I tabled receives a vague hint of approval from the official Opposition amendment. It says that the Labour party wants
  "to examine the allocation of resources which could be released for social and economic purposes".
  I think that I can say that I have amplified and clarified what my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) put before the House, and many people in Britain would like to see that done. That should not be attributed just to the Labour party conference, or to the votes of delegates at our conference, because people are ahead of the Government in their perception of what is possible.
  In 1945, I returned as an RAF pilot who was too young to vote, but I campaigned in the 1945 election. The United Nations assembly met for the first time in Central hall, Westminster and Gladwyn Jebb was acting Secretary-General. At that time, there was a huge surge of hope among people that the wartime alliance with Russia would last. We believed that we would make sense of the Security Council, but those hopes were dashed for 40 years. Now they are coming back again.
  We cannot live for ever with the legacy of Hitler's Europe divided by an iron curtain. We want a European security pact which brings the Hungarians and Poles together with us and, if Germany is reunited as the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead suggested, heaven knows what policy changes might appear in Moscow, Washington, Paris and London. Let us look forward for a change instead of harking back to the totally false idea that the Soviet system changed in response to the fact that we had a nuclear weapon on hire purchase and bankrupted ourselves through defence expenditure. That is laughable. It is not true and no one but the Secretary of State believes it.
  When people read the report of this debate, it will make sense only if people outside believe that those of us in this place understand what people outside already know—that the cold war is over. Everyone, both East and West, wants to spend money on peaceful development. However, Britain, because of its absolute obsession with the idea that it remains a semi-super-power, is dragging its feet in moving towards peace and is denying its people the industrial development and the public services that they need more than anything else.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Derek Conway: I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He has expressed to the House tonight his obvious disappointment, that he is not writing the next Labour party manifesto. Conservative Members share his disappointment, because we wish that he was writing it. That would be very helpful.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield has tried his best to help the Government by tabling his amendment and I tried to help him by urging Mr. Speaker to select the amendment for a Division tomorrow night. I wish that the House could have an opportunity to vote on the amendment to see where among Labour Members the true face of the Labour party lies. Does it lie with the hon.
  190
  Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who puts on a brave face, but with some little conviction, or does it lie in the motion carried during the Labour party conference?
  Conservative Members are not interested in this issue purely for party political gain. This issue has an effect in many constituencies. As hon. Members will know, there is considerable interest in and allegiance to the armed forces in my constituency not least because it is the military headquarters for the west midlands. Thousands of Shrewsbury folk are employed in defence-related industries. Many of those people, thankfully not in their thousands but in their hundreds, support the Labour party. Many of them work in traditional industries and produce Labour councillors and Labour party activists. The workers at Perkins Engines manufacture an excellent tank engine for the Challenger main battle tank. After the Labour party conference, where could those poor souls have read that £5 billion was proposed to be slashed from the defence budget and that their jobs would be lost? Perhaps the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman can suggest a socially useful alternative for a production line producing main battle tank engines. The workers are scratching their heads.
  The appearance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at the Dispatch Box was very welcome not least because he shares with his predecessor a personal experience of the armed forces. I am particularly glad to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box because he is a former Light Infantry man. I hope that his Army bias will be displayed in his decisions in future.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to procurement and rightly said that his Ministry would try to encourage smaller businesses. We would not disagree with that, but the House must bear in mind that research and development involves an enormous cost and a great proportion of that enormous contribution—especially with the rightly more rigorous regime which the MOD now employs in procurement policy—means that large employers in my part of the world, like GKN, Sankey, Dowty and Perkins may have to carry enormous burdens. in their trading exercises to cover the cost of research and development. While we all agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that smaller businesses have a role to play in defence procurement, we should not forget the valuable contribution played by larger groups in terms of research and development to move us forward in arms procurement.
  I was particularly glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State scotch some of the myths put about, particularly by Opposition Members, about the smiling face of Mr. Gorbachev as he leads the Warsaw pact nations. Of course we must encourage but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, we must be cautious. He was right to remind the House—as hopefully the country will note—that the Soviet Union is producing a new aircraft every day. It is not as if the Soviets have pulled down the shutters and said, "Let's talk with the Americans and back-pedal." They are producing a new main battle tank every day. To be honest, some of us would like to believe that some Soviet weaponry is archaic and absolute rubbish. That is not the case. While some of our NATO allies may still be using second world war equipment, the Soviet main battle tank is a very effective piece of kit.

  191
  The Soviets produce a nuclear submarine every 42 days and a non-nuclear sub every 28 days. There is no impression yet that the Soviet conventional war machine, which is already considerably greater than NATO's, is slowing down.
  I was particularly glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Why does the United States not hold the hon. Gentleman's view? President Bush appears to suggest that an agreement on START negotiations could be signed in 1990. If the United States is convinced, why will the hon. Gentleman not at least give some credit to the Soviet Union for starting to move in the right direction?
  Mr. Conway: Of course I give the Soviet Union credit for that, and we welcome it. Who wants to live in an age of nuclear proliferation? However, the Americans, like our NATO allies and ourselves, are not being blindfolded. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) castigated my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for supporting the deployment of cruise missiles, but we heard very little when the SS22s were deployed. Together with his friends in CND, he said, "But look, the Soviets have offered to pull the SS22s back behind the Urals." However, what use was that for a weapon with a range of 3,000 miles? We have heard enough of the fork-tongued exercises of Opposition Members. Caution, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State warned, is the way forward. We welcome and support new developments, but that does not mean that we follow blindly.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Ulster Defence Regiment. I do not believe that our debate today and tomorrow is the correct forum to examine the difficulties and the criminal investigations that are being carried out at present. I am sure that the House would want to recognise that nine battalions of the UDR are employed in the Province. Last year, 33 service men were murdered in Ulster, 12 of whom were part-time UDR soldiers. A further 239 were injured.
  I have often spoken in the House about my involvement with the Territorial Army. The 90,000 involved in the TA on the United Kingdom mainland is as nothing compared with the bravery of those who volunteer for part-time military service in the Province. I take my hat off to those people and I am not sure whether I would have the courage to do the same in those circumstances. Just because a few apples in the UDR have received bad publicity, I do not believe that we should write off that very effective regiment and its nine battalions as tarred with the same brush.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the large-scale TA exercise held by 49 Brigade during the recess as part of its NATO training. I hope that he was taken by the enthusiasm displayed by those TA soldiers. It has long been my experience that often when a regular soldier is posted to a TA unit, he is a bit cynical and prepared for the worst. However, within a few months he is convinced by the enthusiasm and commitment of the part-time soldiers. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State found that.
  My noble Friend Lord Ridley is the president of TAVRA, which promotes employer-awareness of the
  192
  motivation, initiative, leadership and self-discipline which employers can get for free by enabling employees to take part in the TA—currently involving 90,000 people—as an investment by British industry which will be well rewarded.
  I shall dwell briefly on Regular Army recruitment problems, which are often commented upon by the press and by the Defence Select Committee and, I am sure, are a matter of considerable and frequent discussion within the Ministry. Some of the terms and conditions which apply to the armed services are starting to look a little archaic in today's scenario. I suspect that much of the premature retirement rate is related to marital pressures. These days, those who are attaining mid rank see their wives still expected to play an absolutely free part in the services, whereas the wives of their contemporaries in civilian life are at work and often earn substantial incomes. Service wives make a real sacrifice today, and we glibly forget it. Those who have achieved senior rank in the armed forces remember what their wives had to do in their day, and they shrug off the matter. I suspect that many of our young and able NCOs and officers are voting with their feet on this issue. A generation gap may have to be bridged politically if we are not to lose more and more future able generals.
  On problems with conditions, I remind the House of the active role that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has been playing in trying to stimulate service men's ability to buy their houses. I always find it slightly depressing that the second part of the estimates, which contains tables shows that the number of people in the armed forces who buy their own homes—particularly those in the Army—are so low. Obviously, the Navy and the Air Force have a much better rate, but in the Army the rate is still pathetically low. My hon. Friend's activities to try to push my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues to greater encouragement of home ownership deserve our greatest support.
  We have read of the MARILYN programme within the Ministry of Defence and of the "Five-run-away-together" teams, which has had a glib response in some of the press, focusing our attention on the fact that, when people join the Army in particular, they would like to see one or two faces that they know from their own region. In that respect, if there is one legacy that the Labour party has left the Army and the regional system it is the abolition of the county regiments, which, in the long term, will prove to be a great mistake. That must not be compounded by actions to close regimental depots to try to get an all-arms melting pot training system, which may be favoured by some within the Ministry of Defence but which would be as bad as the abolition of county regiments. Equally, the selling off of local training areas would be another blow to the community ties that are important to maintain the regimental system.
  In the Territorial Army, there has been a move to reintroduce geographical titles bracketed behind the names of regiments—they are very long and are not the way to do it. If we are to accept that, for recruiting purposes, it is essential to connect regiments with geography, proper geographical titles should stand.
  It is interesting that in London there are about 14 soldiers per 10,000 people. In other areas such as Tyne and Wear, for example, there are about 52 soldiers per 10,000 people. On Merseyside there are about 55 soldiers per 10,000 people, and in Cumbria about 58 soldiers per

  193
  10,000 people. That differential is related not only to unemployment problems but to the strong geographical identification in those areas.
  In my original service with the Royal Regiment, the Fusiliers, the old love of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers never died. Fortunately, when the regiments were combined, the Fusiliers' hackle for the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers was maintained. Some local people, when they saw the Fusiliers marching actually believed that they were still the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers. To introduce it as a proper county regiment would be a definite way forward, and equally so for the Durham Light Infantry. Of course, there is still a Light Infantry battalion based in Durham—the seventh battalion, and an excellent battalion it is too. Who can possibly doubt the strength of local feeling that existed for the Durham Light Infantry and the benefits for regular recruitment if it still existed?
  Despite some of the knocking that often takes place in defence debates, I am convinced—certainly from my constituency experience—that there is a great warmth in our communities for the armed forces. They are not seen as a sinister wing of Government, waiting to remove democracy, but are regarded as part of the community. In my constituency the Light Infantry, the Yeomanry and RAF at Shawbury play a full and welcome part in civic occasions. The House and the Ministry of Defence will regret the day when we take our armed forces from communities. If there is one message for my right hon. Friend, it is, "Please bring back the county regiments."
  6.44 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: As someone who also represents what has traditionally been a military town, I strongly endorse what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) said about the need to improve what we think of these days as the quality of life for service men and their families if we are to attract young people into the armed forces, and, even more important, to retain those whom we already have.
  I shall concentrate my remarks on arms control and the implications for the NATO Alliance of what is happening and what may happen in arms control. Much of the White Paper has been overtaken by the dramatic events of the past six months. All hon. Members would welcome the fact that prospects for arms control have now totally changed. No longer is it a tedious business of shadow boxing, with one side aiming to wrong-foot the other in the eyes of the watching world. It is worth recalling that the mutual and balanced force reduction talks dragged on for 15 years—from 1973 to 1988—with little to show for them.
  Against that background, the much wider negotiations on conventional forces in Europe, which started on only 9 March this year, have made breathtaking progress in the past six months. Agreement has already been reached on the six categories to be included in the negotiations and on the overall ceilings for two of them—tanks, and armoured troop carriers. There is agreement on the principle that no one nation on either side should have a disproportionate share of overall ceilings. There is also agreement on the need to limit forces stationed outside national borders. The parties to the talks have agreed also to aim at least for a phase 1 deal before the end of 1990.
  Of course, there are some important disagreements as well. For example, there is no agreement on ceilings for
  194
  artillery, aircraft, helicopters or military manpower and there is yet no agreement on regional arrangements to be made within the Atlantic to the Urals area covered by the negotiations. There is also perfectly understandable Soviet concern, which was referred to by the Secretary of State, about the sheer scale of reductions which they will have to make in manpower, weaponry and military production in a short time. Given the problems of the Soviet economy, I can understand their worries about having to demobilise large numbers of service men and to switch substantial defence industries in a very short period.
  A great deal remains to be done in the CFE negotiations. Some complex technical problems are yet to be resolved, but one has a great sense of optimism about the talks compared with what happened in the past. There is clearly now a political will on both sides to achieve an agreement. To a large extent, it stems from the changed attitude of the Soviet Union, and it is important to recognise that it has happened not just because of a change in Soviet leadership. I certainly accept that, at least partly, it is due to the fact that NATO has stuck fast to its dual-track approach—a willingness to negotiate, while maintaining an effective level of defence capability. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) underlined the fact that the change is due also to the awful realisation on the part of the Soviet leadership that they had urgently to tackle their appalling economic problems and to meet the aspirations of the Soviet people.
  It is worth recalling that the USSR's official budget deficit is now estimated at $160 billion, which is 9 per cent. of its gross national product. Its share of world trade is only 4 per cent. Its total hard currency income is now $24 billion, of which no less than $18 billion goes on servicing foreign debt. Of 1,200 items in the Soviet housewife's official shopping basket, only 200 are now widely available. It is estimated that $500 billion-worth of roubles are hoarded simply because there is nothing to spend them on. Several assessments are being made in the West about the possibilities of success for President Gorbachev's economic reforms. Even the best case scenario is likely to produce such a small increase in economic growth that there will be no significant improvement in the Soviet economy or, indeed, in the quality of life of Soviet citizens Against that background, the Soviet Union will clearly need massive assistance, advice, expertise and technological aid from the West if it is to achieve its objectives. The one thing that the Soviet Union can offer us in exchange for that assistance is security by removing the threat of military attack which has hung over western Europe for the past 40 years. That is the underlying basis of the. negotiations and it is why there are grounds for optimism about the eventual outcome.
  Many people are already looking beyond the CFE to what might be the next steps in conventional arms reductions. The Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, General John Galvin, has already spoken about the possibility of further drastic reductions beyond the levels now being discussed at CFE. The former SACEUR, General Andrew Goodpaster, is among those arguing the case for a phased reduction by the mid-1990s to a level at least 50 per cent. below NATO's current deployments. They argue that such cuts are both practical and possible.
  Those comments from perfectly prudent military sources, added to obvious improvements in super-power relationships, will have a substantial impact on public opinion in the West. They seem to have had some impact

  195
  already on some NATO Governments. Cuts in defence spending have already been announced by the Netherlands and Belgium specifically in anticipation of agreements likely to come from the CFE process. Other nations are discussing reducing the length of their military service or scaling down their defence efforts. It is hard to resist the judgment that some of us are giving in to the temptation to cash the dividends from an arms control agreement before the cheque is even in the bank. That is a dangerous process.
  There is a pressing need for NATO to work out a co-ordinated, Alliance-wide approach to this problem. If we do not have such an approach the risk is that we shall indulge in an unseemly scramble, with individual nations seeking to reap the financial benefits of arms control by making unilateral cuts. If that process continued, we risk ending up with a fragmented, unco-ordinated, ineffective structure of defence in western Europe.
  We must recognise that the pressure for defence cuts —again we are grateful to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield for underlining this point—will come from western public opinion, which sees a marked reduction in the perceived threat from the Soviet Union and is increasingly reluctant to pay for levels of defence that it no longer considers necessary.
  Mr. David Martin: Is that not precisely what was being said about China, which was thought, if anything, to be ahead of the Soviet Union on reform? The events in Tiananmen square brought up short the argument that the British people no longer perceived a threat.
  Mr. Cartwright: If the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact countries had reacted to the extraordinary developments in eastern Europe as the Chinese Government did in Tiananmen square, I would see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's point, but as the tanks have not rolled into Warsaw, Budapest or East German cities, his point is not relevant.
  The public in the West will see massive changes in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe generally and will be increasingly reluctant to pay large sums for a level of defence which they, perhaps mistakenly, no longer perceive to be necessary. NATO must respond to that. The argument was put clearly in a paper produced for the North Atlantic Assembly by Ambassador Jonathan Dean, a former United States negotiator at the MBFR talks. He argued that NATO must
  "develop a concept which would have the prospect of obtaining the enduring support of western publics for financing NATO's remaining forces over a long period…A rationally argued proposal for deep cuts is preferable to an erosive piecemeal process of unilateral budget cuts in the NATO countries."
  We need that approach.
  I accept the case for some caution when we observe the extraordinary developments in eastern Europe. The Soviet Union is going through fundamental changes and as a result will be a much less predictable nation than it was in the days of the geriatric leadership. History suggests that, when empires break up, we experience a period of uncertainty. That may be what we now face in eastern Europe. Ethnic problems are bubbling up inside the Soviet
  196
  Union and there are tensions within and between the Warsaw pact members. These are all potentially destabilising factors.
  Perhaps we should also recall the warning of Boris Yelstin—that President Gorbachev had a limited period in which to deliver the goods to the Soviet people, and that if he did not succeed there would be the risk of widespread internal problems. That underlines the sense of instability. Against that background, it makes absolute sense to negotiate balanced reductions, not to make unilateral cuts on the assumption that the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact will follow suit. More importantly NATO needs to harmonise its arms control objectives with its force planning. We must look at the structure of our forces to take full account of what is happening in the negotiations to ensure that what is left after the cuts makes sense in defence terms.
  More fundamentally, we need to determine what level and type of defence we need to take account of the major changes taking place in East-West relations. That strengthened the case for reconsidering our defence on a more integrated European basis. All nations in western Europe share the same manpower problems and the same budget pressures. We are all aware of the prospect of reductions in US forces deployed in western Europe. We shall all have the problem of sharing out the arms control ceilings flowing from the CFE negotiations. To suggest that we can take an individual national approach to those problems does not make sense. It is about time that western Europe began to think collectively about its future defence needs.
  I have no difficulty in accepting the argument that for the foreseeable future the security of western Europe depends on a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons, but there is room for debate about the make-up of that mix. If Soviet conventional forces are reduced, there will be no need for the present levels of sub-strategic nuclear warheads that NATO deploys in Europe. The future size and make-up of NATO's nuclear arsenal should be based on hard assessments of targeting needs and survivability. We should advance the concept of a minimum nuclear deterrent, recognising that it will be credible only if it is modern, effective and survivable.
  We could deploy far fewer than NATO's present 4,000 warheads in western Europe, and a key element will be the tactical air-to-surface missiles to be deployed on NATO aircraft. The case for deploying a new generation of short-range surface-to-surface nuclear missiles strikes me as dubious. I cannot see any practical possibility of persuading the Federal Republic of Germany to deploy a follow-on to Lance, and I cannot see the point of dividing the Western Alliance by forcing through such a development. Unless we can achieve the concept of minimum nuclear deterrence, it will be more difficult to sustain existing public support for the retention of nuclear weapons as part of our deterrent capability.
  We see the prospect of real success in arms control, but we must recognise that that success will bring new problems. There is a need for NATO and the Warsaw pact to accept a change in their role. They must be not only instruments of collective security but agents to manage the fundamental changes to much lower levels of arms deployment from the Atlantic to the Urals.
  When making the case for appropriate levels of defence, we cannot rely on the old knee-jerk reactions of the cold

  197
  war. We must make a much more sophisticated case to our people if they are to support the levels of defence that we need in a fast-changing world.
  We should also recognise that soldiers and weaponry are not the root of our problem. They are merely a manifestation of the mistrust between the two super-power blocs. We now have the prospect of a totally new relationship between ourselves in the West and the nations of the Warsaw pact. Those nations will be looking to the West for help because they have to accept the fact that their system has simply failed to deliver what their peoples want. The post-war period is now coming to an end and we are entering an era of great change. It is essential that the Western Alliance should redefine its defence needs to take full account of those changes.
  7 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who is a valued colleague in the Select Committee on Defence. I hope that he will excuse me if I do not follow him, but embark on my own tour d'horizon. I sometimes feel that second-guessing Soviet intentions is a somewhat futile occupation. Kremlinology may well have been invented to make astrology respectable. However, whether or not that is the case, I intend to resist the temptation to Healey-hop around the hemisphere and will stick to three points—two about procurement, and one about personnel.
  The lessons of the sinking of HMS Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyor and the massive damage done to HMS Glamorgan—all ships that were unable to defend themselves against a French-built Exocet—are that we armed and protected Her Majesty's ships so that they could defend themselves against Soviet weapons systems, but not against weapons systems built by friendly powers. Consequently, we should have learned that the staff requirement should, whenever possible, take account of the weapons and defensive systems—and the develop-ments—not only of the Soviet forces, but also of friendly forces.
  I wish that that had been the only example of where we had got it wrong, but sadly it was not. I bring another example to the attention of the House. It is referred to in the 11th report of the Select Committee on Defence and relates to the light anti-tank weapon for the 1980s, a shoulder-fired, unguided anti-tank weapon. Its full development started in 1977 and it came into production in 1987–10 years later. It entered service last year—five years late.
  Paragraph 7 of the 11th report states:
  "The extensive time and cost overruns stem primarily from a re-assessment by MoD of the protection levels of Soviet armour and a complete re-appraisal of the weapon system performance requirement. This arose after the requirement had been specified and endorsed, the development programme had been planned, and work had begun. Its outcome was a change to the weapon performance requirement designed to increase the effectiveness of LAW 80 against thicker Soviet frontal armour and the re-definition of the development programme."
  Paragraphs 31 and 32 then state:
  "Considerable advances have been made in recent years in the armour for the modern battle tank. One of the principal advances has been explosive reactive armour (ERA) which was patented in the West in 1974 and first appeared in service in 1982 fitted to Israeli Centurion and M60 tanks. It has been
  198
  reported that the Soviet Union has developed ERA with unexpected speed, and that since the early 1980s it has been fitted to large numbers of their tanks.
  The General Staff Target for LAW 80 was issued in 1971 and full development commenced in 1977–78. The perfor-mance requirement is designed to counter thicker Soviet frontal armour and not ERA. It would seem therefore that LAW 80 will not be capable of penetrating the frontal arc of the latest Soviet tanks where this is protected by ERA".
  I have no doubt that LAW80 is an excellent weapons system—indeed, the best in the world. However, it is years late and well over budget, and that is because the staff requirement of 1971 was based on a fallacy. It was based on an assumption that the Soviet Union would not develop its armour any further. However, we know that developments in the Soviet Union do not stand still. It was based on the assumption that what this country had developed in 1974—ERA—would not be available to the Soviets by 1983, the first projected date for bringing that weapons system into service. Frankly, that was just foolishness.
  Although it will not always be possible to do so, I hope that, as far as is practicable, the Ministry of Defence will ensure that when a staff target is determined it allows not only for likely Soviet advances in weapons and defensive systems, but also for the developments made by friendly forces.
  LAW80 crops up again in my second criticism of the procurement process, as does the vertically launched Sea Wolf. Hunting Engineering was the lead contractor for LAW80 and British Aerospace was the lead contractor for Sea Wolf, but both had Royal Ordnance as their main sub-contractor. Royal Ordnance was Hunting's sub-contractor for the rocket motor for LAW80 and BAE's sub-contractor for the boost motor for Sea Wolf. However, the contracts were different. Hunting's contract was initially set in 1977 on a cost-plus basis and was changed in 1983 to an incentive pricing basis.
  On the other hand, we were told proudly by Ministers that British Aerospace's contract was on a fixed price basis. No doubt this is naive, but I always thought that a fixed price would not change. However, got it wrong. A fixed price means a fixed price for the MOD, not for the taxpayer. For both Hunting's LAW80 and BAe's vertically launched Sea Wolf, because the sub-contractor was owned by the public—at that stage Royal Ordnance was still in the public sector—the public had to pay when the sub-contractor got it wrong.
  I trust that when my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench again tell us that a contract has been let on a fixed or firm basis, they will ensure that they also tell the House whether any of the sub-contractors are owned by the public, because if they are, although the price may be fixed for the MOD, if things go wrong it will not necessarily be a fixed or firm price to the British public. It is wrong for the taxpayer to end up bailing out failure when we have been assured in the past that that will not happen.
  I should like to make another short point before leaving the issue of procurement. I do not doubt the competence of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I find it somewhat odd that the three Ministers who had anything to do with procurement—the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State—should have been moved from that Department at exactly the same time.
  My last main point concerns personnel. We have heard much about the demographic time bomb, about

  199
  MARILYN and about the problems there will be in recruitment. All that is absolutely true. It is essential that we face those problems early and that we do something about them. However, there is another point, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) touched, and that is the retention of personnel. At present, when a man asks to leave under premature voluntary retirement—PVR—he is interviewed by one of his senior officers and asked why he is going. He may give them frank reasons, but sometimes he may blame his wife and some of his real reasons may be rather different.
  I suggest that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces should consider the suggestion that, six months after a person has left under PVR or declined to re-engage, that person, or a sample of such people, should be interviewed by an organisation independent of the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry should then attempt to determine what actually prompted that person to leave and should attempt to remedy the defects that cause PVR or cause people to decline to re-engage, as far as that is possible.
  I should also like the possibility of re-enlistment bonuses to be considered. As we well know, every year there is a shortfall in a number of specialisations, usually those for which it has cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds to train men. It should be possible to undertake annually a cost-benefit analysis and to compare the cost of paying a re-enlistment bonus to all those eligible where there is a projected lack of personel in any one year against the cost of additional training and the cost of the shortfall. There could be published annually in Defence Council instructions a list of re-enlistment bonuses that might be paid for that year to certain specialisations. It costs a vast amount to train men and women. It is right that we should do so and continue to do so, but it is also right that we should do our best to retain within the services the skills that have cost the taxpayer so much. I hope that my hon. Friends will consider those points.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). At the end of his speech, I realised that the Labour party does not have a defence policy; it has a disarmament policy. It is a disarmament policy based essentially on surrendering everything for next to nothing. If the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) did not make that clear, the twisting and turning of the hon. Member for Clackmannan did.
  Only one party can be trusted with the defence of this country, and that is the Conservative party, as it has shown time and again. I have no doubt that in two to three years' time the British public will demonstrate at the polls their trust in this Government and their defence policy.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I find the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) amazing, when one considers the content of the speech by the Secretary of State today. He was introducing the estimates, which was a major opportunity to set out the Government's policy. What did he tell us? He told us that a new department of defence studies was to be established at London university and he then went on to attack the Labour party for debating the direction of our defence policy. There was no recognition that there needed to be a
  200
  change of policy and the development of a new strategy. The Secretary of State did not deal with the many problems that face our defences at present. He did not refer to any of the Select Committee reports except with a passing reference of gratitude to the Select Committee, perhaps for not asking too many awkward questions. If one looks down the list of points for us to debate today and the serious questions raised, one realises that he did not answer any of them.
  The Secretary of State did not tell us what will happen to the Trident programme and whether it will come about. He did not deal even with the question of anti-tank weapons. However, his real failure was that he did not set out a strategy for disarmament or arms reduction for this country over the next 10 years. He said that it was far too soon to know whether the Soviet Union is really taking the process seriously and whether changes will come about. In defence, decisions have to be taken well in advance. We could have expected from the Government in a major speech such as today's that they would at least set out some tentative proposals on the way in which the Government are starting to think. We got none of that.
  Clearly there is now a need for a major review of our whole defence strategy, as the Opposition Front Bench suggested. The key question was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he asked how much we were prepared to spend and, within that target, where our priorities should lie. That is the debate in which we should be involved.
  We should recognise that Gorbachev has changed the whole debate on arms. He has broken the cold war mould and we now have to address ourselves to what we put in its place. The Government cannot continue to play the red menace card to justify a defence policy that has continued for years. They must face up to the fact that a new mould is being created. They cannot pick up the pieces from the old mould. There is a new mould in which we should have a positive input and we should say that we want to be involved in the disarmament process. We want to ensure that our legitimate interests are looked after in that process.
  We do not want to be left out. It is only too evident at present that this country is very much on the sidelines. If this country does become involved, it is to say, "Don't make progress. Don't do this. Stop that. We want to modernise this area of weapons. We do not want to get involved in the disarmament process." What we needed from the Government and the Secretary of State was a clear statement of how the Government are going to face up to the challenges of the next 10 years in which, with any luck at all, we shall be moving to a position where disarmament and not rearmament is the key.
  I should like Ministers to tell us what is happening at the START talks. We are told that President Bush hopes that there can be an agreement on the first phase of those talks for the summer of 1990. Will that include some commitment on numbers for the United States Trident D5, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) referred earlier? If there is to be some agreement on the numbers of Trident C5s that the United States will be able to deploy, what are the implications for us on costs and the total numbers concerned? It seems inconceivable that the number that the United States will be able to deploy will be limited by those talks and yet we will not be included in that.

  201
  I understand that on 23–24 September, there were discussions about a memorandum of understanding about the START talks which involved the whole question of radar installations. The Soviet Union unilaterally announced that the station at Krasnoyarsk is to be dismantled. It then said that if it were to do that unilaterally, the United States should consider the dismantling of the radar installation at Fylingdales. Is that correct? If so, what discussions are taking place between the British Government and the United States about the future of Fylingdales? It may be that the United States is saying firmly that it is not prepared to go along with the Soviet suggestion. However, we should be involved in those discussions.
  What do the conventional forces in Europe talks mean for Britain? If there are to be limits on the number of tanks deployed in Europe, what will be the effect on fresh orders for the Challenger tanks? What about the nuclear capability of the Tornados? What will happen to troop numbers in Germany? Those are all questions that we should address and matters on which we should decide where we want to go.
  On the issue of troop numbers in Germany, one key question is: how will the armed forces successfully recruit youngsters? There has been a dramatic fall in the number of 18 and 19-year-olds. What are the implications for the conversion of our defence industries? The Government have made no comment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield told us of the extent to which our economy depends on defence contractors. If there is a lessening of tension between the super-powers and a reduction in regional conflicts, the demand for weapons is likely to decline. We must look positively at ways to find new products for these companies and at how we can provide Government assistance for research and develop-ment so that these firms can produce goods for peaceful purposes.
  I understand that the crucial debate at the conference in Geneva on disarmament is about a ban on chemical weapons, with the discussions involving not only the super-powers but other countries. Anyone who has seen pictures of the Iran-Iraq war and the effect of chemical weapons cannot fail to be impressed by the need to make progress.
  Nuclear testing is also a subject at the Geneva talks. In the September talks, the Soviet Union proposed further bans on underground testing and announced that it would impose a unilateral ban on underground testing and plutonium production. So far, the United States does not seem happy about this, but at least it is prepared to discuss the issue. What has been the British Government's reaction? I understand that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)—responding for the British Government, said that any further underground test ban would be premature and destabilising because such tests were fundamental to maintain the British nuclear deterrent. It is appalling that Britain is dragging its feet in the discussions.
  I have made my position on the Trident programme clear—it is immoral. We must, however, consider whether it has any credibility. Increasingly it is becoming a sick and expensive joke. The Defence Select Committee has said in its reports that there are major problems in terms of the
  202
  production of missile heads and of refit facilities. It is clear that the programme has been called into question because of what is happening in the United States.
  I am pleased to see the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on the Government Front Bench. It is interesting that, when Sir John Nott announced to the House on 11 March 1982 that we would commit ourselves to the D5 missile system, the hon. Gentleman asked the crucial question. He started with a bit of flannel, telling the minister how wise the decision was, but he went on to ask:
  "what guarantees are there that during the currency of the procurement of the system it will not be cancelled, either at the whim of the United States Congress or as a result of changes of President or changes of presidential mood or attitude over the next 20 years?"
  Sir John Nott brushed the hon. Gentleman aside by saying that there was no problem. He said:
  "On the whole, our allies tend to keep to their agreements. I do not think that such a hypothetical situation has ever arisen".—[Official Report, 11 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 982–83.]
  Sir John Nott did not think that it would ever have any practical effect.
  The United States is questioning the future of the Trident D5 programme. We understand that the British ambassador, Sir Antony Acland, is trying to convince senators and congressmen that they have to reinstate the $1·8 billion that they have cut from the programme.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): I was doing that last week.
  Mr. Bennett: It brings into question the Government's credibility. The British Government are supposed to be independent, but the United States Senate and Congress make the decisions.
  We understand that committees in the United States decided on the cut because they had seen classified information—two trials failed and there were major problems with the missile system in the one that succeeded. It does not really matter whether the money is put back —if the system is technically in disarray, there are major problems. How can the Minister be so confident that the technical problems can be overcome? Those senators and congressmen who saw the classified reports felt that there was so much difficulty about the programme that they cut the amount of money available. I realise that this is a. matter of argument between the various parts of the: United States military machine, but there are two sides to the issue—either the United States will include the Trident missile system in START or, because of delays, the Trident system will be brought into question.
  I have raised several times my point about the communications system for the Trident submarines. Ministers keep arguing, "We cannot tell the House of Commons about our communications system. It must be kept secret." There can be little credibility in that approach. If Trident is to be a deterrent, we should be prepared to tell people that we have an effective communications system. A deterrent can be credible only if people believe that it will work. The only argument in favour of the Government wanting to keep the system secret is that there is no system at all.
  We are told that the Government are considering an extremely low frequency transmitter at Glengarry Forest in Scotland. How much will that cost? Is it merely an experimental station? If it works, will a full-scale station have to be designed? What is the time scale for construction? Obviously, the Trident programme is

  203
  slipping, Unless there is an effective communications system, there is not much point in having it. Unless there is a connection between the button and the submarines —it does not matter whose finger is on the button—the system does not have credibility. Will the ELF system stand up to electromagnetic pulses? Will we be involved if, following START I, START II or START III, the United States includes its Trident D5 system in the negotiations?
  The tragedy of today's debate is that the Government have not put forward their strategy for becoming involved in the disarmament talks. Whether they are slow or very slow, so far the Government have said that they are not getting involved. Many Opposition Members and people outside believe that we should be enthusiastically involved in those talks and that we should be reducing the world production of armaments, finding jobs for those who are displaced and ensuring that they can produce goods that are socially much more useful for this country and the world.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who unfortunately is not in the Chamber. I had no idea when I was attempting to intervene that it would be quite so easy to disrupt his speech. I can only assume that it was easy because he had the greatest difficulty in following it himself. Not only Conservative Members but Opposition Members felt that some of his arguments were, to say the least, a bit specious.
  If I had been allowed to inervene, I would have said that I was interested in the fact that finally the Labour party had admitted that in real terms the cost of the Trident missile programme was on the way down, not up.
  I was less convinced by the Labour party's new policy, which does not seem to go for parity of weapons, conventional and nuclear, with the Soviet bloc, but is prepared to accept the Soviet bloc's superiority in a wide range of weapons systems.
  I was interested that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) seemed to support various defence companies which are worried about how Ministry of Defence competitive tendering has been organised. I do not share his worries. Surprisingly, it was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who explained to his own Front Bench that the hon. Member for Clackmannan had nothing to worry about, as such companies had made £3·3 billion in profits last year. I have little doubt that competitive tendering has been successful during the past few years.
  As many hon. Members have said, since last year's debate on defence procurement, there have been rapid changes on the international and national scenes which have profound implications for this country's defence and for the future of NATO.
  The belated recognition by the Labour party that its policy of unilateralism cannot be sustained, and its adoption of a weak and illogical form of multilateralism, should not go unnoticed. It should also not go unnoticed that Labour's new defence policy envisages Britain scrapping a nuclear deterrent, but a potential aggressor such as the Soviet Union still having nuclear weapons. Despite the appearance of the Labour party radically
  204
  shifting its position on nuclear matters, in reality it has only moved a few tentative steps in the right direction and then stopped.
  The commitment accompanying the reduction in the nuclear deterrent, to cut conventional defence forces by around £5 billion, or 25 per cent. of the present defence budget, gives cause for concern. The Labour party may try to wriggle out of it and to say that it is not a binding commitment and may occur over a number of years, but if a commitment to a weaker form of multilateralism and a decision to reduce conventional forces were taken at the same time, at the same Labour party conference, even if the decision to cut conventional forces is not binding, it must call into question Labour's commitment to any sort of multilateralism at all.
  It is significant that, throughout these debates on the armed forces during the past two years, we have been told by the Labour Front Bench—it has been its constant refrain—that the Government have cut conventional defence expenditure to maintain a nuclear deterrent. While that is untrue, it is a little odd that the Opposition now want to go further down the route that they have previously criticised the Government for taking. Such cuts would mean that the country would not be adequately defended. For example, they might mean the complete cancellation of the European fighter aircraft programme which would have a horrifying effect on job prospects in the north-west. These policies could also mean the elimination of the whole of the Royal Navy's surface fleet, or a huge reduction in the number of ground troops we commit to Europe. It is clear that, if such cuts were carried out, every soldier, sailor and airman would have to go into battle virtually defenceless.
  As to the much saner policies of the Government, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the measures the Government have taken to help recruitment. In particular, the extra encouragement to women to join the armed forces is very welcome. The change of policy to allow women to train as pilots is one that many hon. Members have asked the Government to consider, and I am delighted that it has happened.
  Still more needs to be done to help recruitment and retention of personnel. If the armed services are to continue to attract and retain the right calibre of personnel, a more flexible pay policy will have to be introduced. That policy, as in any other business, should be designed to pay the market rate for skills that the armed services need to retain. It would almost certainly mean more reliance on specialist pay rather than on rank pay. For example, flying pay will have to be doubled, if not trebled, if the losses of highly experienced and highly trained personnel to airlines are to be stemmed.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will press the Treasury to allow service men who sign for a further term, who have come to the end of one term, to keep the gratuity. At present, they obtain the gratuity only if they leave. Some service men leave, take the gratuity, and return a year later, to the resentment of those who have stayed in service. I am convinced that, if the gratuity were given at the end of the first period of service, it would stem the flow of experienced service men who leave at the end of their first engagement.
  Another measure that is long overdue is a better service saving scheme to make up for the disadvantages service personnel suffer compared with civilians when buying a house. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr.

  205
  Brazier) has pressed very hard for a scheme to solve this problem, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence will give it further consideration.
  A subject that is allied to recruitment and retention of personnel is the contracting out of certain service functions to civilian companies. I approve of contracting out as it gives the taxpayer better value for the money spent on defence, but I feel that the Government have to move carefully in its application.
  The recent security scares have shown how thin on the ground service personnel are at certain locations and how, because of contracting out, they are expected to carry out an increasing number of additional tasks, such as guard duties. That does not help morale in the services or encourage people to stay on for a further engagement.
  Contracting out should be examined and clauses should be included in contracts to encourage employees of civilian firms to join the reserve forces so that extra personnel are readily available in times of emergency or high alert states to carry out the many additional tasks that need to be completed at those times.
  I find it a little strange that the armed services have to employ private security firms to guard military installa-tions while they have in the past provided the Home Office with service personnel to guard prisons.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the recent 4 x 4 lorry contest and the way it was organised. It shows clearly the advantage of competitive tendering when it is carried out properly. I am convinced that the contest will be the forerunner of many more highly successful contests of that nature.
  I hope that the Ministry of Defence will soon be able to order the naval version of the EH101 and the utility version of this aircraft for the Royal Air Force. The Secretary of State has rightly drawn attention to the need to procure aircraft and other weapon systems across service boundaries, and helicopters are a good case in point. I realise that the RAF is lukewarm about funding the EH101, as it feels that this may compete against any future funding for the updating of the Nimrod air-to-surface anti-submarine aircraft.
  This problem also exists over the procurement of the light attack helicopter, about which the RAF is lukewarm because it feels that the funds spent on it may come from other projects about which it is enthusiastic, such as updating the ground attack capability of the Tornado, the Harrier and, in the future, the European fighter aircraft. The RAF will have to pay more attention to helicopters than it has done, because they provide good value for money in the land battle order. It is high time that the Ministry of Defence decided the mix between tanks, helicopters and artillery in the air-land order of battle. By not doing so, it is holding up procurement of important weapons systems.
  The mid-life update of the Tornado, and more specifically the provision of a stand-off weapon for that aircraft, needs more attention. Now that the United States seems to be less enthusiastic about the version of that weapon that we should like to procure, it is all the more important that we make certain that we get on board some of our European allies to produce a weapon that meets our specifications, and to make certain that the Tornado continues to be a highly effective weapons system well into the next century.
  The changes that have taken place over the past year will mean, over a number of years ahead, great changes in
  206
  our views on defence. It is important now that we maintain a strong guard during the period of instability in eastern Europe. These estimates show that the Government are doing precisely that.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Jim Sillars: I was extremely disappointed by the speeches of the two Front Bench spokesmen. It would be churlish not to welcome the Secretary of State to his new post, but his speech was seriously deficient, and that deficiency was also apparent in the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). Both of them meandered around the place, but neither had any strategic sweep or vision in the make-up of their ideas and their concept of this important issue. Both went out of their way to avoid a key element of the framework of the so-called British defence system in the immediate future—Trident. The Secretary of State hardly mentioned it.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Clackmannan was bound to mention Trident. During the recess, on 28 August, I read an article in The Guardian headlined:
  "Delays 'put Trident in jeopardy'."
  It then had a smaller heading:
  "Labour warns nuclear defence programme is at risk."
  It then quoted the Labour defence spokesman as saying:
  "Sir Francis's study is the first public admission of the failure to organise the production of the British element and the so-called independent deterrent. After months of complacency and denial, the MoD has finally admitted that there are severe shortcomings in the programme."
  I could not make out from that whether the hon. Member for Clackmannan was happy about the problems because that might lead to there being no Trident, or was unhappy because the problems might be solved and lead to Trident being here. There was an illogicality and a serious ambiguity about his position.
  I thought to myself, "Not to worry, Martin is on holiday as well and we are all entitled to a breather. He'll come to the big two-day defence debate when we return, open for the Labour party and we will get it laid out." I thought that there would be a close probing of the Government about Trident. We might not get Trident, and the Labour party would hope that what is happening with warheads and in the Congress of the USA would lead to no Trident emerging. As I understand the Labour party's position, it does not want Trident, but unfortunately vessels 1 and 2 will be built and vessel 3 will be 40 per cent. through and a future Labour Government will have to accept them, however reluctant they are, but they will not take the fourth.
  Such an attitude is different from what I understood was the Labour party's previous position, which was that Trident could not be put in place on the Clyde at all. There would be no Trident, no warheads, none of the rest of i t. However, the hon. Member for Clackmannan told us nothing about this. There was also nothing from Labour as an element of the Socialist movement, despite what we expected. There should have been some understanding of the window of opportunity now opening because of events in eastern Europe.
  I am not naive. I know the Communist system very well —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—from a study point of view. I have never been a member of the Communist party. I have always had grave doubts about the ability of the Soviet-Marxist system to reform itself fundamentally, without the most serious dislocation and going into a

  207
  catatonic state. I hope that the Gorbachev wing of the Soviet Communist party succeeds, although I fear that he may become a victim of present circumstances. There is a great paradox. Mr. Gorbachev is far more popular in western Europe and the Warsaw pact countries than he is inside the Soviet Union.
  On the fundamentals, the politics there is essentially not different from the politics here. If Governments cannot put money in the pocket, food on the plate and people into decent housing, or provide a health service, they lose public support. After four years, Mr. Gorbachev's policies are not delivering the goods to the ordinary Soviet citizen. I should be sorry if he fell from power, because the world owes him a great deal, but it is interesting that in East Germany, West Germany and the United States he is popular, but one would not find crowds shouting "Gorby, Gorby" in Moscow, the Ukraine, Byelorussia or other parts of the Soviet Union.
  Even if Mr. Gorbachev is a victim of the changing circumstances, we cannot go back to the Brezhnev-style years. Gorbachev is an individual, but he is a representative of an important movement for change in the system. While he might be a victim of it, Russia will never be the same again. I should have thought that someone coming from the Socialist movement, like the hon. Member for Clackmannan, would have some idea of the opportunities that are opening up. We must make real and substantial gestures, and we on this side of the eastern bloc should start mobilising resources to help people rather than to build weapons to kill them. That would assist the reform movement in the Soviet Union, because it requires technical assistance, training, technology and the transfer of capital. How much better it would be for a member of the Labour party, which is supposed to be a Socialist organisation, to have such a programme. However, we did not get it.
  The Scottish National party has been unilateralist for many a long day and it will remain so. It is consistent in its policy—almost as consistent as was the Leader of the Opposition until a short time ago. I shall now examine why the Labour party changed its policy and rejected unilateral nuclear disarmament as a means of contributing to the process of disarmament and peace. I shall also apply the test of difference to a concept being touted around Scotland by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who leads the Labour party north of the border—a concept of Scottish independence in the UK. That is the Labour party's answer to the Scottish National party's policy of Scottish independence as a member state of the European community. The term used by the Labour party north of the border—I am sure that this will surprise many Labour party supporters south of the border—is independence in the United Kingdom.
  Defence policy is a reasonable test of whether there is genuine independence. As I understand it, over many years the Labour party's policy on unilateralism rested on three foundations. The first foundation was that the British bomb was not independent. Secondly, the Labour party argued that it had never been a deterrent. Thirdly, it alleged that it was deeply immoral to use the bomb, even in retaliation. I shall quote the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman made the position
  208
  clear, and in so doing gained much approval from folk like me. On 13 February 1984, when addressing the Carnegie Endowment in Washington DC, he said:
  "In nuclear war, initial attack—whether by first strike or first use—would be an act of self-immolation and retaliation a gesture of supreme and terminal futility."
  I also quote someone else who is now a Member of this place but who used to be known outside as Brian Wilson. I refer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). When writing in the West Highland Free Press —it is an extremely important newspaper—he was involved in an exchange with the then Tory Member, Hamish Gray, who is now in another place. In his peroriation, he wrote:
  "But above all the case against possession or use was a moral one—the mass slaughter could never be justified whether as 'first strike' or 'second strike', by which time the only motive would be revenge."
  The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, is mumbling. Let him understand that I was referring to the view of the Leader of the Opposition in 1984 and that we are now in 1989. Anyone who turns to pages 86 and 87 of the Labour party's policy review document will find that two of the three foundations to which I have referred remain solidly in place. It is declared in the policy review document that the British bomb is not independent, and it is denied that the bomb when held in British hands is a deterrent.
  That leaves the third foundation of morality. What about morality? Before the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington gives me a sotto voce lecture about 1984, let him understand that I have known the Leader of the Opposition for a long, long time. He was a comrade in arms of mine inside the CND and the unilateralist movement. We are both members of the Transport and General Workers Union—I am as proud of that as he is —and that organisation has held firmly to unilateralism. Underlying every speech of the Leader of the Opposition that I ever heard was the fundamental of the immorality of pressing the button. Would the Leader of the Opposition press the button? That is the third foundation. If there is a change of policy, that can be only on the basis that he would press the button now when he would not do so previously.
  The Guardian is not a newspaper that is likely to misquote the Leader of the Opposition, but in an article of 18 May it told us that the right hon. Gentleman personally wrote two fresh passages into the Labour party's defence policy, one formally defining the party's line on whether a Labour Prime Minister would be willing to press the nuclear button. It stated:
  "On the question of using nuclear weapons, the document now states that 'nuclear weapons should not be used by any Government', but that the party 'recognises that for as long as the weapons exist, the assumption by other nuclear powers will inevitably be that circumstances could arise in which they might be used."
  That is a good lawyer's draft—"Maybe we shall, maybe we shan't, but read out of it what you like"—but it was an attempt to answer the question. We were told in the article that "the document now states". If anyone reads the Labour party's policy review document, he will not be able to find the passage which I have quoted in the defence section. Between 18 May and the Labour party's conference at Blackpool in October, it disappeared. Therefore, the question remains to be posed to the Labour party: will it press the nuclear button or will it not?

  209
  I have listened to Trades Union Congress speakers and I have listened to Labour party speakers. They have explained that they have changed their policy because the world has changed. They say that there has been what the Labour party's policy review document describes as "epoch-making changes". In a handout from the Ministry of Defence entitled "British Defence Policy", great changes are acknowledged by the Prime Minister. One passage reads:
  "Recently, says George Younger, under president Gorbachev the Soviet Union and its allies have become more ready to respond to these initiatives. As the Prime Minister said during President Gorbachev's visit last month, we welcome these signs of a peaceful revolution in Soviet thinking."
  These are "epoch-making changes" and "signs of peaceful revolution". I say to Opposition Front-Bench Members that the world has changed for the better. The Warsaw pact has profoundly changed. In my view, it has changed irreversibly. Its ability to mount a so-called surprise attack, which is central to the White Paper around which the debate is centred, is no longer what it was four or five years ago. Are we to believe that under big bad Mr. Brezhnev, with his doctrine of intervention, the Labour movement was prepared to go into unilateral nuclear disarmament, and that under nice Mr. Gorbachev, with a great loosening of the ties between the Soviet Union and countries such as Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland —Poland does not have a Communist Government now —it is not prepared to take that course? That is an absurd position. I say to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington that I regret the Labour party's position and believe it to be deceitful and distasteful.
  The Labour party boasts of making Scotland independent within the United Kingdom. Defence policy provides the acid test. At the Scottish Labour party's conference, which was held in March, there was a vote on changing the Labour party's defence policy. A report in The Sunday Times on 12 March stated:
  "Delegates voted overwhelmingly to reaffirm the Scottish party's support for unilateralism. Not a single speaker in the hour-long debate supported any change in policy."
  The vote was overwhelming. Correspondence in the West Highland Free Press over the past month has shown that, of the 72 constituency Labour parties in Scotland, only two support the new policy. The other 70 remain in support of the Scottish Labour party's conference in March.
  What happened when the Scottish Labour party arrived in Blackpool? The answer is that it was brushed aside and entirely ignored by the chiefly English component of the British Labour party which wished to chase Tory votes in the south-east of England. What are the implications for the future?
  Let us consider numerically and qualitatively the Scottish Labour contingent in the House. I think that most of us would agree that it supplies a fair amount of the brain power within the shadow Cabinet. I think that there is a general recognition that it provides qualitative input, and all of us agree with that irrespective of political divisions. The PPS to the Leader of the Opposition is the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). The Scottish contingent represents over 20 per cent. of the Parliamentary Labour party. That is a powerful position when it comes to applying the Scottish decision in March in this place.
  210
  It seems, however, that that position has had no effect within the Labour party. The Scottish contingent could not sustain the Scottish policy position against the wishes of the southern part of the Labour party, which wishes to chase Tory votes in the south of England. The policy implications for a Scot who is an active member of the Labour party north of the border are horrendous.
  On the question of the bomb, Polaris and Trident, the Labour party has betrayed the Scottish electorate. Its policy on unilateralism was put to the Scottish electorate in 1983 and was tested again in 1987—and the party increased its Members of Parliament north of the border. I must tell the Secretary of State that, whatever opinion might be in other parts of the British state, unilateralism is a popular policy in Scotland, which has hosted Polaris and is targeted for trident. The Labour party has betrayed us, and it will pay the price.
  8 pm
  Mr. Robert Hayward: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), who has clearly and lucidly identified some of the intellectual illogicalities of the Labour party in its national policy. I was fascinated by his assessment that 70 of the 72 Scottish constituency parties had expressed a view one way or the other, given the fact that several of them—including Dumfries, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale—did not even cast votes at the Labour party conference for people in the constituency section of the national executive. Those constituency parties may have expressed views on one matter, but they were somewhat weak on the ground when casting their votes.
  It is somewhat unfortunate that in our debate this evening the Government have clearly outlined their defence policy, as shown in the two documents before us; that the SNP has clearly outlined its defence policy through the hon. Member for Govan, and a consistent policy has been outlined by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—although I could not agree with his interpretation of history—yet the Labour party and the SLD, the LD, the Liberal party or the Alliance, whatever it now calls itself, have shown an absolute lack of clarity all along the line.
  I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and quoted an article in The Times on Thursday 14 September. He said that he would give me a reply later in his speech. That is a fairly usual tactic when someone does not know the answer, and of course I was never given the answer.
  The hon. Gentleman's other comment was that I was using information provided by the Whips and that I had quoted only from that part of the article provided by them. Unlike some members of the Whips Office, I was not on holiday on 14 September. I read the article and gave interviews at that time. I have the article in full, and I shall quote the two relevant paragraphs—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) does not like that because he knows what is in the article.
  The article states:
  "Declining to set targets for the level of defence expenditure, Mr. O'Neill said that there was no doubt that production lines would disappear, others would be cut and planning and production teams would be broken up."
  The Times quoted the hon. Gentleman as saying:
  "What is clear is that the incoming Labour Government"—

  211
  [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like hearing me quote their Front Bench spokesman. He said:
  "What is clear is that the incoming Labour government will face the consequences of an overblown and ambitious defence programme that no British Government could or would want to be able to meet."
  Therefore, the Labour party is saying that there must be cuts in the defence programmes somewhere. Yet what did we hear? When the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) asked about Ferranti, the hon. Member for Clackmannan gave him the assurance that it was not Ferranti. What about Westland? The hon. Gentleman said that the Government had not committed enough to Westland or to the Navy. He also said that nuclear defence would be safe.
  It is surely only reasonable to presume that the cuts to which the hon. Gentleman referred must be made in conventional forces. Based on figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today, and reaffirmed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, my calculation is that in the west country alone some 10,000 jobs will be at risk. I shall explain how I reached that figure——
  Mr. Roland Boyes: By making it up.
  Mr. Hayward: I am not making it up.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman can carry on with whatever claptrap he likes, but before he sits down I hope that he will tell us how many jobs have been lost under this Government in the arms industry since 1984.
  Mr. Hayward: The figures have already been provided by the hon. Member for Clackmannan. In my part of the country, Dowty employs 8,000 people in Cheltenham and the surrounding areas, Smiths employs 3,000, British Aerospace more than 8,000 at Filton, Rolls Royce about 8,000 at Filton and Westland 4,250. If the Labour party adopts the policy that it has expounded in articles such as that in The Times, it must be honest with those employees and also with all those who are dependent on those industries, such as sub-contractors, taxi firms and service industries. The Labour party must say which of those production lines will be closed. I calculate that some 10,000 people in the west country alone can reasonably expect to lose their jobs.
  Of course, I have been referring only to defence and aerospace. The hon. Member for Clackmannan, in one of his more relevant comments, said that related civilian businesses—he referred to Ferranti—were dependent on the research, development and sales of the defence industry. Therefore, if defence jobs are at risk, so too must be civilian jobs. At least the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton had the honesty and intellectual intelligence to recognise and admit that. I do not understand why the Labour Front Bench will not do the same.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has not read the speech.
  Mr. Hayward: I have read it, and the hon. Member for Clackmannan did not mention one point from the Labour party defence review. We can only presume that he is really saying, "This is the policy we want to adopt, but this is the policy that we will adopt for electoral purposes alone."
  Mr. Boyes: The problem is that the hon Gentleman has read only two or three paragraphs of a lengthy speech made to the UCATT conference, which dealt with conversion. The thrust of the speech—and I hope that Conservative Members agree with it—is that if we can get agreement between various countries to reduce the level of armament needs and army strengths, the world will become safer. The Labour party has not adopted policies that will put the workers referred to by the hon. Gentleman on the dole queue. We are talking about conversions and putting people into socially acceptable jobs. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that that would be both honest and sensible. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan whether he can read the whole of his speech. He might then regret some of the comments that he has made tonight.
  Mr. Hayward: I do not regret any of the comments that I have made tonight. I listened to the whole of the Labour party's defence debate at the party conference, when there was an opportunity for the hon. Member for Clackmannan to correct any misunderstandings. He also had the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies in The Times article by writing a letter to that newspaper. There has been no such correction in the letters column of The Times. He has not attempted to correct any misun-derstandings that might have arisen from his speech.
  Unfortunately, the Liberals are no better. They are not represented here this evening, but let me quote from a motion that was passed at the Liberal party conference in the same week that the hon. Member for Clackmannan was addressing the UCATT conference. Among other things, that motion says that the Liberal party wants an end to Government involvement in promoting arms exports and, in particular, that it wants to close the Defence Exports Services Organisation and to cease financial support for arms exports from public funds by, for example, the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
  Virtually every export order that has been achieved in relation to Hawk and Tornado alone, and probably in relation to Westland and a number of other industries such as Smiths and Dowty, which supply those major contractors, have been earned as a result of commitments from the ECGD.
  If the Liberal Democrats do not want us to have the ECGD or the DESO, we must kiss all those orders goodbye because the French will step in to take our place. If the French do not, others such as the Americans will. It does not matter which country: one will step in and those orders will go by the board.
  If the Labour or the Liberal parties put forward policies they should give due consideration to the impact of those policies. The hon. Members for Walton and for Govan have admitted the implications of their policies and the Liberal and Labour parties should admit the implications of their policies. They should be honest and not try to hide behind a series of quotes and sham defences.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Let me explain to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) that cuts in defence expenditure do not mean job losses. Research shows that investment in construction in the NHS and in education produces 60 to 80 per cent. more jobs than investment in defence.

  213
  I should also point out that in the past 10 years in which the Government have held office, the number of jobs directly related to defence has fallen from 390,000 to 310,000, despite an increase in the defence budget from £7·5 billion to £20 billion in the same period. I put that on the record because the hon. Gentleman must not believe that defence cuts will necessarily mean massive job losses, although that could be the case for a time; certainly, if the money is not invested in other directions there will be job losses.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the Secretary of State's speech was one of the worst from any Secretary of State for Defence that I have ever heard. It was a poor speech. The Secretary of State made the remarkable statement that we must maintain our defence policies and put pressure on the Soviet Union if we are to help the people of that country, or the countries of eastern Europe, to get their freedom. Let us think about that for a few minutes.
  Does not the Secretary of State realise that that is precisely what some of the Soviet generals, the bureaucrats and the old guard in the Soviet Union want'? That is their argument for getting rid of Gorbachev. That is their argument for saying that there is no point in getting rid of their weapons and carrying out the sort of policies that Mr. Gorbachev wants them to carry out because the West will still build up its arms and will continue to be the threat that they say that it is. That is their very argument for undermining Gorbachev and the people in the Soviet Union who want to bring about change there. That is not a sound argument. It is a silly argument.
  I have heard one or two other arguments from Conservative Members. Some referred to the events of Tiananmen square. But what happened there was that the man who had some sympathy for freedom was removed from the general secretaryship of the Communist party. The hard-liners and the old element even went back on the so-called policy, about which we have heard so much, that if one has private enterprise, freedom automatically follows. China had gone part of the way towards private enterprise. That took place internally.
  It is nonsense to equate freedom with private enterprise. Hitler's Germany had private enterprise, but it did not have freedom. So far, there is no political freedom in Pinochet's Chile or in South Africa. One could go on naming country after country where private enterprise and the market economy are wonderful but where there is no political freedom. It is wrong to suggest that in the Soviet Union freedom has been suppressed because of a nationalised or publicly owned economy. One should begin to look at the history of those countries and recognise that freedom was destroyed relatively quickly after the revolution. Freedom did not last long because of the nature of the Communist party. There were Left-wing socialists such as Rosa Luxemburg and others who pointed out at the time that the proletariat would mean dictatorship over the proletariat—the dictatorship of one man and a small group.
  I have long taken that point of view. I was brought up in the Socialist-Communist tradition. It took me some time to understand what happened, but by reading, studying and looking, I became, as I have remained, an opponent of the internal system in the Soviet Union and, at the same time, a firm believer in genuine democratic Socialism. There is no contradiction between the two; that must be clearly understood.
  214
  I am sorry that the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, myself and others has not been called, but I understand the procedures of the House. However, as my right hon. Friend said, at least we can express an opinion on it. I support that amendment because it is similar to the resolution that was overwhelmingly carried at the Labour party conference. To those in my party who may not like what we are saying, I say that our amendment is in line with a conference decision, so I trust there will be no talk of discipline in relation to the views that we are expressing. Come to that, I do not care if there is—that does not worry me. I have been in this House a long time and have fought many battles by going through the Lobbies to vote on important issues, and I will continue to do that.
  Ours is a common-sense motion and should be supported for that reason. It states:
  "Britain should reduce its defence spending, initially to equal the average level of other Western European countries, and transfer the savings made to social and economic priorities including the National Health Service, pensions, housing, education and other vital services".
  As for other NATO countries, Greece spends 6·6 per cent. of its GDP on defence. Next comes the United Kingdom, with 4·3 per cent., and Turkey spends 4·2. Greece and Turkey spend such high amounts because they hate each other. Although they are in NATO they seem more concerned with looking at each other than with the external defence of Europe.
  If we reduced defence expenditure to 3 per cent. of GDP we would save a great deal of money: the annual bill would fall from £21 billion to £15 billion, which would add up to a considerable amount in five years, and all of it could be used to help the National Health Service, housing, education and so on. That would not leave us defenceless; we should only be spending the same as our European neighbours in NATO.
  Our motion does not go as far as the suggestions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)—it does not speak of unilateral nuclear disarmament, restricting itself to general defence spending——
  Mr. Sillars: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not back-tracking.
  Mr. Heffer: Certainly not. I entirely agree with unilateral nuclear disarmament, but this motion does not argue for it.
  We could use the money saved, on construction. The Tories boast about what they have done for people in the way of housing. They have certainly sold a lot of council houses and built a lot of private houses, but then they put the interest rates up so high that people cannot afford to keep up the payments on the houses that they are trying to buy. There is something funny about the Conservatives; I do not understand how they can claim to be on the side of house owners and then put mortgages up by so much that these people are crippled and have to spend all their money on them, leaving them with no money to spend on food or clothing. That does not seem logical, but it is a problem for Conservative Members which they will pay for in the end
  The money could be spent on what the people of this country need. I believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament. and have done for a long time. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), like me, was in the forces. I remember hearing about the dropping of the bomb. I recall the shudder of horror that went through

  215
  me. At the same time, we all felt relief because it meant that we would not be going over there. Later, we realised that the bomb meant that a new dimension had entered warfare, which would no longer be even what we had experienced. It could mean the absolute destruction of mankind. That thought has lived with me every since, and when I think of it from time to time the horror still comes back to me. There would be no winners after the bomb was dropped.
  On the other hand, we think of the misery in the Third world and elsewhere. There is massive poverty in Latin America, Asia and Africa and in parts of the so-called marvellous developed world—in parts of America and even in our country there are people who live in disgraceful poverty. Yet we spend millions and millions of pounds on weapons of destruction.
  I conclude with a quotation from a book which I happened to buy yesterday in the Church house bookshop, "The Bible, the Church and the Poor". It is about liberation theology. Hon. Members know that I study this closely because my Christianity and my Socialism are one and the same. The book says:
  "Just as the situation of the poor has a structural cause, so their liberation has to go through the process of changing the social system, which prevents them from growing and playing a positive part in history. The poor judge society as it is at present, and see that if their situation is to change, this change has to come about in a new form of society."
  That is what I believe. I believe that as long as we continue to waste millions of pounds on destructive weapons we will never create that new society. Part of changing the world is getting rid of these dreadful nuclear weapons and working for world peace in a way which we never have before.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. David Martin: I recognise the sincerity of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) whenever he speaks on these matters, some of which I shall refer to in my speech.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about the outrage perpetrated at Deal on the Royal Marines bandsmen. Originally, the bandsmen's base was at Portsmouth and they still have a presence there, albeit a greatly reduced one. However, there has been no reduction of affection and respect for the Royal Marines in the hearts of the people of Portsmouth. I was abroad when I heard the news and I reacted with an abject horror which I know was shared by many of my constituents. Not long before, I had seen the Royal Marines band perform during Navy days in August, and I look forward to seeing them perform again on Trafalgar day—21 October. There is a striking contrast between the finest bandsmen in the world and the barbarism of those who attacked them, between the highest standards of their service and the lowest standards of their attackers. One can understand people's tremendous feelings of sympathy for the relations of those who suffered and for those who must confront terrorism in our country day by day.
  I want to deal with something that has been mentioned many times during the debate, and that is how we should look at East-West relations given the changes that have
  216
  taken place with the better understanding which undoubtedly exists, and which so many people hope will continue to exist between this country and the Soviet Union and between NATO and the Warsaw pact.
  We have had a history lesson from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). We have gone back to wartime and since. Europe has been dogged by the wartime legacy. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield referred to the fact that, after the war, many people thought that the Russians would remain our allies and Russia was not perceived to be the threat which it soon became, in the opinion of all sensible people. We have never forgotten which side the Russians were on at the beginning of the war. During the war, they became our allies and many people hoped that they would remain our allies. But after the war many said that the Russians should be pushed back behind their borders. They asked why we had fought a war only to leave them under such a system when we had gone to war to defend the freedom of so many countries—such as Poland—which remained within the Soviet empire.
  The Soviet empire was built in the late 1940s and during the cold war, which was recognised at the outset by Winston Churchill in his famous iron curtain speech. Since then it has been a threat and there has been every reason for NATO to retain a strong defence. NATO was not created because there was no threat. It has not been around for so many years with so much expenditure in time, trouble and treasure because there has been no threat. Sensible people have been aware of that threat and have stuck to that view while the siren voices of CND and others have said that we do not need it; that we should turn arms into ploughshares; that we should have social spending on hospitals and schools instead of what was described as socially unacceptable arms expenditure.
  We have ignored that. We have carried on, we have kept strong, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the strength and leadership of the West has made Russia realise that she will not under a Brezhnev regime or under a Gorbachev regime weaken our resolve to defend our freedom. We have set an example to the peoples of eastern Europe and shown them the freedoms that they could have.
  What could be more moving than to see the people coming from the countries of eastern Europe and the value that they put on freedom? They give up all they possess to come as refugees to a country that they believe will give them hope and the freedom that they have been denied for so many years. That is an eloquent appraisal of the system that still exists in eastern Europe and is at the heart of the Soviet empire.
  When any empire begins to break up and discovers that its many varied peoples are struggling against the tremendous discipline that keeps them together, there will be trouble. A continuing amount of trouble will be created in Russia and Gorbachev will have to face up to that. The troubles with the subject peoples of the empire on the borders of the Soviet Union will increase and penetrate the very heart of the Soviet Union.
  I am not as optimistic as so many people who say that we are now in an era when we can relax and that not only can we disarm but that we will have peace everlasting because of Mr. Gorbachev. There are great dangers in that opinion. He will never allow the vital base of order to be

  217
  undermined, and if he does, many around him will not allow it and there will be a reaction as we have seen so brutally in Tiananmen square in China.
  Not long ago, I spent a holiday reading a book describing how China had seen the light and was coming round to Western ways and how Western nations were tripping over themselves to go to China and give economic aid and advice. It was said that China would be the first nation to tread the road of Communism and return from it. We saw the end of that in Tiananmen square. It was a brutal end and it was shown to the world how fast things can change in a country that had been considered to be more understanding of the freedoms of its people. That could happen in Russia.
  I do not wish to give the benefit of the doubt to those who say that we should now put down our arms and turn our expenditure to other more socially acceptable pursuits and that we should disarm, as in the new era people will not support the arms we possess. I believe that that would be a wrong judgment. I believe that we should continue, as this Government have continued for so many years, to disarm only on the basis of a fair exchange. I have absolutely no doubt that no Government will be elected to office that does not believe that Britain should retain nuclear weapons for as long as other countries have such weapons targeted on Britain. That applies to nuclear and conventional forces. Russia has not yet disarmed to the extent that many would wish. We have had promise after promise. Let us see that those promises are delivered and then we will disarm to match them.
  I wish to comment about what has been said about pressing the nuclear button. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) was searching for quotations to show whether the Labour party, if it were given the responsibility of office, would have a Prime Minister who would be prepared to press the button. The latest quotation I have from the Leader of the Opposition on this matter comes from the BBC television programme "On the Record" on 3 February 1989, when he said:
  "I would not use nuclear weapons because that means annihilation and there is no logic in fighting with nuclear weapons."
  That remains the right hon. Gentleman's view and his connections with CND, the campaign for one-sided nuclear disarmament, remain the same. There has been no repudiation, and in his heart that is what he believes. If ever we have such a man in Downing street our nuclear deterrent will be nugatory within weeks, and certainly if there were not an immediate disarmament of nuclear weapons in the minds of potential enemies there would be the feeling that we no longer had the strength of purpose and strong leadership in Downing street to defend our freedoms and the freedoms of the West on a satisfactory nuclear and conventional basis.
  I started my speech by referring to the Royal Marines in my constituency. I conclude by making a plea about the searchlight tattoo at the Royal Marine barracks at Eastney, in Portsmouth, which I hope will continue when the future of the Eastney barracks is finally resolved. It is a very popular event which raises money for worthwhile service charities. It creates a great deal of interest and is very much in the affections of the people of Portsmouth. It would be a great pity if such an event were to end because of developments regarding the naval estate in Portsmouth.
  218
  The Royal Navy field gun crew should continue in modern times. It is just as relevant now as it ever has been. There are disciplines to be learnt from the field gun crew, as well as from its role in recruitment. It adds a human touch, diversity and something extra which cannot be judged in terms of money to the Royal Navy and the traditions which we have come to expect from the Royal Navy which are respected so highly in my constituency.
  If I did not speak strongly on that matter, my constituents would wonder why I had not done so. I cannot say strongly enough that the Royal Navy in Portsmouth remains as welcome as it has been for centuries. Anything that can be done to keep its traditions and its role will be highly welcome. I know that the Ministers responsible will take that into account in any future decisions.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The House will forgive me if I say that I feel sick, sweaty and headachy. The explanation is that it was Scottish Question Time this afternoon and, like other hon. Members, I have been sitting here since roughly 2.30 pm. The glare of the lights is damnable, and until such time as someone can alter the powerful glare, quite understandably, hon. Members who have to sit for a long time to catch Mr. Speaker's eye will find the conditions unacceptable.
  I should like to say something to the credit of the Ministry of Defence. I have had correspondence with the Secretary of State about its obligations to wildlife. The magazine that it has produced, "Sanctuary", is excellent and contains many good ideas. I make a special appeal for consideration to be given to whether the island of Gruinard, ungrazed for 40 years, which is in the possession of the Ministry of Defence, should be registered as a site of special scientific interest. I make no complaint about the time that Ministers have taken in dealing with my letter on the question of Gruinard..
  However, I devote my speech to one subject. For the sake of the Ministry of Defence's good name, there should be a public inquiry into Kincora boys' home, and the systematic rape of boys in care.
  In my intervention this afternoon, the Secretary of State asked me for new evidence. Paul Foot's book, "Who Framed Colin Wallace?" has not been answered.
  The issue that interests me is whether the security services and the Army knew what was going on at Kincora in 1974. Major Wallace says that they did. He sent a memorandum dated 8 November 1974 to his colleagues spelling it all out very clearly and calling for something to be done. If the memorandum is genuine, clearly the Army knew about Kincora, as did several other people in Government. I am not making a party issue of this because for much of the period a Labour Government were in office. Nothing was done about the memorandum until 1980. The Terry report, which was never published, and the Hughes inquiry report, which was, dismiss any possibility that the Army or intelligence knew of the abuse at Kincora before 1980.
  Terry does not say how he arrives at his conclusion. Hughes has a passage on Wallace's document in which he suggests, from a Royal Ulster Constabulary forensic report that the RUC refuses to confirm, that the document may have been a forgery. He says that two typewriters may have been used. Evidence is available from typewriting

  219
  experts, particularly R. W. Radley, that the same typewriter was used. That calls into question a major part of the Hughes inquiry and is a clear indication that many people, including Major Wallace, knew perfectly well that boys were being systematically raped at Kincora and that nothing was done about it.
  There are clear signs that a significant number of people in authority knew perfectly well that boys were being systematically raped at Kincora, but that nothing was done about it.
  Do Ministers now accept the authenticity of all, or part, of Peter Broderick's statement?
  Was the Broderick statement that was submitted to Downing street on 1 November 1984 identical to the one submitted to the Civil Service appeal board in October 1975?
  Do Ministers adhere to the claim that
  "There is not a shred of evidence to support any of Colin Wallace's allegations"?
  I ask solemnly and specifically whether Ministers say that there is not a shred of evidence to support Wallace's submissions in November 1974 on Kincora.
  I thank the Ministers of State for the Armed Forces, who, courteously, is present, for his letter dated 16 September. For the sake of time, I shall give the reference —(AF)/AH/9/4/1. He says:
  "I can confirm that Mr. Broderick did make a statement to the Appeal Board, and that the quotations to which you refer in this context match the content of MOD records."
  The Minister continues:
  "Your final question related to the 'episode of the pistol' outlined in pages 125 to 127 of Mr. Foot's book."
  Very properly, a copy of that letter was placed in the Library. Therefore, anyone who is interested can refer to that paragraph.
  Why does the Minister leave out certain key information? For example, why does he fail to say that, when Major Colin Wallace was interviewed by the Army special investigation branch in 1977, he was informed that the RUC had lost not only his firearms file but the entire records of the firearms dealer from whom he had purchased the pistol?
  Why did the Minister not say that the dealer in question was the main supplier of personal protection weapons to the security forces in the Belfast area?
  Why was it that, although Wallace's pistol had been lodged in the Lisburn garrison armoury from April 1970, it was not until October 1977 that anyone noticed that the weapon had been overstamped with a different number?
  Is it not true that all weapons in the armoury were subject to frequent and detailed inspections, during which the serial numbers were checked?
  The Minister's letter dated 16 September confirms that there was an official "dirty tricks" unit at Army headquarters in Northern Ireland during the 1970s.
  I believe that we may be dealing with a very nasty scandal. [Interruption.] I do not know what the Government Whip said, but I am not making a party point because I believe that this is a House of Commons matter. In all my contributions to defence debates I have been concerned about the good name of the services.
  The scandal should be exposed. There should be a public inquiry into Kincora and the case of Colin Wallace, or at least the recall of the Hughes inquiry. I say to the
  220
  Government Whip and other hon. Members that I personally believe that the uniformed British Army has behaved properly in a most difficult situation.
  The 1970s may be regarded by some as stale kail, but I believe that what happened in the 1970s in Ireland is relevant to what is happening in the 1980s. At the very least, senior officials of the Ministry of Defence should invite Major Colin Wallace and Major Fred Holroyd to see them if they are not prepared to have a public inquiry.
  I was initially sceptical about this case, but I believe that it raises important matters of principle and should be considered seriously within the Ministry of Defence.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: The position adopted by the Opposition Front Bench on this issue has been effectively demolished by Conservative Members, by Opposition Back Benchers and in particular by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). Therefore, I will not spend much time discussing that position. However, I want to pick out one point made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan alleged that Britain was the odd one out in NATO and he used the old trick of comparing two lengthy documents of detailed points. I presume that he made that allegation to try to cover up the obvious points made by the Government Front-Bench spokesman that the British Labour party is out of kilter with virtually all mainstream European political parties on a range of different issues, not least economics.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan was wrong and it is essential that we understand why he was wrong. He said nothing about France which is a signatory to the Western Alliance and a member of NATO although not of the integrated command structure. The French insist that the force de frappe should remain an essential part of its national defence so long as the Soviet Union has nuclear weapons. Even more important, the hon. Gentleman said nothing about public opinion in the United States which is becoming increasingly disillusioned by people in Europe whingeing about the presence of American nuclear weapons when America has such a large financial commitment and a large commitment in the form of American lives, some 300,000 people—to the defence of Europe.
  Two fundamental points can be made. Again and again we have heard Opposition Members say that we are in a new situation and that everything has changed over the past few years. The hon. Member for Clackmannan repeated that, claiming that everything has changed in the past three or four years because of President Gorbachev.
  However, the situation has changed, because Britain and its NATO allies stood out and insisted that we should re-arm with cruise missiles and re-equip our conventional forces while the Soviet Union did the same. Throughout that process, Opposition Members decried us, as indeed did some of their colleagues in other countries. President Bush said that the British Prime Minister provided the crucial "anchor to windward" which made the present negotiating process possible.
  The older fundamental point is that from where we stand now the difference between the Opposition and the Government is not that we do not want to spend money on arms which could be better spent elsewhere. Of course we

  221
  would love to have more money available for other things. However, there is a critical difference of timing. This Government's defence cuts will result from a proper negotiating process—a process which is proceeding at the moment.
  The Opposition pledge unilaterally and immediately to cancel the WE177—the air-launch bomb for the Tornado —just when the Soviets are introducing their own equivalent into service. They have also pledged to stop all nuclear testing so that we cannot introduce weapons to balance the Soviets' weapons and they pledge to cancel Trident C4 thus undermining the minimum critical mass, according to the expert advice from the chiefs of staff. We believe that we have the new dialogue now because we decided to take a robust view then and we believe that the dialogue will continue and we will get disarmament on the other side only if we pace our disarmament in tune with theirs.
  I want now to refer to the manning problems in the armed forces. We are only just entering the manpower trough resulting from the shortage of 18 and 19-year-olds. Our main problem today lies not with recruiting, but with retention. The recruiting problems remain for the future. I believe that there are three ways in which we can tackle the problems. I want to stress that, whatever problems we may have with retention today, they do not approximate to the problems that existed in 1979 when we took over from the Labour party. The Government have an excellent record on armed forces pay. I want to refer only to issues involving conditions of service which have arisen over a generation instead of over the past few years.
  The first issue to be tackled is housing. I will be very brief because I have spoken about this on many occasions. The Armed Forces Pay Review Board is right to state that we will not solve the problems of retention in the Army and the Air Force unless we tackle the housing problem. I believe that the solution does not lie in encouraging more soldiers and airmen to buy their houses while they are in service. Their families are mobile and if they buy houses, their families will want to live in them. That means that the family will be split or the man will leave the services.
  As Field Marshal Bramall said in the other place in July, in practice the premature purchase of a house usually leads to premature voluntary release. The Navy's position is quite different because Navy families can be static. There must be an alternative and to be attractive it must involve the same tax benefits as those enjoyed by civilian owner-occupiers.
  We must also tackle problems of retention in the Royal Navy. The Navy's problem is different from that in the other two services. The Navy does not principally have a mobility problem. Almost all Navy personnel are deployed in this country and it is manifestly obvious that the wives cannot go to sea with their husbands. There is no point in encouraging accompanied service in the Navy if that simply means wives living at a port which happens to be a vessel's home port. We want to encourage Navy families to be static and to put down roots which help to compensate for the Navy's problem of separation.
  Let us make no bones about it: however many battalions there may be in Rouemont in Ulster at the moment—I believe that it is seven—the Navy's separation problems are far worse than those experienced by the other two services. They are in a league of their own. We must be willing to consider a package of allowances as they affect the Navy separately from the other services. Unless
  222
  we are willing to acknowledge that the Navy is a special case when we consider boarding school allowances, leave warrants and problems with competitive refits which result in warships being refitted 300 or 400 miles from service men's homes, and acknowledge that the Navy has very different problems with separation, serious problems will continue in the Royal Navy.
  At a time when equipment decisions are rightly being made on a centralised basis in the MOD, there is much to be said for getting better value for money if we make decisions on allowances on a decentralised basis which recognises the differences between the three services and the particular problem in the Navy.
  My final point about retention relates to social security benefits which, of course, are not an MOD matter. However, they are causing problems and unhappiness disproportionate to the sums involved. Through a series of anomalies which have grown up over the past generation, through a series of different Bills which have failed to state that service in the armed forces is equivalent to service in the United Kingdom, a very unjust situation has developed whereby service men's wives cannot receive the benefits enjoyed by their counterparts in the United Kingdom.
  So the wife of someone in the British Army of the Rhine who has paid class 1 national insurance contributions all the way through, and has perhaps done a job for several years in Germany, may find herself unemployed and will then be unable to obtain unemployment benefit. Similarly, the wives of people who come back to the United Kingdom, perhaps after 22 years service—I came across a case recently involving disablement benefit—are told that because their husbands have been working abroad they cannot get any benefit. The sums involved are very small but the disquiet that has been produced within the armed forces is disproportionate.
  The common theme in all the points I have made on retention is that the sums of money involved are not large, whereas the sums involved in training replacements are. It would make excellent sense and be better value for money if we were willing to sort out the anomalies and give service men the same deal as civilians by recognising the difference in the nature of their employment. I know that the Government are interested and concerned about this. They have fulfilled in full the pay recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body every year for 10 years. Their heart is in the right place and we are pushing on an open door. Let us do the little things that make all the difference.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The defence estimates amount to £20 billion this year and will rise to £22 billion next year. All we have had from Conservative Members to justify that are two fictions. The first is that the Soviet Union is rearming, when we all know that the opposite is the case. The second is from a neutral source—the International Institute for Strategic Studies—which states in its definitive annual "Military Balance" that the unilateral Soviet cuts virtually eliminate the surprise attack threat that has for so long concerned NATO planners. Everyone knows that there have been unilateral cuts in the Soviet Union, and there are offers of a great deal more.
  The second fiction is the old one of the Soviet threat. It is just a continuation of the old cold war thinking, which

  223
  is that we have to have an enemy to justify our high military spending. People say that there could be political changes in the Soviet Union and things could get worse. However, things could get better. The fact that things could get worse is used as a ratchet for expanding the arms race.
  I have news for the Conservative party: things are getting better under President Gorbachev. We have a chance to break through the permanent arms race spiral, and we must take it. The Soviet Union also needs that breakthrough, because of its budget crisis. It needs to move the resources from weaponry to its people. We have the same motivation. The Government's arguments are not adequate to justify the huge expenditure.
  A previous Secretary of State for Defence, Sir John Nott, described the Ministry of Defence as
  "a huge supertanker, well captained, well engineered, well crewed, its systems continually updated—but with no one ever asking where the hell it is going."
  It is about as well captained as the Torrey Canyon or the Titanic. Judging by the Secretary of State's speech, the captaincy is about to get worse.
  Sir John Nott was right about the Ministry's poor direction. It has poor direction in terms of its policy on Northern Ireland. I will not go into that in great detail as it is a subject for another occasion. However, 20 years of continuous war is a statement of its poor direction.
  It has poor direction in terms of waste and mismanagement. The Ministry of Defence has been incontinent with taxpayers' money. Many examples have been given today. There is the anti-tank gun that does not pierce armour but which costs £300 million. We could talk of other projects, such as the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment, the cost of which has shot up from £100 million to £500 million-plus. It is still overdue, and the system does not do what the Ministry of Defence thought it would. Worse than that, it is over a barrel to the multinational defence contractors who intend to charge the Ministry of Defence £1 billion-plus if it wants to get its hands on the software. Those are just a few examples.
  The real mismanagement is on the nuclear matters, but I shall deal first with conventional forces. The Ministry of Defence has mismanaged those forces because of a late realisation of obvious demographic trends. It failed to make the necessary changes. The new film version of "Henry V" by Kenneth Branagh uses a new substance called vacform. It is a type of plastic which is ideal for shaping into human bodies for the battle scenes. Because of their incompetence over demographic factors, the Government are trying to run a vacform army.
  There is widespread dissatisfaction in the armed forces over pay and conditions. There are fewer personnel, but the Ministry of Defence will not reduce any of the commitments. Therefore, the personnel are put under enormous pressure. Personnel, from captains to lower ranks, are leaving in droves. The Government must face reality and reduce our commitment all over the world, particularly in Germany and Ireland.
  The conventional armed forces in Europe talks are going on. With our demographic factors, the Government should be enthusiastic about the talks. They should be pushing for the greatest possible reductions. Even if they do not do so, they will happen, because we do not have
  224
  sufficient manpower. So far there is absolutely no British commitment. We are buying more tanks and aircraft and trying to get the narrowest possible definitions in the talks so that we may reduce as little as possible. A wider definition would mean that the Soviet Union would make even greater cuts. The Government's actions are counter-productive. There is no commitment to reduce the number of troops in Germany, and there is little Government policy on the CFE talks. There is poor direction and waste in terms of nuclear weapons.
  Of course, the START talks are welcome. If we can get an agreement, there will be a cut of approximately 50 per cent. There are about 6,000 strategic nuclear arms on each side, which shows the ridiculously high number of nuclear weapons now. There has been no British involvement in the START talks—we have consistently gone the other way. We have said that our capable aircraft must be excluded from the cuts. That was insisted upon by the Government.
  We are buying the SRAM stand-off missile from the United States, and there is a big expansion in the free-fall hydrogen bomb. In the 6,000 limit under START, in an aircraft carrying free-fall bombs or short-range missiles, the entire weapon load counts as only one unit. The Government are keen on that, because it is a way of getting around the START agreement even before the ink has dried on the paper.
  The same applies to the follow-on to the Lance missile. The Senate Armed Services Committee has said that it might recycle those warheads that were formerly on INF missiles on to the follow-on to Lance and then return to Europe. That is legal under the INF agreement, but it is a way of getting around it, and the Government support the follow-on to Lance.
  There is nothing under START to tackle sea-launched cruise missiles—there should be, but the Government have set their face against it. Instead of curtailing sea nukes, Britain's contribution is Trident, which will have about 16 MIRV missiles, each with 14 warheads. If we multiply that figure by the four Tridents, there will be about 896 separate targets or warheads. One Trident skipper can unleash the equivalent of 6,500 Hiroshimas. As well as being terribly dangerous, the project is useless, does not work, and is easily identifiable by radar. Huge ships carry that sort of weapon load, and even the United States is curtailing it.
  The Tory policies are a disaster. Conservative Members proclaim their defence policies even though they are a miserable and expensive failure. They are unattuned to world trends, needs and people's desires. All we heard from the chairman of the Conservative party at the Conservative conference last week was a question to Labour:
  "At the end of the negotiations will Labour get rid of all Great Britain's nuclear weapons while the Soviet Union retains some of theirs?"
  That is the argument that Conservative Members will try to use in the next election. It is a ridiculous question. If we all say that we will keep the last weapon, there will never be any cuts and we will never get rid of the world of nuclear weapons. It also makes the ridiculous assumption that Britain and the Soviet Union are the two nuclear super-powers. Of course, the United States, not Britain, is the nuclear super-power. It is up to the United States and

  225
  the Soviet Union to enter negotiations and to give up the last nuclear weapon. Our weapons just get in the way of that process.
  A question arises for the Conservatives: if the Soviet Union gets rid of all its nuclear weapons—and that is President Gorbachev's avowed aim for the year 2,000—will the Tories get rid of Britain's nuclear weapons? We have had an answer from the Prime Minister. The answer is no, they will not. They want to keep nuclear weapons forever. They say that we cannot disinvent nuclear weapons. We cannot disinvent gas chambers, either, but we can disavow them.
  They say that nuclear weapons have deterred war for the past 40 years, but that is not the case. President Reagan said:
  "Nuclear deterrence is too risky to rely on long-term."
  How do we deter a nuclear accident from occurring? That was cheap, slick propaganda and I am sure that we shall hear more of it. Tory policy is useless and does nothing to reduce the risk of nuclear catastrophe. On the contrary, Tories proudly proclaim their commitment to rearmament and modernisation regardless of world events.
  I support the policy of reducing our defence expenditure to the same percentage of GDP as that in the rest of Europe. That would release over £5 billion per annum for peaceful purposes. We devote 55 per cent. of our research and development spending to military projects. In Japan the figure is only 2·5 per cent. It is no wonder that it is an economic powerhouse while our economy is lurching into crisis. To cut military expenditure is the way to transform our economy, expand our health and welfare services and release resources to tackle poverty, disease, ecological disasters and international debt which racks the world. The Tories do not have the answer. Their priority is more worthless armaments.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Roland Boyes: We have had a good first day's debate on the defence estimates. Some hon. Members have expressed long and deeply held views and they are respected for them. We have had speeches from other hon. Members who have campaigned for peace in different ways over many decades. Many points were made with which I fundamentally disagree, but the debate benefited from a series of well-informed speeches. I do not intend to comment on every speech, although I missed only one and a half of them.
  We welcome the new initiative of a centre for defence studies. I hope that it will be properly funded so that reports can be prepared without pressure.
  As a postgraduate of Bradford university, I took exception to the cheap remarks made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). I hope that the Secretary of State will mention to him that all hon. Members defend academic freedom.
  The Secretary of State commented on the new opportunities for understanding and spoke of the massive reduction and eventual elimination of chemical weapons. He also recognised the professionalisation of the forces. I, too, shall mention that, but in a slightly different way.
  Nothing has been said today about the warship programme. Many companies wonder what is happening. I hope that the Minister will speak about it and will have some good news and assurances for us tomorrow.
  226
  The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) is not in his place but my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) is back. I invited the hon. Gentleman to read the whole speech on conversion instead of the distorted and selected examples from it which he used to make a narrow point. I hope that the Secretary of State will encourage him to do that.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan, (Mr. Sillars) made a long diatribe against the Labour party's policy, not recognising that our policy has changed in response to the change in the international situation. That diatribe was a bit much, coming from the hon. Gentleman. He talked about my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) making U-turns when, to my knowledge, the hon. Member for Govan has been a member of the Labour party, left that to form another party and ended up in the Scottish National party. I wonder where his career will eventually end. On the strength of the speech he made today, I fancy that I may see him on the Conservative Benches in the near future.
  Mr. Sillars: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is much better to change party because of one's principles than to change policy because one has no principles?
  Mr. Boyes: One of the most striking things about SDE89—I shall use that acronym instead of saying "defence estimates" every time—is the wealth of evidence that it presents on the failure of this Government's much-vaunted procurement reforms. When Sir Peter Levene was appointed as Chief of Defence Procurement. amid much controversy over his inflated salary and the unconventional method of his appointment, he made reductions in the cost of defence procurement a top policy priority. However, the Government's record on containing the costs of weapons programmes is abysmal.
  A brief glance at some naval projects listed in the major project statement in the 1989 document shows that the costs of the type 23 frigate programme have increased by 26 per cent. since last year and planned peak expenditure had been extended by one year to 1993, no doubt presaging further delays and cost increases. The troubled Upholder class diesel submarine is one year later than was predicted last year. The cost of the vertical launch Sea Wolf has risen by a whacking 168 per cent. and that of the sonar 2054 programme is up 29 per cent. on last year.
  The Government have also regularly boasted about the number of jobs that defence spending creates in this country. However, as befits a party that has no commitment to maintaining employment levels in any of our key industries, the Government's boasts are hollow, as is shown by the 1989 document. In last year's White Paper the Government claimed that 350,000 jobs were dependent on defence procurement. They do not repeat that claim this year. Why? Well, if one cares to delve deep into the statistical volume of the 1989 White Paper, one finds that the number of jobs dependent on procurement is now only 310,000–11 per cent. lower than last year's figure. In 1979, when the Government first took office, the figure was 400,000. There has been a drop of over 20 per cent. in the seven years covered by the data. So much for Tory support for the defence industries.
  This year's White Paper shows that the equipment budget will be only 41 per cent. of total defence spending in the current financial year as against 43 per cent. last year. That is an all-time low since the Government took

  227
  office. With continued pressure to improve salaries and conditions for personnel in the armed forces, Sir Peter will have great difficulty in maintaining even those levels of procurement spending.
  At this stage it might be opportune to digress a little to discuss manpower, which many hon. Members have mentioned. The retention of manpower in the armed forces is an area of concern to the Opposition. The 1989 document contains a cautious and typically euphemistic admission that this is an explosive situation, stating:
  "Recruitment was more difficult in 1988–89"
  and:
  "retaining trained manpower has also been more difficult".
  Last year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates" showed that premature voluntary release rates in 1987 were 3·1 per cent. for officers and 2·7 per cent. for other ranks. It then pointed out that those levels were
  "fairly stable and compare favourably with previous years".
  However, the 1989 figures show that the PVR figure rose in 1988 to 3·3 per cent. for all personnel.
  Those figures are bad enough, but the figures for applications for PVR show an even greater rise from 1987 to 1988. That means that a lower proportion of those who have applied to leave the services early are being granted release. I hope that the Minister will see that that is a dangerous and short-sighted policy. Simply forcing people to stay on when they do not want to stores up ill feeling and resentment and is highly unlikely to reduce the rates of PVR applications as morale will decline and other personnel will see at first hand that those with grievances are not being dealt with sympathetically.
  I am happy to see from the statistics in the 1989 report that the Royal Navy is doing rather better in terms of recruitment and PVR rates than in previous years, but that does not mean that the problems have disappeared. People on press and parliamentary visits to Royal Navy ships and establishments are still being taken aside by Commissioned and non-Commissioned personnel alike, told that the salaries and conditions are inadequate and urged to do something about it.
  I have experienced some aspects of that. During the Richmond by-election, I went round the Catterick camp. I do not know whether action has been taken at that camp recently, but the condition of the houses was quite horrific. They needed much repair and gallons of paint. It is not right that service personnel should have to live in such conditions.
  The Daily Star of Wednesday 11 October had a full page headed
  "The bitter legacy of loyalty."
  The article referred to "brave Lynda Lewis" and said that she
  "is fighting a desperate battle against the crippling disease multiple sclerosis. Her world is a hospital bed. She is trapped there because of a red tape wrangle which denies her husband the money to pay for her to go into a nursing home. Now the pride that has sustained Staff Sgt. Robert Lewis through 17 years of service is cracking under the strain of watching his wife's pain … and a growing feeling of betrayal."
  The article also mentions—I shall not go into detail—army wife Sue Brett, who is
  "plunged into a social security quagmire."
  If the Minister gets hold of this paper, he will see that there are many more complaints.
  When my hon. Friends and I were at a NATO meeting with senior military personnel, they talked to us about the
  228
  problems of holding highly trained, highly skilled staff. The brigadier to whom we were speaking put it to us that there were a variety of reasons why people did not want to stay in the forces. I am sure that the Secretary of State will take an early opportunity to talk to senior military personnel about why there are so many who want to leave the forces at present. The cost of training highly skilled, professional military people and then of losing them so easily shows that the Government should look carefully at why their policies are leading to that position.
  The Secretary of State mentioned chemical weapons and the hope of eliminating them. This country has enormous potential to play a positive role in many different areas of arms control. Some of that potential has been apparent in the past in the chemical weapons negotiations, and promising progress has been made. There have been some welcome developments on the Soviet side. At the United Nations last month, the Soviet Foreign Secretary said that he favoured an immediate halt to poison gas production. At the Paris conference in January, he announced that the Soviet Union was beginning to destroy its existing stocks of chemical weapons.
  Meanwhile, considerable progress was being made in the negotiations at the conference on disarmament. In August, the Soviet Union met one of the long-standing objections of the United States on verification by agreeing to challenge on-site inspections of suspected chemical weapons facilities before a treaty is signed, not just after it comes into force. This development should have satisfied the Americans and our own Government that it would now be possible to verify the claim of the Soviet Union that the stockpile is only 50,000 tonnes.
  Mr. Mates: Untrue.
  Mr. Boyes: Technical experts—from who we got our information—appear to be in agreement that the technology exists for proper verification of a comprehensive chemical weapons ban.
  President Bush, apparently responding to the allegations that the Soviets are always making the running on arms control, announced last month in his United Nations speech that the United States was prepared to cut 80 per cent. of its chemical warfare stocks, pending completion of the treaty, although binary weapons production would continue until all likely chemical weapon possessor countries had signed a comprehensive treaty. There is a long list of countries that have chemical weapons or have a chemical weapons potential. We all accept that getting some countries, such as Iraq, to sign such a treaty is a serious problem. We all agree that these are obscene weapons. All of us must work as strongly as possible to rid the world of them.
  Mr. Sayeed: Like other Conservative Members, I share the aim of eliminating chemical weapons. Can the hon. Gentleman say who these experts are and in what publications we can read such pieces of expertise?
  Mr. Boyes: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
  Amid all the applause that greeted the statement, I was worried, as it implied that the United States would never give up chemical weapons production as long as any country was assessed to be capable of producing chemical weapons.

  229
  President Bush's statement was upstaged yet again by the Soviets when the Foreign Secretary announced that the USSR was prepared to give up all its chemical weapons —not just 80 per cent.—pending signature of a treaty. Last week we heard the shattering news that the United States would keep producing chemical weapons even after a treaty was signed. The announcement did not mention whether this was contingent on what other countries were doing.
  This point was made in an article printed in The Guardian on Tuesday 10 October. It stated:
  "Analysts and US officials criticised Mr. Bush's decision, which they said would encourage other countries to match the US effort, contributing to poison gas proliferation."
  It is obvious that the 80 per cent. of chemical weapon stocks which the United States says that it will give up will consist entirely of the unitary munitions which the Pentagon has been arguing for years are militarily useless, obsolete, leaking and dangerous. That can hardly be described as an arms control initiative. Now we know that the other 20 per cent., which are currently old unitary weapons, are simply being reserved for the binary weapons which will be produced indefinitely.
  President Bush says that he has a strong emotional commitment to ridding the world of chemical weapons. In fact, The Washington Post of 21 October quotes him as saying during the campaign for the presidency:
  "'If I'm elected president, if I'm remembered for anything, it would he this: a complete and total ban on chemical weapons,' Bush told students at the University of Toledo. 'Their destruction forever. That is my solemn mission."
  The events of the past couple of weeks contradict what Bush said at that time. I am sure that my feelings are shared by all hon. Members: we all want Presidents Bush and Gorbachev to agree to rid the world of these weapons.
  If President Bush wants to be remembered for
  "a complete and total ban on chemical weapons",
  he will have to change his mind. As Vice-President, Bush used his tie-breaking vote in the Senate to support the go-ahead on binary weapons production, to which his mother strongly objected. His emotional commitment to chemical weapons is rather stronger than his emotional commitment to banning them.
  Let us step back for a moment to consider what possible logic there is for this new United States position. Presumably, the United States thinks that it is necessary to continue producing chemical weapons to deter other possessor countries from using them. Think of the countries who are likely to use chemical weapons, such as Iran and Iraq. For the most part, they do not enter into direct combat with the United States of America—certainly not the sort of mass land combat which lends itself to the use of chemical weapons.
  If the fact that the United States currently possesses chemical weapons did not deter Iran and Iraq from using those weapons, how can it be any different in future? If the United States' stockpile of chemical weapons does not work as a deterrent merely by its existence, we can only assume that a deterrent effect can be achieved only by demonstration and use of the weapons; but not even the most rabid anti-American would accuse them of being so stupid as to use chemical weapons against a country that had not used chemical weapons against United States troops or citizens.
  President Bush has become a hostage to the strong pro-chemical lobby inside the Pentagon. There is no logic to its position. It is simply composed of people who have
  230
  built their careers on chemical weapons. We must be positive, even in the face of such depressing developments from our principal ally.
  I pay tribute to the fine work done by our own negotiators in Geneva on a convention to ban chemical weapons. I appeal to the Government to make it known to President Bush that Britain does not support his commitment to the continued production of chemical weapons. I hope that when he next speaks to his United States counterpart the Minister will make it clear that this latest United States announcement will make nonsense of any chemical weapons convention, as it will encourage many more countries to start building chemical weapons before a treaty comes into force, quite apart from the effect it will have on the Soviet attitude towards the Geneva talks.
  The new US policy on chemical arms control will be a major test of our Government's seriousness about a negotiated disarmament. We should either make it plain to the Americans that we are serious about ridding the world of these insidious weapons, or we should throw away any potential we have to influence positively world events.
  I wish to raise a significant question, which arises from the 1989 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", about the role of the Royal Navy's Polaris submarines. Over the years there have been a number of statements by Ministers and officials to the effect that no Polaris submarine has ever been detected or tracked when on patrol. They have always created the impression that Polaris operates in an entirely independent and self-reliant manner, using stealth to avoid detection rather than relying on other systems such as aircraft and hunter-killer submarines to provide anti-submarine cover.
  In the 1988 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", however, a new role appeared for the Royal Navy—the deployment of our strategic deterrent. This year, that role appears as the first of the Navy's three tasks, in front of the containment of the Soviet northern fleet and the protection of reinforcement shipping. This is an amazing revelation: Polaris is not self-reliant at all, but requires a major effort by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force units to protect it.
  Since this is now stated officially in the "Statements on the Defence Estimates", will the Minister tell us what level of resources is being expended on the protection of Polaris submarines on patrol? If has been a convention that the cost of Britain's strategic nuclear forces is limited to the capital and operating costs of the Polaris and Trident fleets. It now seems that we should add some of the costs of anti-submarine patrols by ships, aircraft and other submarines, including perhaps part of the capital cost of building some of these vessels.
  Does the Minister recognise that this is a fundamental issue? The Minister should explain to the House why the role of protecting the deployment of our strategic deterrent has never been mentioned in the annual "Statements on the Defence Estimates" until 1988, but is now the first of three roles played by our maritime forces. Has Soviet open-ocean anti-submarine warfare suddenly advanced strategically in complete contradiction of US intelligence evidence, which suggests that it has not? Have the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been spent on Polaris refits in recent years failed to produce a vessel that can operate independently and without fear of detection?
  The Secretary of State's speech was confused, contradictory and lacking in essential detail. He ignored the big issues, such as Ferranti and the new frigates.
  Mr. Tom King: I dealt with Ferranti.
  Mr. Boyes: Only when he was pressed on it did the Secretary of State——
  Mr. O'Neill: After.
  Mr. Boyes: Only after he was pressed did the Secretary of State volunteer anything on Ferranti. We have been told nothing about the new frigate programme, and I hope that the nodding of the head of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement means that we shall have an important announcement tomorrow.
  In the struggle for peace, it is clear that only the Labour party has the strategy, the will and the policies that will allow our generation to pass on the earth to its children. That is why it is essential that we rid ourselves of the Government; and, according to the opinion polls, we are well on the way to achieving that objective.
  9.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): After three months of the summer recess, and even longer since our last extended debate on the subject, after the rapid, not to say dramatic, developments in East-West relations and after the extraordinary public outpourings of popular feeling in eastern Europe and beyond, it is no surprise that today's discussion has ranged widely over issues of more than usual interest and topicality. In the time that is allotted to me, I shall try to comment on a number, although not all, of the points that have been made today. I shall also make some comments of my own.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) knows that the policy issue of frigates and warships will be taken up tomorrow by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
  Since we last met, my responsibilities have changed. In a widely unpublicised postscript to the Government reshuffle, I have moved across the Ministry of Defence to become the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) the Minister of State, will deal with the full range of our present projects for all three services and procurement policies in general, and points appertaining to them that have arisen today, when he opens the second day of the debate tomorrow.
  I shall draw attention to the equally important work going on within the MOD to improve cost-effectiveness and efficiency in the conduct of our business. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State highlighted some of the main features of this. He gave the broad picture. If the Chamber of the House of Commons were to be compared with the Sistine chapel, he would be Michaelangelo and I would be some dauber in the dark corners. However, I hope to add something to the report to the House that we are making today.
  Before I do so, I shall return to the subject of housing, which preoccupied me in my previous armed forces post. In the debate on the Army held earlier this year, I described the assistance that we provide to service men who wish to become home owners and I know that this is a topic of interest and concern to many hon. Members, most especially my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who has made this his subject.
  232
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) is now trailing behind my hon. Friend in his enthusiasm for the subject.
  It can be argued, and rightly, that, provided that the pay and allowances of service men are comparable with those in civilian employment, they are as well placed as any to enter the housing market. The measures that I described then recognise that many service men have bought and will continue to buy their own homes. However, there is no doubt that, because of the mobility that we require of our service families, particularly in the Army, the service would-be home owner may face practical and financial difficulties that his civilian counterpart generally does not. Of particular concern is the position of the long-serving service man, who finds towards the end of his engagement that the council house that he might have been assuming would be available is not and that he is not easily able to afford a decent family home.
  I told the House earlier in the year that one idea which we were actively considering was the establishment of a scheme involving a housing association or associations. I am glad to say that we have now carried that work forward to the point at which we have decided in principle on the outline of a trial scheme and we are about to get down to the detailed work with housing associations. Our aim is for the trial scheme to offer about 60 to 70 homes, with flexible arrangements to buy and/or rent, which will be targeted at longer serving Army NCOs.
  I would not suggest that this one step alone will have a huge impact, and not until we are able to evaluate the success of the trial shall we be in a position to decide whether, and if so how, we might take it further. I hope that hon. Members will take this as a demonstration of the importance we attach to this issue and our willingness to explore new approaches.
  Mr. Brazier: I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the fact that the Ministry of Defence is taking a modest step towards trying to do something about the social problem of those who find at the end of their service that they are homeless. However, even if it were to provide several thousand houses, they would be rapidly filled. The problem of those who have already left has nothing to do with the principal problem of premature voluntary release, which is offering a man who joins the services now, or who has joined recently, an alternative to house purchase as a route to owning his own home at the end of his service. As Field Marshal Lord Bramall said in the other place in July, premature purchase of a house leads all too often to PVR. I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister, as he knows only too well, that tax changes will be required if such a scheme is to be attractive.
  Mr. Neubert: The scheme is proposed as only one contribution to a range of possibilities for helping serving men and women provide their own housing. It is not intended to answer all the questions that my hon. Friend constantly puts before us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) expressed concern about the application of the community charge to service men. When I first came into post in December 1988, it was a letter to him on this subject that was among my first duties. It is a complex matter that is perhaps not easily discussed on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend's point is taken, but the decision had been made. It is one that involves shielding

  233
  the serving man and woman from the worst excesses of high-spending local authorities by reason of the requirement for mobility and location in such authorities without removing the general principle of accountability, which is the purpose of the scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East is concerned also about shortage of civilian staff. In this he was joined by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). It is true that shortages cause delay in the day-to-day business and lead to slippage in equipment programmes. In response, we redeploy resources to meet urgent needs. Our remedies have been outlined in the report of the Select Committee on Defence. Perhaps the Committee did not give sufficient credit to us for our initiative, which we hope will bear fruit.
  turn to the recurrent theme of value for money. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State touched on our New Management Strategy for Defence. This has profound implications for the way that the Department is run, and I should like to say a little more about its history, and about what we aim to achieve.
  As the White Paper notes, this is the 25th anniversary of the unified Ministry of Defence. A succession of important organisational changes have followed to reinforce this unification, so that corporate decisions on policy, priorities and on resource allocation are taken within a common defence framework.
  This process of reinforcing the centre was consolidated in the reorganisation initiated by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in 1985, under which the responsibility for advising Ministers on the future size and shape of the armed forces was passed to a centralised defence staff, and an Office of Management and Budget. But the 1985 reorganisation had a second and no less vital purpose: to create the framework for the decentralisation of responsibility for day-to-day management of the defence resources allocated. In short, this means the maximum delegation of management authority, down clear lines of accountability to commands and outstations.
  This last aim—delegation—has been on the agenda for some time. As long ago as 1901, the Esher committee complained that, to use its words,
  "the entire system of War Office finance … is based on the assumption that all military Officers are necessarily spendthrifts, and that their actions must be controlled … in detail by civilians".
  Responsibility for managing resources on the ground remains strictly separated from financial control of those resources. As a result, although our present systems of financial control are relatively cheap and effective, they can stultify managerial initiative. As a result of our reforms, the conditions are now ripe to put that right, and thereby to provide the means of releasing the energies and abilities of managers, both military and civilian, who are close enough to the action to know what drives the costs, but who, hitherto, have been shackled in performing their tasks by the remote system of financial control and by over-detailed instruction and direction from above.
  That, then, is where the new management strategy comes in—to provide a framework within which financial responsibility can be more closely aligned with executive authority, to delegate day-to-day management and, therefore, to complete the design that was outlined in the 1985 reorganisation. The ultimate aim is much more
  234
  efficient management of our operating costs to ensure that we can continue to afford the defence that the nation needs and the necessary investment in vital new equipments.
  I shall not go into great detail about the mechanics of the NMS, some of the detail of which is set out in the Defence Committee's perceptive report. It is gratifying that it welcomes the strategy. Broadly, we intend to achieve our aim through a threefold programme. First, we will allow our managers new ways of managing. Our new system of budgets, delegated throughout the Department. is aligned closely with the command and management structure itself. Line managers will be given considerable flexibility to decide for themselves how best to achieve their tasks, thereby making the best use of their ability, energy and initiative. That offers real freedom to our managers to get on with their jobs, unfettered by needless control. As the Defence Committee has recognised in its report, effective delegation will be crucial for the new management strategy's success.
  Secondly, we will give managers the necessary technical assistance. That will include the system of budgets that I have already mentioned; a new and more systematic system of planning under which objectives are made clear; targets for achievement set through management plans that define managers' objectives; and advanced management information systems.
  Thirdly, there will be new structures—and here I am referring to the establishment of the defence support agencies that my right hon. Friend announced in his speech this afternoon. That will not lead, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan suggested, to privatising apprenticeships in the armed forces. The support agencies will remain within the Ministry of Defence, and they will be discrete bodies within the organisation. That will allow us to reap the benefits of the Government's "next steps" initiative, while recognising the particular circumstances of defence.
  Our organisations are highly interdependent because, ultimately, we have—to use the jargon—a single output, the defence of the realm. The concept of defence support agencies will ensure that the organisations continue to be regarded as integral to the fabric of defence, not least because of their roles under operational circumstances within the chain of command.
  Mr. O'Neill: That point was recently put to me by some members of the defence unions who were concerned about their career prospects. They believe that, having been civil servants with the Ministry of Defence, if they continue to be employed they will become the employees of agencies that will be responsible for the training of young soldiers doing service apprenticeships within the armed forces. Can the Minister confirm that that is what will happen, because I understand that it is now the subject of negotiation with the trade unions?
  Mr. Neubert: Yes, and that is where it should rest for the moment. These are new proposals and we have other proposals. It is important that they should not be confused and that each should be taken on its own.
  In addition to a wide range of defence support agencies we are, of course, proceeding with our plans to turn into full "next steps" agencies the two major candidates that we identified shortly after the publication of Sir Robin Ibbs's report—the Meteorological Office and the non-nuclear research establishments.

  235
  As the House will be aware, I announced recently that the Meteorological Office will assume executive agency status in April 1990.
  The Meteorological Office already has worldwide renown for its contribution towards meteorological and environmental matters. It is well known to millions, but not everyone is aware that it is in fact part of the Ministry of Defence. Of those associated with the Ministry of Defence, the television weather forecasters are probably the best known and the most popular—present ministerial company excepted.
  The Meteorological Office is part of the Ministry of Defence because much of its work involves direct support of all three services, a role which would become particularly crucial in wartime when weather conditions can be of vital operational importance. Therefore, we have decided that the new agency will remain within the ambit of the Ministry of Defence.
  Nevertheless, I am anxious that the Meteorological Office should have every opportunity, within that necessary constraint, to manage its own affairs. It will have a new charter, and we will give it peformance targets to encourage a new management approach and to stimulate greater flexibility and openness toward commercial opportunities. I intend that the Meteorological Office should, as necessary, recruit business and commercial talent from outside. That will complement the unique scientific expertise that the Meteorological Office already had.
  Our aim in establishing the Meteorological Office as an agency is to improve its management and commercial skills, while retaining the high technical and scientific standards that have placed it as a front runner in its field. This will provide a better service for all its customers, civil and military, and give the Ministry of Defence better value for the operating costs of the Meteorological Office, which amount to some £80 million a year.
  The House will recall the announcement on 16 March this year by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), of the Government's intention to establish a defence research agency, made up of the four principal defence non-nuclear research establishments. Those are the Admiralty Research Establishment, the Royal Aerospace Establishment, The Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment and the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment. The Atomic Weapons Establishment will not be included, but we are considering whether other areas within the Ministry of Defence, such as test and evaluation facilities, should also form part of the agency.
  We have appointed a chief executive designate, through open competition, to manage the four establishments that will make up the DRA and to prepare the organisation for agency status. Detailed work, of which there is a great deal, is now well under way.
  Our aim in establishing the agency is again to get better value for money from our expenditure on defence research and project support. We see this being achieved by a sharpened customer-supplier relationship, and by allowing the establishments greater freedom to manage their resources in response to changing customer requirements. The DRA's primary function will continue to be providing the Ministry of Defence with technological support and
  236
  independent advice. But we will encourage it to widen its customer base, so as to make the best possible use of its intellectual and physical resources. At the same time, it will be very important to maintain the confidence of industry and of our international partners in the impartiality and commercial confidentiality of the agency.
  Our intention remains to establish the Defence Research Agency within the public sector, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan noted. I hope to be able to clarify its precise status and composition by the end of the year. Target vesting day is in the spring of 1991.
  Let me deal now with a particular management initiative which has saved the Ministry of Defence many millions of pounds over the last ten years, and that is contracting out or "contractorisation".
  It is by now a well established principle that the Ministry of Defence should transfer to the private sector any work that does not need to be retained in-house for operational reasons, provided, of course, that it is in the taxpayers' interests to do so.
  In recent years, we have extended what we call the -market testing" of defence support services, from the traditional areas—such as cleaning, catering and ground maintenance—to the less obvious, such as range operation, bird control at RAF stations, and the management of aircraft storage. We are also now looking at a new development—facilities management—which would involve larger, all-embracing, support contracts, whereby one contractor would be responsible for providing a whole range of support services at an establishment.
  I should point out here that market testing does not, as is often claimed, automatically lead to a task being contracted out. In some cases the mere discipline of subjecting activities to competition has achieved considerable economies in the in-house operation, so making it cheaper and more cost-effective than the private sector. Nor is cost the only consideration.
  Nevertheless, we reckon that, since 1979, contracting out defence services has made net savings that now run at some £50 million a year. The MOD is recognised as a leader in that field within Government. It handled about 70 per cent. of all market testing done by Government Departments in the last financial year.
  Whilst it is obviously important that we obtain the best value for money in managing the defence budget, we do not, and must not, allow that to override the operational needs of the services. In looking at what tasks might be contracted out, we give full weight to operational needs, and we accept that many tasks must, for operational or security reasons, be performed in-house.
  The terrible events at Deal last month have caused some people to suggest that we have gone too far in putting security tasks out to the private sector, but it would be wise not to rush into hasty judgments and to wait until our examination of the circumstances surrounding this incident is complete. Even if we decided that, for the future, the use of contract security personnel should be restricted that is only one small part of our support activities. There will still be many other areas in which contracting out—provided that it meets the operational and security criteria—will offer a highly effective means of making the defence budget go further.
  To answer the hon. Member for Clackmannan, this matter was raised by the husband of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) at the joint Whitley council. I was

  237
  sorry to disappoint him, but I had to say that as far as contractorisation was concerned, each proposal was considered on its merits, and the concerns that he voiced at that meeting and which have been voiced here today are properly part of that consideration. A review was under way but even while it was under way I could give no guarantee that proposals for contractorising services over a wide range of options would not be implemented. It would be wise, as I said before, not to rush to judgment on matters whose circumstances we cannot know. We would do better to await the outcome of the inquiry.
  Mr. McWilliam: I do not wish to rush the Minister over any fences, but I wonder how he can tell the House that, in the face of the fact that the private security company at Deal had been sacked by another Government Department. It seems that the Minister has been singularly badly advised when constructing this part of his speech; perhaps a little less complacency would be in order.
  Mr. Neubert: There is no complacency: there is simply the need to establish the facts. I recommend, as I recommended to the husband of the hon. Member for Peckham, that the hon. Gentleman wait for the facts. However, I realise that my answers were not to be allowed to get in the way of a good press release by her husband. It is instructive that the story appeared only in The Guardian and the Morning Star, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to be better informed in future he might stick to the serious papers.
  My right hon. Friend challenged the Opposition spokesman to tell us whether the motion carried so overwhelmingly at Brighton by the Labour party conference represented Labour party policy. He was told in answer that it would not appear in the party manifesto. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his response. Are we to believe that a decision taken on behalf of 4 million people at a Labour party conference——
  Mr. Boyes: The same question again.
  Mr. Neubert: Everyone is asking the same question because that is the question that we want answered. Are we to believe that this is not Labour party policy——
  Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity once again to explain this to him. It seems that I must do so to each Minister individually. The motions passed at the Labour party conference are of differing significance—[Interruption.]—and the resolution which was passed without the need for counting, supporting the Labour party's document on foreign affairs and defence, will form the basis of the Labour party's election manifesto. What appears on the Order Paper is of no relevance to what will appear in our manifesto.
  Mr. Neubert: We are being asked to believe that the Labour party—that great democratic institution, as Labour Members present it to us, despite their block vote —when faced with a decision of conference by an overwhelming majority of two to one, gives as its answer the classical two fingers. But is that the truth?
  We have here the longest amendment I have ever seen from an official Opposition. It is what I would describe as densely worded. It is an impenetrable thicket, no doubt to dissuade anybody from reading through it, but I am charged with some responsibility for the nation's defence so I have struggled through it.
  In line 4, the amendment calls for the Government to.. "undertake a Review". We know what that means in Labour party terms. It means a substantial reduction in expenditure. The Opposition would go on to examine the allocation of resources which could be released for social and economic purposes. That is what the official amendment says, but if we want to understand what it means, we should turn to the unofficial amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and his hon. Friends.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Community Charge (Isle of Wight)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me the opportunity of placing before the House tonight the arguments set out in a document entitled "An Island Apart", which seeks to identify the cost of severance by sea for the Isle of Wight. But before I do so, I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for coming along to reply to tonight's debate and congratulate him on the news that his wife is expecting their first baby. I am sure that everyone hopes that he or she will be a Chope off the old block.
  My hon. Friend is, of course, a near neighbour, representing a Southampton constituency. I should like to place on record the considerable assistance that he has given me, particularly in the correspondence we have had about the planning considerations for the Isle of Wight's terminal at Portsmouth, Southampton and Lymington, especially as some of them appear to be under pressure for redevelopment.
  I am also glad that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity of replying to tonight's debate, because, like me, he has enjoyed the privilege and pleasure of serving as a local councillor before his election to the House. I know that that knowledge will bring a special understanding and comprehension of the island's problems.
  The document "An Island Apart" was prepared in January 1989 and was submitted to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State together with a personal letter from me.
  I should like to pay a particular tribute to the retired county treasurer, Don Tuck, who worked so hard on the document and who has led successive delegations to Whitehall. It is worth recalling that in 1978 he obtained the agreement of the Department of the Environment statisticians that special costs did exist, and the then Secretary of State was prepared to do something to compensate for those costs, provided that the Association of County Councils agreed. However, it has always been the policy—in my opinion it is never likely to alter—that the Association of County Councils will not support one individual member in its submission to the Department of the Environment for a special case.
  My hon. Friend will see that on page 6 of the document we seek to set out the additional costs that are borne by the island. They include £821,000 for the fire service; £547,000 for waste disposal; £155,000 for further education; £27,000 for vehicles and plant; and the impact of the three prisons on the magistrates courts, which is £95,000. That makes a total of £1,266,000 and, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Isle of Wight is the smallest county council in England.
  As an illustration of the difficulty of obtaining economies of scale, I always use the comparison of staff. Hampshire county council has 52,000 employees, and the Isle of Wight county council has 4,121. From that, I hope that it can be seen immediately that a difference of just £10,000 has a substantial impact on the Isle of Wight county council budget, whereas it takes several millions of pounds for it to be felt on other county councils.
  The most easily understood problem facing the island is the need for our fire service to be self-sufficient. All fire
  240
  services in the United Kingdom rely on adjoining authorities to give them back-up facilities in the event of a major disaster or fire, but it is fairly obvious that one cannot make a 999 call on the Isle of Wight and expect the fire engine to catch the next ferry from Hampshire.
  I understand that the Home Office had confirmed to the Department of the Environment that it is impossible for us to run a smaller or more efficient fire service than that which we currently operate. My hon. Friend the Minister will therefore be able to see that the overspending that is shown up by the methodology under the existing system conspires heavily against the Isle of Wight.
  Because of the sensitive nature of the aquifer and the fact that the island is not self-sufficient in drinking water at peak times, more than 25 per cent. of our water supply must be piped in from the mainland. That means that the water catchment areas on the island are exceptionally sensitive, which leaves us little space in which to dispose of our household refuse. The problems that are being created by an endeavour to solve this difficulty with a waste-derived fuel plant currently appear to be compounding our financial difficulties rather than assisting them.
  It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's eagle eye that the controlling group on the Isle of Wight county council is the Social and Liberal Democratic party. I am sure that my hon. Friend and his advisers would wish to know that I have made it crystal clear to the county council that I do not believe that it can simply be left to me to plead in Parliament the case for the Isle of Wight as a unique authority that deserves similar treatment to the only other island that is administered by the English Civil Service —the Scilly Isles—where a special factor called D2 is currently applied to its finances.
  That same uniqueness, if I may use such a non-word, must bring a positive response from the county council to ensure that it considers every service, every function and every facility provided by county hall, and to ensure that, as England's Lilliputian county council, every facet of its work is justified and necessary.
  My challenge to the county council will, I sincerely hope, reassure my hon. Friend that, in pleading on behalf of everyone on the Isle of Wight for some assistance under the proposed needs assessment area cost adjustments, there should be a special adjustment for our island in the community charge financial regulations.
  On Monday of this week, a public meeting was held on the island organised by the Cowes governors support group, at which I and representatives of the county council answered question from a large audience about the island's finances. I made it quite clear that we must see a positive response from the county council to fine-tooth-comb all its functions. I believe that we received a positive response to that challenge at that meeting. I hope that in reply my hon. Friend will say that my submission—that the message that the island's largest local authority must provide a policy of value for money—has been received and understood, and I hope that it will be acted on.
  However, that will still not provide us in any shape or form with the level of finances that we need to run our island services. Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on the constitutional point, in endeavouring to reach a decision with his ministerial advisers, on the difficulty in which he and they find themselves in favouring one authority, particularly as it is generally accepted that, in the distribution of local authority finance, Ministers take

  241
  the advice of the Civil Service and the distribution of finance must be seen to have been applied fairly to all authorities.
  I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me that, because the precedent has already been established for the Scilly Isles, there will be no constitutional difficulty perceived by his permanent under-secretary or by his other ministerial advisers in ensuring that the island is once and for all legislated into the regulations—so to speak.
  I appreciate that the effect of safety netting and the announcement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities during the Conservative party conference last week will have some effect on the island and that it is possibly too early to give the House any precise information about how safety netting will assist us.
  I want to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the fact that, under the grant-related expenditure system, we are already the most heavily safety-netted authority in England. When the Association of County Councils put forward a recommendation to the Department of the Environment that safety netting should be abolished, my council and one other county council would have been very seriously hit if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had accepted its suggestion.
  My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that the Isle of Wight is the largest water-metering test area in the United Kingdom, and that 53,000 meters are being fitted. There is absolutely no doubt that that will have an impact on households with young families. There is concern that the experimental tariff may have been set at a rather high level. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that the island has already received a ministerial assurance in this House that the tariff will be reviewed once the data are available.
  The additional papers submitted to "An Island Apart" as a result of the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to the island on 19 April, contain additional information requested by the Minister in support of "An Island Apart". They set out the impact on the island of the dislocation from the mainland and the additional costs of providing local authority services to the average island family. I particularly draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to page 38 of "Regional Trends 23", the 1988 edition, which gives the average full-time male weekly wage on the island as £192·60, compared with £230·16 for the outer south-east.
  The average income per head on the island is significantly lower than on the mainland due to the large proportion of pensioners in the island population. The Audit Commission report on urban deprivation gives us a Z score of plus 0·4 per cent. compared with the family average of minus 1·3 per cent. The 1989–90 Green Book shows that the figures for GRE for housing benefit for the two island boroughs averaged 21 per cent. more per head of the total population compared with all English shire districts. The major cause of the variation is attributable to rent allowances paid to private sector tenants. It can therefore be said that the average island family has a higher cost of living and a lower wage level than their mainland counterparts.
  My hon. Friend will be aware that the figures were prepared before the last public sector wage awards of more than 8 per cent. for the National and Local Government Officers Association and more than 7 per cent. for the teaching professions, both of which are well above any increase in earnings in the private sector on the island.
  242
  I have just completed a tour of several factories and large employers, and in no case did I find any island employer increasing wage rates to anything like those levels. In practically all cases, they were involved in further cost-cutting exercises. Therefore, the island's community charge payers are placed in the nutcracker between nationally negotiated pay awards for public sector employees, the lack of economy of scale, and the particular difficulties, highlighted in "An Island Apart", of running England's smallest county council on the one hand and having a low wage economy with the additional costs of basis necessities as a result of our dislocation from the mainland on the other hand.
  I hope that, having briefly set out to my hon. Friend the problems facing the island in the provision of basic and essential services, he will accept that the Isle of Wight has a case and that he will assure me that he and his advisers will give the island's case the most careful and detailed scrutiny before reaching a decision.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) for the kind words that he included in his speech. I have known my hon. Friend for some time—since before he became a Member of Parliament. I am obviously familiar with many of the problems of the Isle of Wight because of the proximity of my constituency.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the clear way in which he put forward the case for his constituents on the island. Having served as a county councillor on the island, he has a deep knowledge and understanding of the issues and is a persistent and energetic advocate on behalf of his constituents. He persuaded the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), to visit the island earlier this year. My hon. Friend has frequently visited my Department in Marsham street, and he is also a persistent letter writer. Whatever else can be said, it cannot be said that his constituents' case goes by default. My hon. Friend is very assiduous in his work.
  The points that my hon. Friend has made this evening show a concern about the new grant arrangements which will come into place next April as part of the reform of local government finance. As my hon. Friend knows, the community charge will be a much fairer system than the system of domestic rates which it replaces. The community charge will have to meet only about one quarter of the total costs of local authorities. The Government will continue to provide substantial support for local government services through Exchequer grants, as now.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when he made his announcement in July, said that central Government support for local authorities in England for 1990–91 should be £23·1 billion, including the yield from business rates, which is 8·5 per cent. more than this year on a comparable basis. In addition, about £2 billion will be paid in rebates and income-related benefits to help poorer charge payers. We have also announced a scheme to help certain individuals who might otherwise lose significantly from the move to the community charge.

  243
  The new grant system is intended to be simpler and more straightforward than the existing arrangements. The key principle will be to ensure that if each local authority spends to provide a standard level of service the community charge can be set at the same level—the national norm—which will be about £275 for 1990–91. That is before taking account of the transitional arrangements. There will then be a clear accountability between each authority's spending levels and the level of the community charge. That accountability is at the heart of the reforms.
  To achieve that general principle, the Government are working out for each authority what it should cost to provide a standard level of service, taking account of the particular characteristics of that area. Obviously the more pupils there are in an area, for example, the more it will cost to provide an education service to any given standard. Similarly, an area with a high population of elderly residents is likely to require a higher level of expenditure on social services than an otherwise similar authority. This assessment is known as the standard spending assessment. An SSA will be calculated for each local authority. It will reflect a range of factors, such as the population, the mileage of roads which have to be maintained, number of school pupils who have to be educated, and other factors which affect the amount which needs to be spent on local services.
  To make such an assessment of the cost of providing a standard level of service for authorities up and down the country facing a tremendous variety of circumstances is, I readily accept, not an easy task. We are committed, however, to ensuring that these new standard spending asessments should be simpler and easier to understand than the existing arrangements.
  We are also committed to producing assessments which treat every authority fairly and properly. To do this we need to devise a means of assessment which is based on applying the same calculation for each authority using information which has been assembled and verified on the same basis for all authorities in the country.
  There are, of course, many ways in which these assessments can be approached. A great deal of work has been done over the past few years considering the various possible methods. This work has intensified since last December, during which time officials from my Department have been discussing with officials of the local authority associations detailed options for individual services. A large number of papers have been prepared, and a large number of meetings have been held. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I discussed the results of this work with the leaders of the local authority associations at the end of last month in the consultative council. We have had many letters from hon. Members and local authorities, including letters from my hon. Friend. All these letters have put forward points of great concern to the individual authorities and they are all carefully considered, as will be the remarks of my hon. Friend.
  We shall be reaching final decisions shortly, and making our proposals known when we consult the associations about the amount of grant for next year early in November. My hon. Friend has therefore got his timing
  244
  exactly right in initiating this debate tonight. The final proposals will be set out in a report to be debated in the House in January.
  My hon. Friend has referred to the paper "An Island Apart" which he sent to the Department in February on behalf of the three local authorities on the island. It sets out the case for special treatment, reflecting the particular circumstances of the island.
  As my hon. Friend has made clear, the Isle of Wight is the smallest of the shire counties—indeed, it is only about a third of the size of the next smallest in terms of population, which is Northumberland. It is also smaller than any of the London boroughs. In addition, the county is separated from mainland Britain by the Solent, which increases transport costs and makes it more difficult for the fire service, for example, to rely on mutual support from neighbouring authorities.
  "An Island Apart" suggested that these two factors—the small size and the separation from mainland Britain —meant that the cost of providing local authority services to any given standard would be higher on the island than elsewhere. My hon. Friend developed that argument in detail, and gave particular examples. The report suggested that "insularity" forced the councils to spend a total of £4·6 million a year extra. He has therefore suggested that, in the methodology for calculating standard spending assessments, there should be a specific recognition of this factor.
  My hon. Friend has suggested that proper account should be taken of the age profile of residents of the island. He is quite right. Standard spending assessments should and will take account of the proportion of the population which is elderly and the proportion of children in the area in assessing an authority's requirement for spending on social services. This will be so not just for the Isle of Wight, but for all authorities in the country.
  My hon. Friend has also spelled out in some detail the range of incomes of people on the island. However, this is not a relevant factor to consider in relation to appropriate spending levels. The new community charge system is specifically moving away from any consideration of local resources whether they be measured by rateable values or by incomes. This is one of the ways in which our new proposals are seen to be fairer than the existing rating system. In terms of the provision of local authority services, many of which have a high labour content, low incomes would serve to reduce costs.
  My hon. Friend has said that there is a problem with nationally negotiated wage deals, but it is possible for local authorities to take an independent line. It is also possible for local authorities to contract out more of their services and to invite more competitive tenders. If they invite competitive tenders, they should find that the tenders reflect more accurately local labour costs rather than national salary levels negotiated on a national basis by the national associations.
  Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend will be aware that more than 60 per cent. of the county council's budget is spent on education. I understood that it was Government policy that education was to be centrally resourced and that it was of a national standard.
  Mr. Chope: Certainly we want to maintain national standards of education, but that does not mean that the cost of running schools in every part of the country will be

  245
  identical. We know that many of the ancillary staff employed in the schools service have wage rates that differ substantially from one part of the country to another. That is an example of how, even within the education service, one should be able to get a better deal if one is operating in an area where wages are lower.
  As my hon. Friend explained, there has always been special treatment for the Isles of Scilly, but that is a very extreme case. The population of the Isles of Scilly is less than 2,000, less than one fiftieth of the population of the Isle of Wight. It does not necessarily follow that the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly should be treated in the same way.
  "An Island Apart" was discussed at meetings between the Department and the associations as part of the general consideration of the area cost adjustment which is included in the standard spending assessment calculation. I have to say that representatives of the Association of County Councils and of the Association of District Councils were not convinced of the case for giving special treatment to the island. Their view was that the problems faced by the island were not significantly different from those faced by some other authorities.
  Communications with the island, for example, are not necessarily more difficult than communications between, say, Cornwall or Cumbria and the rest of England. Some people in Cornwall say that Cornwall is an island because it is separated from the mainland by the river Tamar. Equally, the extent to which authorities can look to their neighbours for support varies across the country. Counties
  246
  with long coastlines or estuaries that split the county may face problems similar to those of the island, but, as I have said, we shall be considering all those arguments carefully before we reach our final decisions.
  We shall certainly be reflecting in the standard spending assessments the fact that in some areas it costs more to provide services. We have in mind the fact that wage rates in London are higher than those elsewhere and that it necessarily costs London authorities more to recruit and retain staff. If we go for an area cost adjustment that includes all of the south-east, the Isle of Wight, notwithstanding its relative low-wage economy, will benefit from such a cost adjustment. The issue is whether we go further than that and decide that the position of the island is so different from that of other authorities—each of which believes that it circumstances deserve exceptional treatment—that a special factor is required.
  To answer my hon. Friend's specific question, there is no constitutional bar to giving the Isle of Wight an area cost adjustment if it is justified on the merits. However, at present all these issues are being considered by the Department, and I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot say any more tonight about the specific points he has raised. As usual, he has put them forward persuasively, and I have listened to them carefully.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the planned recurrent grant to be allocated to(a) the universities, (b) the polytechnics and (c) other colleges of further and higher education in each year from 1988–89 to 1991–92, expressing the figures in cash terms and real terms, indexed so that 1988–89 = 100 and assuming constant annual inflation of (i) 5 per cent., (ii) 6 per cent. and (iii) 7 per cent., respectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  Recurrent grant to universities in Great Britain and for higher education funded by the Polytechnic and Colleges Funding Council in England is as follows for the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90:

  UFC £ million

  PCFC £ million

  1988–89 (outturn)

  1,586

  n/a

  1989–90 (estimate)

  1,713

  1,035

  The plans for 1990–91 and 1991–92, which were set out in Chapter 12 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to 1991–92" (Cm. 612), are under review in the current public expenditure survey. The Government's assumptions about inflation in future years were set out in Chapter 21 "Supplementary Analysis and Index" (Cm. 621).

  It is not possible to estimate the amount of grant aid paid in support of Colleges of further and higher education maintained by local education authorities. Some of their higher education provision will now be funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Other further and higher education is supported from local resources and through the block grant received from central Government. That block grant is not hypothecated to individual services and its application is a matter for decision by individual local authorities. The same consideration applies to the expenditure in 1988–89 of those polytechnics and colleges formerly funded by LEAs and now funded by the PCFC.

DEFENCE

  Eurogroup Working Groups
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Eurogroup working groups are currently in existence within NATO; and which subjects they are considering.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are five sub-groups within Eurogroup dealing with co-operation in the fields of operational concepts, logistics, communications, military medicine, and training. The USA and Canada also participate in the training sub-group.

  Military Forces (Infrastructure)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent in each of the past 10 years on infrastructure for military forces from NATO common funds; and what proportion was spent in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The details are as follows:

  Calendar year

  Expenditure from NATO common funds £ millions at 1988 prices

  Proportion spent in common United Kingdom Per cent.

  1979

  347

  9·8

  1980

  374

  12·57

  1981

  391

  21·99

  1982

  538

  15·47

  1983

  626

  23·95

  1984

  515

  15·82

  1985

  533

  17·17

  1986

  718

  10·10

  1987

  809

  13·98

  1988

  746

  14·77

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the revenue cost in a full year of the garrison in Gibraltar.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated cost of maintaining a garrison in Gibraltar in 1989–90 is £82 million.

  NATO (Expenditure)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when were the most recent discussions between European members of NATO and the United States executive branch of Government over expressed United States concern about the proportionate burden of NATO expenditure borne by the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO's Defence Planning Committee published a report last December on "Enhancing Alliance Collective Security—Shared Roles, Risks and Responsibilities in the Alliance". There was further consideration of burden-sharing at the June meeting of the Defence Planning Committee. Discussions within the Alliance are continuing.

  Cyprus Bases
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are employed at each of the sovereign bases in Cyprus.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some 837 Greek Cypriots are currently employed at the eastern sovereign base area (Dhekelia), and some 1993 at the western sovereign base area (Akrotiri); 322 Turkish Cypriots are employed at Dhekelia.

  Prime Minister (Transport)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what charges were directed to the office of the Minister for the Civil Service in respect of providing transport for the Prime Minister in the financial year 1988–89.
  119
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence charges the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service for the use of defence facilities at rates which are calculated in accordance with the rules laid down by the Treasury. These rates are designed to ensure that no residual costs are carried on defence votes. During 1988–89, bills to the value of £519,000 were raised on OMCS.

  Emergency Parking
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the final cost charged to the Department of Transport in respect of service assistance in providing emergency parking facilities during the recent transport strike.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The bill has not yet been presented to the Department of Transport. I will write to the hon. Member when the final costs have been assessed.

  Party Conferences (Security)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost and the services provided by his Department for security at the 1989(a) Labour party conference and (b) Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In response to requests from the chief constables of the Lancashire and Sussex constabularies, small numbers of military personnel were employed to assist the police in searching the respective conference areas for explosive devices and in potential bomb disposal tasks. No other service assistance was provided at either party conference. In line with normal arrangements, no charges were raised against the respective constabularies. The related costs fell to MOD votes.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Avian Influenza
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what precautions has he taken to control the spread of avian flu among hens in the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland; if he is in consultation with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: The Republic of Ireland authorities have taken precautions necessary to deal with the risk of spread from the two outbreaks of avian influenza in poultry in Co. Monaghan.

  Poultry and their products may not be moved from the restricted area in the Republic of Ireland without a licence. They are not eligible for export to Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland has imposed movement restrictions in the Northern Ireland territory which falls within 10 km of the outbreaks in the Republic of Ireland. The necessary amendments have been made to Northern Ireland specific import licences for live poultry and hatching eggs to prevent the introduction of disease.

  The Department of Agriculture, Dublin, has kept us fully informed of the nature and virulence of the outbreaks and the eradication measures taken.

  Northern Ireland veterinary and animal health officials have remained in close contact.

  The situation is being kept under continuous review.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Director of the Scottish Consumer Council; and if he discussed the problem of alcohol abuse by youngsters under the age of 18.

  Mr. Forth
  I last met the director of the Scottish Consumer Council when I attended a meeting of the council on 19 May. This topic was not among those that were discussed.

  Arms Sales (South Africa)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has or is seeking regarding the involvement of Ferranti subsidiary ISC, or its shell companies, Darlow, Tool Techniques and Varitech in the selling of arms to South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not our practice to comment on specific arms sales; however, Her Majesty's Government do abide by UN resolution 418 which prohibits the sale of arms to South Africa. Export licence applications under the Export of Goods (Control) Order for such exports would be refused.

THE ARTS

  Arts Council (Report)
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has yet received the report he commissioned from Mr. Richard Wilding about the role of the Arts Council and Regional Arts Association.

  Mr. Luce
  I have now received the report which I commissioned from Mr. Richard Wilding in December last year about the structure of support for the arts in England.

  Mr. Wilding's report is the first major review of the structure and organisation of arts support for many years.

  I commissioned the report at a time of major growth and development in the arts and a change in the nature of arts funding by central Government, the private sector and local authorities. I felt it was important that the structure for distributing these funds was still achieving its primary objectives: to create an environment in which the arts in England could flower; and to sustain the confidence of the arts world and the public in the system of distribution of taxpayers' money to the arts.

  The report was to examine areas of possible concern: accountability for the public money spent by regional arts associations; lack of coherence between national funding bodies and the RAAs; cumbersome structures for handling business; and the cost of administering the whole system.

  Mr. Wilding has now prepared his report, following extensive consultations with the Arts Council, the regional arts associations and other bodies and individuals with an interest in the subsidised arts sector.

  I am keen to ensure that everyone who has an interest in the administration of the arts has the opportunity to comment on the proposals which have resulted from this

  121
  process. That is why I have arranged for publication of the report, copies of which are available on request from my office. I have also arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Wilding has produced a detailed and carefully researched analysis of the current framework for policy making, administration and funding of arts in England. He had identified a number of areas where he thinks there are weaknesses and has proposed specific changes for improvement.

  In so doing he has produced a very challenging document which unquestionably provides an invaluable foundation for debate in the arts world. I want that debate to be thorough but I also want to avoid prolonged uncertainty. In view of this, and the extensiveness of Mr. Wilding's own consultations, I propose a limited consultation period and would welcome comments on his recommendations, in writing, before 31 December. I shall want to take these comments fully into account before reaching decisions about Mr. Wilding's recommendations.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Eurotunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any further proposals to assist in financing the Eurotunnel have been made to the European investment bank since 15 May 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Discussions between the EIB and its clients are commercially confidential and private.

  Financial mecu

  Perspective £ million

  Draft mecu

  Budget £ million

  Commitment appropriation

  1. FEOGA guarantee

  30,700

  19,567

  26,522

  16,904

  2. Structural Funds

  11,555

  7,365

  11,527

  7,347

  3. R & D and Integrated Mediterranean programs

  2,071

  1,320

  1,957

  1,248

  4. Other policies

  2,729

  1,739

  2,500

  1,593

  5. Reimbursements and administration

  4,930

  3,142

  4,688

  2,988

  6. Monetary reserve

  1,000

  637

  1,000

  637

  Total

  52,985

  33,770

  48,194

  30,717

  Total Payment appropriations1

  50,791

  32,372

  46,139

  29,407

  1 There is only a global ceiling for payments.

  Provision for agricultural guarantee expenditure is about 4,000 mecu (£2,549 million) below the financial guideline calculated in accordance with the Budget Discipline Decision of June 1988. The draft budget also includes provision of 1,470 mecu (£940 million) for the cost of depreciating existing agricultural stocks; and of 1,000 mecu (£637 million) for a monetary reserve which can be drawn up only to cover part of any additional agricultural expenditure arising from change in the $/ecu exchange rate.

  Non-obligatory expenditure (DNO) in the draft budget totals 16·3 becu (£10·4 billion) in commitments and 14·2 becu (£9·1 billion) in payments. In accordance with the conclusions of the 1988 February European Council, the Budget Council distinguished between so-called "privileged" and "non-privileged" expenditure. In the first category, the draft budget provides for the substantial
  122
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 6 November 1987,Official Report, column 899, if the syndicate of banks formed to co-ordinate the financing of Eurotunnel have now agreed to give a guarantee to the European investment bank in respect of the £1,000,000,000 loan given by the Euro bank to the Eurotunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Yes, sir.

  Budget Council
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of the European Community's budget council.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Budget Council met in Brussels on 28 July. The Paymaster General represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council established a first reading draft budget for 1990 totalling 48·19 becu (£30·7 billion) in commitment appropriations and 46·14 becu (£29·4 billion) in payment appropriations, respectively 708·3 mecu (£451·4 million) and 653·3 mecu (£416·4 million) below the figures proposed by the Commission in the preliminary draft budget (PDB).

  The 1990 budget is the second to be subject to the arrangements for budgetary discipline arising from the 1988 European Council and the inter-institutional agreement between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament which incorporates expenditure ceilings for 1988–92. The following table shows that the first reading draft budget is some way within those ceilings:

  increase in appropriations for the structural funds agreed at the February 1988 Council and for research and development appropriations at a level consistent with the framework programme adopted in September 1987. As regards non-privileged DNO, the Budget Council reduced the proposed provision in the PDB by an amount sufficient to ensure that, for this category of expenditure, the growth of both payments and commitments was contained within half the maximum rate of 6·1 per cent. communicated by the Commission.

  On 9 October, the ECOFIN Council established an amending letter to the PDB providing for economic restructuring aid to Poland and Hungary totalling 200 mecu. This expenditure is in excess of the relevant ceiling in the financial perspective (line 4 in the table) and, as a

  123
  temporary device pending the necessary revision of the perspective, the Council agreed to a corresponding negative reserve.

  The European Parliament will consider the draft budget at its plenary session in the week beginning 24 October. The Parliament's amendments and modifications will be considered by the Budget Council on 14 November.

  VAT Rebates (Farmers)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning applications for value added tax rebates for expenditure not eligible for grants made available to farmers practising low-impact conservation husbandry; and if he will consider varying such eligibility.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: None.

  Advertising Agencies
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the standing arrangements made by her Majesty's Government for the employment of, or making contracts with, advertising agencies; and what advice, instructions and directions have been given to(a) regional water authorities and (b) the Central Electricity Generating Board in respect of similar activities.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: At all times the Government aim to obtain best value for money when selecting advisers and contractors. Contracts with advertising agencies for Government advertising campaigns are handled and placed by the Central Office of Information, which is advised by the Advisory Committee on Advertising. The advertising arrangements of the water authorities and the CEGB are matters for the industries themselves.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Football Hooliganism (Neo-Nazi Groups)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents of football hooliganism investigated for each year since 1979 involved direct or indirect organised and planned activities by racist or neo-Nazi groups;

  (2) how many police forces in England, Scotland and Wales are at present investigating the racial and neo-Nazi connotations of football hooliganism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not recorded centrally.

  Metropolitan Police (Suspensions)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many metropolitan police officers have been suspended from duty pending investigation of alleged misconduct to date in 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 64 officers from that force have been suspended from duty so far this year.

  Metropolitan Police Helicopters
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis as to for what purpose the Metropolitan police helicopter was deployed in Forest Gate at around 7.30 pm on 2 August; and on how many occasions in the last 12 months helicopters have been used by the police in Newham;

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown by (a) London borough and (b) number of occasions on which the Metropolitan police have summoned the assistance of a helicopter in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that at approximately 7.30 pm on 2 August the helicopter was deployed on two occasions. The first was to locate suspects in the grounds of the Gateway store and the second was to assist police who were in pursuit of a suspect car.

  Between 1 October 1988 and 30 September 1989, the helicopter was used on 4,277 occasions. Information about its use by police in individual London boroughs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what form information is kept in his Department regarding experiments on animals carried out by contractors working on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office collects information about all licensees and their work, but not about funding bodies which may be supporting this work.

  Metropolitan Police (Traffic Strategy)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has regarding the overall force traffic strategy prepared by the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the Metropolitan police have for some time now, been working towards the formulation of a new strategic approach to traffic. I understand that this work is nearing completion.

  Party Conferences (Security)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total costs to public funds arising out of security measures provided by the various police forces at the 1989(a) Labour party conference, (b) Conservative party conference, (c) SLD conference, (d) SDP conference and (e) Green party conference.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief officers of the forces concerned that the additional cost of policing the 1989 party conferences were estimated as follows:

  Conference

  Force

  Additional cost £

  Labour

  Sussex

  4,000

  Conservative

  Lancashire

  1,080,000

  Social and Liberal Democrats

  Sussex

  600

  Social Democratic Party

  North Yorkshire

  None

  Green Party

  West Midlands

  None

  125
  The level of resources provided for the policing of party conferences is an operational matter for the chief officer of police in the light of all circumstances, including an assessment of the threat of terrorist attack.

  Television Violence
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether ethnic groups have contacted him about levels of violence on television.

  Mr. Renton
  We receive a number of letters about violence portrayed on television, but have not received any specifically from ethnic groups.

  Independent Television (Scotland)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of independent television companies in Scotland; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Renton
  I visited the Scottish independent television companies on 27 and 28 February, when a wide range of broadcasting issues was discussed. I have also met their representatives on other occasions during discussions on the future of broadcasting.

  Arrests (Football Grounds)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many of those arrested at football grounds during the 1987–88 season were subsequently(a) tried and (b) convicted.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the outcome of the 6,106 arrests made at Football League matches during the 1987–88 season is not recorded centrally.

  Serious Crimes Squad (West Midlands)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many officers were serving with the serious crimes squad at the time it was disbanded.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable that there were 29 officers serving with the squad at the time that it was disbanded in August 1989.

  Dispersal Prisons (Costs)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the current cost per inmate per week in each dispersal prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average cost per inmate per week in each dispersal prison in 1988–89 (the most recent year for which information is available) was:

  £

  Albany

  586

  Frankland

  533

  Full Sutton

  742

  126

  £

  Gartree

  555

  Long Lartin

  505

  Parkhurst

  829

  Wakefield

  365

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase in police manpower since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the end of July this year, police manpower stood at a record level of 169,022, made up of 125,808 police officers and 43,214 civilian staff. These figures represent a gain of 14,315 police officers and 8,584 civilians under this government since May 1979.

  My right hon. Friend will be able to approve a further 1,100 police posts for 1990–91 so that police numbers will continue to grow.

  Random Breath Testing
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many replies he has received to his request for opinions from the public on the introduction of random breath testing; and how many responses were in favour of this proposal.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 8 May 1989 at column 284.

ENERGY

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last discussed the issue of plutonium-contaminated waste with the chairman of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met the chairman of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. RWMAC advises my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Scotland and Wales, with whom policy responsibility for radioactive waste management matters lies.

  Alternative Energy
  Mr. Wray To
  ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is for each year since 1979 the amount of public funds spent on research on energy produced by (a) off-shore wind turbines, (b) wave and tidal power, (c) solar technology and (d) other kinds of alternatives to coal, oil and nuclear energy.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The table sets out expenditure on renewable sources of energy supported by public funds since 1979. Information on expenditure on offshore wind R and D is included in the totals for wind R and D. Total expenditure on offshore wind since 1979 is £1·07 million (Department of Energy and CEGB).
  127

  Public sector R, D and D expenditure on renewable energy (£ million)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Wind

  1·1

  1·4

  2·1

  4·6

  4·5

  6·6

  7·5

  6·0

  7·3

  8·5

  Wave

  3·0

  3·3

  4·4

  3·1

  1·2

  0·4

  0·6

  0·2

  0·2

  0·1

  Geothermal Aquifers

  1·5

  1·9

  4·1

  2·3

  2·1

  1·3

  0·3

  0·1

  0·0

  0·1

  Geothermal hot dry rocks

  0·0

  0·6

  5·6

  3·0

  2·9

  4·6

  3·5

  3·5

  3·7

  3·6

  Solar

  1·5

  1·2

  1·5

  1·7

  1·6

  0·8

  1·0

  1·0

  1·2

  1·5

  Biomass1

  0·3

  1·1

  1·0

  1·8

  0·9

  1·2

  0·9

  1·3

  2·3

  2·1

  Tide

  0·6

  1·4

  0·4

  0·0

  0·0

  0·3

  0·1

  0·1

  1·4

  1·2

  Hydro/general studies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·8

  0·8

  Technology transfer and promotion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·7

  1·0

  ETSU management

  1·4

  2·2

  2·3

  2·0

  1·9

  2·1

  2·0

  2·3

  2·3

  2·5

  Total

  9·4

  13·1

  21·4

  18·5

  15·1

  17·3

  15·9

  14·5

  19·9

  21·4

  1 Includes expenditure on "waste as a fuel" projects under the Energy Efficiency Office Demonstration Scheme.

  Notes:

  1. The table incorporates expenditure on renewable energy by Government Departments. Science Engineering Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council and the CEGB.

  2. Up to 1986–87 total for R and D also includes expenditure on low head hydro and general studies to 1986–87. These are separately identified for 1987–88 and include work carried out by the Chief Scientist Group, ETSU.

  3. The totals for solar energy incorporate work on passive solar design of buildings, active solar water heating and photovoltaics.

  4. The totals for wave incorporate work on ocean thermal energy conversion.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to implement the Central Electricity Generating Board scientific report on energy produced by wind turbines based off-shore.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I am not aware of the report to which the hon. Member refers. My Department is continuing to investigate the technical and economic feasibility of offshore wind energy.

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research his Department is carrying out or sponsoring in order to improve energy saving techniques.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Research under the "energy efficiency best practice" programme is directed to four interrelated elements: compilation of "energy consumption guides" giving data on energy use so consumers can compare their performance with others in their sector; provision of "good practice guides" promoting proven techniques which are already enabling the better energy users to be more efficient; production of "new practice" case studies on first commercial applications of new energy efficiency techniques, to promote wider implementation; support for "future practice" pre-competitive research and development work on a joint venture basis.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Visits
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will state for the period since 29 July(a) the countries she visited officially, (b) how many civil servants accompanied her, (c) the total cost involved, (d) the method of travel and (e) the number of journalists who used official transportation.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 29 July, the Prime Minister has visited Japan and Moscow. She was accompanied by 12 civil servants, plus a further two for the Moscow leg. Transport was provided
  128
  by an RAF VCIO and 18 representatives of the media travelled with her. Information on costs for the visit is not yet available.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what action has been taken by her Department to recover outstanding moneys from media organisations arising from their representatives accompanying her on overseas visits.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is satisfied that the arrangements used by her office for expediting the payment of overdue invoices are effective.

  Policy Unit
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost in 1988–89 of the Prime Minister's policy unit.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The cost in 1988–89 of the Prime Minister's policy unit was £351,832.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of(a) decoration and (b) furnishings in No. 10 Downing street during 1988–89; and what are the estimated totals for 1989–90.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total cost in 1988–89 for decorations and furnishings for 10 Downing street was £391,125. The estimated cost of similar works over 1989–90 is £606,313.

  The current works relate to the rooms used for state and public occasions; and reflect the costs necessary to refurbish part of one of the country's historic buildings, which had not been refurbished for nearly 20 years.

TRANSPORT

  Eurotunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the arrangements for financing Eurotunnel insofar as they fall within his responsibility.

  Mr. Portillo
  Responsibility for Channel tunnel financing arrangements is entirely a matter for Eurotunnel.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on measures to ensure security in the Eurotunnel, and arrangements to identify explosives in any vehicle.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government take very seriously the need to protect the tunnel and those who will use it. A security check regime will be required. It would not be appropriate for me to make a statement on the details of the security arrangements.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he anticipates that Eurotunnel will be open to traffic.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that Eurotunnel's projected opening date is 15 June 1993.

  Trading vessels registered in the United Kingdom, Crown Dependencies and the Dependent Territories: 1979–89

  Registry

  Thousand tons

  United Kingdom

  Crown Dependencies

  Dependent Territories (excluding Hong Kong)

  Hong Kong

  Total Trading Fleet

  Year

  No..

  Grt

  Dwt

  No..

  Grt

  Dwt

  No..

  Grt

  Dwt

  No..

  Grt

  Dwt

  No..

  Grt

  Dwt

  1979

  1,756

  26,905

  44,296

  0

  0

  0

  236

  1,902

  3,210

  87

  1,443

  2,231

  2,079

  30,250

  49,737

  1980

  1,698

  26,070

  43,013

  0

  0

  0

  266

  1,917

  3,237

  98

  1,691

  2,643

  2,062

  29,678

  48,893

  1981

  1,552

  24,417

  40,473

  0

  0

  0

  250

  757

  1,154

  132

  2,553

  4,060

  1,934

  27,728

  45,688

  1982

  1,374

  21,388

  35,085

  48

  59

  69

  256

  741

  1,159

  158

  3,469

  5,670

  1,836

  25,658

  41,984

  1983

  1,217

  18,103

  29,000

  43

  45

  47

  308

  1,345

  2,145

  183

  4,348

  7,237

  1,751

  23,841

  38,429

  1984

  1,096

  14,773

  23,157

  55

  87

  120

  312

  1,366

  2,247

  224

  5,748

  9,573

  1,687

  21,975

  35,097

  1985

  1,019

  13,236

  20,805

  55

  103

  138

  337

  1,905

  3,022

  265

  6,813

  11,314

  1,676

  22,057

  35,230

  1986

  902

  10,285

  15,593

  59

  287

  442

  413

  4,135

  6,834

  285

  8,120

  13,642

  1,659

  22,827

  36,511

  1987

  734

  5,578

  7,371

  112

  1,913

  3,468

  377

  5,358

  9,406

  281

  7,974

  13,446

  1,504

  20,822

  33,692

  1988

  685

  5,091

  6,452

  116

  2,120

  3,806

  351

  7,142

  13,242

  260

  7,266

  12,327

  1,412

  21,619

  35,826

  1989

  573

  4,328

  5,351

  115

  2,084

  3,749

  280

  7,053

  13,227

  286

  6,189

  10,470

  1,254

  19,655

  32,797

  Notes:

  1. Vessels registered in the Crown Dependencies during 1979, 1980 and 1981 are included in the United Kingdom statistics for those years.

  2. 'Grt' stands for 'Gross Registered Tonnage'.

  3. 'Dwt' stands for 'Deadweight tonnage'.

  4. The Crown Dependencies include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

  5. The main Dependent Territories' registers are Gibraltar, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

  6. The figures exclude non-trading type vessels such as tugs, off-shore supply ships and fishing vessels.

  Marchioness
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the Government's contribution to the disaster fund set up by the mayor of Southwark for the victims of the Marchioness disaster and their families.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Following the Marchioness disaster, the Government made a contribution of £125,000 to the river boat disaster fund. Neither the fund nor the Government's contribution to it will affect any possible claims for compensation.

  Parliamentary approval for this payment will be sought in a supplementary supply estimate for the administration and transport services vote. Pending that approval, the £125,000 donation has been met from a repayable advance

  Air Controls
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to improve the present controls system which the Association of European Airlines report found to be fragmented, costly and inefficient.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Over the last year, the United Kingdom has successfully promoted a series of practical initiatives to improve co-operation and coordination between air traffic control authorities in Europe. The European Civil Aviation Conference recently established a task force to examine the scope for further integration of air traffic control systems. The task force's recommendation will be considered by European Transport Ministers early next year.

  Merchant Fleet
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is for each year since 1979(a) the tonnage capacity of the British merchant fleet and (b) the number of the British merchant ships.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number and tonnage of trading vessels registered in the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and dependent territories at 1 July in each year since 1979 is as follow:

  from the Contingencies Fund. As savings have occurred in class VIII, 2, there will be no increase in the public expenditure planning total.

  Dock Workers (Redundancies)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many former registered dock workers have been made redundant since the abolition of the dock labour scheme; how much the Government have contributed towards the redundancy payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As at 13 October, 3,938 former registered dock workers had been made redundant out of 9,221 on the register when the Scheme was abolished on 3 July. In accordance with the provision of the Dock Work
  131
  (Compensation Payments Scheme) Regulations 1989, the Department has contributed £78,760,050 towards the redundancy compensation payments. It is estimated that further payments will bring the total in 1989–90 to about £90 million.

  Provision of £10 million was made in the summer supplementary estimate on class VIII, vote 3, and I shall be seeking parliamentary approval of a winter supplementary estimate on that Vote of a further £80 million for the compensation scheme.

  The number of redundancies is far higher than had been expected, but clearly demonstrates that the overmanning in ports under the dock labour scheme was greater than had been realised. A major improvement in the efficiency of working methods in the ports is now taking place.

  Sir Keith Bright
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether discussions on the terms on which Sir Keith Bright departed from London Regional Transport have now been concluded.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Yes. After due consideration of a claim made by Sir Keith Bright, I have determined that London Regional Transport shall pay to him the sum of £34,000 in settlement of the matter.

  Tunnel Services
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the users of the tunnel lids over the M25 at Bell Common, Epping and Holmesdale, Enfield and the A1(M) at Hatfield pay for the maintenance of the tunnel services in the form of a rent or lump sum up front.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of Transport bears the whole cost of maintaining and servicing all three tunnels. There are no commercial uses of the M25 tunnel lids.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has for each year since 1979 on the amount of organic food produced in(a) Canada, (b) Denmark, (c) France, (d) the Federal Republic of Germany, (e) Holland, (f) Sweden and (g) the United States of America.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what is the amount of(a) private and (b) public funds spent on research about organic farming for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the amount of public funds spent on research about organic farming for this year was given in the reply to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 18 May at col.300. Information for earlier years can be produced only at disproportionate cost. Information on the amount of private funds spent on organic farming is not available.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to support and promote organic farming.
  132
  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are already encouraging British farmers in various ways to respond to consumer demand for organic produce. My Department was instrumental in setting up the United Kingdom register of organic food standards to produce national organic standards and an independent certification and inspection scheme. UKROFS is now well advanced in its work. The fallow option of the set-aside scheme enables farmers to prepare their land for organic production without forgoing income entirely. Similar support is being considered under the forthcoming extensification scheme. The farm and conservation grant scheme, co-operative sector assistance and ADAS advice are all available to organic producers. My department's R & D activities are also relevant to organic farming as is the recently announced comprehensive economic survey of organic farming which we are funding.

  Conservation Husbandry
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those grants now available to farmers practising low-input conservation husbandry.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: The full range of Government grants is available to those farmers pursuing less intensive husbandry systems with an emphasis on good conservation practice. Some are likely to match their more specific needs. For example, farmers who wish to convert to organic farming can take advantage of the fallow provisions of the set-aside scheme which enable them to prepare their land to meet organic standards without foregoing income entirely. Under the agricultural and horticultural co-operation schemes grant aid may be available towards formation and marketing costs of co-operatives formed to market organic produce or other foods produced under low input systems. Capital grants may also be available to established co-operatives towards the cost of buildings and equipment. In addition, incentives to protect and improve the environment exist under schemes such as the farm and conservation grant scheme, the environmentally sensitive areas scheme and the farm woodland scheme. Further assistance to less intensive farming under the options of the extensification scheme is under consideration.

  Synthetic Chemicals
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) of 27 July,Official Report, column 961, if he will make a statement on his detailed consultation with the United Kingdom Register of Organic Foodstuffs Board on synthetic chemicals.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: The reply of 27 July at column 961 referred to detailed consultations with the board of the United Kingdom register of organic food standards and other bodies representing the producers, processors, manufacturers and consumers of organic foods when the European Commission's proposals on organic agriculture are submitted to the Council of Agriculture Ministers. These proposals have not yet been submitted by the Commission.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list those Select Committee reports which have been debated on the floor of the House in each Session since 1966.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The information requested is as follows:

  Select Committee reports debated in the House since 1966

  1. Reports debated on substantive Motions1

  Date

  Session 1965–66

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  First Report (1965–66)

  3 February 1966

  Session 1966–67

  Procedure Committee:

  Fourth Report (1964–65), Report (1965–66) and First Report (1966–67)

  14 December 1966

  Estimates Committee:

  First Report and Fifth Special Report (1966–67)

  9 February 1967

  Procedure Committee:

  First, Second, Third and Fourth Reports (1966–67)

  19 April 1967

  Estimates Committee:

  Fourth Report and Ninth Special Report (1966–67)

  4 May 1967

  Session 1967–68

  Public Accounts Committee:

  Fifth Report and First and Second Report (1966–67)

  13 November 1967

  Procedure Committee:

  First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Reports (1966–67)

  14 November 1967

  Estimates Committee:

  Ninth Report (1966–67) and Second Special Report (1967–68)

  6 February 1967

  Public Accounts Committee:

  Third Special Report (1967–68)

  25 April 1967

  Agriculture Committee:

  Report (1966–67)

  14 May 1967

  Science and Technology Committee: Report (1966–67)

  23 May 1967

  Session 1968–69

  Estimates Committee:

  Eleventh Report (1966–67) and Fifth Special Report (1967–68)

  14 November 1968

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First, Second and Third Reports (1967–68)

  5 December 1968

  Estimates Committee:

  Sixth Report (1967–68)

  12 June 1969

  Committee on Parliamentary Privilege:

  Report (1967–68)2

  4 July 1969

  Session 1969–70

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First, Second and Third Reports (1968–69)

  20 November 1969

  Estimates Committee:

  Eighth Report (1967–68)

  5 February 1970

  Session 1970–71

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First, Second and Third Reports (1969–70)

  10 November 1970

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  First Report (1970–71)

  23 November 1970

  Estimates Committee:

  Fifth Report (1968–69)

  7 December 1970

  134

  Date

  Scottish Affairs Committee:

  Report (1969)

  3 February 1971

  Committee on Standing Orders (Revision):

  Report (1970–71)

  8 March 1971

  Procedure Committee:

  Second Report (1969–70)3

  7 April 1971

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Fifth Report (1970–71)

  7 April 1971

  Science and Technology Committee:

  Second Report (1969–70)

  27 May 1971

  Committee on Parliamentary Privilege:

  Report (1967–68)

  16 July 1971

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Sixth Report (1970–71)4

  30 July 1971

  Session 1971–72

  Expenditure Committee:

  First Report (1970–71), Special Report (1971–72) and First Report (1971–72)

  9 February 1972

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Fourth Report

  9 and 13 June 1972

  Procedure Committee:

  Fourth Report (1971–72)

  28 June 1972

  Expenditure Committee:

  Second Report and Fifth Special Report (1971–72)

  7 August 1972

  Session 1972–73

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First, Second and Third Reports (1971–72)

  7 December 1972

  Committee on Parliamentary Questions:

  Report (1972–73)

  18 December 1972

  Procedure Committee:

  Second and Third Reports (1972–73)

  18 December 1972

  Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation:

  Report (1972–73)

  18 December 1972

  Science and Technology Committee:

  First, Second, Third and Fourth Reports (1972–73)

  22 January 1973

  European Secondary Legislation Committee:

  First Report (1972–73)

  18 April 1973

  Nationalised Industries Committee:

  Second Report (1971–72)

  3 May 1973

  Expenditure Committee:

  First and Second Reports (1972–73)

  9 July 1973

  Session 1973–74

  Procedure Committee:

  Fifth Report (1972–73)

  20 November 1973

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First to Eighth Reports (1972–73)

  3 December 1973

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Sixth Report (1972–73)

  10 December 1973

  Expenditure Committee:

  Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Reports (1972–73), Second Special Report (1970–71), Sixth Special Report (1971–72) and Second and Fourth Special Reports (1972–73)

  15 January 1974

  Session 1974

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  First, Second and Third Reports (1974)

  27 June 1974

  Session 1974–75

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First to Fourth Reports (1974)

  13 January 1975

  Expenditure Committee:

  First Report (1974)

  1 May 1975

  Expenditure Committee:

  Third Report (1973–74), Third Report (1974) and Seventh Report (1974)

  10 July 1975

  Procedure Committee:

  First Report (1974–75)

  3 November 1975

  Session 1975–76

  Committee of Privileges:

  First Report (1975–76)

  16 December 1975

  135

  Date

  public Accounts Committee:

  First to Fifth Reports (1974–75)

  22 January 1975

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  8 March and 16

  First Report (1975–76)

  March 1976

  Expenditure Committee:

  Eleventh Report (1974–75)

  13 April 1976

  Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting:

  First Report (1975–76)

  3 August 1976

  Session 1976–77

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First to Sixth Reports (1975–76)

  9 December 1976

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Sixth Report (1975–76) and First Report (1976–77)

  18 January 1977

  Expenditure Committee:

  Fifth Report (1974–75) and Eighth Report (1975–76)

  14 March 1977

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  First Report (1976–77) (resumed debate)

  15 March 1977

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Fourth Report (1976–77)

  5 May 1977

  Overseas Development Committee:

  Second Report (1975–76), First Special Report (1976–77), Second Report (1976–77) and Second Special Report (1976–77)

  13 June 1977

  Committee on the Conduct of Members:

  Report (1976–77)

  26 July 1977

  Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting:

  Second Report (1976–77)

  26 July 1977

  Session 1977–78

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First to Tenth Reports (1976–77)

  9 January 1978

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Fourth and Fifth Reports (1976–77)

  26 January 1978

  Committee of Privileges:

  Third Report (1976–77)

  6 February 1978

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Seventh Report (1976–77)

  21 February 1978

  Nationalised Industries Committee:

  First, Second and Fifth Reports (1977–78)

  9 March 1978

  Expenditure Committee:

  First Report (1976–77)

  12 June 1978

  Committee on Violence in Marriage:

  Report (1974–75)

  16 June 1978

  Committee on Violence in the Family:

  First Report (1975–76), First and Second Report (1976–77)

  16 June 1978

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Fourth Report (1977–78)

  29 June 1978

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Fifth Report (1977–78)

  28 July 1978

  Session 1978–79

  Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration:

  First and Fourth Reports (1977–78)

  1 December 1978

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First to Tenth Reports and First and Second Special Reports (1977–78)

  4 December 1978

  Expenditure Committee:

  Eleventh Report (1976–77) and Twelfth Report (1977–78)

  15 January 1979

  Session 1979–80

  Procedure Committee:

  First Report (1977–78)

  31 October 1979

  Home Affairs Committee:

  Second Report (1979–80)

  5 June 1980

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First to Seventh and Tenth Reports (1979–80)

  1 May 1980

  Procedure Committee Report (1977–78) and (1976–77)

  30 October 1980

  Session 1980–81

  136

  Date

  Social Services Committee:

  Second Report (1979–80)

  5 December 1980

  Public Accounts Committee:

  Fifth to Thirty-fifth Reports (1979–80)

  29 January 1981

  Procedure Committee Report (1977–78)

  31 January 1981

  Session 1981–82

  Education, Science and Arts Committee (1980–81)

  22 February 1982

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First to Seventeenth Reports (1980–81)

  19 April 1982

  Committee on Members' Salaries (1981–82)

  10 June 1982

  Session 1982–83

  Committee on Standing Orders (Revision) Report (1982–83)

  30 March 1983

  Session 1983–84

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Report (1982–83)

  22 November 1983

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First Special and First to Eleventh Reports (1982–83)

  20 March 1984

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First to Ninth Reports (1983–84)

  20 March 1984

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  First Report (1983–84)

  2 May 1984

  Procedure Committee:

  First Report (1983–84)

  31 October 1984

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Second Report (1983–84)

  31 October 1984

  Session 1984–85

  Public Accounts Committee:

  Twenty-Fifth Report (1983–84)

  1 May 1985

  Public Accounts Committee:

  Tenth to Twenty-Fourth Reports and Twenty-Sixth to Thirty-Fifth Reports (1983–84), and First to Twenty-Fifth Reports (1984–85)

  24 October 1985

  Session 1985–86

  Committee on Members' Interests:

  Second Report (1984–85)

  17 December 1985

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Second Report (1984–85)

  29 January 1986

  Procedure Committee:

  Second, Third and Fourth Reports (1984–85) and First Report (1985–86)

  27 February 1986

  European Legislation Committee:

  First Special Report (1985–86)

  5 March 1986

  Environment Committee:

  Second Report (1985–86)

  13 May 1986

  Privileges Committee:

  Report (1985–86)

  20 May 1986

  Public Accounts Committee:

  Twenty-Sixth to Thirty-Eighth Reports (1984–85) and First to Fourteenth and Sixteenth to Eighth Reports (1985–86)

  3 July 1986

  Trade and Industry Committee:

  Second Report and Fifth Special Report (1985–86)

  7 July 1986

  Session 1986–87

  Nil

  Session 1987–88

  Public Accounts Committee:

  Fifteenth and Nineteenth to Fifty-Second Reports (1985–86), and First to Nineteenth Reports (1986–87)

  3 December 1987

  Public Accounts Committee:

  First to Thirty-Sixth Reports, Forty-First Report and First Special Report (1987–88)

  3 November 1988

  Session 1988–89 (to 17 October 1989)

  137

  Date

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Second Report (1987–88)

  30 January 1989

  Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House:

  First Report (1988–89)

  12 June 1989

  1 Includes Reports debated on Supply Days, but not Reports debated on motions for the Adjournment (for which see table II).

  2 See also 16 July 1971.

  3 Named in a Motion but not debated.

  4 Named in a Motion but not debated.

  II. Reports referred to on the Order Paper as being relevant to debate in the House, including, inter alia, debates on motions for the Adjournment of the House and on Estimates Days.

  Date

  Session 1979–80

  Defence Committee:

  Second Report (1979–80)

  28 and 29 April 1980

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Second Report (1979–80)

  7 May 1980

  Session 1980–81

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Fifth Report (1980–81)

  9 April 1981

  Defence Committee:

  Second Report (1980–81)

  19 and 20 May 1981

  Foreign Affairs Committee:

  Fifth Report (1980–81)

  24 July 1981

  Session 1981–82

  Foreign Affairs Committee:

  First and Second Report (1980–81)

  17 February 1982

  Foreign Affairs Committee:

  First Report (1981–82)

  17 February 1982

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Fourth Report (1981–82)

  6 April 1982

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Fifth Report (1981–82)

  21 April 1982

  Social Services Committee:

  Fourth Report (1980–81)

  18 June 1982

  Session 1982–83

  Agriculture Committee:

  First Report (1980–81)

  17 November 1982

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Third Report (1982–83)

  9 March 1983

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Second Report (1982–83)

  14 March 1983

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Fifth Report (1982–83)

  14 April 1983

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Fourth Report (1982–83)

  18 April 1983

  Session 1983–84

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Third Report (1981–82)

  28 October 1983

  Social Services Committee:

  Third Report (1981–82)

  25 November 1983

  Employment Committee:

  First Report (1983–84)

  27 February 1984

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  First Report (1983–84)

  6 March 1984

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Third Report (1983–84)

  6 March 1984

  Public Accounts Committee:

  Twelfth Report (1983–84)

  8 March 1984

  Energy committee:

  Second Report (1983–84)

  8 March 1984

  Public Accounts Committee:

  Ninth Report (1983–84)

  12 March 1984

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Fourth Report (1983–84)

  10 April 1984

  Social Services Committee:

  First Report (1983–84)

  4 May 1984

  Education, Science and Arts Committee:

  Eighth Report (1981–82)

  14 June 1984

  138

  Date

  Defence Committee:

  First Report (1983–84)

  18 and 19 June 1984

  Education, Science and Arts Committee:

  First and Second Reports (1983–84)

  4 July 1984

  Environment Committee:

  Second Report (1983–84)

  4 July 1984

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Seventh Report (1983–84)

  10 July 1984

  Environment Committee:

  Third Report (1983–84)

  17 July 1984

  Foreign Affairs Committee:

  Second and Fourth Report (1983–84)

  17 July 1984

  Public Accounts Committee:

  Twenty-sixth Report (1983–84)

  17 July 1984

  Defence Committee:

  Third Report (1983–84)

  22 October 1984

  Session 1984–85

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  First Report (1984–85)

  6 December 1984

  Procedure Committee:

  Report on Procedure Finance (1982–83)

  6 December 1984

  Energy Committee:

  Fourth Report (1983–84)

  18 December 1984

  Environment Committee:

  Fourth Report (1983–84)

  11 January 1985

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Third Report (1984–85)

  22 January 1985

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Sixth Report (1984–85)

  4 March 1985

  Energy Committee:

  Fifth Report (1983–84)

  14 March 1985

  Foreign Affairs Committee:

  Fifth Report (1983–84)

  14 March 1985

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee

  Eighth Report (1984–85)

  29 April 1985

  Employment Committee:

  Fifth Report (1984–85)

  6 June 1985

  Defence Committee:

  First and Third Reports (1984–85)

  12 and 13 June 1985

  Environment Committee:

  Third and Fourth Reports (1984–85)

  11 July 1985

  Social Services Committee:

  First and Second Report (1984–85)

  11 July 1985

  Trade and Industry Committee:

  Third Report (1984–85)

  18 July 1985

  Session 1985–86

  Foreign Affairs Committee:

  Fifth Report (1984–85)

  22 November 1985

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Second Report (1985–86)

  12 December 1985

  Foreign Affairs Committee:

  Second Report (1984–85) and First

  Report (1985–86)

  17 December 1985

  Social Services Committee:

  First Report (1985–86)

  28 January 1986

  European Legislation Committee:

  Seventh Report (1985–86)

  3 February 1986

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Third Report (1985–86)

  20 February 1986

  European Legislation Committee:

  First Special Report (1985–86)

  5 March 1986

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Fourth Report (1985–86)

  29 April 1986

  Environment Committee:

  Third and Fourth Reports (1985–86)

  24 June 1986

  Employment Committee:

  First, Second and Third Reports (1985–86)

  24 June 1986

  Defence Committee:

  30 June 1986

  Second Report (1985–86)

  and 1 July 1986

  Trade and Industry Committee:

  First Report (1985–86)

  9 July 1986

  Social Services Committee:

  Fourth Report (1985–86)

  9 July 1986

  139

  Date

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Fifth Report and Second Special Report (1985–86)

  10 July 1986

  Defence Committee:

  Third and Fourth Reports (1985–86)

  29 October 1986

  Session 1986–87

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Second Report (1986–87)

  17 December 1986

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Third Report (1986–87)

  18 February 1987

  Energy Committee:

  First Report (1986–87)

  11 March 1987

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Sixth Report (1986–87)

  22 April 1987

  Session 1987–88

  Defence Committee:

  First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Reports (1986–87)

  27 and 28 October 1987

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  Second Report (1984–85)

  10 November 1987

  Energy Committee:

  First Report (1986–87)

  20 November 1987

  Foreign Affairs Committee:

  Third Report (1986–87)

  4 December 1987

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  First Report (1987–88)

  14 January 1988

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Second Report (1987–88)

  24 February 1988

  Environment Committee:

  Second Report and Second Special Report (1986–87)

  26 February 1988

  Agriculture Committee:

  First Report (1987–88)

  8 March 1988

  Energy Committee:

  Second Report (1987–88)

  8 March 1988

  Energy Committee:

  First Report (1987–88)

  9 March 1988

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Fourth Report (1987–88)

  26 April 1988

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Third Report (1987–88)

  11 May 1988

  Environment Committee:

  14 June 1988 and

  First Report (1987–88)

  12 July 1988

  Social Services Committee:

  First and Third Reports (1987–88)1

  5 July 1988

  Defence Committee:

  Fourth Report (1987–88)

  7 July 1988

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Fifth Report (1987–88)

  11 July 1988

  Procedure Committee:

  Third Report (1985–86)

  13 July 1988

  Social Services Committee:

  Third Report (1987–88)

  21 July 1988

  Employment Committee:

  First Report (1987–88)

  21 July 1988

  Defence Committee:

  19 and 20 October 1998

  Third, Fifth and Sixth Reports (1987–88)

  Environment Committee:

  28 October and 4

  First Report (1985–86)

  November 1988

  Environment Committee:

  Third Report and Third Special Report (1986–87)

  4 November 1988

  Session 1988–89 (to 17 October 1989)

  Procedure Committee:

  Second Report (1984–85), Second Report (1985–86), First to Fourth Reports (1986–87) and First Report (1987–88)

  30 November 1988

  House of Commons (Services) Committee:

  First Report (1987–88) and Second Report (1986–87)

  2 December 1988

  140

  Date

  Energy Committee:

  Third Report and Third Special Report (1987–88)

  13 December 1988

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  12 January and 9

  First Report (1988–89)

  February 1989

  Social Services Committee:

  Third Report (1986–87)

  13 January 1989

  Education Committee:

  First Report (1988–89)

  18 January 1989

  Home Affairs Committee:

  Third Report and Third Special Report (1987–88)

  8 February 1989

  Environment Committee:

  First Report (1988–89)

  24 February 1989

  Defence Committee:

  Sixth Report (1987–88)

  28 February 1989

  Agriculture Committee:

  First Report (1988–89)

  7 March 1989

  Foreign Affairs Committee:

  Fourth Report (1987–88)

  7 March 1989

  Energy Committee:

  Third Report (1988–89)

  13 April 1989

  Treasury and Civil Service Committee:

  Fourth Report (1988–89)

  25 April 1989

  Social Services Committee:

  Fifth Report (1987–88)

  11 May 1989

  European Legislation Committee:

  First Special Report (1988–89)

  18 May 1989

  Defence Committee:

  First Report (1988–89)

  8 June 1989

  Environment Committee:

  First Report (1986–87) and First Special

  Report (1987–88)

  15 June 1989

  Home Affairs Committee:

  First Report, Third Report and Fourth

  Report (1988–89

  6 July 1989

  Trade and Industry Committee:

  First Report 1988–89)

  6 July 1989

  Energy Committee:

  Fourth Report (1988–89)

  10 July 1989

  Transport Committee:

  First Report and Third Special Report (1988–89)

  10 July 1989

  Foreign Affairs Committee:

  Second Report (1988–89)

  13 July 1989

  European Legislation Committee:

  Thirty-First Report (1988–89)

  25 July 1989

  1 See also 21 July 1988.

  Notes:
  Statistics relating to reports of Select Committees referred to on the Order Paper for Sessions 1965–66 to 1978–79 inclusive are not readily available; the following list therefore only covers Session 1979–80 onwards. Prior to 1979 the practice of "tagging" debates when Select Committee reports were relevant was less frequently used. Practice also changed following the repeal of the Standing Order relating to Business of Supply on 19 July 1982 and its replacement by a new Standing Order relating to Consideration of Estimates, with effect from the following Session. Full information relating to the current Session will appear in the Sessional Return.In addition there have often been debates (notably in respect of procedure, or the working of the House, but also on other matters) where reports of Select Committees have been relevant to, or mentioned in, the debate but have not been referred to on the Order Paper.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Commons pass applications have been received during the summer recess in respect of overseas students working for Members; how many are still awaiting security clearance; what is the average time taken to process such applications.
  141
  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I understand that 42 pass applications were received during the summer recess in respect of Members' temporary research assistants from overseas, 33 of which are still awaiting clearance. In response to the comments made by the Services Committee in paragraph 11 of its second report, 1987–88, and the House's approval of that report on 30 January this year, new procedures have been introduced for the clearance of all overseas nationals applying for Palace of Westminster photo-identity passes. All the sponsoring organisations were warned in writing by the authorities of the House on 20 June that ample time should in future be allowed for the clearance of such applications. They were also told that it was not possible to be precise on how long the procedures would take but that, at least initially, two months should be allowed for the applications to be processed.

  I regret that right hon. and hon. Members may be inconvenienced because the clearances have not yet been received, but the sponsoring organisations failed in the main to heed the warnings they were given. The Pass Office did not receive some of the completed application forms until September. I can assure the House that everything possible is being done to expedite clearance procedures; but timely submission of applications will remain essential if similar inconvenience is to be avoided in future.

  Norman Shaw Buildings
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if, in view of the new security requirement that visitors to the Norman Shaw parliamentary office buildings shall use the Derby gate entrance rather than that from the Embankment, he will arrange with Westminster council, the Metropolitan police and the contractors working on the building adjoining Whitehall, to have this area cleaned and tidied and made more presentable for the reception of visitors.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: The area outside Derby gate is not a matter directly for me. However, I have asked the relevant House authorities to take up the question of its cleanliness and tidyness with Westminister city council and the contractors working on the phase 1 site of the new parliamentary buildings.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the present health and safety standards in the employment training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Health and safety statistics on employment training do not yet enable a close analysis to be undertaken. They will be kept under close review, and adjustments on employment training health and safety arrangements will be made as necessary in the light of emerging experience.

HEALTH

  Rats and Cockroaches
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what urgent measures he is taking to combat dangers to public health posed by rats and cockroaches.

  Mr. Freeman
  Local authorities rather than health authorities are responsible under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 for ensuring, as far as is practicable, that their areas are kept free of rats and mice.

  In respect of food premises, the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970 which are enforced by local authorities, require the prevention, so far as is reasonable practicable, of any risk of infestation by rats, mice or insects.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to protect the public from expensive and unreliable private health check-ups.

  Mr. Freeman
  The General Medical Council is responsible for the maintenance of ethical standards in the medical profession.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the present regulations regarding(a) the establishment and implications of private clinics and (b) controls to ensure that the staff of those clinics are properly qualified for the functions they are called upon to perform.

  Mr. Freeman
  In England and Wales part II of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and its associated regulations require that relevant premises are registered and inspected at least twice a year, that the person in charge is appropriately qualified and that adequate professional. technical, ancillary and other staff are provided. In Scotland the corresponding legislation is the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 and the associated regulations. Neither Act contains powers to control health screening clinics.

  Ambulance Staff
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is for each year since 1974 the number of National Health Service ambulance staff.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is given in the table. Most of the increase shown for ambulance men and women represent qualified staff.

  National Health Service staff in post in England—at 30 September

  each year

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Year

  Ambulance officers and Control assistants

  Ambulancemen/Women

  Total

  19742

  2,722

  13,310

  16,032

  1975

  3,008

  14,489

  17,497

  1976

  3,046

  14,138

  17,184

  1977

  3,130

  14,272

  17,402

  1978

  3,221

  14,301

  17,522

  1979

  3,156

  13,979

  17,129

  1980

  3,214

  14,554

  17,768

  1981

  3,293

  14,928

  18,221

  1982

  3,265

  15,059

  18,324

  143

  Year

  Ambulance officers and Control assistants

  Ambulancemen/Women

  Total

  1983

  3,249

  15,148

  18,397

  1984

  3,174

  14,930

  18,103

  1985

  3,139

  15,049

  18,188

  1986

  3,124

  15,841

  18,966

  1987

  3,037

  15,973

  19,010

  1988

  2,980

  15,781

  18,761

  Source: Department of Health (SHI3) annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  Percentage pay settlement

  Year (1 August to 31 July)

  Ambulance staff1

  Nurses and mid-wives

  Doctors and dentists

  General managers2

  1979–80

  39·0

  37·9

  31·4

  —

  1980–81

  7·3

  6·0

  6·0

  1981–82

  6·0

  —

  6·2

  —

  1982–83

  4·5

  312·3

  9·7

  —

  1983–84

  4·5

  7·5

  6·9

  —

  1984–85

  47·8

  58·6

  6·3

  —

  1985–86

  6·0

  7·8

  7·6

  —

  1986–87

  5·0

  9·5

  7·7

  5·9

  1987–88

  65·4

  17·9

  7·9

  5·0

  1988–89

  —

  6·8

  8·2

  5·5

  1 Figures exclude ambulance officers and control assistants.

  2 Permanent arrangements for the newly created general manager posts were introduced during 1985–86.

  3 Two-year award paid wholly in 1982–83.

  4 Assumes all productivity allowances achieved; move to salaried pay structure 1 March.

  5 Staged award; final part paid with effect from 1 February 1986.

  6 In addition the standard working week was reduced by one hour.

  Under-fives Provision
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) at what intervals the inter-departmental consultative group on provision for under-fives meets;

  (2) if he will list the membership of the inter-departmental group on provision for under-fives.

  Mr. Mellor
  The inter-departmental consultative group meets once a year or more frequently if appropriate.

  The following Government Departments and outside organisations are represented on the group:

  Department of Health

  Department of Education and Science

  Department of Social Security

  Department of Employment

  Department of the Environment

  Ministry of Defence

  Home Office

  Cabinet Office

  Welsh Office

  Scottish Office

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  National Council for Voluntary Child Care Organisations

  Voluntary Organisations Liaisons Council for Under Fives

  Under Fives Unit of the National Children's Bureau

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Representatives of other organisations may be invited if there are relevant agenda items.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  SF(J) Circulars
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the purpose of SF(J) circulars and whether he will place copies of them in the Library.
  144
  1 Figures independently rounded to nearest whole time equivalent.

  2 Due to the effects of the 1974 NHS reorganisation figures for 1974 are not consistent with those for later years.

  NHS (Pay)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is for each year since 1979 the average pay increase for National Health Service(a) ambulance staff, (b) nurses, (c) doctors and (d) health board managers.

  Mr. Mellor
  Average pay settlements are given in the table.

  Mr. Scott
  The main purpose of SF(J) circulars is to provide local office staff with administrative instructions relating to matters of financial control and security. It is therefore not departmental practice to make them publicly available.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young persons in Glasgow have been given community care grants in the past six months; and how many applicants were refused.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not collected.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing for each office of his Department in Glasgow the amount per month disbursed in(a) budget loans and (b) community care grants, in each month since these payments came into operation.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of this expenditure are available in the Library.

  Funerals
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the national average amount paid in social fund funeral grants.

  Mr. Scott
  The average social fund funeral payment for the period April to August 1989 was £525.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Glasgow and (b) the Provan constituency were refused loans by officers of the social fund on the grounds that the applicants lacked sufficient income to repay such loans.

  Mr. Scott
  For the 13 offices in metropolitan Glasgow, during the five-month period ending 30 September 1989, 727 applications for budgeting loans and 100 applications for crisis loans were refused on the grounds of the applicant being unable to repay. This is equivalent to 2·2 per cent. and 0·7 per cent. respectively of the number of applications processed.

  In the Provan local office, there were 43 such refusals for budgeting loans and one for a crisis loan. This is equivalent to 1·1 per cent. and 0·1 per cent. respectively of the number of applications processed.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the constituency of Glasgow, Provan have applied for(a) grants and (b) loans from the social fund since its inception.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about the number of people who make applications to the social fund is not collected.

  Information about the numbers of applications processed is placed in the library.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund applications remained unprocessed in Newham Department of Social Security offices at the end of financial year 1988–89; how many are currently awaiting determination; and what was the underspend at each office in 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is shown in the table. For the financial year to date, each of the offices is on target to make full use of its budget allocations.

  Plaistow ILO:

  Loans allocation remaining at 31 March 1989–13·3 per cent.

  Grants allocation remaining at 31 March 1989–38·8 per cent.

  Applications unprocessed at 31 March 1989

  Applications unprocessed at 30 September 1989

  Budgeting loans

  69

  68

  Crisis loans

  5

  13

  Community Care Grants

  26

  5

  Woodgrange Park ILO:

  Loans allocation remaining at 31 March 1989–18·6 per cent.

  Grants allocation remaining at 31 March 1989–32·8 per cent.

  Applications unprocessed at 31 March 1989

  Applications unprocessed at 30 September 1989

  Budgeting loans

  65

  87

  Crisis loans

  0

  2

  Community Care Grants

  21

  15

  Canning Town ILO:

  Loans allocation remaining at 31 March 1989–8·6 per cent.

  Grants allocation remaining at 31 March 1989–38·6 per cent.

  Applications unprocessed at 31 March 1989

  Applications unprocessed at 30 September 1989

  Budgeting loans

  75

  60

  Crisis loans

  8

  3

  Community Care Grants

  0

  15

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  European Community
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet his French opposite number to discuss European Community matters.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs expects to meet Mr. Dumas again at the Foreign Affairs Council on 6–7 November.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific judicial procedures will be used after July 1997 to resolve any disputes between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China over the implementation or interpretation of the joint agreement on the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Sino-British joint declaration is an internationally binding agreement registered by both Governments with the United Nations. The primary means for discussing the implementation of the joint declaration, and for solving differences, is the Joint Liaison Group which will continue in being until the year 2000. The joint declaration stipulates that matters on which there is disagreement in the Joint Liaison Group shall be referred to the two Governments for solution through consultations. Should disputes nevertheless arise between the Governments, it would be open to the British Government of the day to make use of any channels, or judicial procedures, which might be available and appropriate in the circumstances.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many regional treaties similar to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are now in existence; and which regions do they cover.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are two other major regional treaties. The American convention on human rights entered into force in 1978 and is interpreted and applied by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and (in the case of those States Parties which have recognised its jurisdiction) the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. States parties to the convention are from the Latin American and Caribbean regions. The African charter on human and peoples' rights came into force in 1986 and is interpreted and applied by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. It is open to members of the Organisation of African Unity.

  Civil and Political Rights
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present status of the optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Nations General Assembly adopted the optional protocol to the international
  147
  covenant on civil and political rights on 16 December 1966. It was opened for signature on 19 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976. As at 1 August 1989, 45 states had ratified or acceded to the optional protocol.

  International Court of Justice
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who are the present members and what is their nationality, of the International Court of Justice; what salaries they are paid; what is the total cost of servicing the court; and if he will estimate the United Kingdom share of contribution to that expenditure.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The present members of the International Court of Justice are:

  José Maria Ruda (Argentina)

  Kéba Mbaye (Senegal)

  Manfred Lachs (Poland)

  Taslim Olawale Elias (Nigeria)

  Shigeru Oda (Japan)

  Roberto Ago (Italy)

  Stephen M. Schwebel (USA)

  Sir Robert Jennings (United Kingdom)

  Mohammed Bedjaoui (Algeria)

  Ni Zhengyu (China)

  Jens Evensen (Norway)

  Nikolai K. Tarassov (USSR)

  Gilbert Guillaume (France)

  Mohammed Shahabuddeen (Guyana)

  Raghunandan Swarup Pathak (India)

  The annual salary of each judge is US $82,000. The budget of the ICJ for the biennium 1988–89 is US $13,250,800.

  The United Kingdom pays $643,989 of this.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's ambassador last met members of the Commission for Human Rights of Guatemala, and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Her Majesty's ambassador has not received any request to meet members of the commission. Its leaders are not resident in Guatemala. Two of them met FCO officials in London in March 1989. They discussed the human rights situation in Guatemala.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations concerning violations of human rights to the Government of Guatemala.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs expressed to Guatemalan Ministers concern about the human rights situation in Guatemala during his visit there in March 1989. The Guatemalan Government are aware, from more recent contacts, of our continuing concern.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the sale by tender by the Hong Kong authorities of confiscated items permitted for commercial trade under the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species; what items were sold; to whom they were sold; and what amount was raised in each case.
  148
  Mr. Maude
  There has been no sale by tender of confiscated items permitted for commercial trade under CITES since February 1988. A sale by tender, planned for January 1989, was cancelled.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current estimate of elephant ivory held by the Hong Kong authorities as a result of seizures and detentions.

  Mr. Maude
  Two thousand one hundred and ninety-two kilogrammes of ivory are held by the Hong Kong authorities as a result of seizures and detentions.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current estimate of elephant ivory held in Hong Kong; and what proposals are being considered for its disposal.

  Mr. Maude
  The current estimated stock of elephant ivory in Hong Kong is 670 tonnes, consisting of 500 tonnes of raw and 170 tonnes of worked ivory. It is privately owned in Hong Kong. Its disposal is currently under consideration at the CITES conference.

  Whale Meat
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the country of origin of the 0·4 kg of whale meat seized in Hong Kong restaurant raids during the first six months of 1989.

  Mr. Maude
  The 0·4 kg of whale meat seized was claimed to have been imported from Japan.

  Select Committee Report
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to respond to the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Overseas Development Administration Expenditure 1989–90.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government's response to the Select Committee report will be published today in the form of a Command Paper.

  Boat People
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the Government have made towards the cost of providing emergency accommodation for the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have contributed £ 4·5 million for this purpose. Parliamentary approval for this new service will be sought in a supplementary supply estimate for the vote for other external relations (class II, vote 2). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure of £ 4·5 million was met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund in August.

  Poland
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision the Government is making to provide money following the Prime Minister's announcement of the creation of a "know how" fund for Poland.
  149
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The £ 25 million as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to be given over a period of five years. We estimate that the immediate costs of providing the type of training and advice the know how fund was created for will be £ 1·3 million. Parliamentary approval for these services will be sought in a supplementary supply estimate for the vote for other external relations (class II, vote 2). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure of £ 1·3 million is to be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  The know how fund is now getting into full swing, with more than 40 projects agreed or in the pipeline. These range from a seminar for Parliamentarians and training attachments for journalists to a conference on privatisation and a series of management training projects. At the same time the ground work is being laid for more wide-ranging assistance in the banking, financial services and industrial sectors. We believe that assistance of this kind will play a crucial role in the development of democracy and a market economy in Poland.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 3 October.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and my noble Friend the Minister for Trade represented the United Kingdom at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 3 October.

  The Council adopted the television broadcasting directive under the qualified majority voting procedure, the United Kingdom voting in favour. By providing a framework of common rules to remove barriers to trade and protect the consumer, the directive will encourage the development of cross-border broadcasting in the Community.

  On the basis of proposals by the Commission, the Council discussed possible measures of assistance to Poland and Hungary, and agreed that the Commission's proposals represented an excellent basis for further action. Many of them closely reflect earlier United Kingdom suggestions. The Council encouraged the Commission to pursue its efforts both on the Community level and with other western countries. We will continue to play a leading part.

  The Council also discussed the Community's trade relations with the United States, and Japan.

  In the belief that the Community should respond swiftly to recent developments in Beirut, the Foreign Affairs Council ageeed a 25 mecu package of assistance aimed at rehabilitating essential services in the Lebanon (health, education, water and power supplies).

  The Foreign Affairs Council took note of a draft negotiating mandate put forward by the Commission for a second stage agreement between the Community and the Gulf Co-operation Council and remitted it for detailed consideration.

  The Council reviewed progress in the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention and discussed preparations for the next ACP/EC ministerial negotiating meeting on 27–29 October.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Land
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has any plans to amend the advice contained in planning policy guidance note PPG3 "Land for Housing" to enable local authorities to make an allowance in advance for sites of over 0·4 hectares in their housing land availability studies; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will issue advice to local authorities to encourage them to monitor the supply of housing built on land not previously identified as suitable for building, including on sites exceeding 0·4 hectares in size; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to support those local authorities on appeal who have refused planning permission for housing on allocated land where the supply of housing on unidentified sites is likely to breach structure plan guidelines; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will take steps to discourage the allocation of further housebuilding land in areas where the supply of housing on previously unidentified sites over 0·4 hectares is so large that building is likely to exceed the level agreed through the structure plan process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Revised draft guidance on land for housing, which is intended to replace the present planning policy guidance note 3, was issued for consultation on 4 October; I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. Comments are invited by 5 January 1990.

  The draft guidance continues to stress the need for adequate planned provision for new housing; but it proposes changes to the method by which planning authorities carry out their regular assessments of land availability which would enable them to make fuller allowance for the emergence of previously unidentified sites where that is justified by evidence of past land supply. The draft also recognises that the emergence of large unidentified sites may have a bearing on the timing of the release of other land, for instance where the development plan includes a phasing policy.

  The draft makes it clear that where there is an up-to-date local plan which is consistent with national and regional policies and with the relevant provisions of the structure plan, it will carry considerable weight, and my right hon. Friend and his inspectors will be guided by it in dealing with planning appeals.

  Rural Development Commission
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to expand the Rural Development Commission to include the initiation of environmental protection schemes in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no plans of this nature. The task of the Rural Development Commission is. to help maintain a thriving and attractive countryside in England by promoting enterprise and viable communities.

  London Docklands (Wind Tunnel Tests)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place a copy of the wind tunnel tests on the model of the buildings at Canary wharf on the Isle of Dogs in the Library.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A copy of the relevant material has been placed in the Library.

  Seals (Deaths)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission an assessment of the report by Professors Brouwfr, Koeman and Reijndfrs of the Agricultural University of Wagenngen, released in August, concerning the link between PCB pollution and seals' deaths in the North sea.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As far as I am aware, no copies of this report have yet been received by United Kingdom Government Departments. We will look at any report on this topic with interest, although the indications so far are that pollution played no significant part in the spread of the seal virus along United Kingdom coast in 1988. The research funded by this Department at the sea mammal research unit of the Natural Environment Research Council on possible links between pollutants and seals' immune system is continuing and relevant work in all North sea states will continue to be reviewed by the International Commission for the Exploration of the Seas.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all studies and research conducted or analysed by his Department regarding the treatment of toxic waste and its impact upon the health of people and the environment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of the Environment has since the early seventies sponsored research and worldwide studies into the treatment of toxic waste and its impact on the environment. All such references numbering some thousands are stored on computer at the waste management information bureau in Harwell. Impact on the health of people is the responsibility of the Department of Health.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking in order to give statutory rights of consultation to communities affected by the installation and operation of plants dealing with treatment of toxic waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Current planning legislation in England and Wales requires that planning applications for plants handling controlled waste are advertised on site and in the local press. Adequate time must be allowed for representations. The disposal facility's licence must also be placed on a register open for public inspection.

  The proposed new system for integrated pollution control in England and Wales will apply to industrial processes which among other things generate large amounts of special (dangerous or difficult) waste. Applications for authorisation under the system would be advertised and there would be third party rights to make representations about them.
  152
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will publish the information it has available on(a) health (b) the safety and (c) the environmental effects of substances which are (i) involved or (ii) produced by the process of incineration of toxic waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health, safety and environ-mental aspects of substances in or produced by the process of incineration of toxic waste are covered by standard textbooks and publications freely available. We monitor the adequacy of such publications and attempt to fill important gaps. For example, we have recently published a report "Dioxins in the Environment" (pollution paper No. 27).

  NCC Offices (Repair and Redecoration)
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of repairing and redecorating the Nature Conservancy Council offices in Hope street, Edinburgh; and how many rooms were repainted in the building, how many times and at what cost.

  Mr. Trippier
  The headquarters of the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland were recently repaired and redecorated to meet the needs of the existing council's increased staff and responsibilities, and to comply with current fire regulations. The final account for the work has not yet been submitted, but is expected to be in the region of £ 580,000.

  This was the first major refurbishment of the NCC's Scottish HQ since the council occupied Hope terrace in 1949. As part of the programme, all 98 rooms were decorated. I understand that the staircase, landing and one office in the main building had to be repainted below the dado in order to meet the contract specification. This work was carried out within the overall contract price.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing his estimate of the amount of transitional relief to be paid in each local authority area in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have made no estimate of the amount of transitional relief to be paid in each local authority area in 1990–91. I estimate that about £ 300 million will be paid to chargepayers in England in 1990–91.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he had before 11 October with the computer industry about the feasibility of his proposals for transitional relief.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Our assessment of the feasibility of the proposals was based on the Department's knowledge of the computing arrangements for implementing the community charge, but it was necessary to wait until the scheme was announced before discussion of the specific proposals could begin. The present discussions with representatives of the computer industry will be fully taken into account in finalising the details of the scheme.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of persons in each local authority area who will benefit from the proposed transitional relief.
  153
  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have made no estimate of the number of people in each local authority area who will benefit from transitional relief. I estimate that of the order of 6 million adults in England will benefit from transitional relief.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to monitor the implementation of(a) poll tax and (b) transitional relief; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of local authorities' present progress in setting up poll tax with particular reference to problems of interfacing poll tax soft ware with rebates software.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Throughout the past year, Ministers and officials have been pursuing a programme of visits to charging authorities. Authorities were asked to provide a report of their plans at the beginning of the year and a questionnaire about progress with preparations was sent to authorities in May. A report based on the response will be placed in the Library shortly. In general authorities appear to be making good progress with implementation, including with their computing arrangements.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether community charge bills for persons benefiting from transitional relief will be required to show(a) 1990–91 community charge for spending in line with government assumptions (national community charge), (b) 1990–91 community charge for spending in line with standard spending assessment and (c) 1990–91 community charge actually levied by the charging authority.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We shall be consulting very shortly the local authority associations and local authorities on the form of the community charge bill.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether community charge registration officers will be permitted to demand information as to whether poll tax payers are pensioners or disabled for the purposes of administering transitional relief.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  No. The administration of transitional relief will be a function of the charging authority, not the registration officer.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy to discuss the feasibility of his proposals for transitional relief with the Audit Commission in order to gauge the effect of his proposals on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of local authority financial administration.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Yes.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the criteria to be used in defining a couple for the purpose of operating the community charge transitional relief scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the criteria to be used in defining a person as disabled for the purpose of making an application under the community charge transitional relief scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the community charge transitional 154
  relief entitlements of those people hitherto exempt from poll tax discharged after 1 April 1990 from residential homes and hospitals and hitherto in order to be cared For in the community.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the community charge transitional relief entitlements of those people who move house after 1 April 1990(a) within their existing local authority area and (b) to another local authority area.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been given to general practitioners about the definition of severe mental impairment for the purposes of exemptions from poll tax.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his proposals for transitional relief for two person households will apply exclusively to husbands and wives and to persons of different sex living together as husband and wife.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: The Government have issued a consultation document on community charge transitional relief, a copy of which has been placed in the library. Consultations are now taking place with the local authority associations and full details of the scheme will be published as soon as possible.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement listing(a) all those degenerative conditions which can now be assessed for the purpose of granting community charge exemptions, (b) the procedures to be followed for assessment and (c) the advice to be issued on this matter to community charge registration officers and general practitioners.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: It is intended to amend the provisions of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to add attendance allowance and constant attendance allowance to the list of benefits in sub-paragraph (2). The definitions in sub-paragraph (3) will also be amended to remove the provisions limiting the exemption to those whose development of mind is arrested or incomplete, or who have suffered an injury to the brain. It will still be necessary for a registered medical practitioner to state that the individual is severely mentally impaired. Advice to registration officers and general practitioners will be issued as soon as possible.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the extent of his discussions with representatives of local government on the operation of the community charge transitional relief scheme before announcing the new scheme on 11 October.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: The announcement on 11 October was made first to Parliament. Discussions were held with local authority representatives immediately afterwards. Further discussions on the operational aspects of the scheme will take place shortly.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each charging authority the safety-netted community charge for 1990–91 assuming a service distribution based on 1989–90 budgets and total spending of £ 32·8 billion.
  155
  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: This information is not at present available.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the likely effects of the new community charge transitional relief scheme on(a) the total amount of community charge benefit to be paid in 1990–91, (b) the numbers of people who will be eligible for benefit and (c) the savings which will result in 1990–91 from calculating benefit after relief has been given.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security who is responsible for community charge benefit, will write to the hon. Member in due course about the effect of the community charge transitional relief scheme on expen-diture on community charge benefit.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his best estimate of the costs of administering the community charge transitional relief scheme in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: My officials are discussing the costs of setting up and administering transitional relief with the local authority associations. Estimates will be made in the light of these discussions and an urgent study by consultants of the likely costs. It is the Government's intention that a reasonable level of costs will be met in full.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his announced proposals for tax on products which damage the environment will include polluted drinking water and waters which adversely affect wild-life.

  Mr. Howard
  Careful consideration including consultation documents on particular cost recovery charging systems, is being given to the possible use of charges of various kinds to improve the efficiency of our environmental protection policies. Proposals for specifying charges have not so far been developed, but the philosophy underlying their use has been set out in the report produced by Professor Pearce of London university and my officials are currently reviewing the use of charges and other instruments in a number of other industrialised countries.

  London Docklands Development Corporation (House Sales)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many homes were sold on London Docklands Development Corporation land in 1988; and if he will give details of the numbers in each price range;

  (2) what was the medium price pact for new homes on land owned by the London Docklands Development Corporation in 1988.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not immediately available in the form requested. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Downing Street (Railings)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any proposals are being considered for the erection of railings at either end of Downing street; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Plans are in hand to erect demountable railings at the eastern end of Downing street to replace the existing unsightly barrier. Plans were approved by Westminster City Council on 28 September.

  CITES Meeting
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species meeting in Lausanne.

  Mr. Trippier
  The time for a full statement will be after the Conference is concluded at the end of this week. In the meantime, however, we very much welcome the decisive votes in favour of transferring the African elephant to appendix I and so banning trade in ivory.

  Song Thrashes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what efforts have been made by Her Majesty's Government to secure an end to the killing of song thrushes in France; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds requires all member states to protect migratory and other birds, including song thrushes. It is for member states to introduce their own legislation implementing the directive, and to ensure that it is applied effectively.

  The Government fully support the directive and its enforcement. It is primarily the responsibility of the EC Commission to monitor that adequate measures have been taken by each member state to comply with the terms of the directive. A dispute over these matters may be settled by the European Court of Justice.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the ivory imported from Zaire without licence by Mr. Shivaz Virji of Ealing, London.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information held by the Department is part of an application for a CITES re-export licence. Information contained in licence applications is regarded by the Department as confidential and cannot be released.

  Crown Suppliers (Privatisation)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Samuel Montagu and Co. Ltd., who are advising the Government on the sale, are today writing to all organisations and buy out teams which have expressed an interest and to other major firms in the contract furnishing, vehicle hire and document delivery
  157
  sectors. These organisations, and any others which subsequently express interest, will be given the opportunity to be considered for selection for the list of those invited to bid.

  Homelessness (Legislation)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his review of homeless persons legislation; and when he expects to bring forward amendments to the Homeless Persons Act 1977.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is reviewing the homelessness legislation and hopes to announce conclusions shortly.

  Road Schemes (Newham)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will tabulate the capital cost of each of the authorised road schemes completed or programmed within the area of the London Docklands development corporation in the London borough of Newham and for each state the date of actual or expected completion and his estimation of the annual cost of maintenance to a named highway authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: I will write to the hon. Member.

SCOTLAND

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Scotland's motorways and rural carriageways are still without crash barriers; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Subsequent to my answering a similar question from the hon. Member on 5 July, I am pleased to announce that I have allocated a further £2·23 million to the provision of central reserve safety fencing on Scotland's trunk roads. The total expenditure is now expected to be some £3·5 million during this financial year. This will allow for the provision of approximately 29km of safety fencing on trunk road motorways and 24km on trunk road dual carriageways.

  By the end of this financial year, some 57 per cent. of trunk road motorways and 61 per cent. of trunk road dual carriageways will be without central reserve safety barriers.

  CBI
  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Scotland to discuss the economic situation in Scotland with the Confederation of British Industry.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell).

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Confederation of British Industry to discuss the Scottish economy.
  158
  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell).

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many drinking water supplies in Scotland will not meet the Economic Community water directive by 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Of all the public water supplies in Scotland present information indicates that 102 will not comply with all of the 66 parameters of the EC drinking water directive by the beginning of 1991.

  The majority of those which will not comply with the EC directive by 1991 are in Strathclyde and Highland regions and about half of them are small rural supplies.

  Devolution
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish businessmen about devolution and independence.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish business community on constitutional matters.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from business leaders about devolution or independence.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from businessmen about devolution and self-rule.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from industrialists about devolution.

  Mr. Lang
  I have received no such representations recently, but there is evidence among top companies in Scotland of real concern at the detrimental consequences that would arise from constitutional change.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland about devolution.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have not received any representations from the CBI. I am, however, aware of the findings of a research study by the Scottish Business Insider magazine which showed that there is serious concern among top companies in Scotland at the detrimental effect on the Scottish economy which constitutional change in Scotland would bring.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what attempts he has made to quantify the effects of the industrial action taken by NALGO on the implementation and collection of the poll tax in Scotland; and what action he has taken as a consequence.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The responsibility for collecting the community charges lies with local authorities.
  159
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the numbers of people who have failed to pay the poll tax and who have had served on them notices that the whole year's tax is due.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The responsibility for collecting community charges and for the recovery of arrears lies with local authorities. Information on the number of people against whom action is being taken to collect arrears is not held centrally. Indications are, however, that very good progress in collection is being made, with over 90 per cent. having paid in some areas.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the number of people in Scotland who have not yet paid at least the first instalment of the poll tax.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities have reported good progress in the collection of the community charge with over 90 per cent. of payers having paid in some areas. This is very encouraging given that the community charge is a completely new tax with many more people paying it than paid domestic rates. I am confident that payment levels will continue to rise as local authorities issue their reminder letters.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will change the calculation of the revenue support grant from his Department to local authorities to assume no multiplier on the standard community charge.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I will consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities shortly, in the usual way, on proposals for distributing revenue support grant for next year.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has undertaken as part of policy formulation for community care in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care was drawn to the attention of local authorities and health boards when it was published and a wide range of representations was received from them and from the voluntary sector. Since my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on 12 July 1989, I have had a meeting with the social work committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Further consultation with local authority, voluntary and private sector interests will take place as appropriate.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the provision of community care in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I met representatives of the Convention's social work committee on 8 September 1989 to discuss the Government's proposals for the provision of community care. It was a constructive meeting at which it was agreed that further consultation would take place as appropriate.

  Nirex
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the managing director of Nirex; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.
  160
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and the Secretary of State for the Environment met the managing director and other officials of the executive on 15 March 1989 to discuss their report on sites for investigation for the deep disposal of low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Scottish Homes; and what matters were discussed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I met Sir James Mellon, chairman of Scottish Homes, and board members on 4 September. Our discussions covered the range of functions and responsibilities of Scottish Homes.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new houses Scottish Homes expects to complete in 1989 and 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes assumed its full powers on 1 April 1989, when it also took over the responsibilities of its predecessor bodies. The figures for housing completions below relate to the first two full years of Scottish Homes' operations. The enabling programme is the housing association programme funded by Scottish Homes and the completion figures include housing totally rehabilitated by associations.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Enabling programme

  3,500

  5,950

  Own stock programme

  550

  310

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the processing and catching sectors of the Scottish fishing industry about the state of the industry and its current financial difficulties.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of recent representations from various interests about the current state of the industry. My noble Friend Lord Sanderson, as the Minister responsible, is in regular contact with all sections of the industry.

  Constitutional Convention
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is willing to take steps to allow regional, district and island councils to contribute towards the funds of the Scottish Constitutional Convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have already written to the hon. Member about this matter and have nothing to add.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider the decision not to allow new town development corporations' tenants a choice of landlord on the dissolution of the new towns.
  161
  Mr. Lang
  No such decision has been taken. The Government's White Paper (Command 711) states at paragraph 5.10 that the position in each town will be carefully considered once an order for dissolution has been made, and formal consultations will be held with the development corporations, district councils and representative tenant groups to review the position and to determine to what extent transfers might take place, be it to housing associations, co-operatives, district councils, private or other landlords. Those tenants who have not transferred to other landlords will be transferred to Scottish Homes at wind-up, with a view to pursuing further diversification with the small residual number of houses.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen of the new town development corporations; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairmen of the Scottish new town development corporations on 2 December 1988. A range of matters concerning the new towns was discussed.

  British Summer Time
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish local authorities on the question of British summer time; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The Government presented three options, including continuation of the present arrangements, in the Green Paper "Summer Time: A Consultation Document" (Cm 722). We shall study the responses received, including that of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, before reaching conclusions.

  Scottish Trades Union Congress
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for meeting the Scottish Trades Union Congress; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to meet the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 10 November to discuss matters affecting the Scottish economy.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which overseas countries he visited on official business during the parliamentary recess.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I paid official visits in Japan, New Zealand, Australia and Thailand.

  In Japan I visited 15 companies and held meetings with the Japanese Government and with business men in Tokyo and Osaka. I was encouraged by the positive approach which companies took towards Scotland as a location for European manufacturing, and was able to announce an investment by Seiko in Livingston and an expansion of JVC's activities in East Kilbride. The links between Japan and Scotland will be further strengthened by the Japanese Government's decision to establish a consulate-general in Edinburgh, and by the Japan External Trade Organisation's proposal to set up an office in Scotland.
  162
  My meetings with Government and business men in New Zealand and Australia built on the continuing strength of Scotland's relations with both countries and provided opportunities to encourage trade and pursue inward investment.

  During my brief stopover in Thailand I had a useful meeting with the Thai Minister of Finance about the problem of counterfeit Scotch whisky.

  Transport
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to visit Prestwick international airport to discuss transport matters.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. arid learned Friend has no plans to do so at present.

  Pollution (Moray Firth)
  Sir Russel Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding pollution in the Moray firth: and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Thirteen representations have been received in the last five years about pollution from the present unsatisfactory sewage outfall at Inverness, and two about the outfall at Nairn.

  Fourteen representations were received in connection with Highland regional council's application to the Highland river purification board for consent to discharge screened sewage effluent from the proposed Inverness main drainage scheme long sea outfall. After the issue of consent, a further 10 representations, five of which were from previous correspondents, were received about the effects of the proposed discharge.

  Highland regional council's notice of intention to develop for a headworks building generated 51 representations about the effects of the scheme. My right hon. and learned Friend directed Highland regional council on 19 May to prepare an environmental statement. When this is received further consideration will be given to the application.

  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland received one representation from local fishermen opposed to the construction of the outfall.

  Cornton Vale Women's Prison
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last visited Cornton Vale women's prison; and what proposals for changes he has arising from that visit.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend last visited HM institution Cornton Vale. on 10 April 1980 when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

  Economy (Lanarkshire)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency to discuss the Lanarkshire economy.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to meet the agency chairman.

  Development Agency
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total expenditure by the Scottish Development Agency since May 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  During the period from May 1979 to 30 September 1989, the Scottish Development Agency spent a total of £ 1,261 million.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money will be allocated to Scottish local authorities in 1990–91 in order to deal with the shortage of publicly provided respite care.

  Mr. Lang
  The allocation of expenditure to particular services is a matter of local authorities. The aggregate exchequer grant for 1990–91, announced by my right hon. and learned Friend on 26 July, provides for a 9·7 per cent. increase over that for 1989–90. This affords authorities the scope to increase expenditure on the provision of particular services, including, for instance, respite care, in the light of their view of priorities.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Greater Glasgow health board; what subjects were discussed; and when he intends to meet them again.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend met Greater Glasgow health board representatives in March 1989, when he opened a new 90-bed unit at Woodilee hospital and heard of plans for further improvement to mental illness services. He has no plans for further meetings with the board in the near future.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what outside management consultant groups have been employed by Greater Glasgow health board in each of the past five years; and at what cost.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The names of individual management consultancy groups employed by Greater Glasgow health board are not held centrally.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will report on progress towards(a) upgrading of the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry service between Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin and (b) the provision of a bridge to Skye; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following the recent discussions I have had with Highland regional council, I believe that private funding could provide the way forward for the provision of a bridge in the near future. It is, however, for Highland regional council to decide whether to take the project forward. I have indicated to it that it would receive the support of my officials in the Scottish Development Department in the practical processes involved should it determine to go ahead. I look forward to learning of its decision in due course.

  I am aware of the pressures on the existing ferry service to Skye in the face of the increasing traffic demands. A
  164
  decision on the bridge is, however, essential before a full assessment of the economic case for replacement ferries can be undertaken.

  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Highlands and Islands development board; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of the Highlands and Islands development board at a meeting of the Scottish Economic Council held on 5 May in Edinburgh where general matters relating to the Highlands and Islands were discussed.

  Gynaecological Unit, Moray
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on option appraisals for the establishment of a specialist obstetric, maternity and gynaecological unit in Moray; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Grampian health board is presently carrying out the option appraisal exercise and expects to be in a position to report to the Scottish Home and Health Department in December.

  Inverclyde Enterprise Zone
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of the Scottish Development Agency; and whether the Inverclyde enterprise zone was discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chief executive of the Scottish Development Agency to discuss the Inverclyde enterprise zone at the launch of the zone on 3 March 1989.

  Legal Aid (Tenants)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been received in 1988–89 for legal aid in order that a tenant may raise an action against a district council landlord.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available.

  Flat-roofed Houses
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many flat-roofed houses have been demolished in the public sector in each of the past 15 years; and how many of these were constructed after 1960;

  (2) how many flat-roofed houses in the public sector have been converted to pitched roofs in each of the past 15 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many housing co-operatives have been formed by district councils in the past 12 months; and what do these represent as a percentage of total district council stock.
  165
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on housing co-operatives formed by district councils in the last 12 months is not held centrally.

  Rent Officers
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many rent officers are employed at each office of the Rent Registration service.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At 30 September 1989, the number of rent officers (including senior rent officers) employed at each office of the rent registration service was:

  Number

  Aberdeen

  4

  Dundee

  13

  Edinburgh

  9

  Glasgow

  220

  1 Plus one vacancy to be filled.

  2 Of whom one is located in Motherwell.

  Television Festival
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representatives of his Department attended sessions of the Edinburgh international television festival.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department was not represented.

  Rent Assessment Committees
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times rent assessment committees have sat in the past 12 months.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  One hundred and forty seven rent assessment committees were appointed to deal with over 700 appeals under the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 between 1 October 1988 and 30 September 1989.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the names and show the occupations of members of the panel from which rent assessment committees are formed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A list of the members of the rent assessment panel for Scotland is held in the House

  Local Authority completions 1977–88

  District

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Scotland

  9,119

  6,686

  4,755

  5,048

  3,770

  2,342

  2,311

  2,120

  1,989

  1,733

  1,710

  1,933

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  31

  45

  14

  11

  29

  —

  —

  27

  16

  22

  17

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  41

  100

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roxburgh

  230

  109

  4

  12

  —

  51

  45

  43

  8

  8

  4

  28

  Tweeddale

  10

  30

  —

  56

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  54

  Central

  Clackmannan

  13

  18

  155

  132

  —

  —

  —

  1

  23

  30

  —

  35

  Falkirk

  213

  21

  —

  23

  54

  66

  20

  78

  147

  56

  74

  —

  Stirling

  21

  91

  9

  42

  168

  8

  18

  37

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  132

  226

  100

  224

  173

  86

  160

  158

  85

  38

  35

  17

  Nithsdale

  62

  44

  129

  78

  49

  18

  27

  6

  70

  80

  66

  74

  Stewartry

  37

  61

  74

  51

  49

  42

  44

  41

  23

  34

  40

  10

  Wigtown

  77

  48

  32

  77

  34

  120

  20

  86

  —

  40

  20

  26

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  433

  74

  110

  129

  —

  83

  89

  26

  58

  60

  178

  132

  Kirkcaldy

  220

  135

  123

  44

  54

  63

  15

  113

  101

  91

  131

  172

  North East Fife

  51

  121

  198

  127

  121

  41

  142

  70

  14

  48

  65

  17

  166
  of Commons Library. The membership comprises three groups: chairmen (who are lawyers), valuers (who are chartered surveyors), and lay members. Information on the occupations of the lay members is not held centrally.

  Each rent assessment committee normally consists of a lawyer, a valuer and a lay member.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the basis of remuneration of members of rent assessment committees.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Members receive a fee on each occasion they sit on a rent assessment committee or carry out other work in their capacity as members of the rent assessment panel for Scotland.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on rent assessment committee work in the year 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figure is £97,000.

  Drugs (Eviction)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will amend the Housing Acts so that a person found guilty by due process of dealing in drugs can be evicted from a secure or assured tenancy within one month of conviction.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have no proposals to amend the current housing legislation, which already provides that landlords may seek to evict tenants causing a nuisance or annoyance in or within the vicinity of their homes.

  Housing
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of new housing completions by district councils in the period 1977 to 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  167

  District

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  921

  754

  430

  518

  372

  134

  47

  117

  178

  45

  93

  136

  Banff and Buchan

  697

  418

  175

  220

  227

  99

  128

  116

  154

  48

  67

  60

  Gordon

  108

  89

  35

  —

  4

  85

  199

  108

  89

  44

  171

  9

  Kincardine and Deeside

  81

  76

  56

  4

  53

  35

  60

  54

  22

  175

  41

  105

  Moray

  477

  64

  87

  567

  111

  156

  139

  85

  75

  100

  34

  169

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  74

  —

  24

  49

  20

  54

  38

  16

  16

  —

  13

  —

  Caithness

  52

  127

  54

  68

  40

  —

  55

  20

  14

  23

  29

  24

  Inverness

  97

  198

  38

  124

  68

  25

  115

  90

  10

  136

  32

  59

  Lochaber

  —

  30

  57

  102

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nairn

  70

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  24

  22

  —

  Ross and Cromarty

  365

  200

  89

  64

  96

  48

  31

  65

  8

  38

  46

  26

  Skye and Lochalsh

  49

  18

  11

  46

  9

  13

  —

  10

  14

  46

  8

  25

  Sutherland

  61

  44

  13

  27

  13

  22

  27

  22

  15

  10

  33

  34

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  118

  79

  46

  18

  30

  45

  92

  25

  91

  65

  14

  66

  Edinburgh

  167

  84

  199

  —

  117

  49

  8

  —

  —

  —

  63

  87

  Midlothian

  47

  5

  —

  47

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  14

  —

  West Lothian

  —

  51

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  8

  76

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  211

  64

  110

  126

  68

  60

  33

  76

  17

  —

  12

  71

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  —

  33

  36

  67

  27

  56

  12

  —

  16

  —

  35

  6

  Clydebank

  55

  21

  —

  63

  73

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clydesdale

  63

  6

  53

  32

  49

  18

  20

  18

  —

  30

  —

  24

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  27

  10

  35

  54

  3

  —

  16

  8

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  78

  133

  26

  47

  43

  6

  —

  14

  —

  2

  6

  2

  Cunninghame

  162

  123

  102

  68

  90

  45

  85

  44

  54

  34

  —

  55

  Dumbarton

  26

  15

  6

  39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  18

  18

  East Kilbride

  —

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastwood

  47

  17

  —

  25

  3

  14

  —

  —

  37

  40

  14

  31

  Glasgow

  1,733

  1,430

  615

  385

  558

  161

  63

  —

  140

  58

  —

  —

  Hamilton

  146

  127

  55

  166

  42

  78

  122

  46

  44

  39

  8

  53

  Inverclyde

  153

  184

  4

  8

  —

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  64

  —

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  80

  52

  101

  62

  27

  —

  —

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kyle and Carrick

  109

  58

  136

  119

  56

  17

  91

  35

  71

  28

  47

  37

  Monklands

  34

  85

  61

  37

  53

  —

  11

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motherwell

  389

  134

  167

  173

  104

  50

  —

  —

  —

  36

  —

  —

  Renfrew

  84

  46

  65

  122

  113

  179

  34

  135

  19

  10

  64

  27

  Strathkelvin

  25

  173

  254

  —

  40

  —

  6

  13

  6

  24

  7

  —

  Tayside

  Angus

  81

  78

  58

  40

  —

  12

  34

  34

  41

  84

  40

  78

  Dundee

  128

  84

  221

  82

  163

  55

  80

  5

  57

  —

  —

  5

  Perth and Kinross

  122

  117

  150

  273

  149

  71

  75

  105

  144

  21

  —

  —

  Islands Councils

  Orkney Islands

  176

  24

  34

  25

  26

  18

  43

  16

  6

  6

  12

  41

  Shetland Islands

  147

  97

  55

  121

  81

  31

  43

  25

  33

  20

  20

  30

  Western Isles

  88

  134

  115

  54

  93

  90

  22

  32

  46

  20

  33

  14

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total incurred per house in each year from 1979 to 1988 in loan charges debt redemption, interest and expenses for the four city district councils.

  Loan charges per council house (£)

  Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Aberdeen

  Debt redemption

  43·94

  50·29

  55·98

  63·08

  69·66

  81·45

  84·22

  90·62

  100·34

  114·67

  Interest charges

  392·19

  465·83

  470·54

  448·83

  416·07

  425·39

  449·30

  425·57

  432·40

  462·82

  Loan fund expenses

  1·78

  2·15

  3·38

  3·03

  2·56

  2·29

  2·63

  1·89

  3·41

  2·03

  Dundee

  Debt redemption

  38·98

  42·33

  46·92

  50·04

  58·68

  68·64

  79·24

  94·63

  123·99

  179·51

  Interest charges

  282·21

  322·15

  324·92

  325·80

  312·10

  317·21

  338·15

  322·74

  331·78

  368·08

  Loan fund expenses

  0·74

  0·91

  1·49

  1·42

  2·06

  1·82

  2·25

  2·13

  2·84

  2·21

  168
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Loan charges paid by district councils relate to capital borrowing for various purposes, some of which are not associated with capital expenditure on housing. Loan charges per house met from housing revenue accounts, calculated on the basis of the number of houses to which those accounts relate, are set out in the table.
  169

  Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Edinburgh

  Debt redemption

  21·45

  24·20

  26·98

  31·42

  30·11

  36·10

  10·68

  10·54

  14·31

  21·99

  Interest charges

  339·89

  376·78

  375·94

  394·66

  345·61

  356·47

  374·82

  393·82

  400·62

  432·38

  Loan fund expenses

  2·02

  1·78

  2·80

  2·28

  1·95

  2·11

  1·87

  1·63

  1·63

  1·88

  Glasgow

  Debt redemption

  42·34

  49·69

  58·22

  67·99

  73·84

  87·01

  95·52

  111·13

  114·45

  145·60

  Interest and other charges

  361·39

  447·51

  486·18

  491·57

  479·91

  498·54

  520·43

  512·94

  533·75

  596·60

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1979–80 to 1986–87 are based on audited accounts.

  2. Figures for 1987–88 to 1988–89 are based on authorities' near actual outturn returns.

  3. The returns made by Glasgow district council do not distinguish between interest and loan fund expenses.

  4. Figures are based on the number of council houses at 30 September of each year.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department plans to undertake research of the effects of mixed tenure on communities arising out of council house sales.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The report of research commissioned by the Scottish Development Department into the repair and maintenance of housing in areas of mixed ownership is expected to be published soon. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House. There are no immediate proposals for research into other aspects of mixed tenure.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of families living in overcrowded conditions as defined by section 135 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department does not make such estimates.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regulations he has made under section 60 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such regulations have yet been made.

  Post-school Day Care
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the provision of post-school day care for children at the latest available date; and what(a) local authority and (b) central Government funding is given.

  Mr. Lang
  Provision for post-school day care is made at some local authority community centres by voluntary organisations but no information is held centrally about the extent of the arrangements or details of funding.

  Commissioner for Local Administration
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to proposals to strengthen the powers of the Commissioner for Local Administration; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Provisions in part II of the Local Government and Housing Bill considerably strengthen the powers of the Commissioner. They are also designed to increase public awareness of the recommendations in his reports, particularly in those cases where authorities have failed to act on them.

  Foreign Teachers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many foreign teachers have signed contracts in Scotland in the past three months.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  House Repossessions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many house repossessions there were in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde, and (c) Glasgow for each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Council of Mortgage Lenders publishes statistics on the number of repossessions by building societies in the United Kingdom as a whole, but no information is available for Scotland only or any part of it; and no information is available to the Government on repossessions by other mortgage lenders in Scotland.

  Vacant Teaching Posts
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (I) how many teachers' posts were vacant by 1 October in(a) Greater Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland;

  (2) how many teachers were needed by 1 October in order to fill vacancies in (a) English, (b) history, (c) mathematics, (d) science and (e) physical education in (i) Glasgow, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Recreation Facilities
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures is his Department taking in order to help local authorities to increase the number of green areas and recreation facilities in(a) Scotland and (b) Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for individual local authorities to determine their expenditure on green areas and recreation facilities in the light of their overall priorities. In order to increase local authorities' capital spending powers, the Government have removed two important constraints on their expenditure. With effect from 1 April 1990, local authorities will be able, without penalty, to finance capital expenditure from current revenue and to treat contributions from the private sector as receipts. These changes will greatly enhance local authorities' flexibility to plan and implement their expenditure programmes, including those for the provision of green areas and recreation facilities.

  Prisons (Suicides)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps will be taken to reduce suicides or suicide attempts in Scottish prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Among measures already taken are an increase in the number of cells especially designed to hold inmates who are under observation and the provision of flame-retardant mattresses throughout Scottish penal establishments. In addition the prison service updates on the basis of past experience, best practice, and expert advice the procedures for minimising suicides and suicide attempts.

  Scotland

  Strathclyde

  Glasgow

  Number of pupils on register

  Number of pupils receiving free meals

  Number of pupils on register

  Number of pupils receiving free meals

  Number of pupils on register

  Number of pupils receiving free meals

  1974

  1,037,183

  130,427

  526,100

  73,419

  not available

  32,177

  1975

  1,036,757

  121,977

  521,979

  71,604

  164,773

  33,244

  1976

  1,041,826

  116,805

  524,252

  71,086

  175,991

  32,179

  1977

  1,035,804

  117,790

  520,188

  71,390

  169,601

  32,726

  1978

  1,017,103

  155,716

  503,097

  94,357

  157,181

  39,239

  1979

  1,003,825

  142,989

  485,962

  84,999

  146,456

  37,234

  1980

  971,329

  122,618

  470,120

  72,881

  137,931

  31,743

  1981

  953,683

  114,713

  460,676

  74,565

  137,081

  32,913

  1982

  926,838

  124,547

  444,241

  79,406

  130,808

  34,156

  1983

  899,133

  132,953

  427,751

  85,426

  124,377

  36,045

  1984

  868,606

  129,335

  410,352

  82,348

  117,479

  33,791

  1985

  848,417

  136,669

  399,568

  84,096

  112,266

  33,947

  1986

  828,507

  136,627

  389,006

  84,659

  108,985

  34,059

  1987

  813,812

  143,194

  381,480

  87,362

  104,821

  34,671

  1988

  796,404

  145,219

  371,871

  87,147

  101,917

  35,337

  1989

  785,687

  105,232

  366,126

  63,905

  99,226

  27,053

  Housing Policy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to change his housing policies in the light of the results of the survey for East Kilbride district council that the majority of people living in new towns consider the district councils as the best landlords and want their tenancies transferred to their district councils.

  Mr. Lang
  No. The Government have consistently stated that they would not pre-empt any decision about future landlord choice for new town tenants without first seeking the views of tenants themselves. The position in each town will be carefully considered once an order for the dissolution of its development corporation has been made, and formal consultations will be held with the development corporations, district councils and representative tenant groups to review the position and to determine the type of transfers which will take place in the period between the making of the dissolution order and dissolution itself. The survey commissioned by East Kilbride district council was confined to the town of East Kilbride. It is not therefore representative of the views of tenants in all five Scottish new towns. The results of that survey did not confirm that "the majority of people living in the new towns" consider the district council as the "best landlord".
  172
  Although great care is taken by staff to identify, protect and treat those who are thought to be at particular risk, deaths from unpredictable and determined acts of self-destruction can never be completely eliminated.

  School Numbers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many school children there were in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Glasgow for each year since 1974; and how many of these received free school meals.

  Mr. Lang
  The information taken from annual school meals census returns is as follows:

  Public Service Salaries
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is for each year since 1974 the average rate of increase in the salaries of(a) National Health Service ambulance staff, (b) teachers, (c) National Health Service nurses and (d) the police force in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is for each year since 1974 the number of babies born(a) in Scotland, (b) in the Strathclyde region and (c) in Greater Glasgow, with incurable diseases which had been the subject of pre-natal screening tests;

  (2) what is for each year since 1974 the number of babies born with incurable diseases in (a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Greater Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Conciliation Service
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the annual funding level for a conciliation service in Scotland; and whether his Department funds a director's post for this service.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office provides grant under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to the Scottish
  173
  Association of Family Conciliation Services, the co-ordinating body for conciliation in Scotland. Total grant
  174
  payable in the current year is £48,500 and allows for a full-time director. The Department does not provide grant for local family conciliation services.

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

Mortgage Interest Rates
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total amount of mortgage interest paid by owner—occupiers for each quarter during 1988, and what are the comparative amounts for the first three quarters of this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, it is estimated that in the four quarters of 1988 the amounts of mortgage interest paid by owner-occupiers in the United Kingdom were £4·8 billion, £4·9 billion, £5·7 billion and £6·9 billion. For the first three quarters of this year the equivalent figures were £7·5 billion, £7·9 billion and £8·3 billion.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those figures. Does he agree that the substantial increases that they show include a substantial increase in mortgage rates and that increase has to be met by owner—occupiers who still have outstanding mortgages? They are having to pay substantial increases due to the increased bank rates. I do not include the most recent increase. Have the Government any plans to assist first—time buyers or the more recent mortgagees who in increasing numbers are finding it impossible to meet their financial commitments and may well find themselves joining the homeless queue in the near future unless something happens?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the problems of those who are suffering from higher mortgage interest payments. However, they are also aware that to preserve the strength of the economy we must control inflation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in considering these figures is it being taken into account that some lending institutions, including the largest building society in this country, arrange for borrowers to even out rises in the mortage rate by paying identical monthly payments during a subsequent year and so delaying the impact of the change?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am aware of that. The comment of my noble friend is entirely true and correct.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the Government are aware of the difficulties of mortgage payers. Is that sufficient? Do they not realise that they are responsible for these
908
difficulties? When he talks about the necessity of controlling inflation, is it not the Government's policy which has caused inflation to rise, and in particular the Budget of 1988?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is probably wise to remind your Lordships' House that on four previous occasions since 1979—between November 1979 and December 1980, December 1980, and March 1981, October 1981 and March 1982, and March 1985 and August 1985—mortgage rates were above 14 per cent.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, although it would clearly prevent any effect on reducing inflation if the building societies were too helpful to people with mortgages, because the increase in interest rates definitely has an impact on inflation, does the Minister agree that most building societies make every effort to help anyone in real difficulty? Does he think that the public are sufficiently aware of the fact if they are in difficulties they should approach their building society?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I may return partially to my previous Answer. The experience of over 10 years ago resulted in the building societies doing exactly what my noble friend has pointed out. The building societies are very accommodating on this point.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister explain the relevance of his answer to me? Is he simply saying that this Government have previously followed policies that have caused mortgage payers to pay higher interest rates?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are dedicated, quite rightly, to controlling inflation. Occasionally that has resulted in interest rates having to rise. That is a different proposition from what was proposed by the noble Lord.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer a question that puzzles me and causes trouble to a number of other people? This money is coming from the borrowers, but it is going to the lenders, who are thus being given more money. What is the effect of this on the financial position in this country?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is probably fair to say that those who were the lenders 18 months ago felt that they were getting the short straw.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated in his first reply that the interest rate rises were necessary to protect the strength of the economy. Will he explain how this is accomplished? When his Government first came into office in 1979 they hiked interest rates up to 17.5 per cent., produced a rate of inflation of 21 per cent., a rise from 10.3 per cent., and thereafter precipitated one of the worst depressions that we have had in this country. Will the noble Lord explain how the rise in interest rates will protect the economy? To which is he referring?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, often an inheritance is beneficial. On that occasion it was problematical.

Summer Time: Consultation
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they plan to introduce single/double summer time (SDST) to bring the United Kingdom into line with most other European Community countries throughout the year.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government published a Green Paper entitled Summer Time—A Consultation Document (Cmnd.722) on 27th June which invited representations on three options for future summer time arrangements. The responses are being assessed, but the Government have not yet reached any decision.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful for what I take to be a sympathetic Answer. Nevertheless does the Minister not agree that a decision to adopt SDST is now becoming urgent in the light of firm evidence from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory showing that lighter evenings would reduce road accidents by a significant amount? Is the noble Viscount also aware that Sweden, which is far north of the United Kingdom, has adopted SDST with which it is very happy? Will the Minister give a date when the Government will make a statement in Parliament on what I consider a very important question?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there have been a great number of responses to the Green Paper. They are still arriving in significant numbers. I understand that in excess of 25,000 have been received. As can be imagined these will take time to assess. The noble Baroness also referred to Scandinavia which is in the Central European Time zone. The movement of Britain to single/double summer time would have that effect.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is there not a great difference between countries in the east of Europe and in the west of Europe? Is one assuming that Greece should adopt this timetable or that Scotland should? There is such a great difference in the degrees of longitude.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Greece is one further on from Central European Time. Longitude has to be taken into account as it does in America. It is a question of latitude which single/double summer time refers to.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that whereas there are distinct advantages in lining up with our western friends in Europe there are also disadvantages in that they put their clocks back much earlier—in mid-September—whereas we put ours back at the end of October? There might be room for negotiation
910
in that we all change at the same time, but it should not be as early as is common now among our western allies.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the time that the clocks go back in Europe. Harmonisation would make us put our clocks back, if we did not move to single—double time at that date. That has found no favour. However, if we moved to single/double summer time we should have GMT plus one all the year round and GMT plus two for the summer time, and bringing the clocks back at the end of September would not be as difficult as it is now.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there are many people who are sick and tired of having to move their clocks forward in the spring and back in the autumn? They see it as a ridiculous system and would like to go back to the period between 1968 and 1971 when we experimented with British Standard Time. In the light of present evidence that there are more accidents in the evening—that was one of the arguments which at that time was not properly researched—would it not now be sensible to have a standard time throughout the country so that everyone knows where they are all the way through and does not lose or gain any sleep, miss appointments or God knows what?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point. This will, I am sure, be one of the responses among the 25,000 replies made to the consultation document. It is just such a point and many others that will have to be considered.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that because of differences of longitude and latitude the noble Baroness may be quite right when she says that Scandinavian countries are satisfied with the change in time. However, in Scotland, with its different longitude, the impact would be considerable, especially in the north of Scotland, and would cause great dissatisfaction?
Viscount Ullswater: I take the point. I know that there is opposition to these changes in the north, and especially in the north—east, of Scotland.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, in view of the concern shown by many Members of the House is it possible that the results of the consultation document and questionnaire might be attended to within a matter of weeks rather than months and a full and detailed report made available to the many people who are concerned about the matter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is too soon to decide how best to deal with the next stage. As I have said, the responses to the Green Paper are still coming in. Once these have been assessed it will be possible to see if they add any new information on the issues or whether they represent in the most part votes for one of the three options. How the results are disseminated will no doubt depend on the result of the assessment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in addition to the convenience for those in northern climes of sticking to the present system there is the great convenience of a single time throughout Europe for the business life of this country—especially the financial life of London—and that is a fact of which we should not lose sight?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sure that that will be one of the considerations that will be carefully considered.
Lord Monson: My Lords, following on from the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, does the Minister agree that the eastern and western—most extremities of the European Community are just as far apart as the eastern and western—most extremities of Australia? Australia conforms to geographical realities in having three time zones and, therefore, logically the European Community should do the same. Does the Minister agree that the three time zones do not impede the efficient functioning of Australia's economy, nor should they impede the efficient functioning of the economy of the European Community?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sure that I can agree with the noble Lord. However, I am certain that such representations will be fed in and that the Home Office will consider them extremely carefully.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, when the Minister is considering the letters, will he bear in mind that Shetland is on the same latitude as Leningrad?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall be happy to do so.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that, whatever the weight of evidence received by the Government, legislation will be required before any change can be made and, therefore, the House will have every opportunity to discuss the matter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is true.

Coal Imports
2.52 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had discussions with British Coal about the level of coal imports.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy meets the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in the restructuring of British Coal's finances, which is soon to take place, will the Government give special consideration to the treatment that British Coal is
912
receiving from the electricity industry, bearing in mind that in recent years British Coal has reduced the cost of coal supply to that industry by no less than £650 million? Secondly, does the Minister accept that the obtaining of short—term contracts for coal on the spot market by the electricity industry, particularly in Rotterdam, will not ensure the certainty of supply which the British coal industry can provide for many years to come?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is not the Government's policy to restrict imports of coal. It would be wrong to compel coal users to purchase supplies from British Coal by denying them the right to buy from elsewhere. Restricting competition will not bring long-term security to the British coal industry and the best protection is to produce reliable supplies which are competitive on the world market.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the miners' fears about imported coal are largely exaggerated because the facilities for importing coal in bulk are small and, compared with production, the amount of coal traded is also small?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree. It is important to put the imports of coal into context. During the past two years coal imports of about 12 million tonnes per annum have amounted to only 11 per cent. of inland consumption. Over 60 per cent. of the imports are coking coal for the iron and steel industry. They are needed because the UK pits can no longer supply sufficient quantities to meet our industries' requirements.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, perhaps I may put the matter in perspective from our point of view. Is the Minister aware that, since 1985, 83 pits have closed and 91,000 men have been declared redundant, resulting in unemployment and misery in the British coal fields, while at the same time Her Majesty's Government import 12 million tonnes of coal every year—equivalent to the jobs of 6,000 miners? Where is the social justice and economic sense in that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the output of British Coal has remained constant for five years despite the closures. The productivity has risen enormously. However, the productivity of our main competitors—that is, Australia and the United States—is still more than three times as high and improving rapidly. There must be further productivity growth if the industry is to compete successfully and that means the continued spread of more flexible working methods.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, bearing in mind that during the past four years productivity in British mines has risen by more than 90 per cent. and that during the past two years imported coal prices have risen by more than 50 per cent., will the Minister agree that on economic grounds and bearing in mind the long—term prospects it would be highly imprudent for there to be further substantial substitution of indigenous coal by imports?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the prices quoted by the noble Lord may be correct. It is still a fact that coal imports are substantially below the pithead price of coal in this country. The Government have invested £6·5 billion in the coal industry since 1979. We are continuing to invest at over £2 million every working day because we have faith in British Coal and in the ability of management and men to improve performance still further. I believe that that is a fine record.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister kindly recognise that, again, here is a case of short-run price advantage taking precedence over long-run economic and social advantage? Will he recognise that we can close down an industry or a mine but we cannot open them up again? By their policies of encouraging imports the Government are not looking forward beyond their collective nose to see what will happen in the next century.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is suggesting that we are trying to reduce the amount of coal produced by the pits. That is not so. The amount of coal being produced remains at about 100 million tonnes per annum. The future supplies to the electricity supply industry are now under renegotiation but we are committed to their remaining a major part of its fuel supplies in the future.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, do not the Minister and the Government understand the fact that while coal imports may now be cheaper than home-produced coal it may well be that at a later stage, when perfectly satisfactory British coal mines have been closed down and there is a shortage of home-produced coal, we shall be under price pressure from those importing and wishing to import more coal? Coal is a strategic industry and we allow it to decline at the country's peril. I sincerely hope that the Government will not put the country's fuel supplies in peril.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I have tried to explain, since 1985 the operating costs have fallen by 24 per cent. in real terms. British Coal has fully achieved the objective of a 20 per cent. reduction set by the Secretary of State in March 1987. However, continuing improvements can and must be made if British Coal is to be fully competitive.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister concede that these exchanges show an urgent need for a clear statement of government policy on energy and the coal industry in particular? Will he tell the House and the country whether the Government have in mind to privatise the coal industry and whether their current policy is directed towards that rather squalid end?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the question put to me by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is wide of that on the Order Paper concerning imported coal.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, are your Lordships aware that it is a long time since we have had so many red herrings dragged across that Dispatch Box about the state of the British coal industry? When the Minister mentions that most of the coal imported is coking coal, is he not aware that that is due to the fact that this Government have closed the coking pits in this country, including all those in the North-East? How much emphasis do the Government place on the social effect on the mining communities of this country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the social effects are important and British Coal has sought to alleviate them wherever possible. It still remains that the production of coal must be competitive. I reiterate that the percentage of coal imported is coking coal which cannot be economically produced at this moment in this country.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that every Member of the Opposition who has bought a foreign car has helped to put a British car worker out of work?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I note my noble friend's comment.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Employment (Age Limits) Bill will be taken.

Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, 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 Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 17 [Ballot expenses]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 11, line 1, leave out ("section 14(2)") and insert ("subsection (2) of section 14").
The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 33. These amendments ensure that the limit on campaign expenses in respect of a ballot laid down by virtue of Clause 17 will apply as

915
the overall limit on expenditure, including that in respect of any fresh ballot which may be required under Clause 15; that is, a fresh ballot does not open the door to a second round of campaign expenditure. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 5, after ("13") insert ("(or the outcome of any fresh ballot held, in accordance with the said section 14, by virtue of section 15 of this Act)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause, 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Further provisions as regards proposals under section 16]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 11, line 11, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. The purpose of this group of amendments is to remove the provision whereby the Secretary of State can prevent a school board from withdrawing its proposals published under Clause 16.
Following the publication of proposals a school board may be aware of the representations being made to the Secretary of State under Clause 18(3) and as a result of those representations may wish to withdraw or amend its proposals. For example, parents who voted for the change of status may find that they cannot support aspects of the published proposals and make representations to the board for the proposals to be amended. The Secretary of State could also modify proposals against the wishes of the school board under Clause 19(1)(b). In such circumstances is it not unreasonable for the Secretary of State to prevent the board from withdrawing its proposals? In any event, how could the Secretary of State force a board to proceed with the acquisition of self-governing status against its wishes? Could not the members of the board merely resign, thus forcing the Secretary of State to reject the proposals?
Under Amendment No. 35 the Secretary of State and the school board should reach agreement on any modification of the proposals. If the Secretary of State wishes changes to be made to the scheme of management before granting self-governing status, such changes must be agreeable to the school board. Again, would it not be unreasonable to expect a board to manage a school under arrangements which it found unacceptable? I think these points are self-evident and I hope that the Minister will give a favourable reply. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am advised that since the school board is under a statutory duty to publish proposals, the Bill itself must include any procedure which would allow subsequent withdrawal or modification of the published proposals. The effect of the two amendments to Clause 18 would therefore
916
be to remove any scope whatever for a board withdrawing proposals for self-governing status. However, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and will deal with the points of principle raised.
There may be circumstances in which either the school board or the Secretary of State wish to see proposals withdrawn or modified. Published proposals will be subject to public comment and formal representations to the Secretary of State. As a result it could well be felt that changes of some importance should be made before proposals are approved. The proper course might then be for the school board to withdraw and re—publish amended proposals.
Control of these procedures is placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. The proposals originally followed a ballot showing a parental majority for the change of status. That majority wish must be respected. It is not appropriate simply to allow the members of the school board alone to change their mind and perhaps give up the whole idea.
The Secretary of State may in some cases be happy with the general lines of the proposals and be ready to allow the school to become self-governing on that basis. However, Clause 2(4)(b) obliges the Secretary of State to ensure that the first scheme of government for a school accords with the detail of the proposals as accepted. With this in mind there may well be a need for minor modifications to ensure that the final proposals are in a form which the Secretary of State could reasonably incorporate in a scheme of government. School boards will have available guidance on the construction of proposals but they cannot be expected to have the experience and access to legal advice necessary to ensure every detail of their proposals is appropriately expressed. The provisions in Clause 19(1)(b) allow the Secretary of State to deal with these points. With this explanation I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The explanation given by the Minister appears to meet the point. I may be being obtuse here but I believe that the Secretary of State will have the power to allow a school board to withdraw its proposals if the modifications which he has suggested are such that he considers that they change the nature of the original proposals put forward. That is what I understand the Minister said.
If that is the case, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. As the Minister made rather a long reply, perhaps he will allow me to take advice on this matter and perhaps come back at a later stage. However, at present I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Rejection or approval of proposals]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 6, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment to remove a provision in the Bill which no longer is relevant. The original provisions of the Bill allowed for members of the board to be provisionally appointed before incorporation; but the Bill as amended in the other place now provides that the appointed members shall be appointed by the newly elected board after incorporation. Clause 19(6) as it stands no longer has any meaning in the context of the Bill and should therefore be removed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [transfer of staff to self-governing schools]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 13, leave out lines 5 to 9.
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the provision that the Bill makes for determining what is to happen to staff who are employed in a school for only part of their time. This could almost become a bureaucratic nightmare because, as currently drafted, Clause 22(1)(b) allows the Secretary of State to decide who is to be the employer of any visiting employee, however few the hours that employee might spend in the school.
For example, a peripatetic music teacher might spend one morning in the school out of a whole working week spent in employment at other schools managed by the education authority, or perhaps by other independent schools. While it is recognised that it is important to secure a teacher's continued services to the school, surely it would be wrong to place the teacher under the employment of the board of management rather than the education authority if the latter is taking by far the bulk of the teacher's time for its educational needs. In other words, the clause tackles the issue in what we believe is the wrong way.
It would be far better to provide that the education authority must continue to provide the services of a person who works part—time at the school rather than empower the Secretary of State to compel the transfer of employment on the basis of a few hours' work at the school each week. Again, I feel that this is an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It would probably be helpful to the Committee to indicate the circumstances in which we envisage that Clause 22(1)(b) might be used.
Teachers and other members of staff employed to work solely at the school transfer automatically to the employment of the board of management under
918
Clause 22(1)(a). There will often be others who work only part of their week at the school. Peripatetic teachers of art or music who go around a number of primary schools each week offer an obvious example, as the noble Lord said.
Where persons spend only a small part of their time at the school in question the obvious course would be for them to remain in the employment of the education authority. We would not expect Clause 22(1)(b) powers to be used in such cases. The self-governing school may, of course, still wish to buy in from the authority the part-time services of someone and to pay for them. Clause 34 provides for such arrangements.
If, however, someone works for the greatest part of the week at a school which is due to become self-governing and only a small part is spent in other education authority schools, the sensible course may be to have the board of management become the employer. The self-governing school could then, by agreement, sell part of that person's time back to the authority to continue a service to the other schools involved. Clause 22(6) has been included to facilitate such agreements.
Everything will depend on the circumstances in particular cases. It is not possible to make a general rule for those staff with some commitment to other schools. Clause 22(1)(b) allows submission to be made to the Secretary of State where it is felt, by the board, by the authority or by the individual concerned, that transfer would be appropriate. The Bill has been designed to allow continuation of existing practice while retaining a single employer and single contract of employment for the individual member of staff.
With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: That is a most unsatisfactory reply to the question posed by this amendment…The relationship between the teacher and the employer goes to the heart of the education system in Scotland. It is essential that there should be consensus on both sides as to what is to happen to a teacher. This clause has the air about it of a unilaterial alteration of the terms of contract of the teacher without the teacher's consent.
Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee what will happen to a teacher who refuses to go to a school to which he is assigned under Clause 22(4) of the Bill as it stands. Will the teacher be given a choice? For example, if the teacher is against the principle of opted-out schools and has been happy as a peripatetic music teacher with the local authority, why should that teacher be forced to go to a school with whose principles he or she does not agree? It is important to remember that when this Bill is enacted all the teachers in Scotland will have been employed by the local authority on a basis which did not envisage the prospect of teaching in what are called opted-out schools.
The teachers, therefore, will be on the horns of a dilemma. This change may very well leave many unhappy teachers being forced to each, for the

919
purposes of survival, in circumstances which they would not normally find acceptable in an ordinary contract of employment. I may be misreading the Bill, but perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee where there is a choice for the teacher in these provisions about moving from employment of the local authority to employment by the board of management of one self-governing school out of a number? For example, if a teacher is servicing four schools which are to become self-governing will the teacher be allowed to choose which of the four boards of management to be employed by so that he or she can be sold like a chattel to the other schools in the area?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Surely the obvious answer is for such a teacher to be employed by the local education authority, because the authority has an interest in servicing that school and the other schools. If a self-governing school employs a teacher it has only a financial incentive to go to the other schools, but no duty. It appears to me that the first alternative is the proper one because peripatetic teachers are always employed by the education authority.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, as I said in my original reply, it very much depends on the circumstances of the case and the amount of time that such a teacher will be employed in any school that is to become self-governing.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, spoke about teachers being transferred against their wishes. Well, the teacher can resign from the employment of the self-governing school and be re—employed by the education authority. If that is done promptly there will be no loss of continuity of employment.
The important point is that the Bill provides for continuity of staffing where a school becomes self-governing. Continuity is important. It is a protection for the teachers if they have to be taken on by a self-governing school. It is difficult to consider hypothetical situations but I repeat that Clause 22(1)(b) allows submission to be made to the Secretary of State where it is felt by the individual concerned—quite apart from the board or the authority—that transfer would be appropriate.
I will, of course, study what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said to see whether there is anything further to add to what I have already said.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Is the Minister giving a guarantee on behalf of the Government that, if a teacher decides not to be under the aegis of a self-governing school, he or she will be guaranteed a contract of employment with the local authority, even if there is no vacancy?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As this is a very complex matter where the rules regulating teacher employment by education authorities are involved I should like to study the noble Lord's comments without giving a commitment at this stage. However, I do say to the noble Lord that, as I indicated, I see nothing to prevent an individual, if he is dissatisfied,
920
from appealing against a decision if that particular member of staff happens to carry out most of his work at a newly self-governing school.
The Earl of Perth: As the Minister said, this is a very complicated clause. When reading subsection (6)—forgetting paragraphs (a) and (b)—I hope that the Minister will explain what the following words mean. I start with "the term shall" and finish with "been given". I have read the passage many times and I do not understand what it means.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar—to answer the point that he specifically asked me about—that the Government cannot offer a guarantee (as I suspected) of employment by the education authority to that particular person for the simple reason that it will be for the education authority itself to decide whether that person could be employed by that particular authority.
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I am trying hard to see what he is getting at. The particular subsection states:
"Without prejudice to subsection (3) above"—
that is—
"The contract of employment between a person to whom this section applies and the education authority by whom he is employed shall have effect from the incorporation date as if originally made between him and the board of management of the school".
That gets the date fixed.
We then move to "the term shall" and the subsection continues:
"in accordance with subsections (3) and (5) above, give the right of assignation to the board, so however that the schools (other than the self-governing school) to which the person may be assigned if the authority agree shall be those to which he might have been assigned had no direction been given".
In looking at the terms here I shall have to study subsections (3) and (5) in order to see exactly what is the meaning of that part of the clause. I undertake to write to the noble Earl as soon as possible with a complete and thorough explanation of it.
The Earl of Perth: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I hope that he will pass on the information to others who are also concerned.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I revert to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I hope that he is not suggesting that central government should be telling local authorities which teachers they should employ and which they should not.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: That was not the suggestion at all. I was raising a point concerning teachers' terms of contract. Teachers have started out as employees of a local authority in which the concept of opting-out schools never existed. As I said at the beginning of my remarks concerning this amendment, there is here an echo of a unilateral change of contract. I know that the Minister has promised to take away this amendment to look at it very carefully, as I am sure he will. He has demonstrated that he always does.

921
I mention the matter so that it may be considered. There can be no guarantee of employment with one's original employer; namely, the local authority. The contract of employment will be interrupted by the operation of this Act, telling the teacher that he or she is no longer employed by the local authority and that if he or she does not want to be employed under a certain board of management, the teacher can like it or lump it, and he or she will not get another job. That opens the door to cases of judicial review and industrial tribunals which may cause a considerable amount of chaos in the education field.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I suggested at the outset that this matter could be the beginning of a bureaucratic nightmare. I believe that we have a little evidence of that already. The Minister gave a very full explanation in his reply and he also said that he would take away the amendment and study it. He added a word that was slightly disturbing to me when he said that the teacher may decide promptly to go one way or the other.
We need to have an idea of what is meant by the word "promptly". Does it refer to when the teacher goes on the books of school A as opposed to that of the education authority and he has so long in which to make up his mind immediately after the school has become independent? On the other hand, does "promptly" mean a much later stage when the school has reached the point of deciding whether to have a particular teacher on its books? An explanation of the word "promptly" is required.
As my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar said, when the Minister states that he will look at a matter again, we have a great deal of faith in him doing so. Therefore we shall not press this amendment. We shall be keen to see that the Minister has taken on board what we believe is a real point made by ourselves and by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. This matter needs filling out and more substance needs to be given to the circumstances in which a teacher may be moved around the system. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Further provision as regards teachers in self-governing schools]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 17, at end insert—
("(2) Such exceptions made under subsection (1) above shall not provide for permanent contracts being issued to non—registered teachers.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment involves Clause 23(1) and proposes to enter at the end of that part of the clause a new subsection in these terms:
"Such exceptions made under subsection (1) above shall not provide for permanent contracts being issued to non—registered teachers".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that only registered teachers will be employed as teachers in self-governing schools except where in certain
922
circumstances it is necessary to employ non-registered teachers on a temporary basis.
One has to be realistic about life in schools in various parts of the country. In tabling this amendment those of us on this side of the Committee appreciate that, for example, in a rural area with one or two teachers there may be circumstances in which a teacher is away through sickness or maternity leave, whatever the case may be, and it will be necessary to bring in someone with suitable qualifications in order to fill the gap
The amendment is put forward to ensure that the principle of employing registered teachers is not eroded on any permanent basis. There is no reason why the Secretary of State cannot bring in regulations to cope with the situation that I envisage in a rural area and perhaps in terms better than those that appear in the Bill. I appreciate that it may be argued that the words,
"subject to such exceptions as may from time to time be prescribed"
perhaps cover the point that we are trying to make through the amendment. To that extent we may be duplicating Clause 23(1). It is the matter of permanent contracts that is important as regards registered teachers.
The fear is that the Secretary of State may in the terms of Clause 23(1) exercise his power to make exceptions by employing what would be the equivalent of licensed teachers in England and Wales. That would involve a very dangerous erosion of the standards of teaching in the schools because the persons who undertake the teaching duties would not be teachers in any sense of the word. It is my understanding that in England and Wales a person who eventually obtains the qualification of a licensed teacher has at least undergone a course of teacher training.
However, in the terms of this Bill licensed teachers would be allowed to teach pupils without having taken such a course. In other words, they will not have been trained how to teach. Parents and pupils at self-governing schools must be assured that the teachers are, as far as possible and subject to the odd exception, qualified teachers and that they will be the only persons holding permanent contracts in the self-governing schools. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I support the amendment. The principle that a teacher should be trained in how to teach, no matter what volume of knowledge he has, is an important one, although it is accepted that on some occasions people with certain specific technical knowledge but not qualified as a teacher will be required for short periods. However, I certainly support the idea that people employed on a full-time basis in schools within the education system, no matter what kind of school it is, should at least have some experience of being taught how to impart that knowledge.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thank the noble Lord for moving the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for speaking to it. The amendment

923
seeks to alter the provisions, which the Bill reproduces in identical form from earlier legislation, governing the employment of teachers in education authority schools. Clause 23(1) mirrors Section 90 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 which gives the Secretary of State powers to make certain exceptions under regulations made in terms of other sections of that Act.
Regulations made under the 1980 Act powers prescribe that every teacher employed by an education authority must be registered by the General Teaching Council. The exceptional power is used in relation to difficulties encountered by the education authority in recruiting a person holding qualifications appropriate to a specific post that it is seeking to fill. That covers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
It may be necessary, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to appoint a registered teacher who does not hold the precise qualifications appropriate to the post, or to make a temporary appoinment of such a registered teacher and resume attempts to secure an appropriately qualified person. The main point is that the person appointed must be a registered teacher. Our intention is to make regulations in precisely the same terms for self-governing schools. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was asking for. In short, this question is not about changing educational policy; it is restating it. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the noble Lord for his answer to the propositions which I put forward in support of the amendment. I am pleased to hear the Government saying in terms that unregistered teachers will not be qualified in self-governing schools. I have no doubt that the Government will ensure that that policy is carried out to the full. In the light of the noble Lord's undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Provisions of Benefits and Services for Pupils at Self-Governing Schools etc.]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 63, line 47, after ("(i)") insert ("his parent").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 to 45. These are purely drafting amendments. Their purpose is to refer accurately to the fact that parents of pupils, not pupils, will make placing requests. Only when a pupil passes school leaving age does he assume the right to make a placing request himself. That case is covered by Amendment No. 45 which effectively says that such a pupil is to be treated as if he were his own parent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 41 to 45:
Page 63, line 49, after ("for") insert ("the pupil's").
Page 64, line 1, after ("(ii)") insert ("his parent").
Page 64, line 1, leave out ("him") and insert ("the pupil").
Page 64, line 2, leave out ("he") and insert ("the pupil").
Page 64, line 2, at end insert (";
and paragraph 8 of the said Schedule 2 shall apply in relation to references in this subsection as that paragraph applies to references in paragraphs 2 to 7 of that Schedule.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Recurrent grant, capital grants and special purpose grants]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 15, line 35, after ("regulations") insert ("and will be comparable to provision made for equivalent schools still under education authority management.").
The noble Baroness said: For the convenience of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 47. We now turn to the question of the level of funding of self-governing schools. In another place the Government expressed the view that the funding of self-governing schools should be at the same level as the funding by the local authority of equivalent schools in the area. This is now endorsed and to an extent clarified in the draft circular sent by the Government to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 9th October. I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a copy too.
My amendment, which is at this stage a probing amendment, suggests that the basic principle of parity of funding should be on the face of the Bill. Earnest though the Government may be in their intentions, it will not be easy to arrive at the correct figure for the funding of self-governing schools. Future governments may be tempted either to favour self-governing schools or—equally likely in another direction—to give them less than they deserve. This last possibility worries the Scottish Parent Teachers Association in particular. Should not the principle be on the face of the Bill? If the Government think not, may I know the reasons?
Amendment No. 47 is also a probing amendment. It seeks to explore whether the Government are satisfied that it will be possible to do the necessary sums in order to fund self-governing schools on exactly the same basis as they could have expected to have been funded under the local authority. Again, the draft circular goes into this in some detail. When the local authorities study the circular I believe that some of the anxieties they have expressed to me will be allayed. I see, for example, that responsibilities which will continue to be the local authority's, whether or not they apply to the self-governing school—the child guidance service, the provision of psychologists, the identifying and recording of children with special needs, the career service and so on—will continue to be funded through the local authority. But what about the funding of other aspects of school life?
We are told that the amounts due to a self-governing school for meeting the needs of

925
children with special educational needs will be a matter for negotiation between school and local authority. Can the Minister give us some idea of how that will work? How will the use a self-governing school makes of a teachers' resource centre be allocated? How will the cost be allocated for that? If an authority has perhaps one maths adviser for the whole authority and the self-governing school uses his or her services, how will the cost be allocated? Likewise, if a self-governing school does not use the adviser, will the local authority simply receive less central government funding while still having to employ the same adviser?
The Scottish Parent Teachers Association is as concerned as the local authorities on these details. I should be grateful if the Minister could give some reassurance that these calculations will be possible so that neither self-governing schools nor local authorities are disadvantaged. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I want to reinforce the noble Baroness's point about the increased cost of administering the schools remaining under the local authority. When one removes half the schools it is bound to be more expensive to administer the rest. It is an important point.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The draft regulations state that the grant will include allowance for expenditure on services provided centrally from the education budget, whereas in the case of the regional psychological service the authority will have a continuing responsibility to provide for pupils at self-governing schools. It is not clear whether the self-governing school requiring the psychological service will be operating in terms of Clause 34, which deals with the provision of services. I wonder whether Amendment No. 47 should read "section 34" instead of "section 24". Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that she meant to refer to Clause 34, because Clause 24 does not appear to have much to do with the provisional services. The side note to Clause 24 is:
"Effect of pending procedure for acquisition of self-governing status on appointment etc. of staff".
Are we talking about Clause 34 or Clause 24?
Will the Minister clarify whether psychological services are being picked out as a specialised service, and that such a service will be provided free of charge to the self-governing schools and that their budget will not be diminished by the provision of that specialised service?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My noble friend's first amendment to line 38 is a fair expression of our declared policy in respect of financing self-governing schools. She and others may well ask me why we do not write it into the Bill. Before one buys a policy, it is always advisable to ask to see the fine print. Whether or not we write that general principle into the statute, local authorities may legitimately ask what it will mean for them in practice; in other words, they will want to go into a level of detail which we feel is more appropriate for regulations.
926
We shall of course be producing draft regulations in due course and we shall want to consult local authorities about them and to hear their views. I can give that undertaking here and now. I can also reiterate that it is the Government's intention that the financial arrangements for self-governing schools should as near as possible leave those schools neither better nor worse off than they would have been under local authority management.
The Committee is doubtless aware that the equivalent regulations for grant-maintained schools in England and Wales have already been made. Those regulations likewise contain provision designed to fund grant-maintained schools as nearly as possible at the level at which they would have been if they had remained with their local authorities. Equally, the Act in which they are founded does not, any more than this Bill, attempt to formulate the general principle.
Parliament did not consider it necessary to write the principle for England and Wales into last year's Bill and it is hard to see why in similar circumstances we should take a different view this year. We should not improve matters by drafting extra words into the Bill. If those words are to be effective, and if they are to make workable law, their interpretation needs to be as certain as possible. The more general a statement is, the more room it leaves for interpretation and possibly dispute in its application to a specific case. We should therefore need something precise and specific. Indeed, it would need to contain much of the substance of what will otherwise go into regulations and now exists in regulations in England and Wales. We should then obtain something like certainty but at a price which I believe would be unacceptable.
The virtue of subordinate legislation in a matter of this sort is that it is more readily amended and adapted in the light of experience and changing circumstances. It would also need more opportunity than there is in the timetable for the passage of a Bill for thorough discussion of the detail with the local authorities. I give yet again the assurance that discussions will take place.
Similar considerations apply to my noble friend's second amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, important issues are raised. The argument here is mainly about the provision of services which an education authority would treat as central costs and which cannot be apportioned in detail to individual schools. In a system of delegated financial control, such costs are typically charged out to cost centres as fixed overheads at some notional rate.
We have taken the view that since a self-governing school will need to find for itself something to replace the central administrative and advisory services that it has previously had from the local authority, it ought to be given something in its grant to represent that. Since such costs cannot be apportioned out of direct costs, the only fair way to deal with them is to treat them as overheads. Our intention therefore will be to do as the English regulations do and give the school an amount based on the local authority's general expenditure on those services and

927
proportionate to the number of pupils at the school. Central costs is a matter that exercises our minds. We feel that that is the best way to preceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked about the psychological service. It will remain a function of the education authority under Section 4 of the 1980 Act where the authority is under a duty to provide for its area a child guidance service. The noble Lord referred to the clauses dealing with provision of services. Clause 25 covers services provided by the education authority to pupils at all schools, but Clause 34 is about services provided by an authority to the board of management of a self-governing school.
The final point that I make to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour is that the costs of special education, which we touched upon the first day in Committee when she was unfortunately ill, is something to which we return under Clause 27 and I suggest that we deal with the matter then.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: As a mere Englishman I hesitate to raise my voice in this debate. But I wonder whether the Minister has satisfactorily answered the point made by the noble Baroness with regard to avoiding any discrimination as between the two types of schools. The Minister said that the provision was not included in the Bill affecting England and Wales. Perhaps we should have put it in. It is possible that a subsequent Administration, not the present one, might decide that they wanted to favour one type of school rather than another. Many of us feel that that would be extremely undesirable.
While we cannot put the detail onto the face of the Bill, would it not be wise to have embedded in the Bill that there can be no discrimination in the allocation of resources between the two types of schools? Will the Minister think about the matter again? He said that it is much better to do it by regulations because they can be changed so much more easily. That is my objection to doing it by regulations.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: That point takes us to the usual argument as to whether something should be on the face of the Bill or in regulations. The point came up on other matters during the first day in Committee. It is a complex matter and one which must be addressed as accurately as possible and we feel that it is better dealt with in regulations, where we have the advantage —I agree the point is important —of discussing the regulations with those most directly affected; in other words, the education authorities. I see clearly the point made by the noble Baroness, but I believe that the way in which we intend to approach the matter, which is the same as the way that it was dealt with last year in the English and Welsh legislation, is the best way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Will the Minister reassure me on one point? He said that costs for the self-governing school would be apportioned according to overheads. That is satisfactory for the self-governing school. I hope and trust that along
928
with that goes the fact that we cannot take that same amount away from the local authority and expect it to continue the administration.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: That is a matter which must be addressed in two parts. It must be addressed to the local authority, where the economies of scale may be affected by the changes, and by the self-governing school. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister will be aware of the feeling in the Chamber about the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, will know that my name is attached to the amendment. She will also be aware that we had a certain amount of success last week when dealing with our combined amendments. We are not as successful today. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her intervention from the English point of view. She plainly said that the provision should perhaps have been contained in the English Bill. We should like it in the Bill because we believe that the Scottish people would like it to be in the Bill.
I find it difficult when the Minister says that he wants certainty. In a situation like this absolute certainty cannot be guaranteed no matter how many regulations one writes. The wording which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and I have put in the amendment is that the provision will be,
"comparable to provision made for equivalent schools still under education authority management".
Nobody expects it to go down to the last penny or ha'penny. Common sense is necessary. If the matter ever reaches the courts, they are well acquainted with comparability. It would do no harm to have something like this on the face of the Bill; it would be rather reassuring.
Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy and Lady Seear, suggested that there may not always be reasonable people like the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, in charge of education in the Scottish Office. If he were, as I have said before, we would let most of these Bills through on the nod. However, circumstances change and in some cases the change could be disastrous.
I hope that it is sufficient to express the feeling. We have had few real disputes on the Bill. We have come to agreement and understanding that the Minister will look at certain matters. This is not a major point in itself but the implications are very important. I hope that the noble Baroness will test the feeling of the Committee on the amendment, bearing in mind the attitude of people towards Scottish education and the disparity, or possible disparity, that could arise between one type of school and another.
The Earl of Perth: Before the noble Baroness decides whether she will test the opinion of the Committee, perhaps the Minister will think once again. I understand that what we are trying to achieve in the amendment is that self-governing schools and local authority schools should be treated in a similar way. A "comparable way" is, I think, the phrase used.
It is all very well saying that that will come out in

929
regulations. As we have heard, Ministers change and governments change. If the matter is left to the responsibility of a future Secretary of State for Scotland, who knows how his prejudices might favour one side or the other. The fact that this is not in the English Bill is no good reason why it should not be in ours. Before the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, decides one way or the other, I hope that the Minister will consider whether he can given some comfort to us on the matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before my noble friend decides what to do concerning the amendment, I should like to say that I understand what Members of the Committee have said. However, I fear that without the scale of detail in regulations there can be no watertight protection for each type of school. That is why we feel that the correct route is the one that we have adopted. I understand when the noble Earl says that not everything done in English and Welsh legislation need religiously be copied in Scottish regulations or legislation. I well understand that.
However, on this occasion I think that we might be following the right route. I shall of course look carefully at what everyone has said. I may have to examine again what I have said, but I fear that I should be misleading the Committee if I said that I thought that what the amendment proposes is the correct route. It is up to my noble friend to decide whether she agrees that this is the correct route to put on the face of the Bill in this instance.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank all Members of the Committee who have joined in the interesting discussion, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who has kindly put his name to this amendment as he did to others of mine last week when I could not be present to ensure that various issues were aired.
I have no intention whatever of testing the opinion of the Committee on this amendment. I have discussed it fully with the local authorities. They wished to clarify the issues before deciding how to proceed. The draft circular now published on this subject alters the whole debate so far as I am concerned and, I am sure, so far as they are concerned.
We have had a slightly muddled discussion. There is the general principle. I explained that I had put the amendment down as a probing amendment to see what the Government had to say about the principle. If I were to put an amendment down to be incorporated on the face of the Bill, even an ex-honorary sheriff like myself would want to make sure that the amendment could be tested in the courts. I have absolutely no idea whether this could be tested in the courts and that would be necessary if we were to press it. I believe that it would be very irresponsible to divide the Committee on the amendment at this moment. If any other noble Lord wishes to do so, I should abstain.
As to the second amendment, I think that there was some confusion about different kinds of funding and about what the draft circular says. I have some experience of how education is funded in local authorities. But we are talking about a new animal.
930
I did not fully understand the whole of the draft circular. It seems to me that it is quite clear —I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay —that a service like the pyschological service, which is a statutory responsibility of the local authority, could be continued in self-governing schools, funded through the local authority. That is one issue.
However, there are other issues where the local authority may or may not decide to buy in its services. I was asking the Minister about that and also about the overheads which he dealt with. Those are more difficult to apportion: he suggests that they should follow the English pattern. I know that the Scottish local authorities are not wholly happy about following the English pattern. They have told me so. When I saw the draft circular, I thought that that had been abandoned. However, from what the Minister said on this aspect, it is still there.
I say to Members of the Committee that it is very important that they should give time to my noble friend to discuss the matter fully with the local authorities and find out what they think, now that they have seen the draft circular. All kinds of things are coming to light which they did not know before and which none of your Lordships knew. It would be a pity to have a vote. It would be misleading to the country to have a vote because I do not think we know what we are voting about. Certainly, on the first amendment, I do not know whether it could be tested in the courts. So, from my point of view, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Recurrent grant in respect of provision for special educational needs]:
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
4 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 17, line 22, leave out ("in implementation of the authority's duty").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 49 and speak to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, together with Amendments Nos. 55 to 58. These are straightforward amendments mainly designed to improve the wording of Clause 27. It may be helpful to the Committee for me to take a few moments to set out the background to Clause 27.
It sets out arrangements for calculating the element of recurrent grant for provision for recorded children at self-governing special schools and mainstream schools. The clause provides for discussion and exchange of information between self-governing schools and the education authority, so that agreement can be reached on the level of provision to be made, and the estimated cost of such provision.
These arrangements will place recorded children at self-governing schools in a very secure position. The necessary provision for their education will have been discussed between the authority and the school governors, with requisite resources clearly identifiable, allocated separately within the recurrent

931
grant made available to the school. For special schools that will ensure that the full range of educational provision can be undertaken for those pupils who do not have records, as well as for those who do. For children integrated in mainstream schools, the full resourcing will be assured as schools will not be able to use elsewhere the money specifically set aside for their education.
When, in another place, it was decided to make special schools eligible for self-governing status, it was necessary to consider how education authorities' duty to provide for the special educational needs of recorded children might be fitted into the arrangements for self-governing schools. We came to the conclusion that there should be a separate element of recurrent grant for schools, focusing on the provision made for recorded children. This would apply whether the school was a special school or a mainstream school with recorded pupils. Clause 27 sets out the arrangements under which this is to be achieved. Crucially, there will be a discussion and exchange of information between each self-governing school and the education authority.
The object of this exchange is that each school and authority can agree in advance the provision for recorded children which the school will be asked to make by the authority, Further, based on this agreement, the school and the authority will agree the likely cost so that the Secretary of State may set recurrent grant at that level. The recurrent grant calculated under Clause 27 will, of course, be additional to the grant calculated under Clause 26 for the generality of functions at a mainstream self-governing school.
Parents of recorded children have expressed to us two concerns: first, that on attaining self-governing status schools will try to marginalise special educational needs provision and, secondly, that resources ostensibly allocated to recorded children will in the event be directed to other pupils. Neither of these fears will be realised. The Bill contains a package of measures which will ensure that cannot happen.
During the progress of this Bill both in this Chamber and in another place it has been apparent how acutely aware we all are of the need to see that children with special educational needs are fully catered for in our education system. That concern is reflected in the Bill. Clause 16(4) means that the range of provision for special educational needs is a characteristic of the school and may not be unilaterally reduced. Moreover, Clause 7(6) places a duty on self-governing schools to look to the improvement of this provision. That fully protects the amount and range of provision.
Clause 27 earmarks and guarantees the resources needed to sustain the necessary provision. The government amendments before us remove any possibility of misinterpretation of parts of Clause 27. The amendments to subsection (1) are necessary to ensure that the costs to a mainstream self-governing school of provision for any pupil, whether above or below school age, with a record of needs will count as attributable for the purposes of calculating the amount of recurrent grant payable to
932
the school. The amendments to subsections (6),(7) and (8) make clearer the arrangements for variation of the amount of recurrent grant. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I must thank the noble Earl for his introduction of these amendments. I take great pleasure in congratulating him on his maiden speech in this Chamber. He has jumped into a tough Bill. We believe in Scotland that it is an important seminal Bill and we shall look at the necessarily complicated explanations that the noble Earl has given of this large group of amendments. That examination will have two results. It will mean that we shall study the amendments with care, and it will allow the noble Earl to give another explanation when we return to the Bill at a later stage. So he may get two bites at his maiden speech. We look forward to that, and I hope that in the course of our discussions on Scottish affairs we shall hear a great deal more from the noble Earl.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I, too, wish to congratulate my noble neighbour on his maiden speech, and to say how nice it is to hear the robust tones of Angus supplementing the rather lusher pastures of the Borders. It is a great joy and delight to hear the noble Earl, and I am sure that we shall hear him again on many occasions with the same enjoyment.
Lord Addington: I wish to add my congratulations and I am very glad that such attention is being given to special needs, as that has been an area of concern. I am glad to see that that area is receiving the attention it deserves because anything which could cause as much potential trouble as special needs within a school deserves individual attention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("(b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 17, line 24, leave out ("duty to keep").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 54 not moved.]
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 58:
Page 18, line 24, leave out ("during the course of the financial year").
Page 18, line 26, after ("management") insert ("during the course of the financial year").
Page 18, line 31, leave out subsection (7) and insert —
("(7) The board of management shall intimate to the Secretary of State any variation agreed under subsection (6) above or (in the case of a requirement imposed under paragraph (b) of that subsection) any failure to reach agreement as to such variation.
(7A) The Secretary of State shall, where he accepts an agreed variation intimated under subsection (7) above, vary the amount of recurrent grant payable accordingly.")
Page 18, line 37, leave out ("intimated under subsection (7) above") and insert ("so intimated").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 55 to 58 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 27, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I beg to move that Clause 27, as amended, do not stand part of the Bill. However, I, too, wish to add my own congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, on his first appearance on the Government Front Bench. I wish to echo the sentiments that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on behalf of those of us on this side of the Chamber.
Those of us on this side of the Chamber have not challenged to any great extent the Government amendments which have been moved, nor did we move our own amendment specifically related to special schools for one reason and one reason only, which was that we wished to see this clause taken out of the Bill altogether.
It is clear from our debates on the first day of this Committee stage that the concept of special schools and the various problems and complexities that that embraces constitutes a very special area of education with what one might call a changing financial sea; sometimes the tide comes up and over the wall, but at other times it might be well out, and what is required for the education of the children involved is well covered by the financial arrangements. However, it is important to remember, as I am sure everyone does, that dealing with children in need of special education is not an accountancy exercise and never can be. I think that that is the dangerous trap that the Government may be falling into in assuming that everything in relation to any part of education can be dealt with as an accountancy exercise. The danger that is seen by many people involved in this area of education is that in anticipating the needs of special schools, the Government may be performing an almost impossible exercise.
Various questions are asked, such as what happens if the Secretary of State in his negotiations has got it wrong? The school may very well have the matter wrong, as new pupils enter a school during the school term and the new needs arising as a result need to be funded. What happens when a special school runs out of funds? It is not clear how that will be dealt with in terms of Clause 27. The Government themselves recognised the problem, through the Scottish Education Department, in a letter to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities of 2nd June 1989. The department stated in the letter that:
"calculation of the amount of recurrent costs to be attributed to provision for recorded children presents unique problems. Because of the diversity of the different types of provision for special educational needs it will seldom be possible to do this by comparison with costs in other schools and another way, more related to likely actual expenditure at each school providing for recorded children, must be found".
The letter further stated that legislation should provide for:
"a dialogue between education authorities and each self-governing school".
934
However, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State will have the final say, but it is the people in the school who have to deal with the recurrent problems recognised by the Scottish Education Department.
A number of areas of concern have been identified by Scottish local authorities. I shall give some examples. First, there is the point which I have just touched upon, namely, the unpredictability of funding needs. The arrangements appear to envisage that the level of provision required in an individual school and the funding for it can be agreed a year in advance. Educationally and practically that is an impossible exercise. Needs occur on a varying basis, sometimes at very short notice, throughout the year and throughout an individual child's period in school. While it is possible to take account of that in estimating costs on an overall regional basis it is very difficult to do so in relation to a single establishment, and in relation to the children in the school at the time when the costing is done, and the change in the school roll over the following year.
Secondly, there has been a move recently, which is being encouraged, that as far as possible recorded children should be integrated into the community. That process is aided by the redeployment of funds previously allocated to special schools as the number of pupils using them declines. The uncertainty created by the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill will make it difficult for any authority to provide special education on the basis of a planned system and to allocate funding where it is required. I remind the Committee that in this area we are dealing with about 2 per cent. of the school population. There is a concerted effort by all the service; to give those children the best that we can —those of us who are lucky enough not to face the difficulties which they suffer —through an integrated system. In addition to the integrated system there is now flexibility between special schools and ordinary schools.
Thirdly, according to the information that I have, there are likely to be more requests from schools and parents for children to be recorded. There may be consequent staffing implications which must be acknowledged. It is implied in the Bill that all children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties will be recorded, and many children with specific learning difficulties may also be candidates for recording under the system. That increasing demand is already recognised, but if it continues to grow an evaluation exercise will be required on the resource implications for local authorities. The possible increase in the number of recorded children and movement between the schools are additional factors on which educated guesswork will be required, to determine whether the money given to the school is sufficient.
Fourthly, it is recognised that there will be disagreement on occasion regarding the cost and funding of support for recorded children. Clarification is required from the Government as to which authority is to meet any shortfall. Is it to be the school, central government or the local authority? Shall we see special schools having to hold sales of work to provide essential materials for children within that area of education? Clarification is also

935
required as to whether there will be a mechanism for adjusting a grant made to self-governing schools if the estimated level of provision proves to be inaccurate. That reverts to the point that I made earlier. What happens if the Secretary of State gets it wrong? Even worse, what happens if the Secretary of State and the school get it wrong?
I oppose the Motion that the clause should stand part of the Bill. The Government should have another look at it and take into account all the representations which they have no doubt received from various parties concerned with this very special area of need.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We have touched on the workings of the clause several times in our debate, particularly in relation to the principles laid down in parts of Clause 13. It is a necessary adjunct to allowing parents at special schools the choice of self-governing status.
I am very glad to have heard my noble friend Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne make his maiden speech. I wish him all the best for the future and look forward to his help, particularly with difficult Bills. I shall be very grateful for that help and look forward to many useful years of co-operation.
My noble friend explained the workings of the clause. It is important that the safeguard for the rights of handicapped children is included. I dealt with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I support Clause 27 standing part of the Bill.
Removal of specific references to special clauses in Clause 27 would still leave provision for the majority of pupils at a self-governing special school subject to its terms. That is because by definition the majority of pupils at such schools have records of need. The noble Lord's proposal would mean that a small minority of pupils, who, though not recorded, can best obtain their education in the carefully controlled environment of a special school, would no longer figure specifically in the discussions provided for between the authority and the governors of the school. A safeguard would be removed for those children, many of whom may need to attend a special school for only a term or so. Many may have been placed there for social rather than educational reasons. There would also be taken away from the school the certainty of adequate funding since there could be no guarantee that general regulations made under Clause 26 would adequately cover their cost.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said that the Secretary of State might get it wrong in that area. Clause 27 involves the education authority in the discussion of the provision for individual pupils. We recognise the need for a safeguard and have included it in the clause. The noble Lord also asked about representations. As I said on the previous day of Committee, we have evidence that the Scottish Parent Teachers Association wishes to be able to opt for self-governing status. That position was also supported by SENSE in Scotland.
936
The noble Lord said that there is a need for variation in relation to special educational needs and asked who pays for the shortfall. The amendments we have just discussed will allow the authority and the school to vary their agreement in response to any unforeseen expenditure on recorded children. The very point about the needs varying within the year is covered within subsections (6), (7) and (8) of Clause 27, which include provisions to deal with that situation by an in-year adjustment.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, would prefer the clause to be extracted from the Bill. I hope that with that explanation of what such extraction would do he might reconsider his decision.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the Government's position. On this side of the Chamber we ask that the Government take this particular clause away and rewrite it. We do not wish it to be excised. We accept that not every clause will be perfect. That has been demonstrated in Bills throughout the ages which have had to be tested in the courts. However, those of us on this side of the Chamber feel that this is such a vital area of the Bill that we wish to take the opinion of the Committee.
4.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 27, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,114; Not—Contents,81.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elles, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ampthill, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Annaly, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Arran, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Balfour, E.

Gainford, L.

Beloff, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Birdwood, L.

Blanch, L.

Halsbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Blyth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Borthwick, L.

Harvington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Havers, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Henley, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hesketh, L.

Butterfield, L.

Hives, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hood, V.

Caithness, E.

Hooper, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carnock, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Chelmer, L.

Knollys, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Cowley, E.

Long, V.

Cox, B.

Lyell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

De Freyne, L.

Manton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Marley, L.

Elibank, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Milverton, L.

937

Monson, L.

Salisbury, M.

Morris, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sharples, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Moyne, L.

Somers, L.

Munster, E.

Strange, B.

Nelson, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Sudeley, L.

Norrie, L.

Swansea, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinfen, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Teviot, L.

Pender, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Perth, E.

Trumpington, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ullswater, V.

Reay, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renton, L.

Weir, V.

Rochdale, V.

Westbury, L.

Romney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

St. Davids, V.

Wynford, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Airedale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Amherst, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Attlee, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Banks, L.

Mellish, L.

Birk, B.

Molloy, L.

Blease, L.

Nicol, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Northfield, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Oram, L.

Bottomley, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Phillips, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Rea, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

David, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rochester, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fitt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Whaddon, L.

Listowel, E.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wigoder, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Longford, E.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 27, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
4.26 p.m.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Change in characteristics self-governing school]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 59:
938
Page 20, line 23, at end insert—
("but no such ballot shall be held within a period of five years beginning with the incorporation date as determined under section 19(2) of this Act unless the Secretary of State gives consent in writing").
The noble Lord said: The object of t he amendment is to prevent a self-governing school initiating a change in its essential characteristics within the first five years unless the Secretary of State gives consent. The idea behind the amendment follows on from what the Secretary of State said during the Second Reading debate in the other place. He is on record as saying that he did not envisage it being appropriate for a self-governing school to change its character in any major, fundamental sense in the first few years of its self-government. Most people will agree that that is an eminently sensible precaution.
It is important that that statement of intent is included in the Bill. I am aware that the Opposition usually like everything to be included in the Bill and that it becomes a little irritating for Ministers, so we must try to be selective. This is one point that is sufficiently important—indeed, it is absolutely fundamental—to be included in the Bill. A self-governing school should gain experience and enjoy a period of stability before considering any basic changes in the characteristics which could reduce the choices available to some parents and obviously to pupils.
If the amendment were accepted, the Secretary of State would still be able to permit a ballot during the first five years if the proposed change was not of major significance or would provide greater choice for all parents. We have tried to build a certain flexibility into the amendment while still trying to give some sort of safeguard —an important safeguard—to the adjoining schools and to the parents whose children are already at the school. I hope that the Minister realises the sincere and helpful way in which we are seeking to put forward this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I should like to add support from these Benches for the proposal. If the parents of a school make a decision that they would like that school to become self-governing, they effectively have made that choice on the grounds of the school as it stands. Once the school is in being, surely it should have time to settle down to allow its functioning to settle and then, if changes are needed after that time and if they are of an important nature, they should be made after due consideration.
This is surely a sensible proposal to put in. It will give this chance to see whether there are problems that require major and fundamental change. I would suggest that the degree of flexibility is appropriate, and on those grounds I should like to support the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to support what has been said. I feel disturbed about the small attendance in the Chamber for changes in the law for Scotland. As I have said before, if I were a Scot I should vote for self-government tomorrow. Here we see Westminister deciding important laws which are going to affect them all and there is a total

939
disinterest—including the animated conversation going on behind me, which obviously has nothing to do with the Bill.
I think I am right in saying that this clause is different from the Bills that have been presented in relation to England and Wales. One asks why. The system of education is different, but not that different. Why do we have to have something different in Scotland when the children in the schools will need exactly the same kind of education as the children anywhere else? If I am wrong, I apologise. But I feel that the Minister must explain this, otherwise this amendment is something that we shall have to put to the Committee.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: First, may I say to the noble Baroness that, whereas the Chamber may be quite empty, the quality of those who are left in it leaves nothing to be desired. I have a degree of sympathy with the aims of this amendment. Opting for self-governing status should not be seen as a route to changing the essential nature of the school. The machinery in the Bill quite deliberately prevents any change whatsoever in the characteristics during the process of a school becoming self-governing. The Secretary of State sees five years as a sensible minimum period during which the characteristics of the school should be expected to remain fixed. This point is made at paragraph 45 of the draft circular on the legislation issued for consultation on 9th October.
I fully expect that most self-governing schools will have no wish to alter their basic characteristics. Parents will look for a greater say in the running of the school essentially in its present form, and they will have no interest in making it a school serving a markedly different group of pupils. After something like five years some schools may find that there is a need to alter their characteristics in order to respond to changes in the wider educational world. Educational priorities and fashions change, and education authorities have the machinery available for altering what are in effect the characteristics of their schools, and we believe that self-governing schools must in justice be given a similar opportunity.
As the noble Lord has said, the amendment accepts that the Secretary of State must have power to override the normal time limit where a school faces exceptional circumstances. Since it contains that proviso, I can see little need to include an amendment on the face of the Bill. However, here we are again on the question of what should appear on the face of the Bill and what should not appear on the face of of the Bill. Frankly I do not think there is much in it either way, but the amendment of course reflects our own stated policy as set out in our draft circular. For that reason I should be prepared to come forward with an amendment to that effect at a later stage of the Bill. I hope that the spirit with which I consent to do that will satisfy both noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We must be grateful to the noble Lord for his acceptance of the spirit of the amendment. I must thank the noble
940
Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Phillips for weighing in and supporting this amendment. Perhaps it was ultimately the voice from the South that convinced the Minister that it was something that should be accepted. I am grateful for the speech of the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 20, line 25, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 60 I speak also to Amendment No. 61 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. At an earlier part of the Committee stage an amendment relating to consultation before the ballot on becoming self-governing was considered. This amendment is about who should be consulted by a self-governing school before confirming a decision to seek a change in the essential characteristics.
Clause 30(2) requires that the local authority should be consulted, which of course is absolutely right, and also that if it is a denominational school the denominational body should be consulted before the board of management decides to hold a ballot. But of course, depending on the nature of the changes proposed, other schools in the local area may be greatly affected by this decision, and there are those in Scotland—among them the parent/teachers' association and the Scottish Consumer Council—who feel that the choice of people in the local area may be increased by the changes in the self-governing school. On the other hand it may also be limited. I shall in fact enlarge on this subject in a later amendment.
If the choice is limited, the self-governing school should certainly be aware of that local view before going to the ballot. Therefore I would ask my noble friend this. Should there not in fact be some sort of wider consultation required by statute than simply the consultation with the local authority and the denominational body if such a body is affected by the issue? Does the Bill in fact ensure that such consultation happens? If it does not, should it not be added in this clause that a prescribed body should be consulted? I shall listen with interest to what he has to say about this. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I should like to say a word or two in support of this amendment. Consultation should be of the essence in the operation of this Act, and what the noble Baroness has said has gone to the root of the question. The two amendments go to that matter.
Perhaps I may mention that in Clause 30(2) it is interesting to see:
"For the purposes of subsection (1)"—
that is consultation—
"appropriate consultation is consultation with the education authority and, where the school is, on the change sought would result in its becoming, a denominational school, with the church or denominational body in whose interest the school is, or as the case may be would be, managed".

941
What is being sought here is to broaden the area of scope not of the people who have an interest in the schoolߞI think one of the objections at an earlier stage of the Committee was that it would be difficult to define who would have an interest—but to extend the process of consultation in the hope that, whatever happens to the school, people will, having been consulted, be reasonably happy.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: These two amendments raise again an issue covered in part by an earlier amendment on Clause 13. My noble friend would I hope be pleased with the answer that I was able to give to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who moved that amendment on her behalf last week. They deal with the aspects of the earlier amendment which I was unable to accept, and my response here must be similar.
Where a school is contemplating a move to self-government under Clause 13, the education authority, as manager of the school, has an indisputable interest. Similarly the authority will have a clear interest in any change of characteristics at a self-governing school. There may well be implications for the authority's own provision of schooling in the area.
Again there may be a range of wider interests. But this is recognised and covered in the later stages of the procedures under Clause 30. The board of management of a self-governing school will be required to publish its proposals and any person may make representations on them to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We feel that that is the appropriate mechanism rather than any attempt to define those with an interest.
As my noble friend will recall, we are writing into the Bill the time gap that must elapse following consultation. My noble friend prompted the idea. There is a time for people to pause and reflect before taking action which they might later regret.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank my noble friend for what he has said, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for supporting me on this amendment. I was indeed pleased with the response of the Minister to the amendment standing in my name on Clause 13. That was very helpful. He has stated that the wider consultation is better undertaken direct with the Secretary of State rather than with the school in the local area. I perceive that that is a less divisive way of doing it. I understand that time for reflection is allowed for by this method. I should like to read very carefully what the Minister has said. I may wish to come back on this issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may have a reply to my original question. How similar to the legislation enacted for England and Wales is the Scottish legislation? The answer cannot be difficult. We have three experts in the box. May I have an answer to that question?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: In relation to the previous amendment, I can answer the noble
942
Baroness on that point. At each clause that comes forward, I shall have to indicate whether or not it is similar to the enactment for England.
There are some changes. For instance, Clause 30 is indeed different from the arrangements for a change of character in England. That is the point that the noble Baroness made. We have added the provision for a ballot of parents. No change is possible without their consent. That does not happen under the English and Welsh legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 20, line 32, after ("State") insert ("and the education authority").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps to the relief of the Committee, this is a short amendment. It extends the range of persons to whom the result of the ballot should be intimated. The clause currently provides that:
"The result of the ballot shall forthwith be intimated to the Secretary of State by the board of management".
The amendment is designed to include the education authority as persons to whom the board of management should intimate the result of the ballot. It may be argued that it would be a pretty strange education authority that did not know what was going on in its own immediate area. But there is always the chance that it is not fully informed of what is going on in particular schools. No doubt it would find out in due course but we believe that there is no harm in making the provision mandatory within the Bill. Apart from anything else, it would enable the authority to take account of any changes resulting from the operation of this clause in assessing its own future requirements within its locality. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: If it is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 and 75, it might be convenient if he were to speak to them now.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Those are consequential amendments. I do not think I need say anything about them.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thank the noble Lord. The first amendment to subsection (4) of Clause 30 is, I suggest, unnecessary. The education authority must be consulted by the board before a ballot is called. The authority will know when a ballot has taken place and since it has a local presence it will know the result. The ballot result can hardly be a secret. My right honourable friend may not know when a ballot has been held, and Clause 30(4) provides the first formal intimation to him.
The second amendment to subsection (6)(b) is appropriate. The education authority may have a real and immediate interest in proposals for a change

943
in characteristics. Even although published proposals will be freely available locally, that interest should be recognised by requiring the board to send them to the authority. The Secretary of State will certainly look for comment from the authority on any implications for other schools before reaching his decision on the proposals. Subsection (6)(c) already covers any denominational interest.
I am happy to accept the principle of amendment to Clause 31. The education authority has an obvious interest in any discontinuance of a self-governing school. We should, however, also cover any denominational body connected with the school, as has been the practice in earlier clauses. If this amendment is withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, I undertake to bring forward at Report changes requiring published proposals to be sent to the education authority and any denominational interest.
Consequently I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the first amendment to line 32 as unnecessary and not to move the Clause 31 amendment on the basis of the assurance I have offered.
I am happy to accept the second amendment (Amendment No. 65) in principle. I am advised that, if the noble Lord and the Committee are content that the line 43 amendment be altered to read,
"and to the education authority",
it would be appropriate for me to accept it here and now.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for his very full answer. In the light of the various undertakings that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 not moved.]
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 21, line 12, at end insert—
("(9) When making a decision as regards any proposals under this section, the Secretary of State will have regard to the interests of all children in the local area and the duty placed on the education authority under section 1 of the 1980 Act to secure that there is made for their area adequate and efficient provision of school education and further education.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, when the Secretary of State receives proposals for change in the essential characteristics of a self-governing school, he not only considers the effect on pupils at that self-governing school but also on other schools in the area and on the ability of the local authority to continue to carry out its statutory duty for all the children in the area. A comprehensive school, or a community school in Scotland, might wish, for example, to bias its entry in order to become a magnet school for science and technology, or for the arts, drama or music. It might wish to set a basic academic standard. It might wish to alter the age range catered for. A secondary school might add a primary department. A mixed school might want to become a single sex school. A denominational school might want to become a non-denominational school, or vice versa.
It seems extremely important that the Secretary of State should be obliged to take into account all the schools in the area because the effect, if some of these changes happened in a self-governing school, might be an imbalance among the sexes in the remaining schools. There might be further to travel for, let us say, Roman Catholic pupils to the nearest Roman Catholic school, or other primary schools in the area might become short of numbers. Schools might be short of more gifted children in certain directions because of the magnet nature of these new schools.
It seems essential for the Secretary of State to take all these matters into account in coming to a decision as to whether he agrees to a change in the essential characteristics. I have no doubt that any good Secretary of State would take these matters into account and it therefore seems to me that there is no reason whatever why an amendment such as this should not be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I was only too pleased to add my name to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I should have moved it on her behalf when she was unwell last week, if we had reached it. Many reasons have been given by her. It seems self-evident that if a school decides to opt out there could be great repercussions for certain other schools in the area. The noble Baroness pointed out that a mixed school becoming a single sex school could seriously affect the composition of other schools. A denominational school could either become non-denominational or could become specifically denominational and that could cause great difficulties.
The selectivity brought to the choice of the subjects taught in schools was discussed in the Commons and the Minister piloting the Bill in another place said at Committee stage on 16th March that a self-governing school might wish to specialise in dance, music or the arts. Several education authorities already offer such specialism. If, however, a self-governing school introduces general academic selection as a result of which pupils are admitted to the school only if they reach a certain level of general academic ability, those pupils who do not achieve the necessary standard will face rejection. The introduction of choice for some parents may bring a denial of choice for other parents. I tried to emphasise strongly on Second Reading the fact that I am not sure whether it is possible at an early age to make an academic selection that really means a great deal. There are the obvious children. A school psychiatrist has told me that, with certain children, he realises a few minutes after they enter the room that he is in the presence of a better mind than his own. But, leaving aside these levels, there is a whole range of pupils whose ultimate ability, development and expansion cannot be predicted at an early age.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has gone into this fairly thoroughly. A point that I do not think she made was the question of the age range of pupils who may be catered for. A school may legitimately wish to expand provision for pupils in a nursery class, to add a senior V or VI form to a four-year secondary school or even to drop SV and SVI from

945
a six-year old school due to changing circumstances. When the Minister was speaking about this in another place he accepted that such changes may both enhance and restrict the choice available to parents. He gave the example of a self-governing secondary school which has spare capacity and decides to establish a primary department. That will obviously have severe consequences for existing primary schools in the area, even if the new primary department attracts only a small percentage of local children. It could make another primary school, to which parents had perhaps anticipated their children would go, unviable.
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the amendment. I am sure he will. We have given enough examples to show that it is a difficult problem unless there is a great deal of understanding and unless the Secretary of State has certain powers to make sure that the balance is always maintained in an area.
Lord Addington: The amendment points out one of the gravest potential dangers of having opting-out schools: the fact that schools were originally conceived to act in relation to a whole area. If a school were to change itself in some way that could ultimately change the nature of the education system provided throughout the area, since it might no longer be acting in concert with other schools. There have been numerous examples of what could go wrong following various types of change. We must remember that education works at a community level and schools must act in concert within that community. On these grounds it is important that we give this amendment, if not our wholehearted support, at least very grave consideration.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment, which is largely acceptable to the Government. I shall go on to explain why. Any major change in the characteristics of a self-governing school clearly has implications for public provision in the area generally. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, earlier pointed this out. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State could not reasonably disregard the implications for the education authority's own provision. He would have to concern himself in any case with the public expenditure implications of either accepting or rejecting the school's proposals. If, for example, the result was likely to be that another school had to be provided, or a school extended, as a result of the change at the self-governing school, that factor would inevitably have to weigh with my right honourable friend. Any comments by the education authority on proposals from a self-governing school about such wider implications will be of concern to my right honourable friend.
The reference on the amendment to,
"the interests of all children in the local area"
perhaps suggests something different from the duty on an education authority. However, I am content with the principle of the amendment and, if my noble friend would care to withdraw it, I should be
946
very glad to bring forward an amendment at a later stage requiring the Secretary of State, when considering proposals under Clause 30, to take account of the general duty placed on the education authority under Section 1 of the 1980 Act to secure provision of adequate and efficient school education for its area. I hope that, with that assurance, my noble friend will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to thank noble Lords who have supported me and particularly my noble friend for what to me has been an extremely pleasant surprise. It will be a pleasant surprise not only to me but to the many people who have advised me on this matter. I take the point that the word "children" is proably not the right one to describe the overall educational responsibility of the Secretary of State. That probably does need altering.
I was delighted to hear the Minister say that he accepts the principle. If a provision along the lines he indicated can be written into the Bill, it will reassure a number of people. I thank him, and on those grounds I gladly withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 21, line 23, leave out ("In subsection (1) above") and insert ("Subject to subsection (13) below.").
The noble Lord said: I wondered whether the Minister could not have grouped these amendments with the previous one. I see the Minister raising his hands in horror at the idea; but I thought that we had dealt with the matter in the previous amendment. I had thought that the subject of general academic selection would have encompassed the subject of the comprehensive system. I believe that it offers equality of opportunity for all. It is free of charge, and by virtue of its historic development it operates in a consistent and cohesive manner, as independent research has shown. That is particularly true in areas which have never known anything but comprehensive schools; for example, in the new towns which have never had schools with a good history extending 30, 40 or 50 years. I should be surprised if any of the new towns had any idea of changing to academic selectivity.
When speaking to the previous amendments, I dealt with most of the points raised by those in this group. The Minister will be aware of the purpose of our amendments. I do not wish to delay the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 69. The Minister's reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, appeared to encompass Amendment No. 69. A vital and essential part of Scottish education is that there is no academic selection in an area of a local authority school. There are specialist schools in the area, but to have a self-governing school introducing academic selection would cut across everything that has been said in the discussion. The Minister must be able to agree with the purpose of the amendment, so enabling us to withdraw it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Under Clause 30 any proposed change must have the support of parents in a ballot. Why should existing parents vote to deny entry in future to a similar mix of children? That would be bound to mean the school refusing many of the children of their neighbours and friends and many of the younger brothers and sisters of those already at the school. No, that simply will not happen. The Bill gives parents a veto on any such change that is sufficient protection against the return to the old days of senior secondary schools, so feared by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and many people.
These amendments take us considerably further. I shall try to explain the point particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who spoke eloquently in favour of one of these amendments. A school would be prevented from ever having the admission of any pupil depend on the level of general academic ability. At present education authorities operate specialist units at certain of their schools. These units draw pupils from a wide area. Naturally, such units must select the pupils most likely to benefit. Self-governing schools should enjoy the same opportunities to develop specialisms whether in music, in dance or in other areas of the curriculum. If a school wishes to create a unit for pupils gifted in classics, or in foreign languages, or in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and his native Lewis, for native Gaelic speakers, it should be free to do so. While selection for a specialist dance unit may be made without looking at general academic ability, would that be quite so obviously true of a specialist classics or mathematics unit?
Self-governing schools are not going to bring about a return to selective secondary education. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear his view. On 6th March in another place he said:
"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". [Official Report, Commons; 6/3/89; col. 643]
I have indicated that the right of veto has been given to the parents and that the amendments could be used to cast doubt on schools operating specialist units which enhance the diversity of provision and extend parental choice.
I hope that the noble Lord who proposed the amendments will consider my remarks carefully because their result may not be what he had intended.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I understand that there are problems in the wording of such amendments; but there are also problems in the wording of the Minister's reply. I am always in a difficulty when people talk of gifted children. In doing so we are talking of special children who in any event would probably find it difficult to be in an average school. I know of a school in Glasgow towards which there has been a drift because of its high musical content. Other schools may have a particularly good department in a specific subject, and there would be a drift towards that. That is different from the school setting down its limits and
948
stating, "You are not coming in here unless you have a certain standard".
The Minister's remarks and those made by his right honourable friend in another place appear to suggest that that will not happen. The Minister has made clear the Government's intentions. I am sorry that they will not go further and put them into words. We have had enough discussion on the words in the Bill. We will look at the matter again on Report, but at this stage I must accept the words of the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Arrangements in Respect of Ballot of Parents Regarding Change in Characteristics of Self-Governing School]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 65, line 22, after ("arrangements") insert (", and the exercise by the board of management of any functions in relation to the ballot,").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to the amendment when considering Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 65, line 24, leave out ("and only or).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 72 because they must be read together. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, within two years of having to decide which secondary school their child will attend, the parents of primary schoolchildren will have a chance of taking part in the ballot.
Under the Education Publication and Consultation etc. (Scotland) Regulations 1981 the position appears to be that, where an education authority proposes to close a school, the parents to be consulted must include:
"the parent of every child being a child of whose existence the authority are aware who would be expected to be in attendance at the school … to be discontinued within two years of the date of the proposal".
Surely it reasonably follows that where the parents of those children have to be consulted when a school is to be closed because of the effect it may have on the education of the children, it is equally important, where there is to be a ballot on the change of characteristics of the school to which the children would normally be going, that the parents of those prospective pupils should be brought into discussions as a matter of vital importance.
Primary pupils are the life blood of the secondary schools. The parents of those children are the source of members of boards of management. It is very important that those parents should not be put off the school because of a lack of consultation or knowledge regarding the proposal to change the characteristics.
I make no apology for returning to the theme of the consultation and information process. During a

949
debate in the other place the Minister in charge said that:
"where there are established close links between schools, those promoting proposals would probably be well advised to seek views from other schools at an early stage".
He went on to say that:
"involving people in a consultation process is quite different from including people in a ballot process where it is clearly important to be able to determine precisely who has a right to vote and who has not".
Later in the debate the Minister said:
"If Opposition Members want a ballot, there is nothing to stop the school board in a feeder primary school running its own plebiscite to get a view before it made representations to the Secretary of State".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/4/89; col. 6491
I do not quite follow the logic of that approach by the Government. They seem to be accepting the principle of a consultation process for the younger children about to enter into the school but are not prepared to go the whole way and say, "All right, you are an essential part of the education process. Your children are going to form the school and their parents are going to run the school. Come in and take part in the discussion on the future of this school which will affect your children's educational existence for several years". In particular, it is even more important if the time between ballots is extended because the children entering the school will be under the regime, if one can call it that, of the new characteristics approved by the Secretary of State.
Therefore, this amendment is brought in to ensure that there is a full consultation process, something which would attract parents to take an interest in the secondary school or schools in their area and to have a say in the education of their children to which they have a statutory right. That is something which the Government say they go out of their way to encourage. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I would like to stress the importance of taking into account, particularly in rural areas, the views of the primary schools grouped round the secondary or comprehensive schools in the main towns. Obviously it is of great importance to the parents of children in primary schools what will happen to the school where their children will go for their further education. I await with interest the Minister's reply.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that in rural areas this is very important. However, I must say to him and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that this is based on somewhat out-of-date thinking. Since choice by parents has played a much larger role in the decision as to which secondary school a child will go to, it is very difficult to say, in a given secondary school from which primary school children will come. Of course that applies more in the city where no secondary school could say which primary schools would be the origin of their pupils in the year after next or, indeed, next year.
It does not even apply entirely in rural areas. In the village of Friockheim in Angus to my certain
950
knowledge the pupils from that primary school divide by choice and go to three different secondary schools so that it would be quite impossible to operate this. I think any arrangement would have to be informal and could not be on the statute.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I may contradict the noble Baroness slightly. It is all very well for the pupils in Friockheim who have a geographical choice which is much wider than the pupils in Cortachy. If the nature of Webster's seminary in Kirriemuir changes, then their choice is not limited but constrained by the geography and they would have a long way to travel in order to attend the school of their choice.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord makes an absolutely valid point. I only say to him that the statute would also have to cover Friockheim.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I do not wish to become involved in that argument but perhaps I could try to address what is germane to this amendment. It tries to identify a set of parents beyond the particular self-governing school concerned with a future interest where the school is proposing to change its characteristics. It would then extend to those individuals a say in the ballot. The amendment depends on a very rigid view of which pupils will opt to attend which school.
I have some very interesting figures which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, might like to hear but I shall leave that until we are outside the Chamber because it will take me quite a long time. However, those figures indicate that in places like the Highland Regional Council area there are some interesting variations in where parents actually send their children to secondary schools.
In fact it is not at all certain that all parents of children in associated primary schools will wish to send their children to the self-governing school concerned. Under the parents' charter they have a choice and certainly in many urban areas quite a wide choice. This is a choice which parents exercise within the local authority sector at present. It is therefore not realistic to believe that one can define precisely those with a future interest in a particular self-governing school. That is one of the difficulties.
That is one reason why the ballot, whether it seeks self-governing status or subsequently a change of characteristics, is confined to the well-defined group of those parents who have children actually in attendance at the school. They have the closest interest in the school. I accept that a wider range of people will have an interest in whether a self-governing school changes its characteristics, and provision in Clause 30(7) is made for any individual or organisation to make representations on the proposals to the Secretary of State.
A successful ballot does not determine the outcome. It is merely a pre-condition of the school submitting its proposals to the Secretary of State. It is for the Secretary of State to decide in light of all the circumstances. Representations received on the

951
proposals must be considered and the opinions of prospective parents would obviously be relevant to the likely long-term viability of the school. Indeed the board of management themselves are bound to pay close attention to the views of parents of potential future pupils simply to assure the future of the school. The ballot itself should however be confined to the well-defined constituency of parents with pupils currently at the school.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked about consultation regulations. There is an important difference as regards consulting widely on the implications of change in management by the education authority, to which he referred. That can be done on the basis of a general definition of related schools.
It is a different matter entirely to include individuals in the statutory ballot with equal weight to those parents with children at the school. There is no clear demarcation line at the level of individual parents with future interests and those without. Clause 30 provides for anyone to make representations, as I have already said. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Brager: I am grateful to the Minister for his exposition of the Government's view on this matter and also to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for his support. It would not be staring reality in the face if I did not accept that there was considerable force in what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I appreciate the difficulty in defining the area, which might cause more problems than it solves.
The phrase "associated primary schools" was chosen deliberately. In moving this amendment we received some encouragement from the words of the Minister in another place when he himself spoke of a feeder primary school. That gave us a titbit to bite on, if I may put it that way. However, having heard the Minister's explanation I accept that both he and the noble Baroness have a point which we shall have to look at again. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 65, line 30, after ("(a)") insert ("without predjudice to sub-paragraph (b) below given such information about the consequences for the school as may reasonably be expected to enable him to form a proper judgement as to whether such a change should be sought for the school, including the results of the consultation undertaken under section 30(2) of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: It is clearly important that before the parents of a self-governing school vote on whether or not they are to seek a change in the school's central characteristics they should have before them adequate information about the consequences for the school of that change. This is a matter of particular concern to the Scottish Parent Teacher Association and to the Scottish Consumer Council.
It seems to me that during the Committee stage in the other place the then Minister for Education, Mr. Michael Forsyth, accepted this view. In response to an amendment on the matter he said:
"The Committee will recall that when we debated Schedule 3, I accepted an amendment that provided that the information going to each voter with the ballot paper should include information 'about the consequences for the school of acquisition of self-governing status as may reasonably be expected to enable him to form a proper judgment'. It is reasonable and logical to have a similar provision in Schedule 7. If the honourable gentleman cares to withdraw the amendment, I shall undertake to bring forward an equivalent amendment to that already made in Schedule 3".—[0fficial Report, Commons, First Scottish Standing Committee, 25/4/89; Col. 986.]
I should like the Minister to tell the Committee why that has not been done. It should have been done as it was foreseen in that way so long ago. In view of the fact that it has not been done perhaps he will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Most of the amendment simply carries across words already present in Schedule 3 of the Bill dealing with ballots on the change to self-governing status. The context here is somewhat different. In most cases the consequences for the self-governing schools of a suggested change in characteristics will be very clear to parents. They will hardly need an explanation of a question such as "Do you want the school to open a primary department?" By contrast, in a ballot on opting for self-government many parents will need something in neutral language explaining what, in general, self-governing status means for a school.
Nevertheless, I agree it would be sensible to adopt the Schedule 3 wording here. The final reference to circulation of the results of consultation by the board of management under Clause 30(2) is a new addition. I do not believe this would be appropriate. The views of the education authority on any change in characteristics will be important but their response to the board of management may have to be very detailed and hardly suitable for circulation to all parents. In any case the Board will have taken into account the authority's views and may well have modified their ballot question as a result.
Perhaps I should say a few words about what happened in another place on this amendment. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in supporting this amendment, circulated a quotation from my honourable friend's remarks during the Committee stage in another place. This is, if I may suggest the term, a somewhat selective quotation. My honourable friend did indeed offer to bring forward an amendment in similar terms to what is now in Schedule 3 to the Bill. His next words were:
"I am sure the Committee will accept my undertaking and I hope we can proceed to further consideration of the Bill."
The next opposition speaker then said he was unconvinced by the Minister's assurances and debate continued over a further hour or so. I believe that particular stage of the Bill took a further 20 hours to complete.
Perhaps I may say, in a slightly shorter time and in somewhat slang parlance that it would appear to me that "all bets were off". However, I can assure the Committee that my honourable friend's

953
assurance will be reflected in the deliberations in this Chamber and if my noble friend will agree to withdraw her amendment I shall bring forward a revised version to import the wording used in paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 3. We will deal with Schedule 7 in a similar fashion.
Lord Howie of Troon: That would appear to be a satisfactory way of resolving the problem but can the Minister tell the Committee why this proposed amendment for the next stage of the Bill was not brought forward at this stage?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: If one studies closely, as I have done, what was said in another place on this matter it is apparent that there are two sides to the argument which took place on that occasion. I am saying that this Chamber has the opportunity now to fulfil what I believe to be a sensible amendment to the Bill.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We are grateful to the Minister for correcting what was obviously an oversight, at the very least, in the other place. My noble friend Lord Howie of Troon has a point. Many of us have been at both ends of a confrontation in another place. We have listened to long speeches and possibly occasionally made long speeches—usually there is another purpose behind them.
The situation may not be good for Parliament in general because although there may be incredible irritation or "fed-upness", if the amendment is worthwhile it is wrong to suggest that all bets are off. It is either a good amendment or a bad amendment. Therefore, I am glad that the Minister in this House, at any rate, on being spurred by his noble friend, has decided that a similarly worded amendment to that proposed in the other place should be made to the Bill. It will improve the Bill and I am grateful to the Minister.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank noble Lords who have supported me. I also thank my noble friend. I am sorry if the quotation I gave was out of context and misled anyone, but it appears to me that the Minister in another place gave an undertaking and that it is time that undertaking was fulfilled. The Minister has indicated that that is now to happen. Therefore, I am content, as will many other people be content. In thanking the Minister I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 65, line 42, after ("question") insert ("which has been approved by the prescribed body,").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to require that the prescribed body which is conducting the ballot approves the wording of the question as to whether the proposed change in essential characteristics should be sought. This matter is of particular concern to a number of people who are trying to look ahead and see how such a ballot will operate on the ground. I discussed it in
954
particular with the Scottish Parent Teacher Association.
Paragraph 4(c) of Schedule 7 states that the ballot paper will set out the question as to whether the change in characteristics sought should be made and invites the parents to vote yes or no to that question. Obviously, the wording of the question will vary depending on the exact nature of the change in the characteristics. It is essential that the wording of the question should be clear and unloaded and that in the way that it is worded it does not influence the parent in deciding whether to vote yes or no.
The wording of such a question has to be very carefully constructed. In any case, it seems wise that it should be independently vetted. This amendment provides for that. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It is certainly important that the question posed to parents on the ballot paper makes quite clear precisely the change in characteristics envisaged by the board of management. The question should be in suitably neutral terms. The prescribed body responsible for the actual conduct of the ballot, which is the Electoral Reform Society, will issue the voting papers to parents. I imagine they will have their own views and would certainly object to anything in the nature of a leading question. In these ballots, as in ballots on self-governing status, the prescribed body will have to observe such guidance as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may publish. I shall happily undertake that we will discuss with the Electoral Reform Society how the point of my noble friend's amendment could best be dealt with in that guidance. With that undertaking I hope my noble friend might consider withdrawing her amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The amendment proposed draws attention to a very important part of the schedule. The fact that parents will have to answer yes or no to whatever the question may be makes the consultation and the information process even more important for the proper operation of the Bill once it becomes an Act.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for what he has said. I believe it to be very helpful. I also thank the Minister for his acceptance of the fact that this is a matter that should be discussed with the Electoral Reform Society. That meets the point very well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Discontinuance by board of management]:
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Administrative, professional, technical or other services]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 24, line 30, leave out ("require") and insert ("request").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be convenient for the Committee to consider at the same time Amendment No. 77 because, like so many of these amendments, they have to be read together, otherwise they do not make a great deal of sense.
Amendment No. 76 deals with one of the most important clauses in the Bill which has been referred to from time to time during the course of the debates. It concerns the board of management of a self-governing school being provided with certain services from the local authority. At the moment the board of management of a self-governing school may require the education authority to provide it with any administrative, professional, technical or other services in respect of schools under the authority's management.
The purpose of these two amendments is to ensure that the balance of these services is properly maintained between the education authority schools (not self-governing) and the self-governing schools. As I believe we have already established, a local authority is statutorily required to continue to provide, for example, child guidance services. There is also a very wide range of services envisaged here. Almost everything that a local authority does can be demanded by the self-governing school, irrespective of the consequences for the local authority's own schools.
The only consolation that the education authority has is contained in Clause 34(2), which states that:
"An education authority may make such charge as is reasonable for any services which they are required under subsection (1) above to provide; and they shall in determining what charge to make have regard both to the cost of providing the services and to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in respect of any such charge".
Subsection (3) of that clause gives the Secretary of State the final decision on the reasonableness of the charge. That creates a situation where the local authority, whether it likes it nor not, must provide a service of administrative, professional, technical or any other nature falling within that ambit to the self-governing school. At the end of the day the local authority may be losing out both financially and in the services available to its own schools.
In a situation where a school becomes self-governing and does not initially wish to make use of the education authority's services—there may be several schools within the same authority, for example, in Strathclyde, Lothian or the larger regions—the demand may have diminished for the professional, technical or other services within the area. Staff may have disappeared because they were not being used by the self-governing schools.
Amendment No. 76 dilutes the demand, if I may put it that way. At line 30, instead of making it a requirement, it should be a request. That part of the subsection will then read,
956
"a self-governing school may request the education authority to provide them with any administrative, professional, technical or other services which the authority provide to or in respect of schools under the authority's management".
Amendment No. 77 adds to that a qualification in these terms:
"providing such a request is reasonable, and can be met without detriment to the quality of services provided to schools under its management the education authority shall be required to make such services as are requested, available to a self-governing school".
That rather tilts the balance the other way from a requirement to a request. If this amendment is accepted by the Government the authority will have to show that the request is unreasonable. Therefore we shall go through a process of a request becoming a requirement with the intermediate test of reasonableness. I suggest that this is an amendment that should commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We believe that these amendments could significantly undermine the intended workings of Clause 34. The clause ensures that a self-governing school can choose to make continuing use of local authority support services where the board wish to do so and are ready to pay a reasonable charge out of the recurrent grant available to them. I would certainly argue that where the authority is to receive a fair price for its services there is no detriment to the authority's own schools. In some cases that fair price may be very high indeed; for example, if the scale of the request from the self-governing school would genuinely require the authority to take on an additional member of staff. In these circumstances this would not be likely to prove a sensible arrangement for the school. The fair price would simply be too much.
However I can see it would be possible to argue that almost any request for services to be provided to a self-governing school would to some extent take away specialist resources for the remaining schools in the area. After all, the amendment says nothing about the scale of detriment and some might see it operating to prevent any request succeeding.
Clause 34 already includes the safeguard for an authority of a fair price paid by the self-governing school. Further amendment on the lines suggested would threaten the principle of the self-governing school having a right to get certain services at a fair price.
The noble Lord said that costs may be high for the authority. While Clause 34 binds local authorities to provide services on request, the school must be prepared to pay a reasonable charge. If it finds the service too expensive, and if the charge proposed reflects the due cost of providing the service, it will just have to accept that it must look elsewhere or else make do without it. We do not want authorities to be subjected to unreasonable demands in this matter. As the noble Lord said, it is a question of balance. I hope that the safeguards we have written into the clause will be sufficient to deal with the matter.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the Minister for that reply. What is fair and what is reasonable

957
depends on the eye and the mind of the beholder and the person considering it. This underlines one of the difficulties in the operation of the Bill. The Minister referred to a fair price for the services and to additional staff being taken on. We were looking at the other side of the coin. Where this Bill is operated by a number of schools within a local authority, the services may not be there or may be limited. The fact that the services are limited may make the price high.
If I heard the Minister correctly, he was saying to the self-governing school that if the price is high, it is the price the Secretary of State thinks is reasonable and that the school will have to take it or leave it. What will happen to the poor child waiting for the services to arrive? Will he be subjected to a continual process of discussion between the parties, a process which will eventually include the Secretary of State? Clause 34(3) does not say that the test of reasonableness will be decided by the Secretary of State when both parties cannot agree. It says that either party can take it to the Secretary of State. It is not a joint venture.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We shall be offering to issue guidance which will help both sides in any negotiations. Long before the poor child is waiting to know whether he will face a problem I hope that the matter will have been decided.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Life is full of hope and expectation. One hopes that that will be the end result. I am obliged to the noble Lord for that explanation. I shall take the matter away and have another look at it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Functions of school board: application of certain provisions of 1988 Act]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 24, line 48, at end insert—
("(bb) section 12(2)(a) (reports to parents) of that Act activities of the board;
(bc) section 12(2)(b) (ascertaining views of parents) of that Act matters which are the responsiblity of the board;").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 79. The general import of Clause 35 is that powers and functions which a school board has under the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 may also be exercised by a board in carrying out any of its functions in taking a school towards self-governing status under the Bill. Clause 35 does this by specifying the relevant sections of the 1988 Act which are to be extended in this way. These amendments ensure that school boards are to communicate with parents and ascertain their views on the question of acquiring self-governing status just as on any of their other activities as school boards. I laid some stress in replying to earlier
958
amendments on the desirability of a board taking parents into its confidence as soon as it begins to contemplate self-governing status. I should expect that a board would generally do so in any case; but these amendments would put their duty beyond doubt. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 25, line 2, leave out ("(b)").
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Transfer of land, moveable property and obligations to board of management]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 25, line 21, leave out from ("school") to end of line 22.
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment to widen the provisions of Clause 36(1)(c). As presently drafted, this has the effect of transferring to a board of management only the moveable property, liabilities and obligations acquired by a school board under Section 18 of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. It is also possible, however, for a school board to have acquired moveable property and to have incurred obligations under Section 17 of the 1980 Act or Schedule 5 to the Bill. Those rights and obligations of the school board should also transfer to the board of management on incorporation. The amendment will ensure that that would happen. I beg to move.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transfer and Apportionment of Assets]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 67, line 26, leave out ("direction") and insert ("determination").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment simply to maintain the consistency of the wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Disposal of land by board of management]:
On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I should like some guidance from the Government as to the consequences of Clause 37 in relation to the disposal of land by the board of management. As the clause stands, an education authority might have to buy back its own land. Subsection (2) says:
"Where the consent of the Secretary of State is sought as mentioned in subection (1) above, he may —

959
(a) require the board of management to transfer the land, or any part of it, to the education authority upon payment by the authority to the board of such consideration, if any, as he considers appropriate".
There follows an exception. If I read the Bill correctly, when a self-governing school becomes established, the assets in the hands of the local authority, including land, will be automatically transferred to the new board of management without any financial consideration. It is a matter of some concern that, if the school fails or is discontinued for one reason or another, what originally belonged to the local authority and to the people of the area will have to be bought back by the local authority.
The regulations state that if property originally transferred from the education authority had in the meantime been improved by the board of management—for example, if new buildings had been erected upon it—the Secretary of State could alternatively direct that the whole property be handed over to the education authority but that the authority should compensate the board for the value added to it. That would seem to suggest that it would be for improvements only that the authority would have to pay anything to the board of management. If the Minister has the information and considers the question to be relevant we should be grateful if he would enlighten us as to the meaning of Clause 37.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Clause 37 empowers the Secretary of State, where his consent is sought by a board of management for the disposal of land, and that land was originally owned by the education authority, or was purchased from the proceeds of the disposal of any such land, to require that the land, or the proceeds of the sale of the land, be transferred in whole or in part to the education authority. Thus by means of Clause 37, the interest of an education authority in public assets with which it has in the past been connected, can be maintained.
In terms of Clause 37(3) the Secretary of State may also direct a board of management to pay to an education authority the whole or any part of such compensation as the board may receive in the event of land being compulsorily acquired from it, where that land was previously owned by the education authority or was purchased from proceeds of the sale of such land.
Clause 37 offers important protection for the interests of the education authority and should therefore stand part of the Bill.
The noble Lord asked about improvements. Some consideration due to improvements carried out to the premises by the board of management may be appropriate. I hope that that brief explanation answers the noble Lord's questions. I look forward to reading closely what he said. If there is anything further about the disposal of land which I need to address, I shall of course be in touch with him.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Will the Minister give examples of when he may allow a school board to retain part of the money? Is he talking about improvements to the school or a new department?
960
What sort of case would it have to make to retain part of the money from the sale of land?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The noble Lord as usual is asking me to answer a hypothetical question. I should like to look at various examples of where it may be possible for the board of management to have a right of retention. I should like to seek advice on that point and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation of the Government's position, and for the fact that he said he will have another look at the provisions of Clause 37 to see whether there are any unforeseen snags in the disposal of property covered by Clause 37.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Disposal of land or moveable property by education authority prior to incorporation date]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 28, line 19, after ("shall") insert ("subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 83.
The purpose of Amendment No. 82 is to place a limit on the dates of transactions involving the disposal of land or moveable property which are required to be referred to the Secretary of State. In Clauses 41 and 42 wide powers are given for the review and possible reduction of transactions involving the disposal of land or moveable property which were effected by the education authority before the initiation of procedures to seek self-governing status for schools.
Clause 41 appears to require the Commissioner for School Assets to report to the Secretary of State any occasion at any time in the past when the education authority has removed or withdrawn any moveable property from the school, or has transferred or entered into a transaction involving any land or moveable property, which would otherwise have transferred to the board of a self-governing school.
The effect of the amendment is to place a limit on the date of transactions which are required to be referred to the Secretary of State. There are a number of reasons for such a limit. First, it would appear to be totally impractical to require the Commissioner for School Assets to identify all instances of previous actions by the education authority at any time, particularly with regard to moveable property. Secondly, the effect of Clause 42(2)(b) is that no action may be taken in respect of any transfer or transaction effected before 22nd November 1988, or more than five years before the Commissioner for School Assets is in a position to apply to the court for an order setting aside the transaction.
In view of that provision, there seems to be no justification for framing Clause 41 in such broad terms. It would appear to be sufficient for the purpose of the remedies provided to require the commissioner to identify only any transactions effected since November 1988 or, if later, a date five years before the Secretary of State's approval of the proposals for self-governing status.
The amendments provide for such limits to be applied. I realise that this is an important technical subject which could have important repercussions on the development of a school and which may be to the detriment of other schools which could be left without the facilities which at one time had been laid aside for them.
The purport of the amendment is clear, although I may have taken longer than I intended to try to explain it. I hope that the Minister will grasp the intention and give us an opportunity to thank him for looking at the amendment and for bringing forward his own words at a later date. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward the amendment which I agree is important. I am sorry if I take a little longer to answer than I might otherwise do. I consider that this is an important issue and we need to have the background as well as to deal with the amendments.
It may help first to look back to Clause 36. That clause provides that land or moveable property which is owned by the education authority and used or held by the authority for the purposes of a school immediately before it becomes self-governing should transfer to the board of management of the school. Clause 36(7) provides that, prior to the initiation of the opting-out process, the education authority may not dispose of any land or moveable property with the object of preventing its transfer to the board of management of a self-governing school. In addition, Clauses 43 and 47 provide that after the opting-out process has been initiated the education authority is not to remove any land from the use of the school or otherwise dispose of it without the consent of the school board.
If we look then at Clause 41, we see that it provides that where the Commissioner for School Assets considers that the education authority has removed, withdrawn or disposed of land or property which should have transferred to the board of management under Clause 36, he is to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State so determines, the commissioner may then take such action as appears to him to be appropriate to seek a remedy. The Bill then offers him a kind of menu of remedies, under Clauses 42, 44, 45, 46 and 47.
Now we come to the amendment. It appears to be an attempt to prevent the commissioner from seeking any remedy in respect of any action taken prior to 22nd November 1988, or more than five years before the school becomes self-governing.
That is unnecessary. The remedies offered under four of the five clauses mentioned; namely, Clauses 44, 45, 46 and 47 all deal with the case where the education authority has removed or disposed of
962
property after the opting-out process has been initiated by the serving of a notice on the education authority. In these cases there would be no question of dealing with any withdrawal or other disposal of property taken before 22nd November 1988 or more than five years beforehand. We would be dealing here with a period of weeks or months after the procedure for the acquisition of self-governing status had commenced.
The only remedy offered by the Bill which deals with anything done by an education authority before a school has initiated the opting-out process is that offered by Clause 42 under which the commissioner may apply to the Court of Session for an order setting aside or varying a transaction. That remedy is already subject to the limit on retrospection which is referred to in the amendment. Indeed it is obvious that it is from Clause 42 that the terms of the amendment have come. But since the Clause 42 remedy is subject to that limit, and none of the other remedies arising out of Clause 41 applies to any action taken before a school has actually initiated the opting-out process, I believe that this amendment is simply unnecessary.
I hope that with that full explanation of a genuine point which the noble Lord has made he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I think that the Minister has clarified the matters which caused the concern which triggered off the amendments. I spoke rather longer than I intended and I am glad that I was vindicated since the Minister realised the importance of the amendment and spoke in explanation for just as long.
I am moved to accept his explanation in full, with the proviso that because it was so technical and exact it will need examination and perhaps consultation. I feel that the Minister has given every satisfaction possible and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Prevention of disposals of property by education authority]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 29, line 44, after ("15") insert ("(1)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was taken with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Duty of education authority to provide information]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 32, line 11, after ("Act") insert ("providing the transfer of any confidential information has been done with the written consent of the individual concerned.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 48 is very important in relation to the transfer of schools into the new self-governing area. The heading of the clause is, "Provision of information". The side note reads:
"Duty of education authority to provide information".
The clause reads:
"The education authority shall, on the incorporation date or as soon as practicable thereafter, provide the board of management of a self-governing school with all the information held by that authority in respect of that school including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, information in respect of—

(a) the administration of the school;

(b) the fabric of the school;

(c) staff transferred from the employment of the authority to the employment of the board of management by virtue of section 22 of this Act; and

(d) the pupils in attendance at the school".

The amendment has been brought before the Committee because it is not clear from the terminology of Clause 48(c) just what information "all … information in respect of" a member of staff means. Reading the Bill fairly, it suggests that it only covers perhaps the name of the teacher, the teacher's age, qualifications, teaching experience, when he or she came to the school and so on. As the wording stands, it leaves it open for all sorts of information to be paseed on to another authority to which the teacher perhaps may be involuntarily transferred—the word the Act uses is "assigned"—by the education authority.
Therefore we suggest that as a protection against tittle-tattle and other matters going from one school to another and from the education authority to the new school there should be a built-in proviso that the transfer of any confidential information has been carried out with the written consent of the individual concerned.
There seems to be no limit on the information. As the clause stands, it could carry with it, for example, reports from headmasters to the education authority about the character, behaviour, sexual proclivities, ability and various other characteristics of the teacher. These would go willy-nilly to the new school to be read by the board of management. That board will not contain entirely education officers or people fully trained in management. It will contain a large element of laymen to whom the attitude of confidentiality is not always one to be adopted. Schools, like many other institutions, are hotbeds of gossip. One would not want gossip to be translated into fact. It is often said that if a piece of gossip is repeated three times, it becomes a fact and finds its way into confidential documents relating to a teacher.
The purpose of the amendment, putting it shortly, is that any teacher who has been transferred to a school should have the opportunity to examine the
964
material which has been sent and which relates to him or her so that he or she can ask for the information to be revised in fairness to the individual concerned.
If the Minister is able to give a guarantee that guidelines will also be sent out in relation to what Clause 48(c) actually means, that would be very helpful. It would be particularly useful for teachers assigned to a new job contrary to their previous contract of employment. It will be of interest to them to know just what information will be passed by the authority to their new employers in terms of Clause 48. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I wish to support the amendment. An element of individual liberty is involved here as well as confidentiality. If people transfer to new employers who operate under different circumstances, they have certain rights which should be safeguarded. I suggest that this should be looked into very closely.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Clause 48 provides that an education authority should supply the board of management of a self-governing school with all the information which the authority holds as managers of the school. This amendment would have the effect of allowing employees to decide whether their staff records are to be transferred to their new employers.
The situation of staff transferring to a self-governing school is unlike that of an employee who leaves and takes up a new contract with another employer. When staff transfer to a self-governing school their whole contract of employment transfers with them as if the contract had originally been made between the employee and the board of management. The board of management will be taking the school over as a going concern and employees' service will be continuous. It is therefore only right that the board of management inherits all the records it will need to manage the school.
I see what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is driving at, but I think it is very important that those who seek to run a school under self-governing status should be provided with the information. For instance, it could be that those who have responsibility for running the school are unaware that a member of staff has a serious health problem. They may be unaware, as the noble Lord said, that formal written warnings have been issued to this person by the education authority. The board of management of a self-governing school will be the employers of the teachers and other staff, and that will involve them in using confidential information. The board must respect that, as any employer must respect that.
My next remark may help to satisfy the noble. Lord, Lord Macaulay. There will be guidance on the need for such confidentiality in the workings of the board. In my view that will be extremely important, but to say that we should go as far as the noble Lord suggests in this amendment would be detrimental as the good points as well as the bad will go with the records of any member of staff to the board of management.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with his amendment, I should like to ask him whether his briefing gives him any reason to think that there are things known about a teacher on the staff of a school which is within a local authority and which then becomes self-governing which are not known to the head teacher. My experience is that when a local authority has confidential information about teachers it passes that on to a head teacher who would have all the records. A local authority would never not tell the head teacher. It seems to me that the important point is that the confidentiality with which the head teacher treats that information should continue in the new situation. However, I believe this is a tricky matter and the Minister should look very carefully at the points that the noble Lord has made. I agree that this amendment is probably not the answer to the problem because of the effect it could have within a school. Nevertheless, the noble Lord raises an important point, although I cannot think of an example of information which a head teacher would not already have.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution. I am not complaining about a teacher's performance record or contract of employment being transferred, but I am worried about what I called tittle-tattle being transferred—for example, matters concerning a teacher's personal life. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, very clearly focused on this matter as involving civil rights. The Minister made the point that when a person moves from one employer to another, the new employer makes up his mind about the man or woman as he sees him.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: That is not right!
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I heard the Minister say that was not correct. However, when a person changes from employer A to employer B, employer A does not necessarily send a dossier on the employee to employer B. Employer B must make up his mind and form his own view as regards whether a job candidate is acceptable to his firm. However, the teaching situation is a special one involving an education authority, teachers, pupils, parents and now a board of management. The amendment is put forward to help rather than to hinder and to focus attention on the fact that there could be real difficulties if a piece of information, which is entirely unfounded in fact, reaches a board of management. That information may surface when a teacher has transferred to a new school. The information, which is perhaps detrimental to the teacher's character in a personal sense rather than a working sense, could lead to court actions and serious repercussions on a local authority. I ask the Minister to follow the line suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and have another look at the principle behind the amendment, although I acknowledge that the amendment could be tighter.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I do not think there is much between us on this. I am fascinated by the term "tittle-tattle". It is an interesting thought that the records of a local authority contain details of tittle-tattle. What will be transferred are an authority's records on an employee. I do not believe an authority collects tittle-tattle or gossip—however, other Members of the Committee may be more knowledgeable on this matter than I—at any rate in the formal records of members of staff. However, the serious point is that I feel we must look very carefully at this matter. I intend to do that, but I am not moved by the representations made. I think we have probably got this matter right, but I shall have another look at it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. However, I must point out that we are not necessarily talking about formal records, and that is one of the difficulties. Clause 48(c) will have to be very tightly framed. The clause refers to all information and not just to written information. It concerns any information. A director of education could phone up a head master, for example, and suggest things about a transferred employee. However, the Minister has assured us that he will have another look at this matter. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 48 to 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Disposal of property on winding up]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 33, line 43, after ("by") insert ("the board of management").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 87, 88, 89, 90 and 91. These six amendments clarify the requirements of the Secretary of State in making a winding-up order. At present the Bill could allow the Secretary of State to transfer property to the education authority which is held in trust for the school, whether the board of management were the trustees or not. This could mean that, for example, at a denominational school where the buildings may be held in trust by a religious order and only on lease to the education authority, if that school became self-governing and later wound-up, the buildings could be transferred, without compensation from the order to the education authority. That may answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, earlier on. This power should relate only to the property owned by the board of management or owned by the board as trustees for the purpose of the school, and that is the purpose of these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 87 to 90:
Page 33, line 44, leave out ("the board of management") and insert ("absolutely").

967
Page 34, line 1, after ("(b)") insert ("as").
Page 34, line 8, after ("by") insert ("the board of management as").
Page 34, line 45, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(5)").
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [Transfer of school for establishment of new school]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 35, line 23, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(5)").
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 53, insert the following new Clause—
("Return to education authority management.
.—(1) A ballot of parents on the question of whether a self-governing school should return to education authority management shall be held if the board of management:—

(a) decide by a resolution passed at a meeting of the board; or

(b) receive a written request which meets the requirements of section 13(4) of this Act;

to hold such a ballot.
(2) On a resolution, such as described in subsection (1)(a) above being passed, or on a request such as described in subsection (1)(b) above being received by the board of management, they shall forthwith, by written notice, inform the Secretary of State and the education authority accordingly; and any such notice shall specify the date of the resolution, or as the case may be, the date of receipt of the request and whether the case is one such as decribed in section 50 of this Act.
(3) Where the school in respect of which notice is given under subsection (2) above is a denominational school, the notice shall also be given to the church or other denominational body in whose interest the school is managed.
(4) The ballot provided for under subsection (1) above shall be held in accordance with the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of this Act. Where a ballot for acquisition of self-governing status has been held within a period of seven years or if a ballot for returning to education authority management has been held within a period of four years immediately preceding the resolution or request under subsection (1) above, no ballot shall be held unless the Secretary of State gives consent in writing.
(5) A majority of parents, the same as that required under Section 16 of this Act for seeking self-governing status, in favour of returning to education authority management shall be required before the board can proceed with proposals to return management of the school to the education authority in whose area the school is situated.
(6) If the result of the ballot is in favour of returning to education authority management, the board of management shall consult with the education authority who, if willing to accept the school, shall prepare and publish proposals for the transfer of the school to education authority management.
(7) Before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date of publication of the proposals, any person may submit representations to the education authority in respect of the proposed transfer.
(8) The education authority may, after considering any representation submitted under subsection (7) above, and giving reasons for their decision, reject any proposals under this section, approve them without modification or after consultation with the board of management, approve them with modifications, which, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, may include the substitution of a different date for the date of transfer proposed.
(9) If the education authority approves proposals under this Section with respect to a school:—

(a) the board of management shall cease to manage the school;

(b) the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain the school shall cease;

and
(c) the education authority shall resume the duty to maintain and manage the school and to provide school education in the school and to keep it efficient;
on the date agreed under subsection (8) above.
(10) Any monies recovered by the Secretary of State from the education authority in respect of the school under sections 28 and 29 of this Act but not paid to the school in grants shall be returned to the education authority.
(11) All movable property, buildings, land, rights and liabiilties which were transferred to the board of management upon acquisition of self-governing status and/or procured by or gifted to the board of management shall be transferred to the education authority.").
The noble Lord said: As the Minister will be aware, the new Clause seeks to make provision for the return to education authority management of a school which has previously opted out. The Minister will, I believe, agree that if it is right that a school is able to opt out, it should be able to opt in. This is a fairly long amendment. I shall not read it out in full, but it seeks to provide a mechanism whereby the parents may decide to have a school returned to education authority management.
I am sure the Minister will also agree that one generation of parents should not be bound by the decisions of a previous generation of parents. If the principle of parental group choice is valid, it must in fairness operate in both directions. The Scottish parent teacher council's member associations are almost unanimously against self-governing status being permanent. Many have expressed a wish to see a clear method by which schools could be returned to education authority management, if parents so wish.
The procedure provided for under the existing Clause 31 is that the board may decide to seek to return to education authority management. Clauses 50 and 51 give that power to the Secretary of State. Nowhere is it provided for the parents of pupils at the school to make the decision as to whether a school should be discontinued and reopened as an education authority managed school or discontinued and reopened as an independent school. From the way in which the Bill is worded at present, once a decision has been made that is it. There is no flexibility.
The new clause would require that a period of seven years should elapse between a school becoming self-governing and being allowed to consider returning to education authority management. That would prevent the whole process being trivialised by the holding of a series of elections. It would also avoid disruption which would do the school no good, whatever decision was ultimately reached. Seven years seems a more than generous provision for that purpose. It would allow for a complete change in the pupil population of the school. It would also minimise the disruption that a proposed change of management could bring about.
There are not many private schools in Scotland, but there are a few. I recently had a meal with former pupils of St. Joseph's Academy, Dumfries, who were

969
delighted that their school, which they were very proud of, had decided to opt into the education system and had become co-educational. That is a very old school. I am sure that there are other schools which are similarly placed. If the new clause is accepted other schools may wish to do that.
The new clause would provide flexibility and remove the rigidity and stagnation which could result from a single vote to opt out by one group of parents at a particular time. It seems to me to be common sense. I hope that the Minister will accept it as that. It is a very long amendment and I do not expect the wording to be perfect, but I hope that the Minister will look at the spirit of the amendment and give it careful consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My name is also linked to the amendment. It is entirely logical, if the wishes of the parents are to be the motivating factor in the setting up of a self-governing school, that the wishes of the parents should also be the motivating factor in the return to local authority control. We have all seen instances of a good idea being spoilt by extremely bad management to the extent that the process has gone so far that it can hardly be put right.
I know that the Secretary of State has powers but, as has been said often during our discussions, there could be an unreasonable Secretary of State motivated by a doctrinaire desire never to allow any school to return to local authority control. In this case I believe that there should be provision for the parents to exercise their right to opt out as well as to opt in. It is a logical clause, and I await the Minister's reply.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: There is machinery within the Bill as presently drafted which could be used by a board to achieve that result. It may be helpful to the Committee if I take time to explain in some detail how that would work.
The formal procedures are based on Clause 31. It is written in terms of the discontinuance of the self-governing school. Discontinuance, in this context, means that the school ceases to be a separate legal entity. The term is equally apt whether the school is simply going out of existence or where the intention is that it should pass to the education authority as a going concern.
In practical terms a board of management contemplating return to education authority control would obviously have to open discussions with the education authority very early to ascertain its view. That is no more than common sense. It is also implicit in Clause 31, since any proposal published by a board of management has to indicate whether the education authority proposes to establish a new school on the same premises. That new school could, of course, be simply the existing school taken under the education authority's management.
If the board of management and the education authority have agreed that the school should transfer back then the matter is opened to the widest possible public debate. The board has to publish its proposals under Clause 31; and at the same time the education
970
authority, acting under existing regulations, has to consult widely on its own proposal to establish a new school on the premises. The board's proposals go to the Secretary of State, and while they lie with him it is open to any person, be it a parent, a member of the public or the education authority, to make representations.
If the transfer is agreed it then falls to the Secretary of State to take the school through the winding-up procedure of Clauses 50 and 51. Those allow for the Secretary of State agreeing that the property of the self-governing school reverts in its entirety to the education authority. Where the authority is agreeable to the transfer it could arrange to take over the staff of the school with continuity of employment.
The agreement of the education authority is central to all this. It will have a free hand in deciding whether to take back a school. The new clause also depends on such an agreement but is less clear as to what would happen if the parents vote to opt back and the authority then refuses.
It is true that those arrangements include no explicit requirement for a parental ballot at any stage. But remember the context of all this. We have a self-governing school with a board of management on which a majority of places are held by elected parents. Elections are held every two years. Moreover, the board will be under a statutory duty to ascertain the views of parents. That is one of the provisions of the School Boards (Scotland) Act which this Bill would carry forward to a board of management. Similarly there is provision for groups of parents to call a general meeting with the board of management. All this means, and has been designed to mean, that the board of management will be responsive to parental wishes. Indeed there is nothing to prevent the parents or the board organising an informal ballot as a test of opinion. Even without that there is already ample provision in the Bill to allow parental views to be expressed. In practice, on a matter as central as winding-up the school and transferring back to local authority control, such a board is unlikely to act without the closest consultation of all parents.
Should parental opinion in a self-governing school ever wish to return it to authority control, parents can make their views known to the board and in time secure a majority for their view on the board. Clause 31 and related provisions then provide a procedure to effect that transfer with the agreement of the authority and the Secretary of Stale.
I hope that, having heard that explanation, the noble Lord will realise that there is a mechanism in the Bill as it presently stands to deal with the situation.
The Earl of Perth: Before the debate continues perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there is any provision in the Bill as drafted that the change should not take place within a given number of years. If there is not such a provision it appears that the proposed new clause has a value. I do not say that the period should be seven years, five years or any particular period, but it is important that the school and children should not be subject to constant

971
change like a yo-yo, one year in and one year out. There may be some provision to prevent that but if there is not I hope that the Minister will give the matter some thought.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My reading of the Bill as it stands is that there is no provision for a timescale for discontinuance of a board of management. There could be circumstances in which something happened rather dramatically which would need to be addressed and which might mean the discontinuance of the school within a shorter period. Therefore, it is my understanding that no timescale has been provided for that particular issue.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Minister has given a very full reply which we shall need to consider. I am surprised that he did not again produce his argument about the majority of parents on the board, but I am grateful to him for not doing so.
The Earl of Perth: Perhaps I may take up the Minister's reply. I understand that a situation might arise which demands prompt action. At the same time, could there not be a provision under which there would ordinarily be a period of x years before a change would be allowed? Something like that would be helpful.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We have dealt with change of circumstance in Clause 30. As I understand it, that is an entirely different proposition from the proposal here which deals with a period of years before a ballot is held. I believe that the period suggested is seven years. As regards the changes in Clause 30, a five-year period is involved. There is no stated period for a change back. We do not expect schools to wish to go back. That is the very reason why the Secretary of State must take all the circumstances into consideration when deciding in the first place whether to allow a school to become self-governing.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, made the point about a Secretary of State who for doctrinaire reasons may refuse to allow the winding-up of a school in difficulties. The Secretary of State will fund all self-governing schools. He pays over the recurrent grant and must therefore be concerned with the viability of that school. I do not think that one could expect him to stand by and not take any action where a self-governing school is obviously failing.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In response to the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I should point out that flexibility in this matter is terribly important. It is quite impossible to see what might be the reason for a school wanting to come to an end and reincarnate itself quite quickly within the local authority. It would be a mistake to have any length of time written into the Bill for the other quite different reason which has been made plain by noble Lords on the Benches opposite.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: To take up the observation made by the noble Baroness, Lady
972
Carnegy of Lour, a situation may arise where the majority of parents are completely out of kilter with the board of management which is carrying on with what it wants to do against the perceived wishes of the parents in the best interests of the children. I have always understood that the Bill was the epitome of democracy, as the Government see it, and that it brought democracy into the process. Parents were becoming a vital part of the educational process which had so far been denied to them because of the activities of local authorities.
Local authorities are perhaps regarded by some people as being impersonal and inefficient bodies which do not get on with the job and do not reflect parents' wishes. If their wishes are reflected at the beginning of the story, why cannot they be reflected at the end of the story? The Minister said that the Government do not expect many people to want to opt back in, but the amendment is merely catering for something that might happen and would give parents the choice at the end of the process that they had at the beginning of the process. The initiation process should be reflected in the conclusion process.
As the Bill stands, the only person who can be responsible for winding up appears to be the Secretary of State. Clauses 50 and 51 of the Bill deal with winding up. Clause 50 states:
"Where the Secretary of State has—

(a) approved proposals made under section 31 of this Act for the discontinuance of a school; or

(b) given notice under section 33 of this Act that he intends to cease to maintain a school with effect from a particular date,

he may, after consultation with the education authority and subject to subsection (2) below, by order under this section make provision for the winding up of the school".
That does not appear to reflect a situation where the parents themselves have managed to get through to the Secretary of State that they no longer wish the school to remain in its present form. I ask again: why cannot democracy prevail at the end as it is said to prevail at the beginning?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We could have long arguments about the working of democracy. It is my understanding that the noble Lord opposite and his party believe in devolution. I should have thought that there was no better example of devolution for parents than that contained in the Bill and in the school boards Act. I am sorry to repeat the fact—this is where the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and I disagree—that we firmly believe that there should be a majority of parents on school boards. That point goes to the very root of the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, may say, "A school board can go ahead and carry through its various tasks without considering the parents". We have been through that when we debated the school boards Bill in this Chamber. I believe that there was a consensus at the end of the day that democracy would prevail and safeguards were written in for parents to express their views. The whole point about the Secretary of State being involved is that he can take into account the views of minorities who may turn out to be the majority.
The Secretary of State makes the winding-up arrangements. They are complex, but he must look

973
at the viability of the school. He cannot ignore the wishes of the parents and of their elected board of management. If a substantial body of opinion within that school happens to take a different view for the future from that of the board of management, that will also be apparent to the Secretary of State in the normal way.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: In what has been a pleasant day—if such days can be pleasant—I do not think that there is any doubt that that is about the poorest reply that we have so far had from the Minister. He said something that rather disturbed me. He said that one does not expect schools to go back. That may be fine, but he almost suggested—I shall look at his words with great care—that at the end of the day the Secretary of State would fund a school so that it would not go back. He would not allow a school to go under. I believe that those were his words—I shall look at what he said with great care—which seemed to me to pre-empt the matter.
As the Minister must be well aware, there is a practical aspect to the question of democracy. All of us who have been involved in politics—whether in the local bowling or football club or in Parliament—know that there is a great deal of difference between having a ballot and a long drawn out process which may take place only once every two years. We must remember that, if the parents formed the majority, they would need to get every seat on the board if the other members of the board were determined that the school should not go back to the local authority. As I read the earlier Bill, parents would need to get every other seat on the board in order to overcome the problem. They must therefore achieve both those things.
I agree that certain precautions should be taken before vital changes are made. Our precaution was the seven-year period. That was one precaution that we put down categorically, but the Minister is suggesting that it seems logical and highly democratic that parents will be able to replace the entire parental section of the board before they can obtain permission or set the machinery in motion to have the school changed. If they fail to win one seat—perhaps because one person is particularly popular or someone reneges once he becomes a member of the board—they will have lost the chance for another two years. That does not seem to me to be a democratic way of going about things. It might be a great deal easier to get people to vote—they may feel very strongly about voting—but to become governors or board members or to vote for board members may be a little more complicated for them to comprehend. I am not denigrating people. They usually need something to encourage them to take action of that kind. If it looks as though the steps are too arduous or too doubtful—because they need to get the entire parental membership—it will perhaps lessen their enthusiasm.
I shall look carefully at the Minister's case, as I am sure other noble Lords will do. On what seemed to me to be an obvious condition of the Bill, the Minister has given what I am sad to say is the least helpful reply in what has otherwise been a good day
974
of agreement between us. I am not happy, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall look at it carefully and perhaps bring it back on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Establishment of college councils]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 37, line 9, after ("below") insert ("and, in relation to casual vacancies, section 55(2)(b) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 93. At present, the Bill requires an education authority to consult the whole range of organisations represented on the college council even when filling a single casual vacancy. In practice the vacancy may be of interest to only a single group, for example the college staff or a particular employers' organisation. This amendment would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations allowing the education authority to limit consultation to the body which nominated the original appointee if it wished. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 37, line 20, leave out ("half") and insert ("one third of").
The noble Lord said: It might be convenient to deal with Amendment No. 95 when dealing with this amendment, because the end result of the passing of the two amendments would be a change in the balance of the college councils. It is probably important that the Committee should look at the present situation. The Committee will find it in Clause 54(5) at page 37 of the Bill. The clause reads:
"(5) The principal of a college of further education shall be a member of the college council ex officio and, in appointing the remaining members of a college council the education authority shall—

(a) secure that—

(i) the total number of members does not exceed 20;

(ii) no less han half the members are selected from persons nominated by employers, or by employer organisations consulted by the authority under subsection (4) above; and

(iii) not more than one fifth of the members appointed by the authority are members or employees (other than persons employed at any educational establishment) of either that authority or of any other local authority;

and

(b) comply with such further conditions as to the composition of the council as may be prescribed.".

The result of Amendment No. 94 would be that in subsection (5)(a)(ii) the employer representation would be reduced from one-half to one-third of the 20 members of the school college council, and the number of people from local authorities that would be permissible would be one-quarter instead of one-fifth. What is being done is to reduce the employer representation and increase the local authority representation.
The provisions by which at least half of a college council consists of employer nominees and not more than one-fifth of a college council may consist of members or officers of the education authority will

975
affect the fundamental ethos of further education colleges. Moreover, it will weaken the control of the education authority to the point where it may become impossible for the local authority to make coherent provisions for further education throughout the area.
It is important to bear in mind that further education colleges are not factories for solely producing people for industry, although that is an important aspect of further education. However, they range across a wide spectrum of the educational process offering, for example, adult students a second chance to get general education qualifications. That type of activity is not obviously designed to suit the local employers.
The position suggested by the amendments is that while the local employers are obviously important—they have been described as important consumers of vocational education and training—they should not have the largest say in the college council. For example, the interests of students would not be met solely by enabling colleges or councils, in the words of Michael Forsyth in another place, to
"fine tune the vocational courses to the local labour market needs."
It would be foolish to ignore the fact that if an industry comes to the fore in a local area, then it is right and proper that the further education college should do its best to assist the promotion of that industry in the interest of the development of the community and in giving people jobs. The conceived problem is that with no fewer than half of the members of the college council representing local employers, the broader aspects of the college may not be properly attended to by the employer members.
It has been suggested that in any event employer members are not the best people at attending meetings; but be that as it may, there is little evidence that there is a substantial pool of sufficient numbers of local employers with the necessary expertise, experience and commitment to the community, as opposed to their firms, willing to take on the major responsibility of running colleges of further education. It has been estimated that at least 500 local employers would be required to become members of college councils in Scotland under the present rules. The difficulty would be particularly to the fore in the more rural areas of Scotland. It would perhaps be naive to assume that the private sector in particular could be persuaded to take on this responsiblity very efficiently. That being so, the number in the college is in excess of what is required to represent the employers' interests.
It should also be remembered that these councils will come into being at the same time as the private sector led local enterprise companies are being established under the Scottish Highlands and Islands enterprise proposals. There is bound to be competition between them and the college councils; and employer members may be torn between the two groups. I am not for one moment saying that there are employers or employers' representatives who would not have the good of the community at
976
heart; but it is dangerous to give them such a large grouping within the councils.
In contrast to the position of the employers, the local authority representation on the college council is far too limiting on the presence and influence of the local authority. There is no dispute that college councils should be established and might prove to be quite a good thing; but the provision made by the colleges should be within the education authorities' strategic policies for further education, and the revenue expenditure determined by that authority. Given the importance of these matters and the interests of the community as a whole, it is essential that the local authority representation should be increased to a maximum of one-quarter, so that one comes slightly down and one goes slightly up.
The Scottish Further and Higher Education Association have expressed considerable anxiety. They say that they are deeply concerned about the implications of this particular part of the Bill for the colleges. One of their main concerns is this provision, which contains proposals for a substantial revision of the composition of the governing councils of further education colleges. They give the example that a typical, medium-sized city college would have a council of 22, with four local authority councillors, three representatives of employers' organisations, three representatives of trade unions, three representatives of the teaching staff of the college, two representatives of the other staff of the college, two representatives of the students, one head teacher from a local school and the principal.
If that is a typical, medium-sized city college, then it is light years away from the proposals in Clause 54, which would give the council a limited representation and would cut out a lot of the representation that was included elsewhere. No amendment has been put down to represent what the Scottish Further and Higher Education Association sees as a typical medium-sized college. However I have taken up the Committee's time by giving that example on its behalf. There is room to consider the balance of the college council in terms of Clause 54.
In the typical medium-sized city college there are three co-opted members. I forgot to mention them. They are all local businessmen. It is essential that the composition of the college council should recognise that the college does not exist purely to turn out workmen for employers who may be represented. It has a broad concept of secondary education; of providing opportunities to people who perhaps may not have had a chance in the first place or if they did they did not take it. They can come back to the education scene in a more comfortable way.
The colleges encourage people to come in from outside. They have outreach policies. They go into the community to tell people what is available for them in the college. They encourage people to take up places in the college, achieve qualifications and improve their educational status in life.
I do not propose to take up the Committee's time any further at this stage. As with so many issues in education, it is a matter of balance. On this matter the balance is going the wrong way in favour of employers' representatives. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know how many further education colleges across Scotland the noble Lord has visited. However, he said that the example that he gave from the Scottish Further and Higher Education Association was typical. It is presumably typical of Glasgow, from where the letter was written, and possibly of Lothian.
In Tayside the model used for the college councils in 1975 was very close to the one proposed by the Government now. Tayside did not want very political councils. It wished to involve employers to the absolute maximum. It wanted a pragmatic body which would run a college in the best interests of the students and would not spend a lot of time on local politics in the name of college business. This model has worked extraordinarily well. If the noble Lord visits Tayside and talks to people at colleges, he will find that, where the employers' role in the college is large, their commitment is very much greater than in those colleges in which they play a small role.
I believe that the Government are on the right lines. A college is not a factory. Running a college is a very delicate matter. It is an educational institution. It provides many kinds of education including vocational training. That is best achieved when people are committed to the students and are not thinking of other matters. The Bill gives employers more responsibility than they have ever had before. I believe that they will be strongly attracted by this. I hope that the Government will not be persuaded to alter the composition of these colleges. My experience is that it is about right.
Lord Addington: On the composition of these proposed boards, although employers have an interest in the colleges they are not the ultimate people concerned. It is the students—those who go through the education process. Many will undoubtedly be going into local employment. Many more may be regarding the courses that they are undertaking at college as a step to employment and further education in other parts of the country. I suggest that to have too many local employers on these boards may make them too insular, looking only to their own doorsteps. If the students are to have their interests represented in the best possible sphere we must have people who are to a great extent removed from the immediate concerns of the employers, although taking some account of them, as is done when considering the question of college organisation.
I suggest that an organisation such as a local authority may be slightly better placed. I agree that there is a need for local employers to be active in this area, but I suggest that they should not be completely dominant.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I do not disagree with the noble Lord that it is an important area in which we shall be addressing the subject of training and retraining, with no doubt reference to the Highlands and Islands enterprise proposals. We believe that employers should have the largest say on the new college councils since they are the ultimate consumers of vocational education and training. They will be able to provide the expertise and
978
knowledge that colleges need to fine tune their vocational courses to meet local labour market needs. The figures in Scotland suggest that by 1994 we shall have a drop of approximately 33 per cent. in the number of 17 year-olds coming on to the market. Training will be very important, as will retraining. However, we expect the word "employer" to be interpreted widely to include the public section such as health boards as well as private sector employers. There is no intention that employers' representatives should be drawn from a narrow clique. Indeed the education authority is obliged by the Bill to cover the full range of employer interests relevant to the college's work
Furthermore, as noble Lords have no doubt noticed, the Bill provides for college councils to undertake commercial activities and to set up companies to run them. This is a new initiative and councils will benefit by having direct access to practical commerical advice.
The second amendment would increase the local authorities' share of the college council to one quarter, which is above the proportion for the majority of existing councils. This would seem paradoxical, where one of the main aims of the Bill is to give college councils more freedom to manage their colleges independently of their parent authorities.
Our other objective is to free authorities of involvement in the day-to-day running of the college and detailed college administration, which again is inconsistent with increasing the local authorities' share of the college council places. Instead education authorities will be able to concentrate on their strategic role, including drawing up further education strategies and approving the college development plans which college councils will be required to prepare each year. Authorities will be able to use these development plans to ensure colleges' activities are consistent with the education authorities' policies, without a large local authority representation on college councils.
As for representatives of interests other than employers or local authorities, there should be sufficient space on the college council to cover a range of interests, including, for instance, college staff and students, trade unionists and representatives of schools or higher education institutions. Perhaps I may make the observation that if an education authority thinks five or so places insufficient for these other interests, it can always increase them by not taking up its full quota. This emphasises the flexibility that the Bill gives to education authorities to decide who exactly should be represented on an individual college council in the light of local circumstances.
Mention was made that there are not sufficient employers' representatives to take up these places. These college councils will have greatly increased powers to determine the content and direction of college provision; hence the training and other services offered to local employers. The importance of these services to employers will also increase.
In our consideration of what measures to adopt on training delivery in Scotland and the proposals

979
brought forward by my right honourable friend to address this point the matter of college councils is very relevant. We believe, like my noble friend Lady Carnegy, that the balance which we seek to achieve in these college council representations will be helpful for the future of those councils up and down Scotland.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I have listened to the noble Lord's argument and to the noble Baroness's exposition of what happens in Tayside, but the weakness of the case for having half the governors from some employers' organisation is that it appears to brand the further education college as a place which is purely for professional and trade training and has no wider aspect than training people for life. That should not be so. If the Minister accepted the figures of a third and a quarter—I have been trying to work out what is left and it appears to leave only five-twelfths of 20 places for a wider variety of governor from various places such as trade unions—all sorts of useful people could be co-opted and put on the board. Obviously one would still have the largest number of employers. I feel that one-third and one-quarter are not bad figures. I believe that half gives the appearance of weighting the whole thing in favour of trade and professional training only.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I must answer that question. I tried to make clear that our definition of "employer" is widely drawn. I have never thought of the health service and all its works as necessarily being motivated by other than dealing with the problems related to health in a particular area, as indeed anyone who is involved in local business has his interest in the business which he runs. I rest my case on what my moble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said. She has first-hand knowledge of the situation. For my part, having been on a similar council as an industrial representative—where, incidentally, there was a majority of those involved in the industry of the area—I can see nothing wrong with the balance that the Government are proposing here, despite the persuasive arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am sorry that the Minister cannot see his way to giving this matter further consideration, because the Committee has had powerful contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Mackie of Benshie, in support. We were rather disappointed by the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, taking the attitude which seemed to come over to this side of the Committee that it was all about politics. She suggested that we should get rid of these local authority people because they do not do anything else but talk about politics. Let us get the pragmatic men, she says. That is a very interesting word. Is she suggesting that employers' representatives do not think pragmatically in politics as well? Of course they do. It is not the kind of argument that we should get into at this stage.
980
What we are looking for is what is best for the community and the prospective students. The noble Baroness gives the Conservative game away with the observations that she makes because, when it comes to the pragmatic politics of running a further education college, when the choice is between the pragmatic production of people for an employer's factory (I am not suggesting that they are factories for employers), and going with a limited budget on an outreach scheme to a deprived community to give people another chance in life, I can surely guess which way the decision will go with such a balance on the college council.
It would be helpful if the Government would give the amendment the courtesy of further consideration. I should say one other thing. There are other areas where the local authority is the largest employer. For example, the Western Isles County Council is, I am told, the largest employer in the area, yet its contribution to the college council in Stornoway will be limited to one-fifth. That means that the community and the local authority being badly under-represented in the college council as a result of the present proposals.
However, I have heard what the Minister has said. I can see that there is no sign of him moving any distance towards us at the moment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again at five past eight.

Employment (Age Limits) Bill [H.L.]
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I thank those who have participated in the Bill from all sides of the House, including the Minister. I am not a pragmatist, but I am a practical woman. I appreciate that, because this is a Private Member's Bill, though it will go through this House it will not have any effect as the one couched in similar terms from another place has not gone through. Nevertheless I must give warning that this is only the beginning of a campaign.
I took heart when I heard the Prime Minister speaking about age at her party's conference. I think she said that she was 56 when she became Prime Minister. Her masters seemed to think she did the job so well that they had appointed her twice since. I took heart from that because she was obviously in favour of the view that age should not be a reason for discrimination.

981
At this stage in the Session I can only say that the Bill still has a pressing importance. We still need to feel that age is not used as a reason for saying to a man of 50 that he has to accept redundancy, not because he is no good or because his employer cannot afford to keep him but because he is 50. That is not a good enough reason. Those of us who went through the whole battle to get equal opportunities for men and women know only too well that a campaign like this is not won overnight. I feel that the forces of demographic change are on our side and will make it necessary for the poor old 50 year-olds to become the best thing since sliced bread. I am delighted that I have had the opportunity of taking the Bill through this House. I beg to move that it be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Baroness Phillips.]
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until five past eight.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.8 to 8.5 p.m.]

Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 55 [Proceedings of college councils]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
("(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) require College Councils and any committee established by them to make available to such persons or classes of persons as may be prescribed such documents and information relating to their meetings and proceedings as may be prescribed; and

(b) precribe the extent to which meetings of the College Council and of any such Committee are to be open to the public.").

The noble Lord said: This is a brief amendment to Clause 55. It mirrors the wording of the School Boards (Scotland) Act. It is considered that the public should have the same rights of access to the meetings of college councils as they have to those of school boards. Perhaps there is a greater justification in respect of college councils because of the wide area of education and the community which they will be serving. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The amendment provides the same access to information on the proceedings of college councils as is provided for
982
school boards under subsection 6(9) of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. However, subsection 6(9) was necessary only because there was no general power in the School Boards Act for the Secretary of State to make regulations governing school board meetings and proceedings. He does have a power to regulate college council meetings and proceedings under Clause 55(2)(d) of the present Bill which could be used to cover the matters mentioned in the amendment. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for that information. If he is satisfied that the matter focused by the amendment is covered under existing legislation, I beg leave at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Functions of college councils]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 39, line 3, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment is to delete the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations at a later date which would determine the functions which should or should not be delegated and the conditions subject to which functions are to be delegated. The Government should make clear the purpose of the subsection and explain to the Committee what functions they consider should be delegated to a college council.
The Minister will gather that this is a probing amendment. At the end of August a consultation paper was issued by the SED seeking comments by 31st October with regard to the proposals for secondary legislation in order to implement the principle of delegating greater control to colleges. While a formal CoSLA response has still to be made, we should be given information about the Government's real concern. The Minister will be aware that in respect of such matters it is normal for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to be given more information than is the case on this occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: On this matter I can give a firm assurance to try to put in place what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would want me to say on the question of education authorities in this connection. The impression may be that education authorities will be bound hand and foot by a mass of regulations on delegation schemes. I give a firm assurance that that will not be our intention. We have evidence of our intention in the form of the consultative paper The College Control Principle which we have issued on secondary legislation which might be made under this Bill. That proposes to make only a minimal number of regulations on delegation schemes and other matters. Otherwise the powers conferred by subsection (4) would be used as fall-back powers, to be used only if authorities were laggard in delegating functions, or to deal with

983
any difficulties which arose during the implementation of the new system.
We expect authorities to delegate substantial powers to college councils. The question they should be asking is why should any function not be delegated. Similarly, conditions of delegation must not be so restrictive that the college council cannot do anything important without referring the matter to the authority for approval. If there were any attempts to subvert the spirit of a delegation scheme by imposing over-restrictive conditions, or reserving powers unreasonably to the authority, then the Secretary of State would not hesitate to act. But I am sure local authorities will act responsibly and this power can be kept largely in reserve.
Fears may have been expressed that regulations on delegation schemes would remove education authorities' powers to implement their further education strategies. On the contrary, our proposals will free authorities from involvement in the detailed administration of colleges and enable them to take a more strategic role—as I believe is now the policy in Strathclyde at least.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned the proposals and also the circulation of the paper The College Control Principle on which we are seeking information. We shall not take any decisions on the regulations on delegation schemes until we have considered the comments on our consultative paper. We are expecting representations from some 15 groups on this matter. We must also take account of any relevant changes which Parliament might make to the Bill. However, at present we propose that regulations should provide that colleges can control the use of college property, have responsibility for maintaining it and be able to undertake minor repairs and refurbishment and buy equipment.
Colleges would also be able to choose what individual courses to run, though the authority would be able to ensure through approval of the college development plan that matters such as the subject areas offered were consistent with the authority's further education strategy. Staffing matters might be set out in some detail, partly because college staff would quite rightly wish to know where they stand. However, while college councils might be able to select staff, subject to approval of the short leet for principal; Clause 56(2)(a) provides that the authority would remain the employer and only it could dismiss staff. Finally commercial activities powers, other than the power to give loans, might be delegated.
I should add that these proposals follow very tclosely recommendations by the working group on the management of further education in Scotland, a group of further education practitioners largely nominated by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. So our consultative proposals are themselves built on consultations.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In view of the timetable with which we are faced, I do not suppose that there is any possibility of an explanation being given to Parliament before the Bill receives Royal
984
Assent. That is a pity but I understand that. I am grateful to the Minister and I am sure that some of the other bodies which have contacted us will be grateful for the information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Technology academies]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 46, line 32, at end insert—
("and (c) does not determine admission on the grounds of general academic ability.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the character of technology colleges. The characteristics in the Bill are that the school:

"(a) provides secondary education; and

(b) has a broad curriculum with an emphasis on science and technology".

The purpose of the amendment is to prevent a technology academy determining admission on the grounds of general academic ability. One of the main concerns is that because of the construction of the technology academies, they will wish to reintroduce general academic selection particularly if they become over-subscribed because they must have a form of selection. To introduce a form of selection into a technology academy based purely on academic ability would be counter-productive to the Scottish education system and would undermine the local authority control of public education.
These colleges will be run by private companies under Clause 65. However, although they will have the air of being run by private companies, they will be wholly dependent on the Government for their running expenses. It may very well be that in the nature of things, if they are successful they will become selective. Selection on an academic basis would be contrary to the qualities which are looked for in a technology college; for example, motivation and attitude towards the job.
One reason for expressing this fear is that subsection (2)(a) mentions the school providing a secondary education. It may be that under that umbrella a college may be tempted in certain circumstances to introduce academic selection, purely and simply. For that reason, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Addington: I should like to support this amendment. In the past when we have tried to determine admissions to schools by academic tests, we tended to have rather mixed results. Indeed, the old 11-plus examination is a classic case of people who had not developed educationally at the same rate as others missing out or people who showed early promise being in the wrong school. I have certain reservations about a technology-based school, but I support any move to make sure that admission will not be by an academic test which is

985
bound to miss a few people and may miss a great many. We may thus have a great, many educational disasters on our hands.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The principle of this amendment, which seeks to ensure that admission arrangements to technology academies should not be based on selection by academic ability, is in line with the Government's policy and I think I can quickly reassure noble Lords opposite about our intention in this respect.
It is worth noting a major difference between an academy and an education authority school. The normal authority school serves a catchment area which is drawn so that all the pupils in that area can attend. There is normally no need for any form of choice among applicants. An academy will serve a very wide catchment area. This is necessary to allow the largest number of children the chance of attending and also to minimise the effect which an academy might have on local authority school rolls. For example, in our discussions with Strathclyde Region, we proposed that a technology academy based in Allan Glen's school would have the whole of Glasgow as its catchment area. Clearly in these circumstances an academy must have some way of selecting between applicants if, as we confidently expect, it is attractive to very many parents and pupils.
Contrary to a widely held misconception, however, technology academies are not intended to be selective in the narrow academic sense. Indeed, it is our policy that academies should be required, as a condition of grant, to admit pupils covering a wide range of ability. Within that requirement technology academies will seek to admit pupils who show commitment and willingness to benefit from the education offered by the academy. Commitment is particularly important because pupils will be required, for example, to work a longer school day and devote part of that day to participation in activities which are considered extra-curricular in authority schools. It is only in this sense that an academy will apply a selection process.
I therefore do not demur from the principle underlying the noble Lord's amendment and I think they will find clear evidence of the Government's intentions in the document we produced in October 1988 and in the document outlining the terms of the agreement we tried to reach with Strathclyde region, which unfortunately did not take place. However I cannot accept the terms of the amendment. Indeed, one might argue that the noble Lords' amendment could well have an opposite effect to what was intended. If due regard was not paid to the abilities of prospective pupils in drawing up the admissions arrangements and the academy simply admitted on a first come first served basis it might well end up with an imbalance in favour of more able students. We do not wish that to happen and I would suggest that the arrangements we propose achieve the desired end more effectively. That was the experience of those who took part in the unfortunately fruitless negotiations to start a technology academy in Allan Glen's school.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for that reply and gratified by his assurances that the Government can see no real problem in the progress of the academies. It is perhaps unfortunate that the word "academy" has been used because it tends to carry with it an aura of elitism in education.
However, now that an explanation has been given—and we on this side of the Committee accept that there must be some form of selection procedure—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 46, line 32, at end insert—
("(2A) It shall be prescribed that only registered teachers shall be employed, or continue to be employed, as teachers in technology academies.").
The noble Lord said: This is a further amendment to Clause 68. The reason behind the amendment is, putting it broadly, that it is in the interests of pupils and parents to have a guarantee that the teaching staffs are properly qualified for the posts they hold.
The amendment is worded to ensure that reference is made only to teachers and not to persons who come into the college. It is intended to give parents and children a guarantee of a high standard of teaching staffs, properly qualified and trained. That would prevent what I call technical cowboys getting into the teaching process by pretending to have a certain expertise or qualification showing ability to teach. Such people might be appointed to important posts on their own references, so to speak, and the academy find out at a later stage that they are useless members of the teaching staff.
A qualified teacher at least gives a standard on which the applicant can be judged. The amendment does not mean that the college cannot employ in the course of teaching experts from the various fields of industry and so on covered by the activities of the academy. The amendment proposes a protective piece of legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I support this amendment. We appear to be reiterating arguments that we had earlier this evening in so far as no matter what a person's technical knowledge there should be some guarantee that he can impart that knowledge; that is, he has teaching ability.
As the noble Lord said, this does not exclude people with specific knowledge who may be brought into the academy for short periods of time. However, it is reasonable that if they are to be teaching at the college for some considerable time they should have undertaken some training in the art of teaching.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I can understand why this amendment has been tabled and I appreciate the concerns felt by noble Lords opposite that there should be appropriate provision to ensure that teachers employed at technology academies should be suitable persons to be teaching, that they should have appropriate qualifications and not be, in that nice term, technical cowboys.

987
The Committee will recognise that there is a specific legal distinction between public schools—that is, those managed by education authorities and self-governing schools where there is a provision to ensure GTC registration—and technology academies. A technology academy will, as prescribed in Clause 68(1)(a), be an independent school. As such, it will be subject to the conditions which apply to other independent schools. In relation to staff this means that decisions on who should be employed in an academy will rest with the managers of that school. However, this does not suggest that technology academies will be staffed by unqualified teachers. I expect that in practice many—indeed, most—of the teachers employed in technology academies will have GTC registration. That is the case in many of our independent schools at present.
However, it is desirable that managers of technology academies should have a degree of flexibility. The nature of the education to be offered by these academies makes this particularly important. For example, an academy may arrange to employ on short-term secondments people with relevant industrial experience.
I think I can do no better than indicate what Councillor Malcolm Green, who chairs the education committee in Strathclyde, said at the time of the negotiations over the Allan Glen's proposed technology academy. The ideas that came forward from the Strathclyde regional council were in setting up the region's own technology centres. This was debated at that time and I quote from the Scotsman of 6th May 1989. It was made perfectly clear by Councillor Green that these technology centres which might be set up,
"would provide equipment not normally available to schools as well as staff with industrial experience (not necessarily trained teachers) and it would also be open during the holidays".
The important point is that on the substance of what we intend for technology academies this was not an area of dispute between the Strathclyde regional council and the Government.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the Minister for that reply. I appreciate the distinction between registered teachers in ordinary schools, if I may call them that, and these technology academies which will be run on an independent basis.
The amendment was tabled as an effort to obtain some form of regulation for the teaching staff of the academies. Having heard the Minister expounding his view on how events will develop, only time will tell whether there will be flexibility within the colleges and whether the people with relevant industrial experience will turn out to be good teachers. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 46, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: This is a short probing amendment as regards Clause 68(3)(b). It is really
988
asking the Government to explain as briefly as possible what the phrase "other conditions and requirements" means in the context of the clause.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It may be helpful to give some details regarding the type of conditions and requirements which will be contained in a funding agreement and on which the Secretary of State would require to be satisfied before making payments to a technology academy. In particular, the agreement will specify that the academy will be organised and managed in accordance with a scheme of Government approved by the Secretary of State.
The scheme will set out a number of requirements covering various aspects ranging from curriculum and admission procedures to the responsibilities and duties of the governors of an academy. For example, it will specify that the academy should provide a broad curriculum taking account of advice issued on behalf of the Secretary of State. It will also be required to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. There will be conditions requiring the proper management and audit of funds made available from public sources. There will also be conditions to protect any capital grant investment made by the Secretary of State in that an academy would be obliged to make appropriate repayments to the Secretary of State in the event of a sale or disposal of assets acquired wholly or in part by capital grant.
I am sure the Committee will agree that it is particularly important that the Secretary of State should be able to insist on the kinds of conditions which I have mentioned. To do otherwise would, I suggest, be negligent. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord is wiser as to the intention behind the types of conditions and requirements that the Government would wish to lay down.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that very full reply which satisfies me at this stage. The amendment being a probing one and the answer having been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Testing in primary schools]:
On Question, Whether Clause 69 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I wish to oppose the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill. In other words, I wish to oppose the government proposals for the revision of the curriculum and the assessment arrangements for Scottish primary schools including the introduction of nationally standardised tests in English and mathematics at primary four and primary seven levels. Few people object to the main thrust of the proposal. Some form of measuring pupils' progress is clearly desirable both to parents and teachers.
We object most strongly to the enforcement of specific tests in specific subjects at specific primary school stages with the inevitable distortion of the

989
curriculum and of the learning pattern. The Minister promises that the results of each child's test will be private to the teacher and the child's parents and that they will not be permitted to be used for the purpose of placing children in rank order or selecting them for secondary school.
Nevertheless, there is a real concern that has already been articulated by parents, teachers and others who are interested in education matters, that national testing will result in the reintroduction of acute anxiety among pupils. We believe it is a fact that such pressures produce adverse results on the performance of the pupils. The Government's proposals for testing also have no basis for success in practical terms. For example, it is totally unrealistic to expect one testing programme to provide both information about attainment levels and the basis for constructive action related to the needs of pupils. A system that determines pupils' levels of attainment on a national scale cannot fulfil diagnostic requirements related to individual learning. Nowadays, education should be particular about individual learning.
The essential requirement is for in-depth diagnosis which seeks to find out the causes of pupils' difficulties. That is ignored if we take the road that this clause seems to suggest. Tests in mathematics and English carried out at the end of any stage will not help teachers to help pupils or assist in ongoing communication with parents about their children's progress.
On the matter of curriculum assessment, we believe that there should be established broad national curricula guidelines that can be developed locally. Assessment as a continuous part of teaching and learning must be a continuous process throughout the pupil's career. The proposal for national testing should be abandoned and encouragement should be given to the examination of good assessment practice in primary education. Better communication between schools and parents on curricula and assessment matters besides the progress of the children in the widest educational sense is urgently needed.
The Minister will have gathered from what I have said so far that what we are really concerned about is a general method of assessment which is perhaps not easy to devise. It is likely to be more accurate than just a single test at particular times without relation to the child's development. We all know now that the rate of development is different. A child may not be doing all that well at the age of eight but he may be doing extremely well at the age of 10.
The reason for opposing this clause is that we think that the Government should reconsider it. I know that it is part of the Holy Grail, but we feel that it is a mistaken journey. We hope that the Minister will have the sense to draw back and think of the matter more deeply.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I think the crux of this whole amendment is that we do not want the spectre of the 11-plus raised again in the minds of children and parents to inhibit the learning process. One
990
cannot object to tests being run as to the progress of children. What we do object to is one single test that is raised as an obstacle in children's and parents' minds which has to be overcome. That is vitally important. It raises anxiety and inhibits education.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In his reply, can the Minister indicate to the Committee on what basis primary four and primary seven were chosen as being the only times at which a child should be tested? If we are introducing the principle of testing in two limited subjects then we may as well go the whole hog and give pupils a test every year in English and mathematics. Then it would be possible to assess how the child was progressing.
A child's educational life, particularly at primary school age, is a life of ups and downs, with crises here and there. It is difficult to know why primary four and seven have been singled out for this educational treatment. Perhaps the Minister can tell us where the demand is for this testing? Does it come from the teachers? Do not the teachers and head teachers feel that they can assess on a regular basis the progress of children through the school? Do we have to have this marking standard? If it is confidential only to the parent it will cause the same anxieties as many of us knew in the past when we had to pass a qualifying exam to enter a secondary school.
I hesitate to use the expression "the most hair-raising experience" in my present condition, but at that time I had hair that was capable of being raised. That kind of stress and strain on pupils, with the tremendous sense of disappointment and frustration as a result of failure on the mind of the child who had failed the qualifying exam or who did not get into the first 'A' stream in the old-style school, was quite enormous and caused a great deal of difficulty.
The Minister will have had a letter from the Church of Scotland dated 11th April 1989. Unfortunately, my copy of the letter is unsigned. I assume that it was signed. The writer of the letter speaks in these terms:
"For your information, I analysed five of the ten files of responses to the consultation paper on curriculum and assessment, being 493 submissions out of over a thousand. Of these only 8, 1.6% supported your original proposal on primary testing. 415, 84.2% were directly opposed to the proposal, 23 did not mention it and the remainder gave qualified support, though in many cases the qualifications were such that they were as good as opposed to the proposal. A very large number of these responses were corporate. Many were from groups of parents, of teachers and of other educationists. Included were large numbers of associations, including parents and parent-teachers, of School Councils and of professional associations. The considerable number of individuals who wrote often did so in very personal and emotional terms of their memory of primary testing. We are very willing to agree that pupil assessment and diagnostic testing are necessary. After the reaction of the consultation exercise, however, an extensive public relations job is required if testing in primary school is an educationally acceptable way is to proceed".
That is a trenchant summary of the oppposition to and the lack of demand for testing in primary schools. I support the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That may be so, but the noble Lord knows as well as I do that all over Scotland, living close to where he lives and where I

991
live, there are parents who want to know what their child should be able to do and understand at a certain age. That is what parents want to know. He also knows, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, rightly said, that children develop at different speeds, and so to have tests every year is not a good suggestion. Most parents will agree with that. However, to have here and there a benchmark by which people can know whether their child is roughly where he or she should be at a given age is extremely helpful. It is also extremely helpful to them to know whether groups of children who are taught by a particular teacher are as a group failing to reach their potential. That is helpful to the teacher. It means that there is something wrong with the method or the approach. Although the pressure groups and those with conventional wisdom are saying that we should not have testing, this is a minimal proposal which parents greatly welcome.
Lord Addington: The problem is that the word "testing" is being used. If we use the word "assessment" we might feel a little happier about it. Tests imply passing or failing, although it is explained to us that this is not the purpose of the proposal. Children of this age cannot be judged as passing or failing. They have different rates of development and different abilities. Can we have an assurance that this proposal is about assessment of the individual development of a child and is not about attaining some rigid and, to be perfectly honest, arbitrary level? It may be argued that our whole education system is far too riddled with passing and failing. Can we have a guarantee that we are going for assessment and not a pass mark?
8.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Clause 69 is a sensible safeguard. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is simply seeking reserve powers which could be used, if necessary, to set out regulations about national testing with which education authorities should conform. It is a useful safety net to ensure that parents in every education authority, and self-governing schools, receive the information to which they are entitled about their children's progress in key subjects in a way which is consistent across the country and comprehensible in commonsense terms. I am sure that education authorities and boards of management of self-governing schools will recognise the educational worth of the national tests that we propose and that the reserve powers need not be enacted.
The clause will also ensure that the Scottish Examination Board can administer the system of primary testing through a primary assessment unit and that the Government can fund the board for that purpose. Noble Lords will recognise that the reputation of the Scottish Examination Board stands unchallenged and that its involvement will ensure public confidence in the absolute integrity of the conduct and administration of the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about assessment. The tests are part of a wider programme to improve assessment. In the report card each child will have an overall assessment, as the noble Lord
992
would want. This will help to ensure that each child realises his or her full potential.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked about primary four and primary seven. Those were very sensible questions. We feel that those are two key stages. At primary four the basics should have been mastered; and primary seven gives an opportunity to assess the attainment before the transition to secondary school. The noble Lord also asked where the demand comes from. The results of a major survey of parental opinion were announced on Monday of this week by my honourable friend the Minister. It showed that 67 per cent. of primary school parents are in favour of what is proposed.
There have been many interesting comments on what the Government propose in this area. Standard testing is widely practised in Scottish education authorities at the moment. It is quite hypocritical to pretend otherwise or to assume that it is radically different —this is the important point —from what we envisage. In the Borders, central Fife, Grampian and Highlands screening tests of one form or another in aspects of reading or mathematics are applied at points in primary education. In other authorities such as Strathclyde, Lothian, Dumfries and Galloway, standardised tests are used in a number of schools without the education authority appearing to object. What we envisage has a perfectly respectable educational pedigree in Scotland.
The form of testing which we envisage will not be at variance with this established practice. It has been said that testing in Fife is diagnostic and not normative. I shall quote from the aims and reasons which are in the teachers' introduction to the mathematics test devised by Fife at primary five:
"to provide, information as to which pupils have achieved a certain specific level of mastery of various skills in number and shape".
I shall also quote from the guidance to teachers which Fife issued to its teachers at primary five:
"The test is seen as necessary to provide such security for teachers who are unsure of what attainment is reasonable for their stage".
There is one big difference between the present arrangements in Fife as I understand them, and what we propose—parents should be brought into the discussions on this form of assessment.
I am sorry that I have spoken at length but it is an important issue. Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee take seriously what Her Majesty's Inspectorate says on this matter. It fully supports our contention that assessment policy and practice in primary schools is inconsistent in its quality and application both between and within schools. I refer to a survey conducted by the Times Educational Supplement Scotland, published in November 1988, of 40 primary schools inspected in that year. It provides an independent verification of our concerns from a period following the original announcement of our proposals in November 1987. I quote from those conclusions:
"Some schools have no policy or at least no explicit policy. Some that do fail to implement it. Some teachers excel in their assessment, others even in the same school barely do so. Education authorities which have policies cannot be confident that schools will follow them, according to Her Majesty's Inspectorate".

993
I understand the reflection of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that a test can do more harm than good. However, I hope that my explanation of how we see it for the future will help him to understand our belief that it will aid standards in education.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has, as always, taken in his reply. I am also grateful for the contributions of my noble friend Lord Macaulay and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I must comment on what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said. Of course I am all for aptitude tests. I believe that they can greatly help children. One can decide that some children are mathematically blind and others blind in other ways.
With any form of continuous testing, which has been the norm for a long time now, parents can regularly discuss with teachers at parents' nights how their child is getting on. Teachers give up a great deal of time for parents' nights.
I have seen many report cards which I could not condemn because there were no numbers attached to them. That was important. There was no horrible grading that said that one's son or daughter was a bit better than another. The effect on children is severe if they get the idea that they are second-class citizens. The only good thing I can say is that the abilities of a number of young adults, who were late developers, survived the obstacle course of a school education that many of them were asked to go through in the old days. I believe that the Minister's heart is in the right place. The great difficulty about legislation is that one cannot put intentions into it. Unless we can change some of those points soon, we can only hope that the people who will inherit the scheme from him will look at the clause in the same spirit as he does.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Appraisal of teachers]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 48, line 13, leave out ("different classes of teachers or of").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Given the Government's commitment to the employment of registered teachers, we are curious as to what the Government mean by the term "different classes of teachers". I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The amendment would be an unnecessary restiction on the Secretary of State's enabling power. It would restrict the content and dimension of appraisal schemes which might be required of education authorities, and prevent them from taking account of the different needs of teachers at different levels of responsibility and in different types of school. We need to have a flexible power to ensure that authorities may be required to frame appraisal procedures appropriate for teachers at various levels and with various responsibilities. If that power has to be used, we want to be able to do so in a way which allows authorities to introduce and to apply appraisal in a manner suitable for the particular teacher or teachers concerned. The
994
amendment would leave my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with a power only to require schemes of a most general kind, not differentiated for different groups of teachers. That would not be an effective or equitable way of proceeding, and would make the enabling power of limited use. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be reassured about the intention behind the clause.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In the light of that answer, can the Minister confirm that by "different classes of teachers" he means different categories of certificated teachers within the system?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I need to look closely at that point. On first looking at it, my answer would be a qualified yes; but I must double-check.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am glad that the Minister gave a firm qualification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Placing of recorded and other children and young persons in schools outwith Scotland etc.]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 49, line 46, leave out ("(whether or not a school)") and insert ("whose prime function is to provide education.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment refers to an important provision relating to the attendance of certain children and young persons with special educational needs at establishments outwith the United Kingdom. The establishment is qualified by the words in line 46:
"whether or not a school".
The amendment proposes that those words should be substituted by the words:
"whose prime function is to provide education".
It has long been established in Scotland that all children, regardless of the nature of their disabilities or handicaps, have the full right to education. It is therefore vital that any child who has been identified as having special educational needs has those needs catered for in an establishment whose prime function is the provision of education to that child. To suggest that it is appropriate to send some children to an establishment, whether or not it be a school, strikes at the fundamental prinicple of equal educational opportunities for all.
I shall not enter into a debate at this time about what is known as conductive education which is carried out by certain institutions abroad and which is being experimented with in Birmingham, because it is a specialised field and not basically an educational one. It is an attempt to get certain children with motor deficiencies ambulant and functional. On the information that I have, which I do not put forward as a fact, the non-ambulant, non-functional child with severe handicap, who would be entitled to education here to the limit of his abilities, would not be accepted by such an institution abroad.
To send the child, and his or her parents, to one of those institutions for selection might be a destructive process because the information seems to suggest that about 80 per cent. of applicants for one such institution are rejected by it. The children undergo an intense programme from 6.30 a.m. to 8 p.m. The course is run by people called "conductors", not teachers, who carry out the duties of parent, teacher and trainer.
The amendment has been moved to draw the Government's attention to the fact that it appears to be too wide a matter to be left in the present terms:
"whether or not a school".
They must examine any such establishment closely and lay down guidelines as to what type of institutions the child is to be allowed to attend outwith Scotland. If the child suffers rejection, or does not respond to the regime, it could be educationally disadvantageous to the child. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am a little doubtful about the amendment in that it narrows the field more than somewhat. If it referred to an establishment which gave a child more chance of an education, it might be more useful. To say an establishment:
"whose prime function is to provide education"
might narrow the field. I prefer the wording as it is.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on this occasion. The amendment appears to be designed to prevent an education authority assisting with the cost of attendance of a child or young person with special educational needs at an establishment abroad, unless the main function of that establishment is to provide education.
On the face of it, that requirement may seem reasonable; but there is a small but important point which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, may have overlooked. As the clause stands, education authorities will have discretionary powers to help send children abroad to attend establishments which may make provision, wholly or mainly, for persons with pronounced and specific or complex special educational needs.
The clause has been deliberately worded in that way in order that authorities can, if they think appropriate, send a child to an educational unit which might, for example, be a small part of a hospital or other establishment whose main function is not education. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. He is correct. That is why I believe that the clause as it stands is the better option.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for that reply, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie for his contribution. It is nice to see the Minister and the noble Lord agreeing with each other. I accept what the Minister has said. I wish to
996
make it clear that those of us on this side of the Committee have no intention or desire to restrict anything that is good for the development of those unfortunate children. In the light of the explanation given by the Minister as to the interpretation of the clause as it stands, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 50, line 14, at end insert—
("(c) where an authority considers that it would be to the advantage of the child or young person that subsection (b) above apply and where this causes an authority to incur expenses it would not normally incur, an authority will be able to make application to the Secretary of State for financial assistance in meeting the expenses of the parent, parents or other person concerned.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is an addition to Clause 71 which is basically designed to ensure that funding will be available to allow parents to accompany their children where that is considered to be to the advantage of the child. It is acknowledged that catering for children with special educational needs is cost intensive. We have been through all that before. Local authorities respond positively towards meeting the special educational needs of children. They do so in a manner designed to ensure the fair distribution of resources.
The consequences of the amendment as it stands would be that some of the funds could be re-allocated or allocated to pay the expenses of the parents where that was considered to be advantageous to the child. It would perhaps prevent the authorities being torn between redirecting funds towards parents and refusing to permit parents to accompany their children in the event of them attending schools such as those envisaged in the previous amendment. That is a dilemma into which authorities should not be put unless it is absolutely necessary. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate, as we all do, that the presence of parents during the process of education and the improvement of the child in this sphere of education is often crucial to the success of the experiment. The bonding between the parent and the child is a very important element of the advancement of the child's educational status. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: This amendment seems to be sensible for the simple reason that a child who has special educational needs may well need the help and support of a parent when undergoing a particular programme of education. I regard education as used here in the general sense of well being and even education in using certain motor skills within the child's own body. I suggest that if this is required —and we are supposed to be helping the children—by assisting the parent, we shall be helping the child. Thus it is a reasonable measure.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This amendment attempts to provide a means whereby education authorities can recoup direct from central

997
government the additional expenditure incurred in helping children with special educational needs to go abroad. It would in effect create a specific grant scheme, a method of finance not favoured, as I understand it, by COSLA or its constituent authorities.
There are fundamental difficulties in the proposal. If the amount of money set aside is not taken up, the savings could not be taken up for other purposes. On the other hand, if a very deserving case arose after the money had been exhausted, the education authority would have to refuse to help. Moreover, calculation of the amount of excess would have to depend on an estimate of the alternative cost in this country, which experience tells us cannot be accurately predicted unless a child has entered school and had his special educational needs assessed.
I do not believe that this proposal is necessary. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has in recent years made generous settlements in support of special needs expenditure. I can give the Committee the figures. In the past eight years the increase has gone up from £30 million to £81 million. We have not tried to specify particular ways in which the extra resources should be deployed, but we had in mind among other things the kind of expenditure which this clause allows. That is expenditure which serves to extend the options and choices for parents of disabled children.
We are not asking authorities to exercise their discretion in ways which they cannot afford or in areas where they have not been given extra provision. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lords will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that very full reply. I take it that the principle he has given is that he is in sympathy with the concept that parents should be funded in circumstances where it would be advantageous to the child and his or her development. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Further amendment of 1980 Act in respect of recorded children]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 50, line 31, at end insert—
("(3) In section 62(3) of that Act (duty to ensure provision made for recorded special educational needs), at the end there shall be added the words"; and they shall in any event, as regards each such child belonging to their area as is mentioned in section 60(2)(ii) of this Act, make provision for any special educational needs recorded in respect of the child which are not being met by other suitable arrangements".").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 104 and speak also to Amendment No. 119. Clause 72 places on education authorities a duty to assess for recording children between two and four years of age who have come to the authorities' attention as having or likely to have special educational needs. Once a record is opened, an
998
authority must ensure that any provision it makes caters for a child's special educational needs. This works well for the pupil over school age as the authority is obliged to provide school education and so will have to include the special educational needs identified in the record. However, authorities are under no general obligation to give education to a pre-school age child, though they have power to do so if they wish. It follows that authorities could avoid their obligation to implement records of need by refusing to make any provision at all. We believe that this is unacceptable, and the amendment removes that possibility. There is also a consequential amendment which it will be convenient to take at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am slightly inclined to agree with the general tenor of what the Minister has said. That would mean that my original intention to move the Motion that Clause 72 shall not stand part of the Bill would be superfluous. Listening to what the Minister said and trying to understand or interpret my own thoughts and my original intention make me think that I would rather look at the Minister's answer before making a decision as to whether Clause 72 should stand part of the Bill. Therefore at this stage I am grateful to the Minister for his amendments.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before the noble Lord decides what to do about the clause, perhaps I should just add that some of the information that has been obtained by my honourable friend Mr. Forsyth, who was in charge of education at the time of the commencement of the Bill, in relation to what might be called the Peto situation in Hungary suggested that it would be extremely valuable if this provision were included as there would be a record of assessment at a time when it is vital to try to sort out the problems that might be apparent when a child eventually arrives at a school.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister. He will realise that as I was going to oppose the clause I shall need to consider very carefully what he has said and perhaps take advice on it. However, it appears that there is very little to separate the Minister and I.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Educational services: extension of power of Secretary of State to make grants]:
On Question, Whether Clause 73 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I have one little point to make which is not unimportant in moving that Clause 73 do not stand part of the Bill. I hope the Minister can clarify the statement that the Secretary of State may make grants to persons:
"other than education authorities, universities acid managers of educational establishments".
I may be rather dull but I cannot think of many other groups which are involved in education and

999
which come within the compass of this Bill to whom the Secretary of State would be empowered to make grants. Does the Minister envisage the establishment of some private agencies which would be given grants to provide these educational services? The only reason that I move that Clause 73 does not stand part of the Bill is to obtain clarification on that point.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Under Section 73 of the 1980 Act the Secretary of State has a range of powers to pay grants in accordance with regulations made by him. Section 73(d) in particular empowers him to make regulations under which he can pay grants to any persons providing education or educational services. A body providing management advice to a self-governing school would not strictly speaking be providing an educational service. It is the board of management that is providing the educational service in running the school and educating the pupils. Any advisory body would be providing an ancillary service, a necessary support to education. This clause widens the scope of Section 73(d), as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said to include the payment of grant for such services. There will be a need for such a body offering management advice and perhaps co-ordinating certain central services for self-governing schools, particularly in the initial years. It is appropriate that my right honourable friend should be able to offer financial assistance and this clause should stand part of the Bill.
The noble Lord will know that the Scottish Consumer Council has produced a paper on self-governing schools entitled Self-Governing Schools: Advice and Information for Parents. The Government are considering the proposals from the council; but it must be made very clear that taxpayers' money must be used for neutral information. However, the proposal in the Bill is to give the Secretary of State powers to pay grants so that if educational services are provided by a body other than that specified there would be power so to do.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I should have thought that the managers of educational establishments would have some training in this matter, although I accept that frequently one has to go outside a particular discipline in order to look at it from the outside with an impartial and fresh outlook. I can see the point of payments in that case. However, if the Minister does not mind, I shall take his reply away, think it over and consider what would be the best thing to do on Report.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Appointment of teachers]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 51, line 5, at end insert ("subject to such exceptions as may from time to time be prescribed").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the obligation contained in Clause 74 of this Bill, as
1000
an amendment to Section 87 of the 1980 Act. Clause 74 brings in a new Section 87A, which states:
"Where an education authority intends to fill a post, other than on an acting basis, of a principal teacher in a school, they shall advertise the post in such publications circulating throughout Scotland as they consider appropriate".
The amendment adds the words:
"subject to such exceptions as may from time to time be prescribed".
It may be a matter of interpretation. However, it may be read that the present wording means that an education authority would have to advertise nationally throughout Scotland, although I appreciate that the clause reads:
"in such publications circulating throughout Scotland as they consider appropriate".
If the Minister were to give an undertaking that there is no obligation on a local authority to advertise on a truly national basis, in the national newspapers, that would meet the point.
If the provision is to be read as an obligation to advertise nationally every principal teacher post the costs could be horrendous. For example, it has been estimated that Strathclyde region would run up costs of £ 135,000 a year, possibly to little effect. At present there is a variety of practice among the authorities in Scotland, some of which first circulate notices of appointments within their own departments so that staff will be aware that a principal teacher post is available. Strathclyde region operates a system whereby any teacher can write to the education authority for a list of available posts.
This is therefore a probing amendment. We wish to be assured there is no intention to impose compulsory national advertising on education authorities throughout Scotland. If the Minister can give the Committee an assurance that it is to be a discretionary power to advertise in the best way possible that might meet the point.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: This is a very sensible amendment in that in the favoured district of Angus the Dundee Courier and Advertiser is probably the cheapest and most widely read newspaper and could well bring results without the need to advertise in more expensive newspapers firth of the area.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Those last remarks are a very good advertisement for the Dundee Courier and Advertiser.
The amendment deals with principal teacher posts, which are important posts. It implies that there could be grounds for exempting certain teaching posts from the general requirement to advertise posts. I am not convinced that there is a case for doing so. Nor am I persuaded that central government should be involved in prescribing criteria to allow such exceptions to take place. We have been forced to introduce the requirement because certain education authorities seem determined to pursue unenlightened recruitment policies and restrict opportunities to internal candidates. That cannot be in the best interests of

1001
the profession or of the education of our school children. I do not think that there can be exceptions to the principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked whether national advertising was necessary. It is intended that those important posts should be advertised nationally. They must be advertised throughout Scotland, that is nationally, but not in all national newspapers. Therefore, the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, would cover that point.
What are the extra costs of advertising? Because of the different methods of advertising, for example, block advertising, figures are not readily available. However, the cost will be small in relation to education budgets.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, understands what is meant by nationally. There is an important balance to be struck between principal teacher posts and spreading the net wide in Scotland.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the Minister for that reply. However I am not sure as yet what "nationally" means. I shall read his reply with care and consider the position before the next stage of the Bill.
Would the Minister care to name those local authorities which he regards as pursuing an unenlightened approach to the appointment of principal teachers? If he means that they do not advertise nationally that is an entirely different matter. An unenlightened approach to the appointment of a principal teacher is perhaps one which does not pay proper heed—
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. We are very concerned about internal appointments being made without the authority going firth of a particular school. That is what we wish to address.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I appreciate that that is a very restrictive way of appointing a principal teacher. I thought that the Minister was referring to an education authority as a whole being irresponsible. There may be circumstances in which an authority has a surplus of teachers and a falling school roll. There is no reason why it should not use the surplus teachers if they are suitably qualified and pass the requisite examination for selection. There is no reason why they could not appoint such a teacher without going to the trouble of advertising nationally throughout Scotland. I heard what the Minister had to say and shall consider it with care. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Remuneration of certain persons employed in providing school education]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 106:
1002
Page 51, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 42 and insert ("bodies representative of any group of persons to whom this section applies and those employing them agree").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 107.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, if head teachers are excluded from the existing Joint National Council, what will take its place is voluntary collective bargaining machinery comprising organisations representing head teachers and local authorities but excluding the Scottish Education Department. That will prevent the Secretary of State from imposing negotiating machinery or some other mechanism. The pattern of collective bargaining machinery in local government, apart from that for teachers and police, is for voluntary machinery. If head teachers are taken out of the existing SJNC, that is what should replace it.
The Scottish Education Department should be excluded. Government departments are again represented only on the bodies for teachers and police. They are not the employers and should not be in a position to dictate the terms and conditions to be agreed between the employers, the local authorities, and their employees, the head teachers. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The purpose of Clause 76 and Schedule 10 of the Bill is to give my right honourable friend enabling powers to remove a group or groups of persons from the ambit of the SJNC negotiating machinery. That was in response to representations made by the hind teachers associations who did not consider that their interests were being properly represented by the teacher unions on the SJNC.
Should the enabling powers be taken, it would be for the group or groups of person who seek removal from the SJNC ambit to agree with their employers the format of alternative new negotiating machinery. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would have the effect of prescribing that only representative or union bodies should have the right to negotiate with the employers on this matter. Although in practice something along those lines is likely to occur, the Government do not wish to circumscribe the emergence of separate machinery, insisting on it being negotiated through union channels.
The Bill as currently drafted would not prevent groups of persons seeking to have the separate pay negotiation machinery conducted on their behalf by representative bodies. It is the Government's view, however, that a decision on that detailed point should rest in the first instance with the group or groups of persons involved. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
However, the noble Lord mentioned in conclusion that the Scottish Education Department should be excluded from those matters. We are not prescribing new machinery. It may be that the SED will not participate. That will be for discussion with teachers and employers.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that reply. We all know that, whether the SED is involved or not, it is a spectre at any feast concerning wages and conditions. The Minister again seems to be hoping that what is being suggested here is the sort of thing that will happen. Obviously he cannot give a guarantee, but he has given sufficient to enable me to consult the people who are particularly concerned on what is a tricky piece of negotiating machinery and trade union-Government-local authority relationships and come back, if necessary, at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clauses 77 to 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Interpretation]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 53, leave out lines 46 to 48 and insert —
(""parent", in relation to a child or young person, includes his guardian and any person who is liable to maintain, or has the actual custody of, the child or young person except that in sections 3, 13 and 30 and Schedules 3 and 7 (and in the expression "parent member", which is defined by subsection (1)(a) of the said section 3 but which also includes persons becoming such members by virtue of section 19(2) of this Act) it does not include any person other than a natural person;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 108 and speak to Amendment No. 109. These amendments define "parent" and "pupil" for the purposes of this Bill. Clause 80(2) provides that any relevant definitions contained in the 1980 or 1988 Acts be applied to this Bill. However, these Acts contain different definitions of parent and pupil. As regards the terms "parent", the 1988 definition is restricted to natural persons and therefore excludes institutions such as the social work services or Dr. Barnardo's who may be in loco parentis. The purpose of the amendment is to invoke the wider definition of parent for general purposes but to adopt the more restrictive definition of the 1988 Act for the purposes of ballots and elections.
As regards the term "pupil" the 1988 Act definition does not include any person over the age of 18, whereas the 1980 Act defines "pupil" used without qualification as a person of any age for whom education is, or is required to be, provided whether in relation to schools or other educational establishments. The amendment adopts the 1988 definition.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: We have discussed this definition of parent at length on previous occasions. I am not clear where the Bill stands in relation to the definition. We have the definition:
"includes his guardian and any person who is liable to maintain, or has the actual custody of, the child".
If two parents of a child divorce and remarry and the child is in the custody of one or other set of grandparents, does that mean for the purposes of the Bill that the child has six parents? If so, does it mean that the six parents can set up the process for the
1004
opting out procedure, which would mean that only five families could be involved in setting in train the opting out procedure to get the necessary 30 persons? It seems an extraordinary proposition.
Could the Minister also tell the Committee which one of the six parents will be on the list kept by the local authorities under, I think, Schedule 1 of the local authorities Act? Are all six parents going to be registered for the electoral roll in the local authority offices, as the local authority has a statutory duty to maintain a list, or are we just going to end up in a shambles with the situation of perhaps one parent registered in the local authority office, six parents all with varying interests in the child, and then power in one of the schedules for the board to decide who is a parent for the purposes of the Act? The child might never find out who his parent is under this definition.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I had a suspicion that the noble Lord would return to the question of parents, and in the meantime I have had a look at the whole question myself. I should just like to take this time to explain it because it is an important point, and the law of averages will of course work out in the end.
The term "parent" should be defined for the purposes of the Bill as we define it in Amendment No. 108, to which I have just spoken. The aim is that the list of those qualified to vote in a ballot should include all with a direct interest in the welfare of the pupils at the school. This goes beyond the two natural parents in some cases, as the noble Lord suggests. A regrettably common situation will be the case of a child whose natural parents are divorced and who is in the custody of his remarried, natural mother and stepfather but who also makes frequent visits to his natural father. Those adults, who all have a parental role in respect of the child, are likely to take an interest in his education, and indeed they should be expected and encouraged to accept that responsibility.
It will be relatively rare however for a child to have more than three parents, albeit that in theory a greater number than that could be recognised as such. Much will depend on the individual circumstances of the case. Equally it could be observed that the voting rights of parents will not vary in line with the number of children they have in attendance at the school in question. Two parents with five children will have two votes between them, one vote each in respect of their status as parents.
Depending on the context under the Bill, it will be either for the school board or the board of management to determine who is a parent for the purposes of voting rights. In making any such determination a board will have to observe the general principles of the law that they should act reasonably and not in an arbitrary or unfair manner. The very complexity of some family arrangements may make the task of determining who is a parent a difficult one. But this is an area where flexibility in the application of the law is highly desirable if a fair result is to be achieved as regards the recognition of those who should have a say in the upbringing of a child. The Committee may recollect that even

1005
Solomon at times had difficulty with the definition of "parent".
With that explanation, the Committee will understand that I have addressed the matter. Indeed, the suspicions of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, were not unfounded when he first raised the question.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I may have misheard the Minister. Does that mean that although technically a child can have six parents, only one parent will be entitled to vote in respect of that child?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It is my understanding that all will have a right. But it will be up to the board, looking at the various representations about that child, as to how many people should qualify. It could indeed be up to six. However, a husband and wife who have five children in school will have only two votes. As I understand it, that is the equitable way of dealing with this difficult matter.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for that clarification.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 54, line 6, at end insert (" "pupil" has the same meaning as in the 1988 Act;").
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Commencement]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 110 to 118:
Page 54, line 27, at end insert ("Part II except section 67;").
Page 54, line 28, after ("sections") insert ("69(1) and (2),").
Page 54, line 28, leave out ("75") and insert ("72 to 76").
Page 54, line 30, after ("(6),") insert ("(8) to").
Page 54, line 30, after ("(10)") insert ("and").
Page 54, line 30, leave out from ("(12)") to ("(20)") in line 31 and insert ("to").
Page 54, line 32, leave out ("Part II,") and insert ("Schedule 11 and").
Page 54, line 32, leave out second ("Part") and insert ("Parts II and").
Page 54, line 33, leave out ("and Schedule 11").
The noble Lord said: These amendments alter some of the commencement arrangements for the various provisions of the Bill. Part II, Clauses 54 to 66, on further education colleges, will now come into force immediately on enactment. This is necessary in order to allow time for regulations and directions to be made and authorities and colleges informed of their contents well before the deadline of 1st April for appointment of the new college councils.
Other provisions which under the Bill at present would come into force immediately do not require such early commencement and should therefore be subject to commencement orders; namely, Clause
1006
69(1) and (2), testing in primary schools; Clause 72, further amendment of the 1980 Act in respect of recorded children; Clause 73, educational services—extension of the powers of the Secretary of State to make grants; Clause 74, appointment of teachers; Clause 76, remuneration of certain persons employed in providing school education; and Schedule 10, paragraphs 8(8), 8(9), 8(14) and 8(19). These are technical amendments to the 1980 Act. I beg to move.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 73, line 5, at end insert—
("(1A) In section 1(5) (interpretation), in paragraph (c)—

(a) after the word "child" there shall be inserted the words "who has attained school age"; and

(b) at the end there shall be added the words "and in relation to any other child means such educational provision as is appropriate to those needs".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 119 when moving Amendment No. 104. I beg to move.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 119A:
Page 74, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert—
("and
(b) for the words from ": Provided that—" to "(ii) subject" there shall be substituted the words—
"(2A) A teacher appointed to any post on the staff of any such school by the education authority shall satisfy the Secretary of State as to qualification and shall require either—

(a) to be approved as regards his religious belief and character by representatives of the church or denominational body in whose interest the school is managed; or

(b) if they decline to give such approval, to have his appointment consented to by the representatives.

(2B) Where as respects a proposed appointment the representatives—

(a) decline to give the approval mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2A) above they shall state in writing their reasons for so declining; and

(b) where they also withhold the consent mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection they shall include in the statement their reasons for so doing.

(2C) Subject".").
The noble Duke said: Section 21, which dates from 1918, gives denominational bodies a power of approval over the appointments of teachers to denominational schools. This approval is in terms of the candidate's religious character and belief. As it is worded, Section 21 appears to relate to appointment to the staff of a school. In other words, once appointed to a particular school, a given teacher would be able to move from post to post without further approval being necessary. But if a teacher

1007
moved between schools, whether on promotion or not, approval would again be required.
This matter was the subject of consultation with education authorities and teachers' associations in 1985. It was widely agreed that the position was illogical and that approval should attach to appointment to a post. In other words, on each occasion when a teacher sought appointment—whether on moving between schools or on promotion within a school—approval should be required. It was also widely agreed that the denominational body should be required to state its reasons for withholding approval so that an individual could challenge any decision if he or she believed it to be unfair.
After discussion with the Catholic hierarchy, the Government agreed to amend Section 21 in this sense. The necessary amendment is included in Schedule 10 at paragraph 8(6).
The hierarchy and the Catholic commission also proposed that the section be further amended to allow for the case of teachers who might require to be appointed but whom the denominational body would be unqualified to approve as to religious character and belief. For practical purposes this would mean non-Catholic teachers filling vacancies in a denominational school for which there was no suitable Catholic applicant. The proposal was that the denominational body should be empowered to consent to such appointments.
This proposal had not been the subject of formal consultation. It was therefore not considered appropriate for this matter to be included in the Bill as published. The Catholic Education Commission agreed to undertake an informal consultation on the proposal and to seek support for an appropriate amendment to Schedule 10 which could be considered at Committee stage. This amendment allows for approval or consent attaching to an appointment to a post. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister responds to my noble friend's amendment, I should like to say a word about the specific aspects of this part of the Bill as it relates to the hierarchy having to give written reasons why it is refusing approval, if it is so doing. If this amendment were to be accepted would it affect the Bill in that respect? I should also like to ask that question of my noble friend. I regard this as important and I shall briefly tell the Committee why. For a long time the law of Scotland has required that when a new teacher came to a church school the religious authorities should approve or disapprove the new appointment as regards the teacher's religious beliefs and character. However, until now there has been no requirement that the teacher should be given any reason for the decision. During my time as education committee chairman in Tayside I was greatly concerned that in the case of Roman Catholic schools the hierarchy took the view that when a Roman Catholic teacher applied for a promoted post, if he or she had children who could have been sent to a local Roman Catholic school but were being sent to a non-denominational school, the Church would block the appointment. That seemed to me to be unfortunate in two ways. It
1008
was a limitation on the individual liberty of teachers and, most important, it was depriving Roman Catholic schools of some of their potentially best teachers in senior posts.
I know that the practice has recently been challenged by one teacher. With the Church's approval she was appointed as assistant head of a Dundee Roman Catholic primary school. That was approved by the hierarchy. While in post she became concerned that her children, who attended the local Roman Catholic secondary school, were not being sufficiently stretched. Therefore, she exercised her free choice to take them away from that school and send them to Dundee High School, a non-denominational school. Nowadays it is a fee-paying school but that fact was irrelevant.
When she applied to be head of her primary school, where she was already assistant head, the Church stated that she was not suitable and blocked the appointment. Supported by her priest, the teacher appealed to the Secretary of State for Scotland and he upheld her case. Schedule 10 of the Bill as it stands requires that if a church does not approve an appointment the reasons must be given in writing. My noble friend explained that matter. That appears to be exactly what is required in fairness to any teacher. He or she needs to know the reason why the appointment is being blocked.
I wish to ask the Minister and my noble friend whether the amendment contains any provision which will result in the Roman Catholic teachers losing the new right provided in the Bill. I regard the matter as being absolutely crucial. Should the amendment be accepted, I wish to be clear that it does not affect the new right in any way.
The Duke of Norfolk: I should like to reply at once. My noble friend Lady Carnegy is talking about the case of Mrs. Ruddy, which was considered by the hierarchy. It was annoyed that she had removed her children from a Roman Catholic school but she was promoted to head of the Catholic school where she was an under-teacher. She still holds that post.
The amendment was drafted by the Scottish Office with the assistance of the Catholic hierarchy. It has the approval of the Scottish Office. There is no question of attempting to limit the freedom of Catholic teachers. There is no question of resisting any attempt to be fair. If a case is considered to be in need of further investigation, the hierarchy is prepared to go to arbitration, to have a tribunal appointed or to go to a court of law.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. The noble Duke has put forward a reasonable case. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has illustrated a disturbing case and therefore the issue must be looked at. I received this amendment only yesterday and am sure that the Committee will realise that it is very important. I have asked for advice, but have received none. At this point I am relying on the Minister's answer. When I receive that, I shall consider that along with everything else that has been said in this debate. I shall confer with people from all groups in my part of the West of Scotland over the weekend and I hope to make a decision on this matter on

1009
Report. I do not feel qualified to make such a decision at this point but I hope to do so at the next stage of the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: It seems to me that the important point made by the noble Duke was that the Scottish Office and the hierarchy are in agreement. Therefore, there is nothing hole in the corner about this amendment. Of course, while I understand the problems that can arise, surely it is in everybody's best interests that reasons for objecting, or indeed not allowing, should be made public. That must be good, rather than matters being kept under cover, as it were.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. However, the point to make on what the noble Baroness said is that in that case the Secretary of State played a very important part and it was on appeal to him that the lady in question became the head teacher. For that we must bless the provisions which give the Secretary of State power to do that.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should like to answer this point as fully as I can. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend the Duke that the approval of the Scottish Office, which he mentioned, concerned the support sought by the hierarchy that the amendment was technically accurate. I must say that no undertaking was given by the Scottish Office as to the acceptability of the policy as such, and I think that is an important point at this stage.
Perhaps I can also answer my noble friend Lady Carnegy on whether this amendment has any damaging effect on the provisions already included in Schedule 10, on which the noble Duke has elaborated and which is already on the face of the Bill. The answer to that is no. My noble friend's amendment repeats the essential features of paragraph 6 of Schedule 10. I am satisfied that the revised procedure for denominational approval which we are providing would work as well in terms of this amendment as it would under the existing terms of the Bill.
My noble friend's amendment seeks to add a further level of procedure in addition to the power of approval which dates back to the Act of 1918 which brought church schools in Scotland under public management. The question for us tonight is whether this new element—the power to consent to certain appointments—should be added to provisions which already command substantial support.
Members of the Committee will be aware that this is an extension of the amendment to Section 21, as I said. The amendment in the Bill as it stands deals with the historical right of denominational bodies to give approval to the appointment of staff to posts in denominational schools, as my noble friend said. The provisions in paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 to the Bill amend Section 21 of the 1980 Act to provide that approval of the appointment of a teacher should
1010
attach to appointment to a particular post rather than to the staff of a school as a whole. The provisions in Schedule 10 also require the denominational body concerned to give reasons in writing—as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said—for any decision to withhold approval. That will allow any individual affected by the decision which he or she considers unreasonable to seek redress through the courts. Both of those changes to existing law follow a consultation, as indicated by my noble friend, which was undertaken in 1985 and commands general support. It is accepted that the wording of Section 21 of the 1980 Act, which goes back to the terms of the 1918 Act which brought church shools under public management, is unsatisfactory and the proposals which the Government have already put forward make the necessary changes.
My noble friend's amendment would retain the provisions already included in paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 but would add to them a new power for denominational bodies to consent to the appointment of teachers whom they felt that they could not in conscience approve. The same requirement as is included in the Bill for approval—namely, that the denominational body should state reasons for withholding its favour in writing—would apply to the new category of consent.
It is clearly logical that a denominational body may feel unable to approve "as to religious belief and character" an otherwise entirely suitable candidate who simply does not share the denominational background of the body in whose interests the school is conducted. In that sense my noble friend's amendment is a helpful suggested addition to the existing statutory provisions.
The Government's reservation on his amendment is that the proposal to introduce the category of consent has not been the subject of formal consultation with educational interests. There is therefore no clear indication of the views of education authorities and teachers' associations, although I understand that the Association of Directors of Education has expressed reservations about the proposal for consent following its appearance on the Marshalled List. I am of course aware that the Catholic hierarchy has undertaken informal consultations and has publicised its intention to seek an amendment along the lines now proposed. However, there has been no opportunity for wide public debate on this issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said.
The Government have no wish to make the arrangements for the management of denominational education a matter of political controversy. The amendment appears to us to be technically sound and to address a logical gap in the existing statutory provisions. However, aware of the sensitivities which surround denominational issues and conscious of the fact that there has not been time for formal consultation on the proposal, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment at this stage and allow me and noble Lords opposite the opportunity to seek comments on this proposal. I should be happy if my noble friend would reintroduce his amendment at Report stage and I

1011
will undertake to consider this proposal again in the light of the views expressed tonight and the comments which his amendment draws outside this House.
I feel that in this area of Scottish education we have to make haste slowly. For that reason I wish to ensure that when this matter is again discussed there is a measure of agreement across the parties rather than that it should be considered a party political matter.
The Duke of Norfolk: In view of what the Minister said and the assurance given, I certainly ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 76, line 24, after ("school";") insert—
("(dd) after the definition of "school age" there shall be inserted the following definition—
""school board" has the meaning assigned to it by section 1 of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988;";").
The noble Lord said: This amends the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to include the definition of "school board" as given in the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 for the purposes of the 1980 Act. I beg to move.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule and clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes before ten o'clock.

  EC FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 3rd OCTOBER 1989
  EC FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 3rd OCTOBER 1989
  BRITISH EMBASSY, KABUL
  BRITISH EMBASSY, KABUL
  ARCTIC SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
  ARCTIC SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
  EC BUDGET COUNCIL, 28th JULY 1989
  EC BUDGET COUNCIL, 28th JULY 1989
  DRAINAGE OF STREETS
  DRAINAGE OF STREETS
  DRIVER EYESIGHT STANDARDS
  DRIVER EYESIGHT STANDARDS
  A.4 HAMMERSMITH/CHISWICK SECTION: LITTER
  A.4 HAMMERSMITH/CHISWICK SECTION: LITTER
  NOISE POLLUTION
  NOISE POLLUTION
  CROWN SUPPLIES: PRIVATISATION ARRANGEMENTS
  CROWN SUPPLIES: PRIVATISATION ARRANGEMENTS