Sitting of 4 April 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL
Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Cyprus
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Cyprus following the breakdown of United Nations talks.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): In line with Security Council resolution 649, we will continue to support United Nations efforts to bring about a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement to the Cyprus dispute.
    Mr. Orme: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House what action he is taking, along with our European colleagues, to bring meaningful negotiations, especially with Turkish Cypriots who want negotiations? What part are the Government taking in that regard?
    Mr. Maude: That matter is properly raised when there are discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the Turkish Government. The right hon. Gentleman asked about action by our European partners. We have taken the view, as have many others, that the best chance of achieving serious negotiations leading to an enduring settlement is the initiative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to which we have given strong support, and we have done all that we can to help it move forward.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will the Government continue to set their face like flint against any recognition of the Denktas regime in the north of Cyprus? Bearing in mind the enormous demographic changes that have taken place in the north of Cyprus as a result of the arrival of a large number of Turkish settlers, should not we regard any elections that take place there with some sceptism?
    Mr. Maude: On the first point, there is certainly no intention to recognise the proclaimed so-called republic of Turkish northern Cyprus. It was illegally declared and we shall not recognise it. On the second point, it is certainly the case that there are some settlers in northern Cyprus. It is difficult to know the exact number, but I understand that the proportion of settlers to the indigenous population is not such as to have a decisive effect on any elections that
    1182
    may take place. It remains the case that we have to look for a representative of the Turkish Cypriot community with whom business can be done.
    Mr. Corbett: Now that the United Nations Secretary-General has felt justified in complaining about the intransigence of Mr. Denktash in the intercommunal talks under his sponsorship, will the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before she goes to the Gallipoli commemorations later this month and ask her to seek discussions with the Turkish Government to get them to make better efforts to use whatever influence they may have over Mr. Denktash? Does the Minister agree that the best key to the solution of the problem for the two communities in Cyprus lies in Ankara?
    Mr. Maude: There will be discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she goes to Turkey later this month, and it seems likely that this subject will come up then.

    Subsidiarity
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has sought that the policy of subsidiarity would operate to the benefit of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Maude: We support the principle of subsidiarity as an important way of avoiding unnecessary legislation at Community level. There is widespread support for the principle across the Community, and we believe that it should be rigorously applied in practice.
    Mr. Gill: Given the reluctance of large organisations and bureaucracies to devolve powers to the lower orders, does my hon. Friend consider that for the principle of subsidiarity to be acceptable it will be necessary for a full and detailed prospectus to be issued showing what powers will be devolved to the national Parliaments?
    Mr. Maude: I am not sure that I regard the nation states of Europe as the lower orders. I accept my hon. Friend's point that it is important that there should be the maximum leaving of powers to the nation states, the member states of the Community. On the desirability or otherwise of a comprehensive list of what should be done at each level, the best way to proceed is for there to be a presumption, effectively, that matters are best dealt with at national level unless it can be shown that that is better done at Community level. That is the principle of subsidiarity, which has been widely subscribed to by political leaders across the European Community. Our concern is that the words are not yet matched by deeds. It is important that they should be.
    Mr. Spearing: Will not the Minister reconsider the use of the phrase, "principle of subsidiarity"? Has he seen the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs about the operation of the Single European Act, HC 82 of this Session? When I was asked about the issue as a witness, I said that the only thing that was clear about it was that it was not clear. Has he read the opinion of Mr. Speaker's Counsel about this use of the word and its meaning? Does he recall the exchanges that he had with the Select Committee on European Legislation? Bearing all those matters in mind, will he reconsider his definitive use of the word?
    Mr. Maude: I have certainly seen the excellent report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, produced under the Chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I have not read in detail the evidence that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) gave to the Committee, but, having been alerted to its seminal importance, I shall do so. The point that he made, that there was no universally accepted definition of subsidiarity, is fair. It is important that it should be defined in a way that exerts pressure for matters to be dealt with at national, not Community, level, unless a case can be made for matters to be dealt with better at Community level. That is something we support and shall seek to promote.

    Eastern Europe (Elections)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the conduct of the elections in eastern Europe.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): We have received a number of representations expressing the hope that the elections in eastern Europe will be free and fair. The East German election and the first round of Hungarian elections appear to have been conducted properly. They mark a major step forward in the creation of democratic, pluralist societies.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing interest among would-be parliamentarians in eastern Europe to visit this country, to see for themselves how this mother of Parliaments works? Is he further aware of the great assistance given by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and by the Great Britain-East Europe Centre?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware of the good work done by the Great Britain-East Europe Centre, which is financed largely by the Foreign Office. I am also aware of the good work done by the IPU, a number of other organisations and Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. There is a good deal of room for more such interchanges.
    Sir David Steel: Has the Minister of State noticed one significant feature of the elections that were held in the German Democratic Republic and Hungary—and, indeed, Namibia—and that are now under way in Czechoslovakia? It was significant that not one of those emerging democracies was daft enough to imitate the British electoral system. Does he accept that the principle that a public minority should no longer hold sway in any of those countries is good, and one which might be followed here?
    Mr Waldegrave: If I were the right hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that I should pursue that argument because one of the difficulties emerging in some of those countries is the incredible plurality of parties produced by the proportional systems that they are following. One country now has 68 parties. Those countries may face dire problems of weak Governments at times when they need a clear direction of policy. That may cause them great problems. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would be wise not to press that point. There is a matter relating to
    1184
    the Hungarian election on which I can agree with him: Hungary has managed to hold a successful election which produced no Socialist parties.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Romania, which I had the chance of visiting recently—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—there is concern among the members of the historic parties about the position of the National Salvation Front and that elections there should be free and fair? One way in which Romanians believe that that can be achieved is to send a team of observers from this country. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that observers go in considerable numbers and early enough to see the preparations?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can announce today in response to the sensible point made by my hon. Friend that we propose to send a team of 12 professional election observers drawn from senior local government officers, some of whom have taken part in observing elections in Namibia and elsewhere, to observe the last part of the campaign and the election itself. That is in addition to the Members of Parliament who will be observing the election. That will go some way towards meeting my hon. Friend's legitimate concern.

    Central America
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet members of the Government of the United States of America to discuss human rights in central America.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We have regular discussions with the United States Administration on a wide variety of subjects, including central America.
    Mr. Griffiths: The Minister will no doubt be aware that this weekend the five central American presidents met and issued a statement calling on the Contras to be disbanded when President Chamorro takes office on 25 April. What are the Government doing to ensure that that happens? It is essential for democracy that these destabilising forces be taken out of action.
    Furthermore, what are the Government doing to persuade the Americans, who have had such a bad influence on Nicaragua, to help get rid of the Contras?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We have consistently supported the Esquipulas process and the efforts of the central American states to find a peaceful solution to the disputes in the area. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will do likewise and not criticise the United States Administration all the time, perhaps concentrating a little more on condemning organisations such as the FMLN —Faraburdo Marti National Liberation Front— which seek to overthrow democratically elected Governments by terrorist means.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend invite the new President of Nicaragua, Mrs. Chamorro, to London and to Westminster so that the House and the Government can congratulate her on removing another left-wing socialist regime in central America?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure my hon. Friend that the President-elect of Nicaragua would be a very welcome visitor here. We warmly welcomed her victory in the

    1185
    election, and we pay tribute to those who were responsible for the election being carried out in a free and fair manner —particularly to the numerous observers, including United Nations observers, who played a major role in ensuring that the election was free and fair.

    Lithuania
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consideration the British Government have given to their relations with Lithuania and the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We support the right of the Baltic peoples to decide their own future, and have welcomed the considerable progress made in the past two years.
    In view of recent developments in Lithuania, we think it vital that restraint should be shown on all sides and that progress should be made through dialogue between the Soviet authorities and the Lithuanians. We attach particular importance to the repeated statements by the Soviet leadership that there is no question of the use of force. We have made clear our concerns to the Soviet authorities.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware that, given the increasing bullying and harassment of the Lithuanians by the Kremlin, his statement, which appears even-handed, is unacceptable to a growing number of people in this country? Will he now make a slight but significant change of policy and tell President Gorbachev boldly that the right of self-determination of the people of Lithuania was not extinguished by the secret protocol of 1939, and that President Gorbachev should be ashamed of claiming to be a beneficiary of that fact? That right of self-determination is enshrined in the Helsinki accord; and no one can trust that there has been a fundamental change in the Soviet Union until it adheres to those accords, particularly in relation to Lithuania.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Helsinki accord, however, also recognised de facto the boundaries of the Soviet Union as they are. They also recognised that changes in boundaries should be conducted by negotiation. The sheer truth of the matter is that peaceful transition to the independent Lithuania to which the Lithuanians have a right must be achieved through negotiation.
    I can inform the House of one optimistic development, which is that a Lithuanian delegation is now having discussions with a senior member of the Politburo Mr. Yakovlev. We hope that those talks will lead to progress.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of reports that the Soviet Union is intimating that it would be prepared to be more reasonable towards Lithuania if the west were to make concessions on German unification? Presumably, that means that the west should agree that Germany should not remain a member of NATO. Will my right hon. Friend dissociate himself from any such thoughts? Would not the right course be for the Russians to stop bullying Lithuania and to agree that Germany should remain a member of NATO if it so wishes?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is right to suggest that no such deal should be contemplated and, indeed, it would not be possible. I agree with him and with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) that
    1186
    sabre rattling and threats by the Soviet Union are not the way to conduct the negotiations that should be carried through to a conclusion.
    Mr. Heffer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Soviet Union, under Stalin, took over Lithuania, Latvia and other countries, and that that was an act of aggression against their peoples? However, is it not clear that Lithuania would not even be in a position to talk about independence had it not been for President Gorbachev's stand on perestroika? Although the Lithuanians have an absolute right to complete freedom from the Soviet Union, should not we endeavour to support sensible discussions and negotiations rather than military action by either side?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman talks a great deal of sense. It is inconceivable that any Soviet leader during the past 40 years would have walked into the crowds at Vilnius to argue with the people about these matters. He would have sent a tank, and that would have been the end of it. We are anxious about the sabre rattling, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that steps have been taken in the right direction, and that that would not have happened without the general progress in the Soviet Union during the past few years.
    Mr. Kilfedder: In the circumstances, should the Government appoint a diplomatic representative to Lithuania?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That would not be right at the present time. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) said, the Lithuanian people are entitled to independence, and when that is achieved we shall recognise the state. To intervene now might arouse further tension, which would not be sensible. We know from past events that if the worst came to the worst and force were used—we urge that it should not—there is nothing that we could do to stop it. It would be foolish to raise expectations that we could.

    American Television
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States authorities concerning broadcasting by American television on a Cuban frequency, in violation of international agreements; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: None.
    Mr. McKelvey: Will the Minister explain why no representations have been made? Is he saying that the Government support such naked aggression by America on a small neighbouring country—[Interruption.] Is not there an agreement, signed by 138 countries, that prohibits that sort of invasion of television and radio air space? As the Prime Minister has a special relationship with America, will he please tell that country to stop those naked aggressive cowboy tactics against a small country and ask it to abide by the agreement that it has signed?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I find it astonishing that the hon. Gentleman appears to regard something that might allow the people of Cuba to receive information from a source other than that controlled by their Government as naked aggression. There are two reasons why we have made—
    Mr. Kaufman: That is inviting lawbreaking.
    Mr. Sainsbury: If the right hon. Gentleman would be quiet for a moment, he might hear my answer.
    There are two reasons why we have not made representations. The first is that it is for the International Telecommunications Union and the International Frequency Regulation Board to decide whether the broadcasting of TV Marti complies with international regulations. Secondly, it is a matter for the countries concerned, not for the Government.
    Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that countries should seek the protection of such international regulations only if they obey them?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We have always taken the view that one cannot be selective about the laws that one obeys.
    Mr. Foulkes: But the American Government are violating a large number of international agreements to which they and the British Government are signatories, in what is now being described as tele-aggression on Cuba —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Foulkes: As you know, Mr. Speaker, Conservative Members often ask Opposition Members to condemn lawbreaking, so why do not the British Government condemn this lawbreaking by the Americans?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I had hoped that Opposition Members would support the efforts of the BBC World Service, for example, to ensure that accurate information about world affairs is available in as many countries as possible. I suppose, from what the hon. Gentleman has just said, that he would regard that as radio aggression. As I said earlier, it is for internationally established organisations and the two countries concerned to make a judgment.
    Mr. Burt: When my hon. Friend next discusses television transmissions to Cuba with the United States, will he encourage it to beam as many programmes as possible about the collapse of communism in eastern Europe, so that the Cuban population can see what will surely come to them within the next couple of years?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I fear that my hon. Friend is on to an important point. The Cuban authorities, and the President in particular, may be most alarmed at the idea of the people of Cuba being allowed to know what has happened elsewhere and fear that yet another Marxist-socialist regime would be overthrown if they did.

    German Unification
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to have discussions with Chancellor Kohl concerning the prospect of German unification.
    Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet Chancellor Kohl; and what issues will be discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Together with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I met Chancellor Kohl at the
    1188
    Anglo-German summit on 30 March. We had a good discussion on subjects that included the external aspects of German unification.
    We welcome Chancellor Kohl's commitment to resolve the external aspects of German unification before unification itself takes place, and to continued German membership of NATO.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that the imminence of German reunification makes nonsense of the Prime Minister's insistence on pointing short-range nuclear missiles at the people of East Germany? In the interests of European and world security, will the Cabinet now get the Prime Minister to change her mind on that?
    Mr. Hurd: The position was made pretty clear in the joint press conference that Chancellor Kohl and the Prime Minister gave. That NATO will continue to need a sensible mix of conventional and nuclear weapons in future is agreed generally in the alliance, and certainly between us and the Germans, and the hon. Gentleman will have heard what Chancellor Kohl said about needing full protection. We need to decide what that sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons on the continent of Europe should consist of—an important task, which has not yet been completed.
    Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that whereas we wish to have and hope to continue good Anglo-German relations, the concentric circles proposals, which would tend to marginalise the United Kingdom in the context of our relations with the rest of Europe and with Germany, would not be acceptable to the United Kingdom, that we would not accept Mr. Christophersen's proposals on economic and monetary union, which were tabled recently at Ashford castle, and that we do not intend to move towards the political union currently being put forward through the European Commission?
    Mr. Hurd: We are certainly opposed to any definition of political union in Europe which includes a central executive or a central Parliament removing powers from this Parliament. That is clear. As regards economic and monetary union, there was a meeting of Finance Ministers in Ireland last weekend which was the first stage in something for which we have always argued—full and adequate preparation. As my hon. Friend knows, we are in favour of beginning and completing stage 1 of the Delors plan, but we do not believe that stages 2 and 3, which have been debated in the House, should point us in the direction of central institutions in that sphere. That is a substantial discussion under way among the right people.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a great many people take a different view from that which he has just expressed? In particular, Chancellor Kohl, when at Koenigswinter, indicated that he saw German reunification in the context of accelerating economic and monetary union within the European Community. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with that?
    Mr. Hurd: We are in favour of and committed to moving towards economic and monetary union. It is just that, as the hon. Member knows, we have a different route for that process which we regard as a more liberal and open route. As was clear from the press comments on the meeting in Ireland, a substantial discussion is under way. The only people who would be surprised that we were

    1189
    taking a substantial part in that substantial discussion would be those who have not listened to what we have been saying on the subject.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Given that the uniting of the two Germanies is a natural desire of the German people and is unstoppable, is not the prospect of a united Germany nevertheless a chill reminder of two world wars? Would it not be appropriate to discuss with Chancellor Kohl the establishment of a ceiling on the military forces and types of equipment that Germany may use in future?
    Mr. Hurd: As my hon. Friend knows, the present discussions in Vienna deal just with the limits on Soviet and American manpower. We have to harvest that agreement, which may not be entirely easy, and get it in the bag. After that, it is possible that all of the allies may wish to go on to a wider discussion including troop limits not just for the two super-powers but for others, possibly the Germans and possibly ourselves. As the Prime Minister said in Cambridge, we do not exclude the possibility of reductions. That is the next stage. The first stage is to get the agreement which is on the board and which is a possibility at Vienna.
    Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman was less than straightforward in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). In view of the fact that Chancellor Kohl, when in this country last week, publicly joined all other sensible NATO leaders in opposing modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons—that is what he said—and in view of the fact that Britain is completely isolated on this issue, will the Foreign Secretary say which enemy the short-range nuclear weapons are aimed against? Is it the President of Czechoslovakia or the Prime Minister of Poland who were entertained at No. 10 recently? Is it the voters of East Germany or the voters of Hungary who have just defeated communism? Is it the Soviet troops who, as the Prime Minister herself says, should continue to be stationed in East Germany for the sake of European stability? We realise that the Prime Minister is totally irrational on this issue, but if the Foreign Secretary—
    Hon. Members: "Speech."
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is rather a long question.
    Mr. Kaufman: If the Foreign Secretary is to be at all credible as a candidate for the Tory succession, will he take the side of a sensible Chancellor Kohl against a loopy Prime Minister?
    Mr. Hurd: The House was a little unkind to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He needs a little time to disentangle himself and we must show him some tolerance.
    The purpose of all force, be it conventional or nuclear, is to deter an aggressor.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Which one?
    Mr. Hurd: The point of the existing doctrine and of any future doctrine is to deter any possible aggressor. What is particularly agreed between Chancellor Kohl and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is that to achieve that in the case of Germany, Britain and the rest of the allies, there must be a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons. That is what Chancellor Kohl said at his press conference, and that much is entirely clear.

    NATO
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the result of the East German elections for the NATO alliance.
    Mr. Hurd rose—
    Hon. Members: Get on with it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Hon. Members: He is wasting time.
    Mr. Hurd: I am sorry, but at least I have disentangled myself in silence, which is perhaps preferable to the alternative offered by the right hon. Member for Gorton.
    NATO has long supported the cause for freedom in the German Democratic Republic and throughout eastern Europe. We welcome the democratic elections in the German Democratic Republic, because the establishment of a genuine democracy there will contribute to stability and security in Europe. We stress the crucial importance of continued German membership of NATO.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Chancellor Kohl's commitment to keeping West Germany within NATO is as important to West German security as to that of all western nations?
    Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern in the hosiery and shoe industries in my constituency in Leicestershire that the elections in East Germany and eastern Europe will herald a new flood of imports? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that to help British industry there must be strict regulations on imports from eastern Europe as a consequence of the democratic process there?
    Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point. His second point is also correct. Under existing arrangements, the western border of the Federal Republic of Germany is policed and controlled to ensure that East German goods do not enter the Community unfairly, and that will continue.
    Mr. Wareing: Has the Foreign Secretary seen a report in Stern magazine of a poll in West Germany in which a majority of West Germans said that they were opposed to any form of NATO forces across what is now the boundary with the German Democratic Republic, up to the Oder-Neisse line? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to reassure not only the West German people but the Soviet Union that, regardless of whether Germany is in or out of NATO, Britain will not support NATO forces moving up to the Oder-Neisse line?
    Mr. Hurd: It is extremely important for the security of us all that a united Germany should remain in NATO. However, there is a wide body of reasonable opinion that so far as the eastern part of a united Germany is concerned, there should not be stationed there NATO—that is to say, United States, British, French or Canadian —forces.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if war, tension and instability in Europe are not to result from the unification of Germany and democratic elections in East Germany, it is essential for each nation to follow the path

    1191
    of negotiations on difficult issues, as in Lithuania? Will my right hon. Friend outline the careful and considered negotiations that he faces in the next two or three months?
    Mr. Hurd: It would take a little time to do that. The two-plus-four negotiations, about which I gave evidence to the Select Committee this morning, are now beginning; the discussions in NATO are under way; the discussions in the European Community, for which there will be a special European Council on 28 April, are under way; and there are the discussions about the Polish borders, in the achieving of which we have played a prominent part. In all those ways, we now have what was clearly lacking a couple of months ago—a set of frameworks or discussions in which the external aspects of Germany unification can be taken on board and dealt with.

    Vietnamese Boat People
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the situation of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Maude: For the first time since May 1987, there is now a sustained net outflow of Vietnamese boat people from Hong Kong. But it is too soon to know whether there will be another large influx into Hong Kong this year.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Minister accept that aid to Vietnam is the one thing which might stop the flow of refugees from Vietnam to Hong Kong and might also encourage some of the refugees and boat people to go back? Have the Government been using the refugees as negotiating pawns in their discussions with the Vietnamese Government? Will the Minister make it clear that no matter how reluctant the United States Government may be to give it, unless aid is given to Vietnam the refugee problem—whether they are economic or political refugees —will continue?
    Mr. Maude: When the boat people return to Vietnam, aid is given. Substantial amounts of money are given to accompany their return and to provide for their reintegration and resettlement in their own communities, and it is right that that should happen. The incentive for them to return is thus already provided.
    As for deterring people from leaving Vietnam in the first place, one reason why they leave is, of course, poverty in Vietnam—a country which is undergoing economic reform. I do not think that it would be right for us to start any large-scale programme of support for Vietnam while that country steadfastly refuses to accept its international obligations in respect of its own people. The whole international community has rightly said that Vietnam should accept those international obligations.
    Mr. Raison: Is the Minister satisfied that the number of volunteers in Hong Kong to go back to Vietnam is building up satisfactorily? Does he feel that sufficient information is given to boat people in Hong Kong about the advantages of return and that enough information is given to potential boat people in Vietnam about the disadvantages of going to Hong Kong?
    Mr. Maude: I believe that more information is being transmitted in the way that my right hon. Friend suggests. There is some evidence this year that the number of those
    1192
    leaving certainly north Vietnam, from which there has been the biggest outflow in recent years, is reduced. I have no doubt that a principal reason for that was our decision in December last year to return a planeload of people to Vietnam. That sent a clear message to north Vietnam that there was only one place for people who were not refugees to go. and that was to return to Vietnam. I hope that that message is being understood more widely in Vietnam.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister, in his determination not to allow any economic refugees from Vietnam to come to this country, keeping in mind the fact that in the German Democratic Republic right now there are more than 50,000 refugees from Vietnam on long-term work contracts? If Germany becomes united, presumably those people will be able to move into the Federal Republic and perhaps even into this country. What will the Minister do about that?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman talks as though it is a decision by us not to allow economic migrants to come here. He must be aware that that decision was reached unanimously by every country that has any interest in the matter. No country in the west is opening its doors to non-refugees. All have taken the view that the only place for those people to go is back to Vietnam. The fact that there are some Vietnamese workers in the GDR arises from the fact that the GDR voluntarily opened its doors to them. No country in the west is opening its doors to those in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Lester: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Vietnamese Government are in a Catch-22 situation? If they seek to please us by agreeing to the involuntary repatriation of their people they offend the American State Department, which strongly opposes that. The fire ought to be directed at getting the American State Department to make an assessment of the present situation in Vietnam, because it believes that people are being sent back to a tyrannous regime that it remembers from 1979. We are now in 1990 and the situation is different, and for the American State Department to get its policy right it needs to make a reassessment of the true situation in Vietnam.
    Mr. Maude: We have made the point to the United States Administration that the Vietnam of today is not the same as the Vietnam of 10 years ago. Things have moved forward. The country is certainly reforming in economic terms, with some reforms of a political nature, and that is very desirable. But the Americans have a position on this matter which is somewhat curious and is wrapped up in the history of the past 20 years. The view that my hon. Friend expresses is reasonable, but until Vietnam accepts its international obligations to accept its own people back it would be wrong for us to go unilaterally down the path of giving aid.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the implications of the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) in which he seemed to imply that the only economic aid to be provided for Vietnam would be if Vietnamese people went to Hong Kong and then back to Vietnam. Surely the answer to the problem of economic migration from Vietnam is to make that extremely poor country less poor so that people will not wish to migrate for economic

    1193
    reasons, and sensible western economic aid for infrastructure and construction is the best way to do that. Will the Government break free from the American obsession on Vietnam, have their own policy and provide economic aid?
    Mr. Maude: The idea that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be propounding—that our policy on Vietnam is identical with that of the Americans—is a bizarre one. I did not say to his hon. Friend that aid was available only for those returning. The fact is that aid is given to those who return to encourage them to do so, and that is having its effect, but it must be clear that if we were to take a decision tomorrow to introduce aid into Vietnam that could not deter an outflow of people from Vietnam this year. Hong Kong has an immediate problem of enormous dimensions. It would be better if the right hon. Gentleman could bring himself to express a little concern about the burdens that that territory is bearing.

    Romania
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussion he has held with the Government of Romania on the forthcoming elections in that country.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the forthcoming election in Romania with the Romanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Celac, in Windhoek on 20 March. Our position is that a free and fair campaign and poll are vital for Romania's progress towards democracy.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that we must do something in addition to the initial discussion? Is he aware of the growing international concern and the concern inside Romania that next month's election will lead to a continuation of one-party rule in that country because the present Government there is full of people involved in the previous regime? Does he agree that the only thing that will allow a free election is reasonable access to the media by the alternative parties? Is not there a grave danger that the ruling Government—the Frontului Salvarii Nationale—will turn out to be not the front for the salvation of the nation, but the front for the salvation of communism?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware of the anxieties that have been expressed in the sense that the hon. Member describes. There are other views, but we are monitoring the situation closely. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), it is essential that we have a proper capacity to observe the campaign and the election. We have also taken some further steps to try to help to provide the capacity for opposition parties apart from the National Salvation Front to fight the election, and we have decided to send more than 100 tonnes of paper to enable people to print pamphlets, as that is not at present available in Romania.
    Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great anxiety in Romania about the continuing activities of the National Salvation Front, in particular about the fact that it is claiming credit for much of the EEC aid that has gone to that country? Can he reassure the House that he will make sure that the aid that goes to Romania from this country in the form of newsprint and other EEC aid will be fairly distributed and that the National Salvation Front cannot claim credit for it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a good point and we shall endeavour to do that. It is also important to distinguish between the role of the National Salvation Front in different parts of Romania. I believe that in some places it genuinely represents a broad alliance of people, but in other areas there is much more doubt about its role.
    Mr. Faulds: As to Romania, a country which I have not recently visited, unlike so many of my colleagues—
    Mr. Tony Banks: You must be the only one—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend must talk to Thomas Cook's about a trip.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Faulds: I thought that you were going to arrange it for me, Mr. Speaker. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that whatever Government evolves from the forthcoming elections in Romania, Her Majesty's Government will make strong representations to that Government that they should totally abandon the appalling Ceausescu policy of destroying hundreds of traditional villages and dozens and dozens of Romania's marvellous medieval churches?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that there is the prospect of a room becoming available in a couple of weeks' time which the hon. Gentleman could take up. It is fair to say that the National Salvation Front instantly abandoned the policy of destroying villages and there is no evidence that there has been any going back on that position.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the future Romanian political system should make adequate provision for the political, economic and educational rights of the important Hungarian and German-speaking minorities, not only in the interests of the consent of their own population but in terms of its acceptability to neighbouring states?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The treatment of minorities is exceedingly important. The Hungarian minority, with its long-standing history of conflict with the Romanian majority, is one of the most difficult of those issues. However, it behoves us also to say that the Hungarians should treat the situation carefully because there are two sides to that issue.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the General Affairs Council of Ministers meeting of 2 and 3 April.
    Mr. Maude: The Council considered preparations for the intergovernmental conference and Herr Genscher reported on recent developments in Germany. The Commission reported on talks on EC-Japan trade, on progress in EC-EFTA discussions and on the signature of a trade, commercial and economic agreement with Czechoslovakia. We proposed that all quantitative restrictions on imports from Czechoslovakia should be removed as from 1 July.
    The Council discussed work on immigration problems and member states' policies on visas for eastern Europe.

    1195
    My right hon. Friend argued for further measures of Community support to the black population of South Africa, and a trade and co-operation agreement with Argentina was signed.
    Ministers of the Twelve agreed, at my right hon. Friend's suggestion, to issue a further statement on Lithuania.
    Mr. Campbell: Was there a chance at the Council of Ministers meeting to discuss the appalling pollution of the North sea? If not, when does the Minister intend to get a grip on that problem?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but there was a large conference on the North sea recently, at which it became apparent that although we have 40 per cent. of the North sea coastline, less than 20 per cent. of the pollution in the North sea comes from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Favell: Can my hon. Friend say whether our European partners accept that under this Government there is no chance of the United Kingdom being part of a federal Europe?
    Mr. Maude: We have made our views on that very plain. We have a clear vision of the sort of European Community that we want to be part of, and it is not a federal one.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Minister assure the House that the General Affairs Council will keep in the forefront of its mind the recommendation from the European Parliament that no further protocols on scientific and cultural agreements should be allowed between the European Community and Israel until Israeli forces on the West Bank and in Gaza treat Palestinians in a much more reasonable fashion?
    Mr. Maude: We understand the anxieties that have been expressed by the European Parliament, but we cannot accept that sanctions of the sort suggested are the right way forward.
    Mr. Lawrence: Since the conclusions of this very important Council might have ramifications—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Lawrence: Since the Council's conclusions might have substantial ramifications for the future of Britain, would not it be a good idea, in the interests of parliamentary responsibility, for us to be told in advance of such meetings, the order of agenda and the views likely to be expressed by British Ministers?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are pleased to have the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) back with us, but perhaps he could remain silent while the Minister speaks.
    Mr. Maude: The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is one which surfaces from time to time. We make clear in answer to a parliamentary question each month the main subjects likely to come up at the Council of Ministers in the forthcoming month, so that much is public knowledge. As regards making the Government's position absolutely clear in advance, one cannot know beforehand exactly
    1196
    what propositions will be made and the way in which the discussion will go. It would be unreasonable to expect us to be able to do so.
    Mr. Robertson: The Minister's list of subjects raised at the meeting did not seem to include the conduct of Iraq. Surely Her Majesty's Government must have raised that subject at the first meeting of the General Affairs Council since the murder of Farzad Bazoft, the illegal incarceration of Daphne Parish and the continued incarceration of Ian Richter. Not only that, we have seen Iraq trafficking in nuclear triggers and this week's threat to use chemical weapons against Israel.
    If the subject was not raised, why on earth was it not? Why are the Government not initiating a major international isolation of the evil regime in Iraq? Are they paralysed by the fact that at the last Foreign Affairs Council meeting they themselves undermined Community sanctions against South Africa?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Member's last point is a fairly fatuous one. As regards his first point, we asked for support from our European Community partners for the appeal for clemency for Farzad Bazoft, and the Twelve responded very fully to our request. As for the other issues, there are other fora in Geneva in which we are raising those issues, but the hon. Member would do well to bear in mind the interests of others concerned who are imprisoned in Iraq. We must tread carefully.
    Mr. Dunn: When the issue of German reunification was raised, was it agreed by Ministers that the process leading to reunification should be handled with great caution and that, before reunification can take place, the fears, anxieties and concerns of West Germany's allies and neighbours must be debated and resolved?
    Mr. Maude: There is no dispute between the Federal Republic of Germany and any of the European Community partners about that. It is accepted that German unification has implications for a number of other countries, not just in the Community but more widely. The point that we made some months ago, now generally accepted, is that there must be fora in which these matters can be properly discussed. There are considerable implications for the European Community in the absorption of the German Democratic Republic into Germany; they must be sorted out and fully discussed.

    South Africa
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with officials of the South African Government.
    Mr. Hurd: I met President de Klerk, Mr. Pik Botha and other South African Ministers in Cape Town on 19 March. We had good talks, which reinforced my view that the South African Government are committed to fundamental reform. I also met several opposition leaders in South Africa and saw some of the 250 aid projects that Britain is supporting to help prepare black South Africans for the future after apartheid. I made it clear throughout that our aim is to see apartheid dismantled and to help the development of a peaceful, prosperous and democratic South Africa.
    Mr. Hughes: The House will be encouraged by what the Secretary of State has said, but did he raise the additional important matter of the remaining residual debt of Namibia, which the International Court of Justice in 1971 ruled was improperly incurred during the period of South African administration? Apparently, the figure is 892 million rand—one third of Namibia's GDP. That debt should not have to be paid by Namibia but by South Africa. If the matter was not raised, will the Foreign Secretary undertake to raise it at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Hurd: No, I did not raise the matter. I heard about it later when I was in Windhoek and I know that it is being discussed by the new Government of Namibia and the South African Government. We shall keep an eye on what happens.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Since Mr. Mandela and the African National Congress have now pulled out of the intended talks with officials of the South African Government because of the continuing violence in the black townships, would not it be totally inappropriate for our Prime Minister to meet Mr. Mandela when he comes to London next week unless he and the ANC totally renounce the armed struggle and move towards a more peaceful solution in South Africa which must accommodate Chief Buthelezi and Inkatha?
    Mr. Hurd: It is a pity that the meeting on 11 April has been postponed, but I understand that President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela intend to meet shortly. We hope that that will lead to talks about the talks which have been
    1198
    postponed and then into a wider grouping in which everyone expects leaders such as Chief Buthelezi to have a clear place.

    Soviet Foreign Minister
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the Soviet Foreign Minister; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Hurd: I last met Mr. Shevardnadze on 12 February in Ottawa at the open skies conference. Our discussions focused on developments in Europe. Since then we have kept in frequent direct touch.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it the Foreign Secretary's intention to discuss with the Soviet Union the bloody terrorist dictatorship in Iraq and the way in which chemical weapons have already been used against the Kurdish nationals in that country? Is not there a strong case for the closest possible co-ordination between nations, including those in eastern Europe, to ban the sale of high-level technology to that terrorist regime? Is not it time that we learnt some of the lessons of pre-war years in no longer appeasing notorious and bloody dictatorships?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed—I covered that point in my recent statement on the subject. It is important that we should draw the Soviet Union and other eastern European countries as closely as possible into the work of enforcing the non-proliferation treaty and the missile group to which I referred in my statement.

Local Government Finance (Scotland)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the introduction of a scheme in Scotland which takes account of the fact that the increase in the upper capital limit for community charge benefit which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech cannot be applied restrospectively.
I propose accordingly to set up a temporary scheme outside the social security benefits system to provide for special payments to those affected in Scotland. I have in mind those with capital resources of between £8,001 and £16,000 who will receive community charge benefit this year and were liable for the personal community charge during 1989–90. The scheme which we are discussing with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities envisages that these people will get a special payment which will be the same percentage of the community charge that they paid last year as their rebate will be of this year's charge. I intend to make minor amendments to the transitional relief regulations in order to implement the scheme.
I have already indicated that we believe that around 15,000 to 20,000 individuals might be eligible. Expenditure will depend on the precise numbers benefiting, but I consider that a scheme of the kind I have described will require financial provision of up to £4 million, to cover both the value of payments and administration costs. The sum of up to £4 million is small in comparison with the total resources of £9,500 million available to me, and will be found as part of the normal process in which projected underspends and overspends are adjusted throughout the year. No spending programme will be cut.
With this scheme the Government have shown willing to respond to the concern which was expressed in Scotland about the implications of the increase in the upper capital limit.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I welcome the statement; it would be ungracious to do otherwise. I recognise the Secretary of State's embarrassment about the announcement on the poll tax made in the Budget. I would have been more impressed by his personal position if he had not so vehemently argued that Scotland's complaint was entirely bogus until the llth hour.
Today's announcement is a small mercy indeed when measured against the disaster brought by the poll tax. Yet again the Secretary of State is trailing lamely at the rear, splicing this ex gratia scheme on to an already impossibly complicated system. It is a recipe for a continuing sense of injustice in Scotland.
May I ask the Secretary of State some specific questions? Is it true that he made no attempt to obtain additional funds from the Treasury? If not, why not? If the Chancellor was not contributing, why did the Secretary of State have to go cap in hand for permission to correct a basic injustice from his own resources? Is it not nonsense to pretend that an underspend on a planned target is anything but a cut?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that transitional relief must be calculated before entitlement to the ex gratia
1200
scheme can be settled? Does not that mean that no one will see the colour of the Secretary of State's money for some months? When does he think that payment is likely?
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has decided to calculate the percentage rebate entitlement for 1990–91 and apply it to last year's poll tax figure, will he consider an alternative? Would not the best option be to calculate the sums due to applicants in the last week of 1989–90 on the assumption that the new scheme applied then, and calculate last year's total payment on that basis?
The Secretary of State has been careful to stress that the cost will be up to £4 million. Was not the value of the concession greatly exaggerated by the Government, and, from all the indications, it is not clear that the likely payments in Scotland in total will be less than £2 million and that well below 15,000 people will benefit? Will not the average annual payment be well under £100?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the fundamental difficulty is that the scheme, which in effect is being extended to cover 1989–90, does little to help that vulnerable group with modest savings and limited income, perhaps boosted by a small occupational pension? Is it not true that in the coming year a pensioner couple in Glasgow with a basic state pension of £75·10 and a works pension of £15 who have a combined capital of £15,000 will be left to find the full poll tax of £12·18p a week without any form of help? Can he confirm that a single person aged 50—for this purpose again living in Glasgow—who has recently lost his job, is in receipt of unemployment benefit of £37·35 and has capital of £11,000 derived from his redundancy payment will not receive any rebate even when the scheme is in place? In the coming year, such a person will pay 16 per cent. of basic income in poll tax because of the assumed income of £4 a week for every £1,000 of savings above £3,000.
May we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that, this time at least, he will stir himself to push for necessary change? May we have the floor level of £3,000 increased to a realistic figure to reduce the taper, or at least have the tariff income, which assumes a return on capital of 21 per cent., brought down to a figure that an investor might receive from a bank or building society? Is there not a pressing danger that, if the scheme remains as it is, for thousands hope will turn to dismay and disappointment and then to anger?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome for the statement and for the speech that followed. I shall respond first to his question about additional funding.
I did not seek additional funding, and I shall explain why. The Chancellor's statement on the increase in the capital limits applies throughout the United Kingdom—to Scotland as well as to England and Wales—and community charge payers in Scotland will receive the same full benefit as charge payers in England and Wales. The additional provision that I have announced today applies to the past 12 months. Those who paid community charge in Scotland but had savings of more than £8,000 may now get a refund, whereas ratepayers in England or Wales, whose rates may have been higher than the community charge in Scotland and who did not receive a refund, will not be entitled to any payment. It seems, therefore, that if I propose a scheme which is limited to those making payments in Scotland, it is not unreasonable that I should

1201
administer it from within the Scottish Office. That is a matter of principle and is appropriate in the circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman asked why I needed to discuss this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my other right hon. Friends, when normally the Secretary of State has full discretion about how he uses his funds. That is a prefectly fair question. I have complete discretion on how I use funds for the normal purposes for which the Scottish Office is responsible. However, when I am considering the use of certain funds for a policy issue which does not normally come within the responsiblilty of the Scottish Office and which will be properly interpreted as a change when compared with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer only two days earlier—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Ah."] The Opposition have been out of office for a long time and I appreciate that they may not be able to recollect easily the normal conventions that operate within government. When a Secretary of State proposes to make an announcement which is not in accordance with a statement made by the Government 48 hours earlier, it would be seen at least as a matter of normal courtesy to discuss it with colleagues, as each Minister speaks on behalf of the whole Government.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the actual refund that will be paid will be a percentage of the sum paid by the community charge payer in the last year. He asked why it could not be calculated on the basis of the payments made in the final week of the year. That is the suggestion that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities made in discussions with the Scottish Office. It is an interesting question. The consequences of adopting COSLA's approach could be bizarre. If a person's savings and earnings in the 52nd week of the year were significantly different from the rest of the year, the refund paid might be greater than the total community charge payment of the individual for the year in question. That would be an absurd outcome, which the hon. Gentleman would not want to acknowledge.
The hon. Gentleman queried the number of people who might benefit in Scotland and the consequential cost as a result of the proposals. Our figures are the best estimates and are provided by the Department for Social Security. No one can say for certain what the figure will be. The best estimates are the figures of 15,000 to 20,000 people leading to a cost of up to £4 million. If it is less or greater, it will be accommodated within the scheme. Time will tell. It depends on the number of people who apply under these arrangements.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call Back-Bench Members today, I must say that I understand that yesterday there was concern that some were not called following the statement, although I did call all those who were adversely affected. As this statement is welcomed by the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and bearing in mind the constraints on time as again we have to debate a timetable motion, in order that as many hon. Members can be called as possible I ask hon. Members to put one question and the Secretary of State to answer one question.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we on this side of the House welcome without any grudging his
1202
remedying of this unfairness? Does he further accept that he could avoid all this debate about where the money comes from to pay for this if he would only take it from his overspend?
Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure whether I follow my right hon. Friend to his conclusion. He will recall from his days in the Scottish Office and other Government Departments that during the financial year there is always underspending on particular programmes and as a consequence supplementary allocations are made to other programmes. When underspends are identified, as they always are, we have already identified that which will be the first call on that underspend.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the numbers may not be as great as he anticipates? The earnings rules could well mean that many people with capital up to £16,000 will still not qualify. It looks as if the administration of the scheme will take up a substantial part of the £4 million and will probably be more than the actual delivery.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the decision by the English Department to offer revenue support grant in advance to English and Welsh authorities although he is not doing the same for Scottish authorities? That will further increase the poll tax this year in Scotland compared with England and Wales by £3·50 per head.
Mr. Rifkind: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I have to say that we will have to wait to see what the numbers are. He is wrong about the administrative cost. The scheme that I propose is administratively simple, because people will be applying for benefit for the year that is just beginning in any event and the same application will be made. All that they will be required to identify is their community charge payment for last year, and a simple formula will determine the sum that has to be paid.
The hon. Gentleman is under a misunderstanding about the other matter that he raised. We have already discussed with COSLA the question whether there should be front-loading of payment of revenue support grant. We are awaiting a paper from COSLA about whether and, if so in what way, it would like to see the payments changed. It has made no such request in the past. We have said that we are quite willing to discuss the matter with COSLA and to respond constructively if it puts forward reasonable proposals.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the Opposition that in Scotland the community charge raises only 20 per cent. of local authority expenditure, whereas in England it raises 30 per cent.? Before the Opposition stand on their consciences and ask for fairness, they should be reminded that if they want fairness for Scotland they should be screaming for fairness for England.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is right when he says that the average contribution of community charge payers is lower in Scotland than the average in England. Of course these averages vary from place to place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—which is not surprising. Therefore, within Scotland and England a range of contributions is made by community charge payers depending on the social and economic circumstances of the locality in question.
Mr. John McAllion: How can the Secretary of State's scheme address the original injustice done to Scotland when neither the Chancellor nor the Prime Minister have moved an inch from their respective positions on Budget day? There will not be a penny of extra Treasury cash for Scotland. The whole amount is to be found from within the Scottish budget and from areas where that £4 million might otherwise have been expended. If this is the best that the Secretary of State can do from within the Cabinet, it is time that he got out of the Cabinet by tendering his resignation now.
Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that the latter comment must be a crucial part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall deal with the more substantive element. The hon. Gentleman keeps changing the story. The concern expressed was whether the relief in terms of savings that has applied from day one in respect of community charge payers in England and Wales should also be available for those who have been paying the community charge in Scotland for the past 12 months. The scheme ensures that that will be the case.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this scheme is another example of how the Prime Minister and the Government respond generously to Scotland, as they have done for the past 11 years? That was recognised on 19 March, when there was not a single demonstrator outside the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh when we discussed the community charge. That clearly shows that the Scots have now understood that the community charge is fair.
Mr. Rifkind: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the Government have consistently shown that they are responsive to concern expressed in Scotland. The very fact that, within 48 hours, the Government were prepared in the face of criticism to respond to the concern shows that my hon. Friend's observation is entirely justified.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement to the House was brief. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the explanation that worries many of his hon. Friends and the Opposition. What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to the charge that there seems to be a permanent pot of gold in the Scottish Office when any problems beset the Government? How does he reply to the charge that, as a consequence of the way in which this was done, it is more of a zig-zag than a U-turn? It is dangerous that for the first time in history a Secretary of State is inviting the Treasury to cut the budget of the Scottish Office.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting observation which no doubt will be listened to carefully by the Treasury. It will be grateful for allies, from whichever source they may come. The hon. Gentleman is an unlikely ally of the Treasury—but who knows? He has been a Minister and no doubt is aware of such matters. He knows as well as I do that during any financial year every Government Department finds that it requires less than it originally anticipated for particular matters and makes supplementary allocations elsewhere. All Ministers do that. Today I am simply identifying the target which will be the first charge on the underspends when they appear.
Mr. Allan Stewart: One accepts that, particularly at this stage of the financial year, there will be no difficulty in the Scottish Office finding £4 million from underspends and good housekeeping. However, for the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear that the timetable of the A77, the Ayr road route, will not be jeopardised by today's announcement?
Mr. Rifkind: Not only can I reassure my hon. Friend, but I can anticipate similar questions from other hon. Members on both sides of the House and give them the same unqualified assurance.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to eradicate another unfair anomaly arising from the fact that the poll tax was introduced in Scotland a year ahead of England and Wales —that people in Scotland who receive income support receive no additional benefit to enable them to meet the additional burden of the poll tax? If the Secretary of State is incapable of persuading his Cabinet colleagues to give a backdated rebate to those people, will he join me in calling for the abolition of the poll tax, which is an absolute nightmare for many poor people and is fast becoming a nightmare for the Government?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Income support was increased for all recipients throughout the United Kingdom at the same time. The 20 per cent. rule, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, was introduced under the rating system in both Scotland and England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman's memory is failing him.
Mr. David Lambie: Now that the Secretary of State has made this change to the poll tax rebate scheme, which will benefit only a small number of people, is it not time that he considered the whole rebate scheme and introduced a 100 per cent. rebate instead of the present maximum of 80 per cent?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the community charge rebate or benefit scheme is a matter for the Department of Social Security. The fact that approximately one in three people in Scotland benefit from community charge rebates suggests that the scheme is widely applied. That is how it should be.
Dr. John Reid: This is one of those rare parliamentary occasions when a new character enters the parliamentary and political folklore of Scotland—Malcolm the magician, a Scottish Office Minister who is apparently capable of conjuring vast amounts of money out of thin air. Let me ask the questions which many people will be asking the Secretary of State for Scotland. From where is the money coming, and who would otherwise have benefited from it? Does he expect people in Scotland to believe that he was in the Scottish Office contemplating the problem when he suddenly discovered £4 million in his hip pocket or that he had a piggy bank marked, "Chancellor of the Exchequer Mistakes Bank"? Will he come clean and tell us who will lose so that these other people may benefit?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary introductory remarks, which are entirely appreciated and, some might say, entirely appropriate, but it is not for me to speculate on that. With regard to the

1205
substantive part of his question, I am responsible for a budget of £9,500 million. The likely maximum cost of the scheme will be £4 million—
Mr. Dewar: Two million.
Mr. Rifkind: If it is £2 million, it will be even less of a problem, but our estimate is up to £4 million. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not cause any loss of sleep for any Ministers in the Scottish Office and will not involve cuts in any programmes. I have already told the House,how the matter will be dealt with, so I shall not risk repeating myself in order to inform the hon. Gentleman further.
Mr. Alex Salmond: For the benefit of the House, can the Secretary of State tell us the precise moment at which the level of political panic became such that he decided that the protests were not bogus but legitimate? Why cannot he answer the simple question of where the £4 million would otherwise have been spent? Does he realise that a pensioner couple in his constituency on basic state benefit, with lifetime savings of £12,500, are liable for more poll tax than the Secretary of State for Scotland as an individual? Justify that to Scotland.
Mr. Rifkind: First, the hon. Gentleman is straying into issues for which the Department of Social Security is responsible—the rebate scheme.
I do not know at this stage of the financial year which programmes will be underspent. What I do know is that every year, under successive Governments and in every Department of Government, there are significant underspends in programmes. Usually when they appear, one then decides where to use the resources. I anticipate only that the first call on such underspends will be the scheme that I have announced today. That is only right and proper, because it will involve a benefit for the people of Scotland that will not be available to those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, whose rates payments may have been higher than the community charge payments of those in Scotland who will receive funding under the scheme. I know that the hon. Member for Garscadden, who is always anxious to be fair in these matters, will understand the strength of that argument.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ron Brown.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. English money goes to Scotland and English Members of Parliament are entitled to be called in the right order on a statement such as this.
Mr. Speaker: Since the hon. Gentleman has disclosed what I hoped was a private message that I sent him, I must tell him that I will call English Members—this is a United Kingdom Parliament—but this statement concerns Scotland, and I propose to call Scottish Members first.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is that not yet another example of abuse of the television cameras in the House? That lamentable hon. Member wanted to be called before four and has just managed to do so.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that we take no notice of the cameras—
Mr. Faulds: They are why the hon. Gentleman did what he did.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members do not do that.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Richard Holt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been sitting here and have not sought to catch your eye, but I sit here regularly, as you know, and I want to know whether, in future statements by Secretaries of State from England, English Members will be called first, before Scottish Members—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not usurp the authority that has been given to me. I have said that I will call English Members, and I decide in what order they will be called.
Mr. Sillars: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall not object to your first ruling. I understand that you think that this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but may we have your assurance that your decision to call English Members will have nothing to do with the spurious proposition that English money goes north of the border—because it does not?
Mr. Speaker: I am not concerned with spurious propositions.
Mr. Ron Brown: Despite the Secretary of State's gimmicks, is it not clear that there is a community charge in Scotland, and the charge is that the Government are oppressive and vindictive? That has been clear for some time, irrespective of the poll tax.
Even so, the guru of the Tory party, Adam Smith—a Scot—warned the Bourbons a long time ago that a capitation charge would mean revolution—and decapitation. The Government should be warned of that. The regional elections are coming up shortly. To the fore in those elections will be those who are wholly opposed to the poll tax. I only wish that the Labour party was 100 per cent. against it. I certainly am.
Mr. Rifkind: The House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's rebuke of the Labour party and his perception that the Labour party lacks enthusiasm for the campaign against the community charge that it is currently waging. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Gentleman, who appears to be a convert to the views of Adam Smith, can put forward his views with his customary eloquence.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that this money will not be found through staff cuts in the Scottish Office? Is there not concern about the machinations of his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who has made that proposal?
Mr. Rifkind: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance to that effect.
Mr. Mike Watson: Can you, Mr. Speaker, enlighten the House on whether there is any precedent for a Secretary of State—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Watson: Is there any precedent for the Secretary of State coming to the Dispatch Box at a time when his party's support is on a par with the bank rate? That event is clearly connected with the fiasco of two weeks ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he expected 15,000 to 20,000 people would benefit from the change. That suggests an individual payment of about £250. Can he explain where that comes from? Is it not true that, in fact, the figure will be much lower, both individually and in total?
Mr. Rifkind: The precise figure will depend on the rebate to which the applicant is entitled for the financial year that is just beginning. For example, if he is entitled to a 50 per cent. rebate, that same percentage will be applied to the community charge that the applicant paid last year. It will vary depending on the personal circumstances of the individual concerned.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Budget debacle has damaged beyond repair his ability to represent Scotland in the Cabinet? We all know that he had to go cap in hand to the Prime Minister to obtain his concession. Can he confirm that he also had to go cap in hand to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not understand the question. If, on some other occasion, the hon. Gentleman would care to explain his question in slightly greater detail, at least I would understand it, even if I could not respond to it.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Could the Secretary of State tell me—I promise not to tell anybody else—how he got himself into this mess in the first place? Why did none of his ministerial colleagues consult him? Why did no one tell him that the limit was being raised from £8,000 to £16,000? Why did he protest that the whole argument was bogus? Why has he turned cartwheels—which is not a pretty sight?
Now that the Secretary of State has such heavy influence with is ministerial colleagues, will he have the rebate scheme amended so that all entitlement to rebate is paid? We must get rid of the nonsense whereby, if the rebate is less than 50p a week, it is not paid. That is absolute madness. The work has been done on calculating the rebate, so it makes sense to pay it.
Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that neither the Department of the Environment nor the Scottish Office was given advance notice because his announcement referred to social security benefits. Therefore, the Department of Social Security was the only Department informed. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we will draw the points that he made to the attention of the Department of Social Security.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Is the Secretary of State embarrassed that the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the introduction of the community charge, has had her bill reduced from £2,200 to £750? Does he find it embarrassing when trying to explain that to the Scottish electorate? Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has his new-found persuasive powers, does he still think that the community charge is a vote winner?
Mr. Rilkind: I certainly believe that those in Scotland who suffered heavily from the rating revaluation do not
1208
wish for a return of the rating system. I noted the reaction of Labour voters to the Labour party's roof tax proposal. It showed that more than 80 per cent. of Scottish Labour voters believe that the roof tax would harm them and Scotland as a whole.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: It is said that the Secretary of State had to offer his resignation to obtain the Prime Minister's permission to spend Scotland's money in Scotland. Is he aware that during his darkest hour that evening, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), was stabbing him in the back on Scottish television? Is it not time that he asked the hon. Gentleman to resign and do the Tory party in Scotland a favour and Scotland itself an even better favour?
Mr. Rifkind: I always appreciate helpful suggestions from Opposition Members, but I cannot help but think that if Opposition Members are so anxious for my hon. Friend to resign, it must be because they consider him, rightly, to be a tremendous asset to the Conservative party in Scotland.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Secretary of State take any pride in coming to the Dispatch Box like a skinny-ma-link warlock having got permission from the mistress of the coven to take some silver from one pocket and put it into another? Is it not a disgrace that he has to be dragged here to make a statement on the issue when, if there had been any violence in Glasgow on Saturday, he would have been only too pleased to come to the Dispatch Box to condemn the Scots? Is he not putting the Union in danger, and is it not a fact that on 3 May his party will be eliminated from the Scottish scene?
Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure what will happen to my party, but at least I am still a member of my party, which is more than the hon. Gentleman can say.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable concern in England and Wales that the Chancellor's Budget statement discriminated against couples? Does that discrimination also apply in Scotland?
Mr. Rilkind: I do not accept the premise that there is discrimination against couples, so I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
Mr. Barry Field: Why is it that, the more melancholy the pibroch, the wider the British taxpayer's purse opens, giving the Scottish island ferries a substantial subsidy from British taxpayers when no other offshore islands in the United Kingdom receive such a subsidy? Why does Scotland have such a vice-like grip on the wallets of the British taxpayer?
Mr. Rilkind: Subsidies are given to Caledonian MacBrayne to ensure that the island communities remain viable. Any attempt to impose fully commercial tariffs on those services would soon lead to the depopulation of those islands. The same cannot be said for islands elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order in a minute.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I have difficulty rising in my place, but I have been doing so all afternoon because there is something that should be said. Is my right hon. Friend aware that during Scottish questions the Opposition have continually accused the Scottish Office and the Government of not listening and not caring? We have now proved that we listen and we have proved that we care in a positive way—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be asking a question.
Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we have proved in a positive way that we listen and care? Is he not amazed that, despite that, the Opposition do nothing but grumble? Are they opposing for the sake of it, or is it just that there is no pleasing some people?
Mr. Rifkind: No, I am not amazed. I would have been amazed if the Opposition had behaved any differently.
Mr. John Maxton: If the Secretary of State is now responding to demands in Scotland, why does he not respond to the demands of 85 per cent. of the Scottish people and withdraw the poll tax altogether? If he is going down the road of making concessions under pressure, why does he not help those who are in genuine need as a result of the poll tax and ensure that he introduces 100 per cent. rebates, that he backdates all rebate claims to 1 April 1989 where they would have applied at 1 April 1989, and that he bases the transitional relief scheme upon the real poll tax figures, not the notional figures that he plucked out of the air when he introduced it? Would not that be a way of giving real help to the people of Scotland who are sorely oppressed by the tax?
Mr. Rifkind: It would be wrong to apply the transitional relief to local authority expenditure at whatever level local authorities choose to apply it. The purpose of a transitional relief is to provide support for those for whom the change in the system has led to increased bills, not for those who find that their bills have increased because their local authorities have decided to use the opportunity to increase spending substantially. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.

Points of Order
4.10 pm
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give the House some advice? I understand that this afternoon the Government are to present the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. It is proposed that the Bill should have its Second Reading on Thursday 19 April. That means that there will be effectively only two working days for the House to consider its attitude to the Bill. There is no secret about the matter; 80 Conservative Members are opposed to the Bill, and they may well find that they can ally themselves with the official Opposition.
There is a proper process by which we may discuss with the Opposition a reasoned amendment. The Bill is being pushed through the House and the opportunity of the Easter Adjournment is being used to try to abort such discussion. It is an abuse of the procedure of the House. We ask you, Mr. Speaker, to protect us. We ask you perhaps to suggest to the Government that they might delay the Second Reading of the Bill for, say, a week. It will come into effect only in 1997. The British people, whose very nature is affected by the Bill, will not thank the Government if it is dealt with in a slipshod way.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time, and he knows perfectly well that what he has said is not a matter for me. I do not organise the business in the House. I do my utmost to ensure that we get on to the business, as we are trying to do today. I cannot help the hon. Member. The Bill has not yet been presented, but with any luck, it will be presented in a few minutes.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to the debate which we shall have later this afternoon on the Education (Student Loans) Bill. As a Back-Bench Member who is worried about the legislation, I seek your advice. I understand after a conversation with the Public Bill Office that Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10, which were passed by the other place by a majority of 98 to 51, will not be debated by the House because they would impose a charge on the public revenue.
Can you confirm that, Mr. Speaker, because the issue of housing benefit is critical for the student population? If that is the case, is it not possible for the Government to bring forward a new money resolution to enable us to ensure that students may have access to housing benefit? I quote the recent example of 21 February when the Minister of State, Scottish Office brought forward a new money resolution on the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill. Have you had such an approach from the Government, Mr. Speaker, or can you say whether there is a possibility of such an approach?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no request from the Government to bring forward another money resolution. As the hon. Lady has raised an important point in which the whole House may be interested, may I say that I have looked carefully at it. I am satisfied that amendments Nos. 8 and 10 would impose a charge on the public revenue not authorised by a resolution of the House. Therefore, under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 76, the Lords amendments must be deemed to be disagreed to.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If a Secretary of State comes to the House and makes a statement which is palpably false, you would take a very severe view of it. Equally, if an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman accuses a Secretary of State of misleading the House, surely you would have the right to ask whether it can be substantiated. In a press statement, the shadow spokesman for local government accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of misleading the House over the administrative costs of the poll tax and the way in which the selection of capped local authorities was made. That is a serious allegation against my right hon. Friend, who is not here to defend himself. What action can you take, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that that matter may be properly aired in this House?
Mr. Speaker: It is frequently alleged that the House is being misled, but for a right hon. or hon. Member to be accused of deliberately misleading the House is a totally different matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) does not want to be too mealy-mouthed about the matter.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard about the Vietnamese boat people, but are you aware, Mr. Speaker, of the Hong Kong plane people? Apparently, planeloads of Conservative Members have been sent to Hong Kong and are being sent to Hong Kong. I think that the name of Ian Greer Associates has been mentioned, but I might not be correct. The Conservative party's Whips Office has also been mentioned. A very important measure will come before the House as soon as right hon. and hon. Members return from the Easter recess. It is a matter of interest that certain Conservative Members have been wined and dined, and for all one knows—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not a member of this party, and I have no knowledge of these matters. I cannot see that they have anything to do with me.
Mr. Marlow: I am sure that my colleagues are totally incorruptible but, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in the event that a right hon. or hon. Member makes an overseas visit relating to, or arising from, membership of the House, if the cost of such a visit is not wholly borne by the right hon. or hon. Member concerned or by public funds, an entry must be made in the Register of Members' Interests.
As to the involvement of the Conservative Whips Office, we are not sure whether the trips have been paid for out of public funds. I think that we ought to know to what extent they have or have not been paid for in that way.
You will also know, Mr. Speaker, that an entry must be made in the Register of Members' Interests within four weeks of the event. I understand that certain Members of Parliament are going this weekend, but the Second Reading debate will be taking place within about a week of their return. The House should know before right hon. or hon. Members vote on the Bill, or even speak on it, whether or not they have been on such a visit. It is a very important matter, and one that has created a great deal of controversy within the party and throughout the country. It is vital that the House should know which right hon. and hon. Members have been to Hong Kong and how long they spent there before they speak in the Second Reading debate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no knowledge of those matters. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will enjoy a very good Easter recess, but I have no knowledge of where they will be spending it.
However, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) makes a serious allegation against his hon. Friends. I am certain that if they participate in the Second Reading debate they will declare their interest in the normal way.
Mr. Marlow: I said that my right hon. and hon. Friends are incorruptible.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that anything can arise beyond that.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the point of order raised earlier by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Although I accept the accuracy and validity of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that, on an important issue such as the granting of housing benefit to students, it will do great damage to the credibility of this House if students can see that it has done nothing to debate a matter crucial to them because of the Government's failure to introduce a money resolution?
Mr. Speaker: The Chair is bound by Standing Orders, and I can exercise no discretion.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) did not concern a trivial matter, and the House should not be content simply to sweep it away. The Patronage Secretary is in his place, and he could come to the Dispatch Box and either confirm or deny the allegations. A very serious matter has been raised, and the Patronage Secretary has an opportunity now to clear it up.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We have a heavy day ahead, and it is timetabled, so I hope that we can get on.
A propos the matter that has been raised, it is, of course, a serious allegation, and I said that. I equally said that I was certain that all hon. Members with an interest of that kind or any other kind to declare would declare it.
Sir John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I make no charge of corruption against any hon. Member, but is there not the important constitutional point that, when a Bill of such importance as the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill is due to come before the House, it would be more seemly and in keeping with the traditions of this great parliamentary assembly, the home of democracy, for us to have more time to consider it before it is introduced?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a pont of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you that the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) were important because of the precedents. When people have been involved in treating, such matters have been debated and certain decisions taken.
I suggest that on this occasion the hon. Member for Northampton, North should put the facts in writing to you, as a matter of privilege—as should occur under the

1213
new rules—and he should name names. Then, if the issue goes before the appropriate Committee, the Patronage Secretary should be brought before that Committee to explain his conduct in the matter.
I would only add that if so many Tory Members are going to Hong Kong on a free junket, they could do us and the country a service and not come back.
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of those who has been to Hong Kong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—I registered that interest with the Registrar of Members' Interests, in the same way as my hon. Friend for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) registers his visits to the Iraqi dictatorship.
Mr. Robert Key: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I have not been invited to Hong Kong. Were I to be invited, surely that would help my understanding of the situation there. We are in danger of gross humbug. I regard hon. Members who visit foreign countries as people who become experts in the affairs of those countries. I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) when it comes to middle eastern affairs. I note that in the Register of Members' Interests it says that he visited Iraq in September 1989 for five days. It adds that the money came from Arab sources, and it has been alleged that it came from the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us not have a debate on this issue. Wherever hon. Members go, I hope that they have a jolly good holiday.
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I return to the point of order relating to the question concerning the Education (Student Loans) Bill. None of my hon. Friends would willingly be party to challenging the privilege that this elected House should have in respect of the expenditure of money. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use the time during the debate on the guillotine motion to reconsider your decision that Lords amendment No. 8 involves a question of privilege.
I believe that your ruling is based on your understanding that it involves the expenditure of new money. It does not. It involves a continuation of
1214
expenditure already authorised by the House under existing legislation. While the Government have proposed that housing benefit should be removed from students, that legislation has not yet been approved by Parliament, so the existing statutory provision by which students are able to gain housing benefit stands.
That approval was given under a pre-existing money resolution, and in those circumstances it seems that no question of privilege arises, because the other place was simply asking that an authorisation already given by this House should continue. I realise that this is not something on which you can give an instant decision, Mr. Speaker, but I should like you to take time in the next three hours to reconsider the matter.
Mr. Speaker: As the House would expect. I have already done so, but I shall certainly reconsider it, and when I return later I shall make a pronouncement on the matter. We must move on now.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONG KONG)
    Mr. Secretary Waddington, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King., Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Howard and Mr. Peter Lloyd, presented a Bill to provide for the acquisition of British citizenship by selected Hong Kong residents, their spouses and minor children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the Legal Advice and Assistance at Police Stations (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 487) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 488) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
4.26 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), has already complained about the delay in the publication of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. A few seconds ago the Bill was presented to the House. I was told by the Vote Office a few minutes ago that we will still not be able to get copies of the Bill at the Vote Office until after 5 o'clock. That is quite ridiculous, and it is inhibiting the work of the House that we did not get the Bill yesterday. The Bill was printed yesterday. It has been presented to the House and it is not available. You should protect the interests of Opposition Members and of Back Benchers on both sides of the House in this matter, Mr. Speaker, and ensure that the Bill is available immediately.
Mr. Speaker: I shall consider that matter. It is for the Minister responsible to ensure that copies of the Bill are available. I am sure that the hon. Member's voice will have been heard—at least, I hope so.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just given a First Reading to the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. You may not know officially, but the House knows that the Second Reading is timed for Thursday 19 April. In other words, there will be a lapse of only two parliamentary days between now and then. Is it in order that such an important Bill should be provided with such little time for consideration between First and Second Reading?
Mr. Speaker: It is certainly in order. Whether the time available for hon. Members to study the Bill is sufficient is a matter for hon. Members to take up with the Government. It is not a matter for me. As was said earlier, it is perfectly true that two sitting days will elapse, but there are other days in the recess when hon. Members may have the opportunity to study the Bill.

Poll Tax (Abolition)
4.28 pm
Mr. John Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and for connected purposes.
I welcome this opportunity to introduce my Bill to repeal the Local Government Finance Act 1988. There should be no misunderstanding about the poll tax. It was not the creation of any local authority or of my own authority, Coventry city council. The tax demands that the poorest, the young and the old should pay the same amount as a millionaire, a millionairess or the Prime Minister, and was spawned by the Government and by the Prime Minister, who will gain £2,000 a year with the imposition of the poll tax. It is an immoral Government measure which will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and it will impose untold hardship.
Hon. Members brought these facts to the Government's attention, but our pleas for compassion on behalf of the poor went unheeded. My attempt in July last year to introduce a referendum to prevent the poll tax becoming law was thwarted by the Government. If my poll tax referendum Bill had found its way on to the statute book, there would have been no demonstrations last Saturday and there would have been no violence, which I wholeheartedly condemn. Let there be no ifs or buts about that. The violence, looting and rioting which put at risk thousands of citizens and their families exercising their right to protest, and also the police handling of the affair demand a full parliamentary inquiry, and I call for that.
I condemn violence from any quarter—the violence of a parasitical minority and the violence contained in the many anti-social measures that the Government bring before the House of Commons and steamroller through it. Political thuggery or street thuggery—the product of their violence—is the same. There is no difference between the pain suffered as a result of being physically assaulted and the unbearable pain associated with the long wait for a hip replacement, or the excruciating pain that is suffered when someone is denied treatment for gall stones or kidney stones. The poll tax can be classified only as political thuggery and it will hit my poor constituents hard.
Only four of the Coventry city wards have less deprivation than the country's average. The contrast in the life styles of Coventry's citizens becomes apparent if one flies across the city in the Goodyear airship, as I did. In the south-west of the city—Kenilworth road and the surrounding area where the beneficiaries of the poll tax live—one sees large houses and vast green spaces, undisturbed by factory buildings, and one private swimming pool after another. In stark physical contrast—diametrically worlds apart—are the densely packed housing areas of Foleshill and Wood End, where homes jostle with factories and industrial estates. That is where the poll tax losers live.
In my constituency, every ward has more poverty than the average for the whole country. Foleshill and Wood End head the list. They have the highest unemployment, the greatest overcrowding, the greatest number of pensioners living alone and the greatest number of single-parent families. Moreover, Foleshill has the greatest number of families who have come from the New Commonwealth. Even a visit to the swimming baths puts a severe strain on their meagre incomes.

1217
Two years ago, those impoverished citizens could claim a full rent and rate rebate. They could obtain grants for essential household items. Today, even the poorest must pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax. They shiver through the winter months, unable to heat their homes. Some even die from hypothermia. They cannot afford good food and good clothes. They are forced to go, cap in hand, to loan sharks to borrow money, or they are forced to take out a loan from the usurious Tory Government.
My poor constituents will be unable to pay the poll tax. It would be irresponsible of me to accuse them of being tax dodgers who are forcing an extra tax levy on the rest of Coventry's citizens. The blame for that must rest squarely on the Prime Minister's shoulders. The Prime Minister and her Government are the real tax dodgers in a quite personal sense in that they are the poll tax gainers.
I should be guilty of an even greater degree of irresponsibility if I supported the poll tax and its draconian legal penalties, and I should be culpable of gross irresponsibility if I ignored my constituents' plight. The poll tax is an obscenity. It requires a depraved mind, capable of the most perverted reasoning, to vindicate a tax which exacts the same amount from the poor as from the rich. My constituents are affected by such extremes of wealth and circumstances. That is why I have decided, after a great deal of thought and after carefully examining my conscience, to refuse to pay the poll tax. As an elected representative, I did not take that decision lightly and I do not put pressure on my constituents to follow my example, but if they wish to take part in a non-violent campaign they will have my support.
There comes a time when every elected representative must examine the morality of his or her actions—and the poll tax is the pinnacle of immorality. There is an old socialist saying that it is better to break the law than to break the poor, and I support that. That is why I seek to change this anti-social law and why I bring my repeal Bill before the House. It provides for the use of a referendum as a means of bringing about that change, which has the support of 75 per cent. of the population, as any democratic Government would recognise. That is why local authorities can give the Government a lead on this, especially the 20 which have been poll tax-capped. They could hold their own referendum. They could be given a mandate by their electors.
That is why I call on my own authority, Coventry city council, to be in the vanguard. Coventry city council conducted a citywide referendum on the rates on 27 August 1981. I now call on it to hold a referendum on a far graver issue—the poll tax. With the assistance of Coventry and other local authorities, I hope that we shall be able to wipe the poll tax off the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr.
1218
Bob Cryer, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Pat Wall, Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Poll Tax (Abolition)

  POLL TAX (ABOLITION)
  Mr. John Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to repeal the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 122.]
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the unanimous support for the repeal of the poll tax which has been shown in the House today, I suggest that we move on to all the succeeding stages of this Bill so that we can carry it and satisfy the people out there, the electorate who want to get rid of it, and I so move.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not in order. A day has already been named.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that on the Bill that we have just had, to which there is the strongest possible opposition among some Government Members, no one moved against it or spoke against it, although the duty Whip was heard to say that he had never heard such nonsense in his life? Would he not have liked to get up and argue why he regarded the measure as nonsense, so that we could have a decision here and now about where Parliament stands?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that I need say is that what has occurred has been quite in order.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was here and heard my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) move his Bill, and it was supported by the House. Have you had any suggestion that hon. Members on the Government Benches were prevented from speaking against the Bill because of the embarrassment to the Government if the Bill were passed today?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot debate the matter now.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members are anxious to get on to the important business before us. We do not want to fool around with something that will never become law anyway.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am trying to do just that. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her help.

Education (Student Loans) Bill (Allocation of Time)
4.39 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education (Student Loans) Bill:
Lords Amendments
1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
2.—(l) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;
(c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
1220
4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the time at which, under this Order, any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
8.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
I will begin by setting out why I believe that it is right to ensure orderly and sensible debate on the Lords amendments. First, as several hon. Members pointed out yesterday, this is a comparatively short Bill. Secondly, it has had lengthy and thoroughly comprehensive discussion in both Houses. All the issues before us today have been exhaustively debated and we now have to take decisions. Thirdly, the great majority of the amendments are either those in which the Government have responded positively to points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House as well as in the other place, which I hope will be acceptable to the House for that reason, or technical amendments. We are therefore demonstrating that the Government have responded to debates and we have reached the wrap-up stage.

1221
I am sure that the motion is realistic and practical for the proper dispatch of business and that it will commend itself to all my hon. Friends and to most Opposition Members, if they are honest, because it does not impress anyone to delay returning to our constituencies for the recess by arguing pointlessly through the night on minute technical details.
I will elaborate on that. We have given the Bill substantial attention. This House and another place have together devoted some 90 hours to debate a Bill of four clauses and two schedules. That total includes about 40 hours in Standing Committee. More than 360 amendments have been tabled, half in this House and half in another place. More than 120 amendments were tabled in the Standing Committee, which then considered about 80 of them.
Those statistics totally refute any suggestion that the Government deliberately kept the Bill short in an attempt to prevent discussion on the finer points of the scheme. There has been every opportunity to explore all the principles, objectives and details of the scheme, down to the finer points of administration. There has been more discussion about detailed administration on the Bill and the scheme than on many other measures going through the House.
At the same time, there is recognition now that the format of the Bill has the great merit of flexibility of operation hereafter. It is understood that, as with the student grants maintenance scheme, from time to time there is obviously a need to change the details. We have said that we may wish to review the scheme, and from that review we may wish to change some of the details. Clearly, it makes sense to do that through secondary legislation rather than primary legislation.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that there would be less debate and fewer amendments if the Government had been much clearer and more detailed in the first place about what they were proposing? Is not one of the reasons why a short Bill has taken a relatively long time the fact that the Government have said so little about so much?
Mr. MacGregor: Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have deliberately tried to be helpful to both Houses in responding to all queries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that. We have been getting on with the detailed preparation of the Student Loans Company and at each stage we have reported to the House on the arrangements. We have therefore been clear with the House. The debates have been very thorough and have covered all points. The Bill has gone through reasonably quickly because it is a short Bill on a single scheme, but there has certainly not been any shortage of discusson in the process.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): Will my right hon. Friend devote some time to the fact that this is only the fifth time in the history of our nation that a guillotine has been applied to Lords amendments? It is a very new process which only started in the parliamentary Session before last. Will my right hon. Friend justify how it is constitutionally right to predetermine how long we take to discuss amendments raised in the second Chamber of a bicameral system?
Mr. MacGregor: I was trying to explain why I think that the motion is right in relation to the Bill before us, and I believe that I have support of the great majority of my hon. Friends.
There have been a number of changes to the Bill a s it has progressed through both Houses. That bears witness to the value of parliamentary scrutiny. The changes fall into three categories. The first relates to technical amendments which were tabled in another place and, by and large have followed from further consideration of the details of the Bill in the light of debates in both Houses. The second category relates to changes of a detailed nature in response to points made by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members and includes all those relating to parliamentary procedure as well as to clarification of points such as the balance between grant and loan. The third category relates to a few points of substance. I cite, in particular, changes made—not always on the face of the Bill, because that was not necessary—in relation to increases in access funds and the disabled. Those amendments were in response to points made frequently in debate. Both issues have been thoroughly debated in both Houses and in Standing Committee. All the arguments have been held, all the issues have been debated, and we have accepted some additional points. That is all that has happened.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As the measure went through the House of Commons at a fairly leisurely pace, and there was ample opportunity to discuss it in Committee and on the Floor of the House, why were none of the amendments dealt with initially? Why have they all been made in another place, apart from a couple of technical amendments which were adopted in Committee?
Mr. MacGregor: It is because the Government were listening very carefully. In a number of debates in the House, we made it clear that we were listening and considering what to do. In the light of that consideration, some of the same points were made in another place and we decided to table certain amendments. I assure the House that the debates in this House as well as those in another place persuaded us of the value of those amendments.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
Mr. MacGregor: I am keen to get on so that we can get down to debating the amendments, but I will give way.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Am I right in believing that my right hon. Friend accepted the amendments allowing access funds for the disabled?
Mr. MacGregor: We have increased the access funds by a further £10 million—I shall return to that later—and we have made some amendments to assist the disabled in repayment of loans. We have also made some proposals which do not have to be on the face of the Bill but to which I referred in answer to a parliamentary question.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Perhaps the Secretary of State has given way to me because of my natural Scottish reserve and reticence, but in the context of the balance between grant and loan, will he spell out in detail the implications

1223
of that balance for Scottish students who undertake the four-year honours course, which is the most common course in Scotland?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Lady knows that that matter has been debated in the House. She and I had exchanges on it during Question Time. We have made it clear that we intend to extend the time for repayment of loans of five years' duration or more, but not those of four years. I made that clear in answer to a parliamentary question in the House.
I pay tribute to the sterling work done in Committee and in another place. Hon. Members on the Standing Committee devoted a lengthy period to the most careful analysis of the Bill. My hon. Friends played a particularly noteworthy part in achieving changes of substance. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was a persistent advocate of the need for an increase in the access funds. We listened carefully to his argument and others and I hope that he will be pleased with our response. I also pay tribute to the Government spokesmen in another place, the Earl of Caithness and Baroness Blatch—we have before us the fruits of their labours.
Although we are approaching the final stages of the Bill, it is important that we do not engage in pointless repetition. The motion, if passed, will help to ensure that the scheme is ready for the beginning of the next academic year. We shall need to place regulations before Parliament soon, and additionsl preparatory work will be needed before the scheme is fully operational. Students will benefit considerably from the additional resources made available through top-up loans, and many students would not welcome being denied a loan as a result of filibustering. It is therefore right that we deal with the Lords amendments in a businesslike and proper fashion, without pointlessly spending much time throughout the night on technical details.
I have no doubt that the motion will give hon. Members the opportunity to raise wider issues, but I will briefly record one or two points about the Bill. The objectives of the Bill are to facilitate the expansion of higher education, in particular by providing more money to students while they are studying and, over time, to lighten the burdens of student support and maintenance support on taxpayers and parents.
The Anderson committee envisaged an eventual expansion of the higher education system to about 175,000 students, but in 1990–91 we expect that there will be more than 450,000 mandatory award holders and more than 1 million students in total. We are committed to continuing that expansion. The cost to the taxpayer of supporting students' living expenses has risen from £236 million in 1962 to £623 million this year at current prices, without taking account of inflation.
Loans will relieve the burden on parents and taxpayers and will give students access to more money. They will be able to use part of the high income that they can expect as graduates to borrow from the taxpayer and to repay the loan when their income rises. The loan will be at a zero real rate of interest, which is much more favourable than commercial borrowing terms or the loan schemes operating in most overseas countries.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the guillotine motion, but the Secretary of State is making a Third Reading speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The motion lends itself to relatively wide debate.
Mr. MacGregor: I have already dealt with the guillotine. No doubt the speeches of other hon. Members will go rather wider than the motion. It is right briefly to place on record some of the key points.
The loan scheme will be more favourable than those in operation in most overseas countries. Moreover, graduates whose incomes, for any reason, are low, will be able to defer repayments. Deferments will be available to those on incomes below 85 per cent. of the national average. If the scheme were in operation, graduates could defer if they were earning less than £11,500. Deferment answers arguments that the scheme penalises those who choose a lower-paid occupation and women who choose to bring up a family. The deferment arrangements mean that they are not penalised. Top-up loans will more than compensate most students for any loss of benefit. We estimate that the benefits received by student claimants would have averaged £315 in 1990–91. That is more than outweighed by the loan.
We recognise that there will be circumstances in which further help is needed, and there will be three access funds, currently worth £25 million in total. To answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), we have added a further £10 million to provide discretionary support to students where it is needed to enable them to join or to remain on courses. The funds will be administered by the students' own educational institutions, which are best placed to assess their students' circumstances.
Differences in accommodation costs—this is an important point that I should like to make clear, not least to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, who asked about it—were taken into account in the distribution of the access funds to the Universities Funding Council and to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The Government wish the councils to have regard to the same factor in making allocations to their institutions. This autumn, students will have access to a 25 per cent. increase in resources compared with current grant if we pass the amendments and the Bill is given Royal Assent.
The grant will be uprated in the autumn and loans will make available £178 million in addition to grant. We estimate that students in scope of loans would have been able to claim only £68 million in 1990–91. The net increase to students' budgets from the autumn should be £135 million. That is a mark of the scheme's generosity. Under the scheme, there will be progressive reduction in the real value of the parental contribution. When the scheme reaches maturity, parents in comparable circumstances will eventually pay little more than half the present contribution. The scheme offers parents a real benefit. That is why it is important to get on with the Lords amendments and to pass the Bill. The loan will not be means-tested. It will therefore be a valuable resource to the 40 per cent. of students whose parents do not make the full assessed parental contribution.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You must consider whether the Secretary of State is still in order—
Mr. Alan Amos: This has nothing to do with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
Mr. Hughes: I am asking Mr. Deputy Speaker to consider this point. The motion is to guillotine or to timetable debate. It therefore precludes debates on a range of issues being taken separately. If they were taken separately, the points that the Secretary of State is now making could be made in those debates. This is a timetable motion. It surely cannot be right, instead of the House having the opportunity to debate the 17 Lords amendments, for the Government to use the guillotine and the limited time that they have made available to make their case, which they ought to make point by point in each of the debates. That is an abuse because it is substituting a timetable for proper ordered debate of different issues. It surely matters not whether it is the Secretary of State or the newest Bank Bencher who uses that procedure.
Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point?
Mr. Pawsey: Yes. Do you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the interventions made in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State underline the necessity for the motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I said earlier, the motion lends itself to relatively wide debate. I note that the Secretary of State is referring regularly to the Lords amendments with which the House will deal later. It seems to me that he is giving the background to the Lords amendments. How long the House takes on the motion is a matter not for the Chair but for the House.
Mr. MacGregor: I am anxious to get on, which is why I have not referred to matters such as housing benefit, as I suspect that other hon. Members will. I want as much time as possible to be given to the Lords amendments. The point that I am making, succinctly and briefly, is that it is important to deal with the Lords amendments as quickly as possible so that we can progress and so that the benefits of the scheme can be available to students.
It has frequently been argued that loans will inhibit entry into higher education. We have had long debates on that, but it is clear that, in general, countries with long-established loan schemes have a higher proportion of their young people in higher education than we do. Nor is there any sign that loans have deterred people from less prosperous backgrounds or from ethnic minorities from entering higher education.
We have carefully considered all the alternatives to the scheme presented to us, but I believe that they do not bear scrutiny. Providing additional resources as grant rather than a loan is simply not an option. Expenditure would continue to rise as the number of students increased, whereas the Government scheme reduces public expenditure in the medium term as repayments mount up.
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have forborne rising previously but, with respect, this is an abuse of the procedures of the
1226
House. I once attempted to make a similar speech to the Secretary of State which had nothing whatever to do with a guillotine but everything to do with the substance of the Bill concerned and was rightly called to order. I suggest that the Secretary of State's speech is wholly out of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that point. I can add nothing further.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall make one last point, and I am entirely following your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have set out elsewhere the arguments against repaying loans through an additional national insurance contribution or through some form of graduate tax. I note how—including during debates in the other place—the advocacy of those options has faded away. We have given the scheme and the Bill thorough examination and the Government have accepted a considerable number of the Lords amendments. That is because, in the light of the discussions in this House and the other place, it has been right to do so. I have already explained that the amendments are either in response to points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House or technical amendments. Later, we shall debate two subjects on which I shall make it clear that we should not accept the Lords amendments. I emphasise that the majority are in response to points that have already been made.
The debates in this House, the other place and outside have shown that there is more widespread acceptance of the principle that
"the beneficiaries of higher education should make a financial contribution towards it."
Those are the words of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. We are simply putting in place a scheme of loans to supplement maintenance grants which most other similar countries already have. Both our levels of student maintenance support and the terms and conditions of the loans are more generous than theirs. The Bill will benefit from the changes that we are proposing to accept as a result of parliamentary debates. Now it is necessary to get on so that we can put the scheme in place in good time to enable students to get the 25 per cent. increase in resources that we are making available. That is why I commend the motion to the House.
5 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: This guillotine motion is wholly without merit or justification. There has been no filibustering on the Bill. The motion is a simple abuse of power by an authoritarian and once all-powerful Government who are now in an advanced state of disorder and decay. I am not surprised that the Secretary of State spent 15 of the 20 minutes of his speech wholly outwith the terms of the motion, reading from a press notice about the alleged advantages of the loans scheme. He knows that the motion is unworthy of him and his office. Although the motion is an act of power, it conveys no strength, but rather the weakness of a Government who are afraid of argument and are trying to deny, even to themselves, the consequences of what they wish to force through.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills ( Mr. Shepherd) rightly and courageously said that, until two years ago, there had never been a precedent in the history of this House for any Government to seek to guillotine a Bill in the Commons during consideration of Lords amendments. The record of this Government, even with a majority of 100 over every party combined, is the record of

1227
a Government who are unwilling to listen and almost incapable of listening to arguments with which they do not agree.
The only other Government with a similar majority—the Labour Government of 1945–51—introduced only three guillotines. The Conservative Government of 1951–64 managed just 15 and the Labour Government of 1974–79, who had a majority of just one and at one stage had no majority, managed 11 guillotines. This Government in less than two years have managed to guillotine 12 Bills. There has been no necessity for almost any of those guillotines.
Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No. I shall give way in a moment.
As is well known, last Wednesday the Opposition were told through the usual channels that the Bill would be guillotined. That announcement would have coincided with the last day of consideration of amendments and Third Reading in the other place, so in a cynical and squalid manoeuvre typical of the Government, that guillotine motion was withdrawn in order to lure their Lordships into the belief that the Government would at last play by the rules. As the Bill has now passed its stages in the Lords, the motion is being reintroduced in this House at the shortest possible notice to the Chamber.
The motion gives us three hours to debate the guillotine and no more than two and three quarter hours to debate 15 of the 17 amendments passed by their Lordships. We have no time to debate the most critical amendments of all, those on housing benefit. I earnestly hope, as do all Opposition Members and, I dare say, many Tory Members, that, in the light of representations and as no privilege arises because the expenditure has already been authorised by the money resolution, Mr. Speaker will agree also to allow debate on those amendments. Even taking only the 15 amendments, the time allocated for debate amounts to no more than 10 minutes per amendment. The Secretary of State made the audacious claim that to allow this debate to continue unguillotined would lead to what he described as pointless repetition. Some of the serious and significant issues raised by their Lordships, some of which have never been debated in the House, deserve rather more than 10 minutes of discussion.
There is the issue of whether there should be consultation and who should be consulted on the new courses to be made the subject of the loans scheme. There is the major issue of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation. There is the issue of the new powers taken for this authoritarian Government to force university and college administrations against their will to co-operate with the measure without adequate compensation. There are amendments on disabled students which may have all-party support, but which certainly deserve proper consideration.
There are amendments on the marketing and canvassing of loans to students or potential students under 18 and on the disclosure and sale of information belonging to the Student Loans Company. That raises the question of the circumstances in which the Student Loans Company could be privatised, as the Under-Secretary of State has
1228
promised will happen, and whether that privatisation could take place with the sale of the information that the Student Loan Company has.
The House has never discussed two key issues: the new controls over the institutions and loans to under-18s. Yet the Secretary of State treats the House with such contempt that he is willing to allow us only 10 minutes' discussion per amendment.
On 20 October 1989, The Times Educational Supplement reported a vision of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) about the Bill. Incidentally, he is the campaign organiser of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He said:
"We are potentially into another poll tax scenario in which our MPs welcome the principle of loans without waking up until it is too late to the practical repercussions".
Most Conservative Members are not so much asleep as in a trance. They are transfixed and rendered incapable by the desperate prospect of defeat that inexorably comes closer every day. One word should awaken them from their trance, although whether it will I do not know. One word should make every Conservative Member with an ounce of self-interest and survival refuse to back this guillotine motion. One word should be sufficient warning to send them running, and that word is Baker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Straw."] It is Baker. This Bill has the curse of Baker upon it. [Laughter.] I am glad to see that Conservative Members laugh before the gallows.
The man who created teacher shortages on a scale never before seen, the man who collapsed teacher morale on a scale never before seen, the man who rendered Conservative education policies less popular than ever before and the man who invented the poll tax and then cut and ran is the same man who invented the loans scheme and then cut and ran. The mess that he leaves on this is no less than the mess that he left on the poll tax.
Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for straying from the point and getting involved in a wide-ranging debate. What is he doing now, if it is not that? It is extraordinary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am applying the same rules to both Front Benches.
Mr. Straw: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest possible respect, I say that that is not the case, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science was discussing education and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is discussing everything under the sun.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be better for the House if hon. Members left those points to me and if we got on with the debate.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) should listen for once and take my advice. I am seeking to explain why it is in the interest of Conservative Members as well as of the Opposition to vote against the motion.
In this week's Sunday Times, there was a lengthy and well-informed article about how the Conservative party managed to sink ever deeper into the mire on the issue of the poll tax. It spoke about the authors of the loans

1229
scheme, the guillotine motion and the poll tax. A ministerial colleague of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), was quoted as saying:
"Baker was clever enough to see the problems but ambitious enough to overlook them."
Mr. Patrick Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are rightly allowing a wide-ranging debate on this matter, but when an hon. Member starts to debate the community charge he is well out of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is regularly mentioning the motion and is in order.
Mr. Straw: Not only was the right hon. Member for Mole Valley clever enough to see the problems of the poll tax but he was clever enough to see the problems of the student loans scheme. In both cases he was ambitious enough to overlook those problems, knowing that he would not be around when they came home to roost. They have been left to the hapless and luckless present Secretary of State for Education and Science. More fool him for picking up the challenge.
Let us look at what the Secretary of State claimed in his speech for the loans scheme. He said that it was designed to "relieve the burden" on taxpayers. It will cost the Exchequer £750 million in the first three years and £2,000 million over the next 20 years. Because the money will disappear into a black hole of administration, default and deferral, the scheme will cost most students dear. Far from helping poorer people to gain access to higher education, the scheme will be an indiscriminate subsidy to the middle classes who need it least.
"the arguments about access are … bogus."—[Official Report, 20 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 422.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the Secretary of State's hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). Those who need it most will be denied the greatest amount through the immediate loss of housing benefit, worth up to £400 or £500 in some cases, and by an immediate cut in the real value of the grant.
A scheme designed by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley to be run by the banks is now in administrative chaos. I shall quote from a piece of ancient history:
"Baker wins bank loans for students".
The right hon. Member for Mole Valley persuaded an ever compliant Sunday Telegraph to write that just nine months ago. He did not win bank loans, because his hyperbole had no substance. The curse was working and the banks cut and ran, ready to risk the fizz and fury of the Prime Minister to protect their market share.
Conservative Members should think again before voting for the motion, because they will be voting for the early introduction of a new nationalised corporation. Such was the desperation of the Government when faced with the collapse of Baker's scheme that they had to set up a new nationalised corporation to run it.
Like the poll tax, the loans scheme is morally offensive. It takes money from those who need it and gives money to those who do not want it, and it wastes millions in administration. It is born of that unique combination of arrogance and incompetence, the hallmark of the Government.
"Walk carefully, do not wake the envy of the happy gods. Shun hubris",
1230
wrote C. S. Lewis. This modern Conservative Government have walked carelessly and dealt carelessly with the lives of others. Through that arrogance, pride and haughty spirit, they have made careless decisions on the poll tax. on schools, on the Health Service and on student loans. They will pay for their hubris by nemesis, by crushing defeat, and the Education (Students Loans) Bill will play a major part in that defeat.
I once thought that the instincts for survival of the Conservative party went before all. If Conservative Members vote for the guillotine, it will prove not only that they will lose but that they want to lose and have lost the capacity and will to survive. I oppose the motion.
5.15 pm
Mr. James Pawsey: We have listened to a somewhat unusual speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), suited more to the Palladium than to the House of Commons. We have heard the ritual moans about time and the ritual synthetic anger and references to an anti-democratic guillotine. I remind the Opposition that the guillotine record stays with them and that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) introduced five in a day. He gave a new meaning to the expression "a bunch of fives". If there was a cup for successful guillotining, it would be held by the Opposition. They would have it firmly bolted to their mantelpiece, because they are the experts in guillotines. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, the great democrat, was at that time the great dictator, the arbiter of parliamentary time.
The debate and the time that it takes will be the real measures of the Opposition's concern. The quicker we start to debate the substance of the Lords amendments, the more time there will be for constructive discussion. It occurs to me, as I am sure it has occurred to my hon. Friends, that we have listened to all the Opposition arguments. We listened to them on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading and we know just how feeble those arguments are. We know that the Opposition's case is discredited and I am certain that they will therefore seek to run the guillotine motion for the full three hours.
The justification for the measure is to be found in the need to attract more students in advanced education and to generate the new money that makes that possible. No hon. Member doubts that there must be a limit to the number of students that the taxpayer can support on the present grant-only basis. It is not possible to soak the taxpayer for every single penny. The loan is £420 and it is interest-free. It is not repayable until the student leaves university, commences employment and earns 85 per cent. of the national average wage. There will be no negative dowry, because we all know perfectly well that, if a woman chooses to start a family, she does not start to repay the loan until she starts to earn.
It has been argued inside and outside the House that high taxpayer support is necessary to guarantee a high level of admissions to advanced education. Since 1979, the value of the grant has steadily reduced, but despite that reduction, the number of students has increased by 200,000. Therefore, there is no case to answer that a reduction in grant equals a reduction in student numbers. Those 200,000 extra students help to underline two specific points: first, the success of my right hon. Friend's policies

1231
on advanced education, and secondly, the fact that we have had success with our general education policies. There is no point in seeking to increase access to higher education unless the appropriate number of young people come from schools to take advantage of it and clearly that is the case in the United Kingdom. We have been successful in raising the standard and quality of state education.
I do not believe, as Opposition Members have said, that top-up loans will discourage those from blue-collar backgrounds from going into advanced education. Such people currently account for about 61 per cent. of the population, but they account for 21 per cent. of admissions to universities and 24 per cent. to polytechnics. Therefore, it seems that the present grant-only system has not been a conspicuous success for youngsters from blue-collar homes. They are the same young people who are prepared to borrow, and at commercial rates of interest, to finance a second-hand car and purchase video equipment, and will certainly borrow to facilitate their education, which, in turn, will assist them to attain a better standard of income once they have gained their degree. Those Opposition Members who say that they will not actually patronise young people. Young people going to university seem to have more common sense than some Opposition Members who argue that point.
I do not know what will happen when Mr. Speaker rules on the question put to him by the hon. Member for Blackburn, but I should like to briefly touch on the subject of social security benefits, because they are relevant to the matter under discussion. The estimated value of social security benefits likely to be claimed by each eligible student in 1991 is about £300, but the top-up loan is £420. Therefore, there is a substantial increase in the resources being made available to students.
I see little virtue to the taxpayers in student loans and social security benefits being made available at one and the same time and to one and the same beneficiary. Most of those in receipt of social security benefits do not have the benefit of receiving a grant from their local authority to continue their studies. Students seem to be in a different category from most other claimants or recipients of social security. I am firmly convinced, as I am sure are my hon. Friends, that the Government's proposals will result in the great mass of students receiving more support in the form of a loan than they could have claimed in benefit.
I acknowledge immediately that some students will be worse off as a result of the changes. In their case, the level of benefit that they were receiving may have been higher than the £420 interest-free top-up loan, but—and this is a big but—such students will be able to turn to the access funds for help. Students currently claiming benefit receive about £68 million a year. The value of loans is £200 million a year. Therefore, it is clear that there is a substantial increase in the amount of resources being directed at students.
It is fair to remind the House of a point that was well made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, that next year resources for students will be increased by 25 per cent.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is it not likely that many of those in receipt of housing benefit will probably live in
1232
the sort of area where holiday work can be found and, therefore, they will not encounter difficulties in supplementing their income?
Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a genuinely important point, which I can reinforce by saying that my five sons who went through college all earned money during the vacation. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has told me that she went through university without the benefit of a grant and had to rely on loans on which she paid a commercial rate. Clearly, interest-free loans would represent a substantial benefit.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is that why the hon. Gentleman refused to pay his parental contribution for the five children whom he sent through college? I believe that that was what he told us in Committee. Obviously, the legislation is directed to help children who are in the same plight as his children were, but it is of no benefit to people from working-class backgrounds.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In dealing with that point, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) will bear it in mind that we are discussing the allocation of time motion.
Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to you for reminding me of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall, in due course, and in the friendliest way, take the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) outside and put him right about the points that he made. I have already mentioned the various benefits for young people from blue-collar homes. My five sons all received a parental contribution, but I did not make it up to the appropriate amount. My sons had to obtain work in order to get through college.
In debate after debate in the Chamber, I have called for the access fund to be substantially increased from the original figure of £15 million. I unreservedly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the substantial increase that he has announced. The House will be aware that the Government have increased the size of the access fund, designed to assist students who face financial difficulties, by £10 million. That is deeply appreciated, not just by Conservative Members, but right across the House. It will be of substantial benefit and assistance to many students. The total value of access funds stands at £25 million in place of the original figure of £15 million.
The three prongs of student support—loans, grants and access funds—will more than make up for any loss of benefit. Social security benefits are targeted where loans are not. Benefit targeting is not always effective, if only because the student's family circumstances are not taken into account and those parents well able to pay more towards their children's upkeep at college are not asked to do so. That comes back to the point made for me by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East. The benefit system does not represent a good, reasonable or effective use of scarce resources or good value for taxpayers' money.
Some students live in accommodation provided by the institution. The rent currently charged reflects an element for the rates and, as those rates have been abolished and the community charge introduced, those students should receive a rent reduction equivalent to the saving made by the institution. Students should not be required to pay the

1233
20 per cent. part community charge and maintain a contribution to the old rates system. In short, students should not be required to pay twice. The same applies to private landlords and I certainly hope that they will take that aspect on board. It will be grossly unfair and unjust if landlords do not reduce their rents by the amount of rates previously charged.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the lodging allowances board, which determines nurses' lodging allowances, has decided to reduce those allowances by the amount of the rates element? That is a good precedent.
Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted—
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must ask you what on earth the speech being made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) or the interventions in it have to do with the motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already reminded the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) once of that. I am finding it difficult to relate his remarks to the allocation of time motion or to the Lords amendments.
Mr. Pawsey: You will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I now bring my remarks to a close.
I want to see the Bill on the statute book because I believe that it will benefit students, parents and taxpayers—a trinity of opinion which, if not holy, is certainly important.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Simon Hughes.
Mr. Pawsey: What is the hon. Gentleman going to talk about?
5.31 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am going to speak to the guillotine motion—
Mr. Pawsey: That will make a change.
Mr. Hughes: This motion adds a dangerous practice to a dangerous policy and I appeal to Conservative Members to be very careful about voting for the guillotine.
The Bill has had great difficulty even getting to this stage—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Nonsense.
Mr. Hughes: It is not nonsense; I am about to give the House the evidence for my proposition.
On Second Reading in this House the Bill had a Government majority of 81. Some Conservative Members voted against it and others abstained. At one stage in Committee the Government has a majority of only one. Then we six Divisions on Report and the Government majority was never more than 73. In the Division on one of the amendments that my party moved, the Government's majority fell to 43.
On Third Reading, only 100 hon. Members supported the Bill. The majority was only 51—
Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: Not for a moment.
1234
No guillotine motion curtailed debate on the Bill in Committee, although there was one delay—caused by the ending of the involvement of the banks, which suddenly disappeared in the middle of the Committee stage. The Chairman then accepted a motion for the Adjournment of the Committee because the basis on which the Government planned the scheme had suddenly been aborted by the banks deciding not to play ball.
Then the Bill went to another place, where there was much discussion about it. So bad did their Lordships find the Bill that they contemplated the almost unprecedented move of moving a motion to adjourn consideration before Second Reading because there was not enough of a Bill to debate. In the event, they took the almost equally unprecedented step of proposing a reasoned amendment on Second Reading. That is rarely done by their Lordships, who usually give Bills sent from this place an automatic Second Reading on the understandable assumption that, as an unelected Chamber, they should not question the principle of a piece of legislation. However, the reasoned amendment was tabled because there was so little in the Bill to question. The Bill was a hollow Bill—a sham.
In subsequent debates in another place, Members of the House of Lords on all sides—Government, Opposition and Cross Benchers—expressed their opposition to the Bill. Some of the most eminent and respected academics in the land opposed it. As a result, the Government suffered defeats on at least three substantial areas of policy. They were defeated on housing benefit. The other place decided that students should be entitled to it, not disqualified from it. The Government were defeated on the treatment of disabled students, on an all-party motion. And they were defeated on an amendment moved by my noble Friend Earl Russell, on the important constitutional principle that Parliament should not only automatically debate the secondary legislation—given that there is nothing in the primary legislation—but should also be able to amend it.
The great demerit of the Bill is that because the Bill itself contains no details—they will come only later—they cannot be amended by Parliament. We concede at our constitutional peril the precedent of making laws without being able to amend them.
Last week, when proceedings were about to finish in another place, the Government suggested that they would table a guillotine motion but then did not do so. The Leader of the House made it clear in answer to business questions that whether there would be a guillotine depended on what happened in the other place on Thursday last week. There were no further Government defeats that day, so nothing happened which might have affected the Government's decision.
We can therefore only conclude that the reason why there was no announcement of a guillotine in last week's business statement, and the reason for a business statement only yesterday announcing the guillotine, was that the Government wanted to hide from their Lordships the fact that, for only the fifth time in the history of the British constitution, debate on amendments made by the second Chamber was to be guillotined. Had the Government been honest, they would have let their Lordships know that fact. Their Lordships would not have been very pleased and might have caused some difficulty before giving assent to the Bill last Thursday.
The Bill therefore returns to us with a proposal that debate on it should be limited. There are only 17 Lords

1235
amendments: 12 of them are Government amendments, one is an all-party amendment, one is a Labour amendment and one is a Liberal Democrat amendment. Two amendments have been disallowed, and if they continue to be so disallowed there will be only 15 left for debate—a maximum of 24 Divisions. Is that really justification for the Government to announce a guillotine, when there is still time before Easter for fuller discussion?
I did not hear one sentence in the speeches of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who chairs the Conservative Back-Bench education committee, advancing an argument justifying the guillotining of the Bill. We are therefore left in the following position. First, we are told that we cannot debate the view—there is a great deal of consensus on it—that students who have no money should be eligible for funds to pay for the housing that they need when studying. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when the time comes you will agree to allow us to debate that matter, for the reasons that other hon. Members have already given—we have already voted the money for the implementation of the Bill and its consequential amendments. If the Bill and the money resolution on it do not provide the money, I understand that social security legislation would be able to do so instead.
Given the opposition to the Bill, it is clear that, if this place or the other place were fairly representative of the British people, the Bill would never have got this far. If the Government ignore the limited task of revising legislation that is performed by the unelected second House and do not respect their Lordships' arguments, the case for having a second House at all is seriously weakened. I do not support an unelected second House—it is an anomaly and we should have got rid of it a long time ago—but, I support a two-Chamber Parliament, with both Chambers having a reciprocal role and neither abusing the processes or role of the other.
The trouble is that, as this Parliament has gone on, and as the Government have continued in power—I say this with some sadness—an increasing succession of good people, among whom I include the current Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for the Environment, have one by one gradually given in to the authoritarian pressures imposed on them from elsewhere. I do not know whether, in this case, it is the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip or someone else, but there is no justification for Ministers to come, in equanimity and fairness, to this House to argue for a guillotine in these circumstances. There is no precedent that is justified or paralleled. There is no need for it. It is a gross discourtesy both to the issue and to the seriousness with which the other place tried to address these important matters. The guillotine is an exceptional procedure and it is exceptionally bad, and on constitutional grounds this sort of guillotine should be resisted at all costs.
This legislation contains matters of great substance and, some of us believe, of substantial risk to higher education. I listened to all the argument both in the Committee and outside, and I am not at all persuaded that the Bill does not threaten access to higher education for many people. If we threaten higher education, we threaten our future as a society. If at the same time we couple a threat to our future education with a threat to the
1236
constitutional procedures under which we discuss legislation in the democratically elected Parliament of this land, we are doing a double disservice not just to the students of today and tomorrow, but to all our people.
I sincerely hope that we shall have no more of that and that there will be enough hon. Members of principle, on the Conservative as well as the Opposition Benches, to show the Government today that, whatever we think of the Bill, to treat Parliament in this manner is unacceptable, and that we shall vote the guillotine out.
5.42 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have managed to catch your kindly eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a couple of occasions when we have debated guillotine motions. The way in which the Government now recklessly decide to guillotine almost anything that moves is of concern both to Members of Parliament and to those outside. We base our authority in this House on showing that there is consent for what is done. It therefore behoves us to argue, to reason and to win on that basis.
The history of this place shows that we have been extremely cautious about the use of guillotines. Indeed, it is a comparatively recent development. The Irish troubles necessitated the getting of business through the House and therefore the introduction of the guillotine. Governments were extraordinarily cautious of curtailing debate, because it is on the basis of debate that we assess that people outside will wear the legislation that follows. As two of my hon. Friends said in a similar debate last week, consent in connection with the poll tax should cause us to pause. Did we really assess that the people would wear that tax, regressive and unacceptable as it now appears to many of us?
As I said last week, between 1945 and 1951 there was perhaps the most radical programme in the history of this nation. I also said that I had had difficulty in identifying the use of the guillotine. However, with the help of the House authorities, I can now say that there were three guillotines. The years from 1951 to 1974 were politically contentious, and the battle moved backwards and forwards across the Chamber between Labour and Conservative. There was a total of 15 guillotines during that time. During the lamentable period from 1974 to 1979, there were only 11 guillotines, five of them on one day—as has been regularly pointed out and also acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the former Leader of the Opposition. However, a Government with a majority of nil, which is why I think that it was almost improper to use the guillotine, used it only 11 times during those years.
I shall not deal with the earlier years of this Government, but during the parliamentary Session 1988–89 they indulged in 14 guillotine motions on 10 Bills. That shows the level of what is happening. Among those guillotines was one on the poll tax legislation. I have written on the back of my cheque book—I regret to say—that this is only the fifth guillotine motion on Lords amendments in the history of Britain. Do we really think that is highly appropriate? Who searched out this new method of truncating debate?
I thought that it must be a socialist measure because the Labour party is not well disposed towards free speech, but not a bit of it—it is a Conservative measure. I seems that our party has taken the view that the House of Lords is

1237
redundant and that we do not have to discuss their part in our procedures. We simply pay allegiance and say the correct words. Only two years ago, for the first time in the history of our nation, we truncated debate on Lords amendments. We do not have Indiana Jones who can dash to our rescue—instead, we have Guillotine Jones in the Whips Office who truncates anything that moves if it appears that we want to understand the reasons for the legislation.
We cannot prejudge the issues. I do not necessarily know how other people weigh them. Only by listening to their views can I arrive at a decision. Guillotine Jones has assessed the House pretty well. We want to go home, do we not? That is our principal duty. We want to be home by 10 o'clock. If there is one thing that the guillotine does, it is to ensure that we know when the vote will be called. I have said time and again that it is not in the interests of the party or of the Government to go for the guillotine because in the end we shall not signify as clearly as we should that the legislative measures have the consent of the population, based on reasoned argument. That is the assurance that we are seeking.
I plead with the Government to be cautious about the use of the guillotine. The scorn that we show for the process of free speech and debate in this Chamber will be seen as hubris and will come back on us. That is why I am speaking as clearly and as loudly as I can, as I did last Wednesday. The Secretary of State has given barely a reason for the guillotine. His speech referred to the merits of the legislation, if it is passed. I have to tell him that I have no doubt that the legislation will be passed. Our majority is one of the largest ever enjoyed by a British Government.
We do not doubt that the Government will have their way, but they will not even go to the politeness of saying that the debate can run on the reasoned amendments from another place. There is no big deal in that. In essence, we are being told that the merits of the debate in another place are not worth more than six hours. That is how we weigh up their Lordships. After all, they are only there through an accident of birth or by appointment and are not worth very much. They have become awkward in recent years—
Mr. Jackson: I know how passionately my hon. Friend feels about this, and I respect that—we are all concerned about the issues—but if my hon. Friend is saying that the Government have no regard for the House of Lords, perhaps he could tell us how many of the amendments passed in another place the Government have accepted.
Mr. Shepherd: I understand that my hon. Friend is a member of All Souls, but I do not have to go to All Souls to know that that is a non-question and irrelevant to my point. The reckless pursuit of inhibition of free speech and debate on the floor of the House is not in our interests and we should be extraordinarily cautious in the use of guillotines.
5.48 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have made an overwhelming case against the motion. I do not know whether anyone on the Government Front Bench is
1238
treating those speeches in a derisory manner. The spokesman for All Souls apparently is—he should pay a little more attention to parliamentary procedures. Anyone who listened to those three speeches would have concluded that a powerful case had been made against the Government's motion.
Whenever we have a motion of this kind, reference is made to the guillotine motions that I introduced when I was Leader of the House. At least when I was Leader of the House I always took the precaution of moving the motion myself—I did not run away and leave somebody else to do it, as is becoming more and more the habit of the present Leader of the House. A week or two ago, when he failed to move a similar motion, saying that he was in Chile, the Patronage Secretary was brought along to do the job instead, but that was not satisfactory either.
We have had no apology today from those who run the business of the House for the Government. The Secretary of State is not responsible for the business of the House. The Government are so ready to introduce guillotine motions in the exceptional circumstances that have been described that they do not even trouble to ensure that the Leader of the House puts his case to the House of Commons. That alone is a disgrace.
There is no comparison whatever between this motion and the guillotines that I introduced. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, at that time it was a narrow House of Commons—only a few votes divided one side from the other—so without a guillotine in certain circumstances the Government would not have been able to get through any legislation at all, which would have been a frustration of parliamentary processes and utterly intolerable.
Some Conservative Members, including the spokesman for the Select Committee on Procedure, believe—it was almost implicit in what the Secretary of State said today—that we should have guillotine motions regularly and that this is a better way of getting the business through because we need not worry about time. Whenever I have spoken for or against guillotine motions, I have never favoured that view—for the reason that I have given before and which I repeat today. It is a matter of profound importance for the salvation, safety and future of the House of Commons as a great democratic assembly that the guillotine should be used only in rare circumstances. When it is resorted to, it should be argued for carefully before the House of Commons. That is the only circumstance in which I ever introduced a guillotine, and the only circumstance in which anyone who believes in parliamentary government should be prepared to do so.
The present Government, however, have thrown aside all those protections and precautions, and all consideration of the way in which parliamentary business should be carried out. More regularly than ever before in parliamentary history, either just before a Bill goes to the Lords or when it returns from there, the Government introduce a guillotine motion to curtail debate on the fag end of a Bill, at the very time when it should be the business of the House to consider what has been said in the House, in the other place and outside. The whole purpose of our procedure for Bills is that we take account of what is said outside.
The Secretary of State showed no consideration of those matters when he introduced the motion. He referred to the "wrapping-up stage"—a novel phrase in our parliamentary history. I should be glad if he would point

1239
out anybody else who has referred to our consideration of Lords amendments as the "wrapping-up stage". According to the normal procedures of Parliament, there is no wrapping-up stage. There should be proper procedures whereby we have time to debate such questions, especially questions which are of great importance to many of our constituents and which, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey properly emphasised, were bitterly debated in the other place where the Government could not command any great majority. I should have thought that all those arguments would also have appealed to the House of Commons.
The Government are curtailing debate on a matter of great importance to masses of people throughout Britain and the Leader of the House does not even have the courage to move the motion himself.
As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills rightly said, if the Government had listened on the poll tax they might not be in such a scrape now. The Government never listen except when the Prime Minister is caterwauling in Ministers' ears, saying that they must get the business through. The Government have introduced a series of measures which will injure the education of the British people. The Under-Secretary of State knows well that in practically every decent university, and especially at Oxford, what he and his Department have done is regarded with contempt—and the Government will be all the more regarded with contempt because of their rejection of the proper processes of parliamentary discussion in introducing the measure.
I hope that the House of Commons will reassert itself. A vote against the motion would not destroy the Government, but it might teach them a necessary lesson—too late for them to learn from, but good for the House of Commons none the less.
5.56 pm
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: There is no justification whatever for the motion, to which I shall stick strictly. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has recited the figures of the number of guillotines, which used to be few and far between. I well remember when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the House and his invariable courtesy, and there was no guillotine on our lengthy and contentious debates on devolution.
We are about to debate—if we ever get to them—the Lords amendments to this important Bill. Why a guillotine? Why would any hon. Member filibuster on those? On 3 April my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—a temporary Member of the House—said:
"In view of the widespread filibustering on Report, the guillotine will be widely welcomed."—[Official Report, 3 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1069.]
There was no filibustering on Report. We have all tried to debate these matters sensibly and thoughtfully, so why this measure? There is a belief on the Front Bench, or the temporary Front Bench, that any opposition is the result of treachery or deceit. Those of us who have endeavoured over the past two or three months to persuade the Government to change their mind on some matters, as we have persuaded the other place to do, are now being told that debate will be curtailed and the guillotine will fall.
1240
That is the certain course to disaster. The House, which I love and have served for 25 years, is based on debate and discussion, disagreement and agreement. I have learnt a great deal in the House from listening to Opposition Members. I would not say that I have acquired wisdom, but I have learnt a great deal, and I hope that I have imparted something. The moment we start stopping that, which is what the process is all about, we shall destroy the heart and soul of the House of Commons and the heart and soul of British democracy.
I loathe the Bill and I loathe the motion. I shall vote against all of it. I wish that I had the eloquence to express to the House how angry I feel that my party should have the temerity, arrogance and stupidity to try to force such measures through.
Mr. MacGregor: Does not my hon. Friend accept, as I made clear in my opening speech, that we listened carefully to the debates on the Bill in the House? We have accepted a number of amendments which have been put forward because they are in response to points made in debate.
Mr. Rhodes James: I can only ask my right hon. Friend, then why move the guillotine?
5.59 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: Some Conservative Members seem to think that it is a great wheeze to keep pointing out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that he introduced five guillotine motions in one day, as if that meant that the guillotine motion before us, or any recent guillotine, was justified rather than something that needs to be argued for on its merits. Even if there was merit in putting forward five guillotines in one day, that would not justify the guillotine motion on this Bill.
By this time we could have been well into the debate on the first set of amendments; we might even have passed them. Instead, we will spend probably three hours on the guillotine debate and will have only a limited period in which to discuss the amendments themselves. When we allow for a Division at 10.40 pm, about 15 minutes later the car parking area will look like the start of a motor race as hon. Members rush away. Those who want to dash away after exercising their vote at the behest of the Whips should be allowed to leave, and other hon. Members who wish to consider an important measure, on which there is great feeling on both sides of the House, should be given a further opportunity to pursue the amendments which have come to us from another place, as well as the additional amendments which have been tabled.
We should be allowed to consider the measure properly. The quality of debate on the amendments might have some impact on the future of the legislation. We do not just debate specific items at different stages but put out markers for the future. As a result of debate, there might be greater understanding in future.
We have six hours to cover the timetable debate and the consideration of the amendments. Some hon. Members have pointed out eloquently that the timetable motion is procedurally and constitutionally corrupt and should not be before us. We have seven batches of important amendments to discuss. In most cases there are amendments to amendments. It is not a case of the

1241
Government supporting certain proposals, that being the end of it, and we can all disappear. The amendments tabled by various hon. Members should also be discussed.
In the seven batches of amendments, 15 of the 17 Lords amendments, and nine of the 16 amendments to Lords amendments have been selected for debate. In theory, we could have eight Divisions on amendments and on the timetable motion. Therefore, we could spend two hours going through the Division Lobbies, which would cut further into the time possible for debate.
The measure is significant and important. We should have time to discuss the consultation procedure, the parliamentary procedure for dealing with regulations and the grant regulations themselves. The Bill is an enabling measure. It cannot be argued that, because it is only a four-page Bill, with few clauses, it can be trundled through quickly. Because it has such vast implications, we should discuss it in great detail and should try to dig out all that is involved in it.
The Bill has implications for students with disabilities and consumer credit for minors. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has tabled an amendment on data protection. I have often heard him speak on the subject, in which he has great expertise. I would be happy to listen to him on this occasion. I believe that he would make a significant contribution on the disclosure of information which will be available to the student loan organisation. However, that amendment is the final one in the seventh batch, and the chances of getting to it are remote.
We should not be discussing a timetable motion. Instead we should have had the opportunity to consider matters in detail, as was done in Committee, on Report, on Third Reading and in the other place. The Government claim that the amendments which they have tabled arose because of the quality of debate in the House and in the other place. I doubt whether it was the quality of the discussion which caused the Government to put forward amendments. I believe it was because of politics and the fact that there was a rebellion in certain ranks within the Conservative party. Detailed consideration of all the amendments on the Amendment Paper led to considerable improvements in the Bill.
The measure has fantastic significance for the future of higher education and for a growing number of people with great potential who should be given the opportunity to participate in higher education. I refer to people from a working-class background, women who have been discriminated against, members of ethnic minorities who need encouragement to become involved in the system, and late developers who need a second opportunity to move into higher education, Not only is it their loss, but it is an even greater loss to society if they cannot take advantage of higher education because of the implications of the Bill.
6.8 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I noted that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke for nine minutes. Like him, I agree that we must restrict our remarks to the guillotine motion, so I shall endeavour not to speak any longer than he did. Nor shall I follow the comments of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) or my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on the general
1242
principle of guillotine motions as they apply in Parliament. There are deep issues involved. Certainly I do not intend to address those now. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent is the expert, because during his time as Leader of the House he guillotined the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the Dock Work Regulation Bill, the Health Services Bill and the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. I remind the House that he also guillotined an education Bill.
I shall not pursue that point because common sense enables me to support the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who said that the Bill is straightforward. At the same time, I accept that the Bill is controversial and that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, whom I respect, hold differing views on it. Nevertheless, we all understand what it is about, so I do not agree with those who argue that there must be a lengthy debate, going on for ever and ever. Most of us understand the issues, which is why I am happy to support my right hon. Friend's opening remarks.
I can support also my right hon. Friend's statement that the Government have made a positive response to the representations by Members of another place and by right hon. and hon. Members of this House. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) reminded the House that no guillotine or curtailment of debate was exercised in Committee, on which I served, and that the debate there was very wide-ranging. That supports the Government's case.
Mr. Jackson: The Government were particularly appreciative of the points that my hon. Friend made repeatedly in Committee about the need to increase the access fund, to which we also responded.
Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend gives me a chance to shorten my speech still further, because I intended to welcome the response made to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and to my own strong representations.
It is good news for students, not least those at the university of East Anglia in Norwich, in my area, that the access fund for higher education has been doubled, from £10 million to £20 million, making the total funds available £25 million. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will keep that sum under review as the scheme progresses, for the benefit of students. After all, we are all interested in providing students with extra benefits and with the furtherance of good higher education.
Mr. Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend comment on the possibility that in his own constituency, for example, landlords will continue to include the rates element in the rents that they charge students? I know that he condemns that practice, and I shall be grateful if he will give the House the benefit of his views.
Mr. Thompson: I entirely support my hon. Friend's argument that landlords should reflect the changes brought about by the new local government finance arrangements, of which we are all aware. In the Norwich Eastern Evening News, a group of landlords stated that they would honour their obligation to reflect that change. I do not know whether all landlords in Norwich and elsewhere will do the same, but I hope that they will.
I promised that I would be even briefer than the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, so I shall move on

1243
quickly. I welcome also the increase in the disabled students' allowance, for which many of my hon. Friends campaigned in Committee, and the disregard of disability-related benefits when assessing income for deferment.
Even more important than the concept of student loans is the value and level of the total student grant—although I do not have time to discuss that in detail this evening. The good news about the new scheme is that it makes more money available. In the present political climate, it is not always possible to emphasise the positive aspects of legislation, but that improvement should not go unremarked.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government often trot out the line that so much more money is being made available, but will the hon. Gentleman be honest enough to admit where that money is coming from? The answer is that it is being borrowed and must be paid back. It is not the result of great munificence on the part of the Government.
Mr. Thompson: I am happy to agree with the argument that the student loans scheme is a student loans scheme. There is no way that I can deny what is already in the title of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is good at taking up time, but I want to make progress.
There has been much argument about access to higher education, a subject on which I have addressed sixth form students in Norwich. Concern is felt about whether the Bill will increase or decrease access to higher education, particularly among young people from lower income groups. I would go so far as to say that, if access decreases as a direct consequence of the scheme, we would all be deeply concerned. I take the view—although I cannot yet prove that it is correct—that the Bill will help to increase access. Figures in a parliamentary answer that I received reveal that the number of applications for university places in the current year has increased.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of applications has increased by 20 per cent. over the previous year?
Mr. Thompson: I am delighted that my hon. Friend reminds me of the precise percentage increase, which makes my point even more effectively.
I have always rejected the argument that access to higher education will be negatively affected by the scheme's introduction.
Mr. Roy Beggs: What will the hon. Gentleman be willing to do if it is proved in the near future that the number of students enrolling for higher education is falling? Also, does he acknowledge that current applications have been made under the existing grants system?
Mr. Thompson: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point, because I know from my own meetings with sixth formers that they are fully aware of the scheme. Not all of them currently support it, but they know of it.
As it is the Government's declared policy to increase the numbers in higher education, not only would I be concerned if they were to fall, but so would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Mr. Jackson: The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are continuing to monitor the position. Figures are collected and analysed, and we shall be aware of trends. In the full publicity of this House, I make a private bet with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) that in five years' time the proportion of students from working-class backgrounds will have increased substantially.
Mr. Thompson: I shall discuss later with my hon. Friend the nature of our wager, but I am not anxious to make too many bets. Nevertheless, I agree with his general point. Not enough emphasis has been placed on two of the scheme's positive aspects. One is the removal of the parental contribution, which will benefit many families. The other is that it is altogether a better scheme for students. Common sense dictates that there will be enough time for a debate. I know that I have exceeded the time that I allotted myself, but there have been several interventions.
Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
Mr. Thompson: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, provided he does not mind if my speech continues a little longer.
Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 10 minutes, whereas my own contribution lasted for nine minutes. The hon. Gentleman has therefore spoken for longer than I did, if not better.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman is right. My only excuse is that I have given way to some excellent interventions.
I support the remarks of the Minister. Apart from the wider debate about guillotine motions—I have sympathy with some of the remarks that have been made about that—common sense determines that we shall have enough time to debate the Bill.
6.20 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: It was a privilege to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), whose comments were fundamental to the artificial debate that we are having on the timetable motion. We are contriving to ignore a major reality for young people, which is their entitlement to student grants and, above all, to housing benefit. That hon. Gentleman encapsulated everything that I wanted to say, and I wish simply to endorse the anger that he reflected, albeit in a restrained way.
The Goverment are showing contempt for the House from which the amendments have come, and that could result in problems for us. They are also showing contempt for Members of this House because an issue that is of root importance to students in the north of Ireland will not be debated because of the lack of time.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have accepted no fewer than 17 Lords amendments?
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Fifteen.
Mr. Mallon: The fact remains that the timetable motion shows contempt for the other place and, as I have explained, for Members of this House. That will greatly

1245
affect our ability to discuss matters vital to youngsters in the north of Ireland, youngsters who up to now have had faith in our democratic processes.
When we try to explain to them our inability to discuss issues crucial to their further education and say that we were prevented from doing that because of an archaic rule, they are bound to feel that we consider such procedures to be more important than the future of their education. To explain that away requires a degree of eloquence far exceeding that of any Member.
Mr. David Evennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all these issues were debated on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading and that constraints of time will concentrate the minds of speakers in tonight's debate?
Mr. Mallon: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about constraints of time concentrating speakers' minds, but when on crucial issues such as these we resort to the artificiality of the guillotine, we are damaging our democratic processes and insulting the young people whose futures we should be debating.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) referred to the debates in Committee. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will be aware that, because of the procedures of the House, only one minority party was allocated a place at that stage, and that place was occupied by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). That meant that the SDLP, the Welsh National party, the Ulster Unionists and the SDP were excluded. The House will appreciate why we are vexed at the fact that we shall not have time to debate many issues that concern us, especially as we participated fully at all other stages, when we were able to do so.
Mr. Mallon: The hon. Lady is right, and our only good fortune was that we were admirably represented in Committee by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
As we consider what has happened recently in London and in other British cities, we realise that democracy is a very tender plant indeed which must be nurtured and cosseted. That is equally true of the future of our young people. The guillotine on this issue makes me angry. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Cambridge said more eloquently than I could what I wanted to say. Not only are we showing complete indifference to our position as legislators, but we are showing gross indifference to the young people of the nation and their future educational status.
6.25 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby: I am anxious, before deciding how to vote on the allocation of time motion, to raise certain issues. But first I should declare an interest in that I am a member of the court of Brunel university, which is in my constituency.
The University Funding Council wants Brunel to expand its intake of students by 10 per cent. That means that students, because there is not sufficient accommodation on campus, can come to Brunel only if they can find and afford accommodation off campus. In practice, that means accommodation somewhere in Uxbridge, Southall or Ealing.
1246
Brunel needs 400 more units of student accommodation. That need is at present being considered by the university, which hopes to build some of them. But those units can be provided only if the cost of borrowing is spread over the existing student accommodation. That would make it as expensive as off-campus accommodation. If Brunel were to build, say, 600 additional units, the cost of doing that at current interest rates would put those units above that of off-campus accommodation.
The cost of off-campus accommodation at Brunel and at other London universities is higher than in any other part of the country. I therefore question whether the amount of the maximum loan facility to be made available to students in London will be sufficient. I had hoped for an opportunity to debate that in relation to Government amendment No. 7. I do not know whether there will be time for that debate if the guillotine motion is approved.
It is a tough guillotine motion. It does not specify a period for the House to debate each amendment, so I have no alternative but to ask the Minister some questions before deciding how to vote on the matter. I say that because the cost of on-compus accommodation at Brunel is, on average, £25 a week. The cost of off-campus accommodation is about £37·50 a week, or £12·50 more.
The Minister will appreciate that, over a 30-week academic year, a student living off campus must find an additional £400 a year, plus the cost of travelling to and from university. We should be given time tonight to debate whether the access funds will be sufficient to allow the university to provide additional financial assistance for students living off campus.
The Minister said that the access funds would be substantially increased. I am pleased about that, and I congratulate the Government on securing that additional funding from the Treasury. I hope that the Minister can put my mind at rest on the important question that I have raised. It affects London universities in particular and those which, like Brunel, have many students living off campus. I hope that the Minister will comment on the extent to which the funding council will be able to allocate funds to the university to help students in that position.
Mr. Jackson: I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have substantially increased the size of the access fund and have made it clear to the funding council that, when they distribute funds to institutions, the Government expect relative housing costs to be a major factor in the formulae which determine distribution. The institutions will take housing costs into account when they make allocations to students in need. I have no doubt that Brunel, which, as my hon. Friend says, is situated in a relatively high-cost area, will benefit from those arrangements.
Mr. Shersby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will the universities decide how to dispose of the funds allocated to them by the funding council?
Mr. Jackson: It will be entirely a matter for the universities.
Mr. Shersby: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall not detain the House any further. I wanted the opportunity to raise those important points on behalf of a university which is situated just outside Greater London.
6.30 pm
Mr. Mike Watson: It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was not here earlier, when the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), spoke about the guillotine. They did so eloquently and, certainly for someone of my experience, provided a clear insight into what the Government are attempting to do through the motion.
The guillotine was clearly planned at least last week by the Government but was withdrawn, in what can be described only as a cynical manoeuvre, to avoid alerting the other place, which was still considering the amendments until Thursday of last week. That further compounded the Government's disarray on the Bill, which is best illustrated by the pull-out of the banks and the confusion surrounding that, which continues to surround how the Student Loans Company will operate. The confusion was further compounded in Committee in the other place last week when the Government were forced to table a new amendment to the Bill. That arose because it became apparent that the offer of loans to people under the age of 18 could render the Student Loans Company liable to criminal proceedings under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
I see that you are now in your place, Mr. Speaker. The subject of the Consumer Credit Act and minors under the age of 18 was never raised in the Chamber nor in Committee. Yet the Government are now attempting to steamroller the Bill on to the statute book without further discussion of that important matter. We have to ask why the Government find a guillotine necessary. The Minister and subsequent Conservative Members who spoke on the motion have failed to justify the need for a guillotine.
For a guillotine to be used on a flimsy four-clause Bill shows that the Government are running scared of their Back Benchers. On the various occasions when the legislation has been discussed in the Chamber, some Conservative Back Benchers have voiced their opposition to the Bill in various ways. It seems to me that the Government are attempting to deny those Back Benchers a further opportunity to air their opposition. That is a shabby tactic, but it is quite in character with the way in which the Government have carried through the Bill. They refused to accept amendments in Committee. They refused to listen to the arguments of Opposition Members in Committee.
Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have had no intention significantly to modify their proposals, despite the strength of opinion held by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the education community. Powerful evidence was presented to hon. Members in Committee, but the Government consistently refused to listen to that opinion. They have ignored the effect that the Bill will have on access and on the costs to students. Those two items are inextricably linked and the Government have refused to recognise that.
Mr. Beggs: Much reference has been made to the 30-week term and housing benefit. Is it not a fact that few landlords will allocate accommodation to students if they receive rent for only 30 weeks?
Mr. Watson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, because it brings me back to a subject
1248
that I raised in Committee—rents paid by students in the city of Edinburgh. Edinburgh's rents are possibly the second highest in the United Kingdom outside London—with the possible exception of Aberdeen. I quoted a case in Edinburgh that showed clearly that the result of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 was that many landlords had decided that students were no longer suitable tenants and were getting rid of them at every opportunity. Landlords were choosing to change houses available for rent and to sell them.
I was unconvinced by the hon. Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who repeated arguments made in Committee about the poll tax. The poll tax has been in existence in Scotland for the past year and during that period landlords have consistently refused to withdraw the rates element of rents demanded of tenants, who now have to pay poll tax independently. The hon. Member for Norwich, North said that he is sure that landlords in Norwich will not do that. Certainly the information that I am receiving from other parts of the United Kingdom proves that that is not the case elsewhere, and that is a further worry to students who are likely to be denied accommodation or, if they are not denied it, asked to pay significantly more.
I regret that we do not have the opportunity to discuss housing benefit because it is an important aspect of the Bill. The withdrawal of benefits to students fundamentally hits at the argument that the Government have advanced that the Bill will increase resources to students and take away some of the weight on parents' shoulders. In theory, parents will not be required to make a contribution, or such a large contribution, but in fact, parents who can afford it will be asked by their student sons and daughters to bail them out during vacations when they cannot find employement or are unable to claim housing benefit, unemployment benefit or income support.
It is unfair of the Government to ignore the fact that that will affect precisely the students whom they claim that they want to attract into education—working-class students, whose numbers at universities in the United Kingdom dropped between 1979 and 1988 from 22·5 per cent. to 19·9 per cent. at the same time as the value of the grant was decreasing. I cannot understand why the Government will not take on board the fact that the reason why the number of students from that socio-economic background decreased during that period.
The Government have consistently failed to make it clear how the offer of loans to students from such a background will encourage them into higher education in much larger numbers—not just larger numbers—than previously. That is why it is particularly unfortunate that amendment No. 8, which was carried in the other place and which reinstated the payment of housing benefit to students, is not being allowed to be presented this evening. That certainly lets the Government off the hook, but it shows that when the Bill was put under scrutiny in the other place they made a decision based on common sense, and the amendment was carried by a majority of almost two to one.
Throughout its various stages, the Bill has been shown to be universally unpopular and unwanted, except by the Government and those Conservative Back Benchers who have been whipped into the Lobby. As has been demonstrated this evening, the Government do not have

1249
enough confidence in the Bill to submit it to full scrutiny or to submit the amendments carried in the other place to adequate debate.
The Government's tactics in introducing the guillotine motion and the sleight of hand with which they did so, bring them no credit whatever. Neither does any aspect of the Education (Student Loans) Bill bring the Government any credit.
6.38 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I respect the opinions of my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), both of whom are distinguished in the House for their independence of mind and the integrity of their views. Normally I find myself very much in agreement with their view on the way in which the business of the House is conducted—or misconducted, as is sometimes the case. However, I feel that there could be a reason for implementing the guillotine, because of the time and the brouhaha expended on the subject of a relatively small change in the way in which the over-privileged are already funded by the under-privileged.
That has already received a great deal of time in the House and in the other place. There is nothing so nauseating as the sight of the privileged pursuing even more privileges. It is the middle classes who resent the Bill. The fact is that 80 per cent. of students come from the middle classes. They are attempting to protect and to some extent extend the great privileges that they already enjoy. Partly on account of birth and partly on account of the financial background of their families, they are able to benefit from a university education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) referred to my personal experience. I come from what is partronisingly called a blue-collar family. I paid all the costs, apart from tuition, of my college and university education. There was no housing benefit or social security benefit in those days. Furthermore, when I began teaching I was expected to pay back the cost of my education by teaching for a number of years. If I had not done so, I should have been expected to pay back the cost of my training. That was accepted. However, society has reached the point at which it is resented if the state does not pay for various things. I do not share that view.
The great majority of people who make a success of their lives have not had a university education. Between 80 and 90 per cent. of the entrepreneurial class—the poor bloody infantry who support the rest of our society—do not go through to the age of 22, or more, as wards of the state who are paid for by their fellow citizens. Those people look askance at the way in which Members of Parliament devote so much of their time to protecting the privileges of those who already have it so good. For that reason, the Government are right to curtail the time that we should spend on debating the issue.
My quarrel with the Bill is that it does not go far enough. There is no reason why those who will enjoy the better things of life, by virtue of their birth, attributes and intellect, should expect yet more of those whose lot it is to leave school at 16, without resentment, and work their way through life, pulling themselves up by their own elbow
1250
grease and boot straps. The less time we spend on debating these privileges and the sooner the full cost of higher education is met by those who benefit from it, the better.
The entrepreneurs on whom the wealth and progress of our society depends ask for no privileges from this House. All they ask for is to be allowed to keep as large a proportion of their resources as they can, so that they can be ploughed back into promoting their own self-interest and progress. That is what we should work for. Those who, by birth and intellect, are already endowed with privileges that many people lack should not come to the House, or to the other place, with their begging bowls and ask for yet more assistance from those who work to provide it.
6.43 pm
Mr. Andrew Smith: During the last two hours we have heard contorted and specious arguments in support of the motion. For most of the time, we have heard no arguments at all. There was a Second Reading speech by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). As for the speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), at last she came clean as to where the Conservative party was heading in its funding of higher education—towards a system based not on ability to benefit but on ability to pay.
Those who spoke in favour of the motion gave no good reason why this miserable specimen of a Bill should be timetabled. The only argument which might have carried any real conviction—that hon. Members want to make the quickest possible exit from this place for the Easter recess—has not been repeated since the Secretary of State for Education and Science alluded to it. I suspect that when Conservative Members are greeted by their constituents' anger about the poll tax, mortgage interest rates and rent, they will wish that they had stayed here for Easter.
When one considers the allocation of time motion for consideration of the Bill, one wonders whether there is a little-known standing order which provides that anything to do with student loans must be dealt with as near as possible to weekends and public holidays. It is more than a matter of curious coincidence that our first debate on the student loans proposal, almost a year after the White Paper was published, was on a Friday, that the statement about the withdrawal of the banks from the scheme was held back until the last day before the Christmas Adjournment, that the Report stage was on a Thursday and that today is the last full day of business before the Easter recess.
It is all the more bizarre that, having relied on such recreational carrots to drag the Bill along thus far, the Government should decide that they need the big stick of the guillotine as well. As my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) have said, the guillotine cannot be defended. The Bill had not been timetabled previously; there was no filibustering at any of the earlier stages; the Lords amendments cover issues not previously debated here, such as compelling higher education institutions to help to administer the scheme, and the implications in relation to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
The guillotine was introduced at the last possible moment. The Bill was withdrawn from last week's business in a shabby and cynical maneouvre, thus misleading the other place as to the Government's intentions. As my right

1251
hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, a guillotine motion should be used only in rare circumstances and it should be argued for carefully. We have heard no such careful argument in favour of the motion today.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I support all that the hon. Gentleman says and I do not wish to distract him from it. However, to confirm what he said and to deal with a point—just in case the record does not reveal it—raised by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the time that this House has had to debate the Bill since the Second Reading amounts to 10 hours, which was the time spent on Report and Third Reading, and that we have gone from Second Reading to Third Reading in just over two months. It is only just over a month since the Bill was sent to the Lords and returned to us. There has been no delay. The House has not spent an inordinate time debating any of the provisions in this important Bill.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have just seen the bulldozer in operation, and it is unjustifiable. Any impartial observer is left with no other impression than that of a Government running scared. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said yesterday, this is not so much a matter of business management as of crisis management.
What is the purpose of the guillotine? What is the great volume of business that the Government claim justifies its imposition? There are just 17 Lords amendments. Two of them have been ruled out of order on grounds of privilege, three are minor Government drafting changes, 10 are changes initiated or supported by the Government and just two of them reflect Government defeats in the other place—on draft regulations and on repayment terms for disabled students. It is as pathetic as it is insulting that the Government should stoop to the use of the guillotine to bulldoze this measure through. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, in a speech as persuasive as it was passionate, the guillotine is a disgrace to the Conservative party just as it is a disgrace to the House.
The Government cannot claim in their defence that our amendments are capricious, trivial or wrecking when we have sought to defend and improve upon the changes made in another place. These are changes to ensure meaningful consultation—something totally absent from the Government's approach; changes to enable Parliament properly to consider the regulations by which the scheme will operate; changes to reimburse institutions for their enforced participation in the administration of the scheme; changes to ensure that the loan does not become more than half of maintenance without primary legislation; changes to safeguard the position of students with disabilities; and changes to protect those under 18 and to safeguard against the disclosure of information by the Student Loans Company.
Had we had the chance—we hope still to have it—we would have argued strongly for the reinstatement of housing and other social security benefits, the withdrawal of which will cause much hardship and represent the removal of basic rights of citizenship to which everyone is entitled.
1252
These are not unreasonable changes. They undoubtedly reflect the consensus of the general public, education institutions and students. If hon. Members on the Government Benches had the opportunity to vote freely according to their judgment, I have no doubt that the amendments would be carried here, too. I draw the attention of the House to the words of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) yesterday, when he told the Leader of the House
"that some of us care deeply about the future of higher education, and that he cannot guillotine that".—[Official Report, 3 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1068.]
We heard from the hon. Member for Cambridge today a testament to the conviction that he expressed yesterday in his moving and dignified speech in defence of the best traditions of the House and against a Government who are abusing them and thereby abusing democracy. The hon. Gentleman's voice should be heard today and hon. Members should follow his advice in the Division Lobby.
A wise Government would listen, take notice and act in accordance with the overwhelming majority opinion on these issues—but then a wise Government, with the best interests of higher education and the country at heart, would not have introduced the student loans scheme or the Bill in the first place. The Bill remains, as it started, a triumph of narrow ideology over common sense and the common interest. The scheme that it would introduce is an expensive administrative nightmare, damaging both to students' welfare and to the national interest, closing avenues of opportunity at the very time when Britain should be opening them up.
Mr. Pawsey rose—
Mr. Smith: No, I cannot give way now.
This guillotine motion, like the Bill that it timetables, could have been brought forward only by a Government deaf to public opinion through arrogance, and arrogant because they do not care. As the Bill is pushed lamely towards the statute book, it bears its makers' mark in its ill-considered provisions which have been a shambles from start to finish.
Like the poll tax, the cost and unfairness and the deep unpopularity of student loans will return to haunt the Prime Minister, who insisted that the Bill should proceed. The Opposition's commitment to grant will be one more reason why we shall be elected to office, when we will repeal this damaging scheme, just as we urge the House to reject this draconian and unnecessary guillotine today.
In a phrase which can be taken only as the deepest insult to democracy in this Parliament, the Secretary of State in opening the debate referred to tonight's proceedings as the "wrapping up" stage. I will tell him what is being wrapped up—the Government and their insufferable arrogance are being wrapped up. I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote against this unnecessary, draconian and insulting motion.
6.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): All hon. Members will share my admiration of the hyperbolic style of my good friend and neighbour the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I shall be brief in winding up this debate—although perhaps I may not use such an expression after what has been said about the phrase "wrapping up"—and, in the interests of enabling us to get

1253
on with the debate, I will speak only to the guillotine motion. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to forgive me if, because of this, I do not respond on this occasion to some of the points which have been made but which are outside the scope of the guillotine motion. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to some of my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members who allowed me to intervene in their speeches, thus enabling me, I hope, to clarify some issues.
It is common ground in the House that it would be rather nice not to have to use the guillotine. I respect and rather admire, and indeed am sometimes a little terrified by, the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but we all know that as long as we have the right—unusual in comparison with other Parliaments—to speak for as long as we like, the guillotine will be one of the awkward facts of parliamentary life.
What I have to say now does not apply to my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), but let me remind Opposition Members of Oscar Wilde's remark that hypocrisy is the tribute which vice pays to virtue. It implies that, while expressions of hypocrisy are to be desired from time to time as reinforcements of virtue, we should not overdo it. As has been observed, Governments of both parties have used the guillotine and doubtless Governments of both parties will do so in future, should there be an occasion when there is a Government of another party. Meanwhile, let us remember that the Bill to which this guillotine relates is only a four-clause Bill. Let me remind the House also that it has undergone no fewer than 90 hours of debate in both Houses.
It is interesting to compare this with the other legislation with which I have been involved, the Education Reform Act. Before it was enacted, it was a 235-clause Bill which took up 216 hours in both Houses. I calculate that today's Bill has had no fewer than 22 hours of discussion per clause, compared with 1·3 hours of discussion per clause of the Education Reform Bill. In my opinion, our debate was of high quality. Hon. Members on both sides agreed that the House of Commons Committee stage led to a genuinely constructive and civilised exchange of views, and I pay tribute to Opposition Members, to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and to my colleagues for that.
Debates in the other place are by definition always of a constructive and civilised character. That is no doubt one reason why the Government have accepted no fewer than 17 Lords amendments. Since there has been a suggestion from, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Cambridge that the Government are in some way disregarding the other place, let me give some indication of the substance of those amendments.
We have agreed to consultation before amending schedule 1; we have agreed to amendments to schedule 1 by the affirmative resolution procedure; we have agreed to the affirmative resolution procedure for the first student loan regulations; we have agreed to amendments in relation to disabled students, for a 50:50 ratio for loan and grant, and to extend protection of information in the hands of the Student Loans Company. So there is no doubt that the Bill has been well and extensively debated and has also been amended in important points of detail.
1254
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) adduced two arguments against the guillotine: that the points still to be debated are points of great substance, and that if we go on with the guillotine we shall have only 10 minutes for each amendment. I will finish my remarks now to enable us to debate those amendments because that will enable the House to see for itself whether those assertions are true. It is my belief that we will all agree that the amendments that we now have to consider are not particularly important. Most of them are rather minor and we can safely deal with the important ones in the time we have available to us.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 212.

Division No. 159]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Curry, David

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

Allason, Rupert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Amess, David

Day, Stephen

Amos, Alan

Devlin, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Dicks, Terry

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Aspinwall, Jack

Dunn, Bob

Atkinson, David

Dykes, Hugh

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Eggar, Tim

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Baldry, Tony

Evennett, David

Batiste, Spencer

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fallon, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bendall, Vivian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Benyon, W.

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fookes, Dame Janet

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Forman, Nigel

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Body, Sir Richard

Forth, Eric

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fox, Sir Marcus

Boswell, Tim

Freeman, Roger

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

French, Douglas

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Fry, Peter

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gale, Roger

Bowis, John

Gardiner, George

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gill, Christopher

Brazier, Julian

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bright, Graham

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

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

Goodlad, Alastair

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Buck, Sir Antony

Gow, Ian

Budgen, Nicholas

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butcher, John

Gregory, Conal

Butler, Chris

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Butterfill, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Grist, Ian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Ground, Patrick

Carrington, Matthew

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carttiss, Michael

Hague, William

Cash, William

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chapman, Sydney

Hampson, Dr Keith

Chope, Christopher

Hanley, Jeremy

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

Hannam, John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Harris, David

Conway, Derek

Hawkins, Christopher

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hayes, Jerry

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)

Couchman, James

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Cran, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

1255

Hill, James

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hind, Kenneth

Page, Richard

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Paice, James

Holt, Richard

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Hordern, Sir Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Patten, Rt Hon John

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

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Pawsey, James

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Portillo, Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Price, Sir David

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hunter, Andrew

Redwood, John

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Irvine, Michael

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Irving, Sir Charles

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Jack, Michael

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Jackson, Robert

Roe, Mrs Marion

Janman, Tim

Rost, Peter

Jessel, Toby

Rowe, Andrew

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Ryder, Richard

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Key, Robert

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shaw, David (Dover)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Knapman, Roger

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Shersby, Michael

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Sims, Roger

Knowles, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knox, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lang, Ian

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lawrence, Ivan

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Squire, Robin

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Steen, Anthony

Lilley, Peter

Stern, Michael

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Stevens, Lewis

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

McCrindle, Robert

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stokes, Sir John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Maclean, David

Sumberg, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Summerson, Hugo

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Major, Rt Hon John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Malins, Humfrey

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mans, Keith

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Marland, Paul

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Marlow, Tony

Thornton, Malcolm

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Thurnham, Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Maude, Hon Francis

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Tracey, Richard

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Tredinnick, David

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Trippier, David

Mellor, David

Trotter, Neville

Miller, Sir Hal

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mills, Iain

Viggers, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mitchell, Sir David

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Walden, George

Moore, Rt Hon John

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Waller, Gary

Moss, Malcolm

Ward, John

Mudd, David

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Neale, Gerrard

Warren, Kenneth

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Watts, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Wells, Bowen

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Whitney, Ray

Norris, Steve

Widdecombe, Ann

1256

Wiggin, Jerry

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wilshire, David

Younger, Rt Hon George

Winterton, Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wood, Timothy

Mr. Tony Durant and

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Mr. David Lightbown.

Yeo, Tim

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Foulkes, George

Allen, Graham

Fraser, John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fyfe, Maria

Armstrong, Hilary

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Battle, John

Gordon, Mildred

Beckett, Margaret

Gould, Bryan

Beggs, Roy

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Beith, A. J.

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bell, Stuart

Grocott, Bruce

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hardy, Peter

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

Haynes, Frank

Bermingham, Gerald

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Bidwell, Sydney

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Blunkett, David

Henderson, Doug

Boateng, Paul

Hinchliffe, David

Boyes, Roland

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Bradley, Keith

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Home Robertson, John

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hood, Jimmy

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Howells, Geraint

Buchan, Norman

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Buckley, George J.

Hoyle, Doug

Caborn, Richard

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Callaghan, Jim

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Illsley, Eric

Canavan, Dennis

Ingram, Adam

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Janner, Greville

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Clay, Bob

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Clelland, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cohen, Harry

Kennedy, Charles

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Kilfedder, James

Corbett, Robin

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kirkwood, Archy

Cousins, Jim

Lambie, David

Crowther, Stan

Lamond, James

Cryer, Bob

Leighton, Ron

Cummings, John

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lewis, Terry

Darling, Alistair

Litherland, Robert

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Livingstone, Ken

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Livsey, Richard

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

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dewar, Donald

Loyden, Eddie

Dixon, Don

McAllion, John

Dobson, Frank

McAvoy, Thomas

Doran, Frank

McCartney, Ian

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McGrady, Eddie

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

McLeish, Henry

Eadie, Alexander

Maclennan, Robert

Eastham, Ken

McNamara, Kevin

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Madden, Max

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Mallon, Seamus

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Fatchett, Derek

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Faulds, Andrew

Martlew, Eric

Fearn, Ronald

Maxton, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Meacher, Michael

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

Meale, Alan

Fisher, Mark

Michael, Alun

Flynn, Paul

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Foster, Derek

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

1257

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Skinner, Dennis

Morgan, Rhodri

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Morley, Elliot

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

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Snape, Peter

Mullin, Chris

Spearing, Nigel

Murphy, Paul

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Nellist, Dave

Steinberg, Gerry

O'Brien, William

Stott, Roger

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Strang, Gavin

Patchett, Terry

Straw, Jack

Pendry, Tom

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pike, Peter L.

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Prescott, John

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Primarolo, Dawn

Turner, Dennis

Quin, Ms Joyce

Vaz, Keith

Radice, Giles

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Randall, Stuart

Walley, Joan

Redmond, Martin

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Wareing, Robert N.

Rhodes James, Robert

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Richardson, Jo

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Robertson, George

Wigley, Dafydd

Robinson, Geoffrey

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Rooker, Jeff

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wilson, Brian

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Winnick, David

Rowlands, Ted

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Ruddock, Joan

Worthington, Tony

Salmond, Alex

Wray, Jimmy

Sedgemore, Brian

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Sheerman, Barry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Mr. Allen McKay and

Short, Clare

Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education (Student Loans) Bill:
Lords Amendments
1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;
(c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made
1258
by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the time at which, under this Order, any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

1259
8.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Mr. Speaker: I undertook earlier, at the request of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), to look again at my decision that Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 are not covered by the money resolution in respect of the Bill.
The resolution in question authorises payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under the forthcoming Education (Student Loans) Act. Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 would require payments to be made under section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986: in the case of Lords amendment No. 8 to all loan-taking students, whether or not they are currently eligible for housing benefit; and in the case of Lords amendment No. 10 to postgraduate students even if they are not loan takers.
I am satisfied that both Lords amendments would have been out of order if it had been sought to move them in this House and that my decision that it was necessary to invoke Standing Order No. 76 in respect of those Lords amendments is correct.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the time that you have taken to reconsider the matter, although, naturally, Opposition Members regret that they will not have a chance to vote on the substantive issue of the denial of housing benefit to students. This matter will now return to the other place with a message from this
1260
place. Will it be possible for their Lordships to amend Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10 and, if they agree, to table an acceptable amendment on which the House could voice an opinion?
Mr. Speaker: Their Lordships would certainly have to consider any message from this place. It would then be up to them what they did about it.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members, in the interim, will the Government consider a second money resolution that would take account of the implications of section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986, which also could be sent to the other place for consideration?
Mr. Speaker: It is too late to do that in respect of Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 10, but it is always for the Government to consider whether they should introduce further money resolutions.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, the Minister twice made the factual statement—you, Mr. Speaker, were not in the Chair at the time—that the Government had accepted 17 Lords amendments. From the papers before us, that appears to be incorrect. It appears that the Secretary of State will move three motions disagreeing with the Lords amendments. On the face of it, the Government have not accepted three of the Lords amendments. It is important that a misleading impression is not given, because Hansard will have recorded the Secretary of State as saying that the Government have accepted 17 Lords amendments.
Mr. Speaker: Until the House gets on to the amendments, it will not know whether the Government disagree with them. I think that we had better get on with them.

Orders of the Day
  Education (Student Loans) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Education (Student Loans) Bill
    Clause 1

      LOANS FOR STUDENTS
      Lords amendment: No 1, in page 2, line 11, at end insert "but before doing so shall consult any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable"
      Read a Second time.
      7.13 pm
      Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (b), at end insert
      `including those listed in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to this Act'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the consequential amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, in Schedule 1, page 3, line 30, at end add—
      `(8) Bodies to be consulted under section 1(4) above shall include—

      Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals

      Committee of Directors of Polytechnics

      National Union of Students

      Advisory Board for the Research Councils

      Association of County Councils

      Advisory Centre for Education

      Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education

      Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services

      Association of Graduate Recruiters

      Association of Metropolitan Authorities

      Association of Principals of Colleges

      Confederation of British Industry

      Council of Local Education Authorities

      Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

      Department of Employment

      Department of Education for Northern Ireland

      Education Grants Advisory Service

      Further Education Unit

      Economic and Social Research Council

      The Institute of Careers Officers

      Universities Funding Council

      Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

      National Council for Vocational Qualifications

      Scottish Education Department

      Science and Engineering Research Council

      Secondary Heads Association

      Trades Union Congress

      Scottish Trades Union Congress

      Welsh Education Office

      Council for National Academic Awards

      Forum for Access Studies.'.

      Mr. Straw: The amendments raise a short point, and, in view of the lack of time to debate other major issues, I shall be brief.
      In the other place, the Government accepted that there should be consultation on what additional courses should be eligible for student loans. That acceptance is encapsulated in amendment No. 1, but it is not specific about who should be consulted. We have tabled two amendments so that the Secretary of State and the House may have a chance to lay down who should be consulted. Amendment (c) lists all the major national bodies which, so far as we can see, have an interest and should be consulted. I should be glad to hear from the Secretary of
      1262
      State that he accepts that organisations of that national stature and importance should be consulted, among others, if, as I anticipate, Lords amendment No. 1 is included in the Bill.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I can be equally brief. The amendment amplifies an undertaking given by the Government in the other place. In Committee we debated at some length whether the student loans scheme could apply to part-time students. As the House knows, they have none of the advantages of a grant system and are not proposed for inclusion in the loans system. My colleagues and I advocated that extension and suggested that it would be proper to use them in the first pilot scheme for loans, if there were to be loans, rather than full-time students. Such an extension should be the subject of proper consultation.
      Some of us are worried, having listened to the earlier debate, that even after consultation the Government may not listen. We live in hope, however. It is better that all those with an interest are the subject of consultation and we are specific about who should be consulted. I hope that the Government will respond generously and will say not just that they accept Lords amendment No. 1, as we heard from the Government spokesman in the Lords, but that they are willing to be specific that all the bodies listed and any others with an interest will be consulted about any extension or variation in the number or nature of institutions which will be beneficiaries of the proposed scheme.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Lords amendment No. 1 was tabled in the other House by Baroness David, but it was a Government amendment offered to her by Lord Caithness as she had taken the lead in urging the need for it and I pay tribute to her. The amendment qualifies the power in clause 1(4) to amend schedule 1, which is a list of eligible courses, by requiring the Secretary of State to consult before using the power. I commend the amendment to the House.
      The Government intend loans to be available for all higher education courses below postgraduate level so long as the student is following the course full time and meets the residence requirements. Accordingly, schedule 1 lists as eligible all types of course at higher education level except postgraduate study. We do not expect to need to revise schedule 1 frequently because it is already comprehensive but, as is generally accepted, we must be able to keep it up to date without resorting to both Houses of Parliament for fresh primary legislation.
      Amendments (b) and (c) would insert a requirement into the Bill that the consultation by the Secretary of State before amending schedule 1 should be undertaken with certain specific bodies. It would make consultation with those bodies a statutory requirement, which we are not prepared to accept. To be productive, consultation must be manageable. There is a wide range of interests potentially concerned in these matters and the Secretary of State must be able to decide whose views to seek in a particular case. That will depend on the particular change contemplated at the time. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State will be attentive to representations from all quarters, but it would be wasteful and unnecessary to have a long prescribed list for every change to schedule 2.

      1263
      There are further common-sense considerations. What would happen if a body in the schedule changed its name or went out of existence? Would we have to post letters to an organisation which no longer existed? What would happen if there was a new body which it was sensible to consult about a particular proposal? Those arguments show that it would be absurd to fix a list in the Bill. The Government are serious about consultation. We consult and listen. I recommend the rejection of the two amendments to the Lords amendment.
      Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
      "(5A) The power to make orders under subsection (4) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:
      No. 3, in page 2, line 14, leave out from "make" to "subject" in line 16 and insert
      "regulations under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which, subject to subsection (7) below and paragraph (1A) of that Schedule, shall be"
      No. 4, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
      "(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament and those regulations shall not be made unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House."
      No. 5, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
      "(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the draft to be amended the Secretary of State shall withdraw the draft and shall prepare a draft in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.
      (8) No resolution shall be passed by either House of Parliament under subsection (7) above in respect of a draft after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft was laid before that House; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
      (9) If, on the expiry of the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (8) above, no resolution requiring amendment of the regulations has been passed by either House of Parliament, the draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
      (10) Where the Secretary of State withdraws a draft under subsection (7) above, he shall lay an amended draft before Parliament and the amended draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."
      Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5, in paragraph (7),, leave out 'first'.
      Mr. MacGregor: These amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny of the orders and regulations made under the powers of the Bill. The bulk of these are Government amendments which discharge commitments made in another place in response to comments made in this House.
      1264
      Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 relate to the power to amend schedule 1, which lists types of course for which loans are available. Clause 1(4) provides power to amend schedule 1 by order. This House and the other place expressed concern about the conferring of power to amend primary legislation. We have responded to it through the requirement to consult imposed by amendment No. 1. We do not expect frequent revision of schedule 1. It is already comprehensive, but we must be able to keep it up to date.
      Amendment No. 2 applies the affirmative resolution to the order amending schedule 1. We have heeded the concern that the negative procedure originally proposed gives insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment No. 3 is a consequential amendment.
      Opposition amendment 2(a) has exactly the same effect as Lords amendment No. 1, which we have just agreed —that the Government are required to consult before amending schedule 1—and is therefore superfluous. I invite the House to accept Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      Lords amendment No. 4 applies the affirmative resolution to the first use of the regulation-making power to establish the scheme. Regulations made later for further development of the scheme will be subject to negative resolution. The amendment covers the main aspects of the scheme and it is important that I emphasise them. They are the conditions of eligibility, except the list of eligible types of course in schedule 1, which are made in clause 1; the terms of the loan made in accordance with schedule 1(1); and the involvement of higher education institutions in securing access to loans for students.
      I hope that amendment No. 4 meets the concerns expressed by hon. Members on Report. We reflected on that debate, which is why I was happy to accept the amendment in another place. I had hoped that it would meet the concerns of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who spoke in favour of the amendment on Report, but I see from Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 that he has ignored the arguments and returned to his old position. The Opposition amendment would make all orders and regulations always subject to the affirmative procedure. It is right to provide flexibility to develop the scheme once it is established through regulations, subject to the negative procedure. That was our original intention even for the first use of the regulation-making power.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 has not been selected.
      Mr. Speaker: I was about to say that, but I thought that the Secretary of State was coming to the end of his preliminary remarks.
      Mr. MacGregor: You are right, Mr. Speaker. I failed to observe that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 was not selected. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) for drawing that to my attention. However, I imagine that he would wish me to make my remarks about amendment No. 5 and amendment (a) to it, which has been selected, because this is probably the most material part of this debate.
      On Lords amendment No. 5 we have agreed that regulations first made to establish the scheme should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have placed that requirement in the Bill by means of Lords amendment

      1265
      No. 4. That means that, when the regulations are made for the first time, they will be debated by both Houses and approval of both Houses will be required before they come into force. That meets one of the key points in Lords amendment No. 5, but the amendment goes further because it seeks to allow either House to propose amendments to regulations.
      As the House knows, Parliament cannot normally amend under either positive or negative procedure—it can only approve or reject. If either House makes its objections clear, the Government can withdraw the regulations. Otherwise, under the affirmative procedure, either House can vote against them.
      On the main issue of principle, the effect of the normal affirmative procedure and that proposed by the amendment could be similar in certain circumstances. For example, under the amendment, the House could vote to amend and under the affirmative procedure it could vote to reject. The Secretary of State would then have to take away the draft regulations and return with fresh regulations to seek approval once again.
      Lords amendment No. 5 introduces serious practical complications, and that is why I shall urge the House to reject it. The first complication is that one House might propose an amendment conflicting with one proposed by the other House. What would happen in that case, and which view would take precedence? The amendment provides no mechanism for resolving such questions.
      Secondly, the amendment would add undesirable delay to the making of the first regulations by imposing a 40-day period after the draft regulations are laid before Parliament, during which time either House can approve amendments. If an amendment were passed during that period, fresh regulations would have to be presented and a further 40-day period would apply. That process could continue indefinitely. I have already made it clear that it is desirable to have the loan scheme in place at the earliest practical moment so that students can take advantage of it. Undesirable delay should not be agreed to.
      Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5 would keep this cumbersome arrangement in place for all future regulations as well as for the first set, and would apply the affirmative resolution to them as well. For the reasons that I have given, I would not wish to see this unnecessary and wasteful process of amendment applied to future regulations. The Government accept Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but we invite the House to disagree with the Lords on amendment No. 5 and to reject Opposition amendment (a).
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Andrew Smith: We had much debate in Committee on the need for the affirmative resolution procedure on the regulations. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that were advanced there. It is worth underlining that that matter is especially important when debating a Bill such as this, which contains so little detail about the administration of the scheme. Much is being left to regulations and that makes it all the more important that the House and the other place should have a meaningful opportunity to shape those regulations.
      The Lords amendments represent a Government concession made under acute pressure. They conceded to the arguments that we advanced in Committee, in the House and in the other place and that is welcome.
      1266
      However, they have not gone nearly far enough towards providing proper opportunities for democratic involvement and public input into Parliament's deliberations on the formulation of regulations that shape the way in which the scheme is to operate.
      The affirmative resolution procedure should operate for each set of regulations and not merely for those introduced in the first year. The Government's proposal falls considerably short of the concession that Lady Young and her Conservative and Cross-Bench sponsors believed that they had won in the other place. In reply to Lady Young, Lord Caithness said:
      "We accept the principles behind the amendment of my noble Friend Lady Young."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 1990; Vol. 516, c. 1322.]
      Lady Young had made it clear that those amendments were intended to cover three areas. Those were: the arrangements for the Student Loans Company to make loans, which were subject to no parliamentary scrutiny under the Bill as drafted; the making of any orders to amend in the first year the list of courses for which loans will be payable; and the financial regulations and other details that were already under the negative resolution procedure.
      Despite the apparent concession by Lord Caithness, on the basis of which those amendments were withdrawn, his amendment brought forward on Report in the Lords covered only the second and third areas. It did not cover the arrangements for the Student Loans Company to make loans. Therefore, it was deficient in that respect.
      The other Lords amendments result from the narrow and welcome victory secured in the other place by Earl Russell.
      Mr. Jackson: By a majority of one.
      Mr. Smith: That was a narrow majority but it was nevertheless a majority.
      The amendments succeeded in inserting an ingenious procedure that has been used in the past. It would effectively give both Houses the opportunity to do that which the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on 5 December said that he thought that the House itself had the power to do. He said then that it would be open to the House to amend the regulations, but subsequently recognised his error.
      The ingenious procedure proposed by Earl Russell would enable both Houses to amend the regulations by requiring the drafts to be submitted for a 40-day period, within which either House could pass a motion commenting on the terms of the regulations. If any motion were passed that would require the regulations to be amended, the Secretary of State would be required to withdraw the regulations and re-lay them. The procedure is a simple but effective way to scrutinise the detail of regulations without necessarily going as far as rejecting them in principle. There is considerable merit in that ingenious procedure and we think that it should apply not only to the first regulations but to all subsequent regulations. That is why amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 5 proposes the deletion of the word "first".
      The Opposition and many people outside the House regard the Bill as an affront to democracy, and the improvements that the Lords have succeeded in extracting from the Government would undoubtedly reinsert a small but welcome democratic opportunity for input from both

      1267
      Houses and from the general public and interested parties. Therefore, we commend amendment (a) to the House. We welcome the Government's concession and ask hon. Members to vote to improve it so that we can improve democracy and remedy one defect in a very defective Bill.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: If I understood my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science correctly, he asked us to disagree with Lords amendment No. 5. That is a pity, because, although the Bill is extremely short, it gives enormous power to the Secretary of State and transforms the whole system of student financing. I have the greatest possible trust in my right hon. Friend as an individual. He is an extremely good Secretary of State and an honourable and sound man. I do not say that to flatter him because he knows that I do not go in for the flattering of Ministers. However, when passing legislation one must consider carefully that my right hon. Friend will not be Secretary of State for ever. I hope that he will go on to higher things; he merits them and I am sure that he will earn them in due course.
      No Secretary of State should take to himself powers that he is not happy for others to have. That is why I have opposed several proposals during the past 10 years. There has been an unhappy tendency for Secretaries of State to take to themselves overriding powers and, in so doing, to tilt the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature.
      It is important for Parliament to have a say in this matter. If regulations are to be brought forward, they should be ones that can be fully debated in every possible sense and changed, and there should be ample time to do so. Although it is difficult for the layman to understand, amendment No. 5, which was passed in another place, is an extremely ingenious way of constraining the power of a Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be. I know that my right hon. Friend has tried hard to meet the wishes and listen to the doubts of those who are doubtful about the Bill, so it is a pity that he should ask the House of Commons to reverse an amendment passed in another place with strong all-party support. Conservative peers were very much to the fore in the debate and in the Lobby. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts about this, even at such a late stage.
      The Bill transforms the system of student finance. There are people outside this place, not just students but vice-chancellors and others, who are concerned about it. Only this morning I received a letter from a vice-chancellor who felt that what the House of Lords had done had gone a long way to remove his fears and anxieties, although he still retained some. It would be most unfortunate if we rejected what the other place has done, bearing in mind the objective expertise there. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not ask us to disagree. If he does, I fear that I cannot agree with him.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I declare an interest as an adviser to the Association of University Teachers, although I have had no communication with it on the subject of the amendment.
      Like the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I am still hoping that the Government will be persuaded of the merits of the case put by the House of
      1268
      Lords on amendment No. 5. The reason for my hope is that, in time, the Government seem to come round to my view. Amendment No. 4, which the Government accept, is precisely the amendment I moved in this place on Report and which the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), stoutly resisted. His resistance bore all the marks of tactical resistance, not resistance to a principle.
      I do not believe that, in the ensuing weeks, the Ministers suddenly became persuaded of arguments which had not been obvious to them in the first place. The arguments on the issue in amendment No. 4 are so obvious that the negative procedure of the House is a completely inadequate means of dealing with a major issue. It guarantees no debate or parliamentary proceeding. I believe that the Government decided that they had to have a tit-bit for the Lords and some concession that they could offer in another place. Therefore, with great dispatch, when Lady Young moved the amendment, the Government leaped to their collective feet and announced that they were willing to accept the amendment, which is a compromise.
      The amendment ensures that the first time that the scheme is brought forward it is the subject of affirmative procedure, which guarantees that there will be a vote in this place and a debate, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House—I think that it would be on the Floor. It was a compromise, in that I and others, including the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), believed that all the regulations should be subject to affirmative procedure. It was a reasonable suggestion in the spirit of compromise, and I am glad that the Government accepted it. It means that, the first time that this major scheme comes forward, we are guaranteed at least a vote on it.
      7.45 pm
      At that time, all of us said that we needed more than merely a vote. When something so major, which one would expect to be the substance of a Bill, appears before the House in the form of regulations, we should have the opportunity to amend anything that is wrong with it. That was the reason for amendment No. 5, which was moved in another place by Earl Russell. Although it was a Liberal Democrat amendment, it attracted wide support from Members of all parties and it carried the day, albeit with a small majority. If the Government get a majority of one tonight, they too will be satisfied because a majority of one is enough.
      Amendment No. 5 is important because it ensures, not just for this House, but for the other place, that when the scheme is brought forward, if there is something wrong with it, the fault can be put right. The Minister is not talking about the real world when he suggests that the amendment is unnecessary, because the scheme can be brought forward and, if there is something wrong with it, Members can vote it down and the Government can take it away, make changes and bring it back again. Can the Minister remember when that was last done? I certainly cannot.
      I know what will happen: the Minister will come before the House with a scheme which will be shown to be defective, at least in some particular—it may be a small but important one. The Minister will say, "I recognise that hon. Members have raised an important point, which we would like to get right, but if the House does not pass the proposal tonight some students who do not get a grant will

      1269
      not receive a loan. If the scheme is not put on the statute book straight away, hardship will be caused. It is too late to take away the regulations and bring them back, amended, another day. We shall look at it for next year. However sensible hon. Members think their points are, it would cause undue delay and hardship to introduce an amendment at this stage."
      Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman sounds as if he is rehearsing.
      Mr. Beith: Indeed, I am offering the Minister the script which I know he will have to use on that occasion. I guarantee—if I were a betting man, I would put money on it—that he will have to say something like that when the scheme is brought forward.
      Anyone who has experienced the recent poll tax debates will know that Ministers have had to make changes on specific issues. An announcement has been made in the past few days that the Government will have to introduce retrospective legislation on caravan rating because, within the legislation they have put forward, they will be unable to achieve the effect which they intended. That sort of thing happens all the time, and it will certainly happen in this instance, when it will be not just the details but the substance of the scheme that is put forward in regulations.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Before my hon. Friend came into the Chamber, there was a debate on the guillotine, in which just such an argument was anticipated. The Secretary of State's greatest argument for the guillotine and for curtailing debates on the amendments was that we should get on with the legislation if the students are to receive their grants by the end of this financial year and the beginning of the new student year. That was exactly the argument used today, and the Secretary of State will undoubtedly be told to use that argument again if the amendment is rejected by the House.
      Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend is right, and I know that other hon. Members agree. How much better it would be to have a procedure for amendment there and then. The Minister says that it is not possible to build in such a requirement, but it is possible and it is done. I have moved amendments to census orders arising from the Census Act 1920, under which orders providing for a census are subject to amendment. I have moved just such an amendment, and the procedure set out in the Lords amendment is on similar lines.
      If the procedure were in place, the regulations would be much more likely to be properly drafted in the first place. I do not think that the Government will want them to be amended. If the Minister wants to induce a spirit of efficiency and care among his civil servants on this issue, he will find no better mechanism than the certainty that the Government will face the amendment of their regulations. He will find that I have been his ally when he discovers that his civil servants are far more zealous than ever before in their attempts to get the regulations right and consult everyone because they know that there is a serious risk that the Goverment will be exposed to the embarrassment of having the legislation amended.
      There is a great deal at stake: the nature of the scheme, the manner of the repayments, the problems that will be faced by students having to repay these loans, and the rules of eligibility—not to mention all the administration. It is important that we be given the opportunity to get those
      1270
      things right. The procedural difficulties are not insuperable obstacles. On previous occasions this House and the other place have had to work out mechanisms for dealing with amendments to orders. A whole passage in "Erskine May" on page 546 points out that
      "If the two Houses differ in their amendments, machinery must be improvised for reconciling the differences".
      So such amendments have been successfully dealt with in the past, and the procedural obstacles are not real.
      The overwhelming case is that we are are enacting by regulation a major scheme that will affect the lives of large numbers of young people. If we are to get that right, it is surely far better that we be able to do what we can do with normal legislation—bring forward amendments. They might even be Government amendments. During the passage of this Bill we have seen how the Government have had to recognise as they go along that some of the legislation was wrong, or how they have wanted to respond to advice that they have received. It would be open to the Government to use the amending procedure that we are recommending here.
      I do not see how we can go on showing parties of east Europeans around the House and sending out people to eastern Europe, where countries are developing new democratic Parliaments, telling them to see how we run the show, given our legislative arrangements under which we cannot amend a scheme as fundamental as that for student grants. My noble Friend the Earl Russell proposed a perfectly sensible and well precedented way of allowing amendments, and the Government should accept his method. If they are unwilling to do so, I shall invite the House to affirm its support for this principle—
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I invite my hon. Friend to reflect that, above all in the context of this Bill, the Government should be minded to accept the amendment. The Bill was launched on the basis that it would be supported by the banks. Something went wrong and the Bill's proposals had to be completely rethought. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that the Government should have understood by now that it is rarely possible to get such measures right first time —the more so on this measure.
      Mr. Beith: I have never thought that the Secretary of State was the sort of Minister who thinks that he always gets it right first time. He has always struck me as the sort of man who is prepared to listen to arguments. So I have put an argument to him, and I ask him to reflect on his own experience in this and other matters and to realise that a subject as large as this should come to the House in amendable form. That is the substance of the amendment, and I believe that he and the House should accept it.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: During the debate on the timetable motion, I argued that our debates should be allowed to continue because they would touch on issues that will affect people in future. This debate would have had more sense if it could have gone on longer. The ideas that we need to thrash out and formulate should be legitimately debated, and we should be allowed a procedure which was not only subject to affirmative resolution but allowed amendments.
      I almost missed this debate because I slipped out after the timetable motion and the debate on Lords amendment No. 1 lasted only five minutes, which made me wonder why we had spent three hours discussing the guillotine motion when, instead of skipping through some of the

      1271
      amendments, we might have had more time to deal with others and find out the Government's attitude to them. It would be interesting to hear the Secretary of State explain the Government's attitude to the various proposals in the amendments and to hear what they accept and what they reject. It would have done us no harm to hear such an explanation on the timetable motion.
      Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State shouted out that a Lords amendment had been carried by just one vote. That was indicative of the Government's attitude—they have a vast majority, but they do not like admitting to the weight of opinion behind decisions which go against them. One vote is perfectly adequate—if it were not, we might as well pack up and disappear.
      Mr. Cormack: As the hon. Gentleman will well remember, Lord Callaghan's Government fell on one vote.
      Mr. Barnes: I remember that very well. The Government fell because Tom Swain, the former Member for Derbyshire, North-East, was killed in a motor accident in the constituency that I now represent. But for that accident, the vote would have been tied and, in accordance with precedence, the Government could have carried on for a while—although for how long is another matter.
      Mr. Jackson: I made the point about the majority of one not to disparage a majority of one, which is perfectly acceptable, but as an ironic comment on arguments advanced earlier during the guillotine motion debate when the Government were reproached because our majority fell on occasion to 40.
      Mr. Barnes: That is significant because the Government have a majority of 150 over the Labour party and a majority of 100 over all parties combined. It would be of great significance if this amendment were agreed to by a majority of one—it would say something about the Government's position in connection with the Bill, and about their general difficulties.
      We need an amendment of this type because of the nature of the legislation. This terrible measure of enabling legislation does not enable us properly to debate the items that will form part of the scheme. The legislation is so empty that, when the scheme was turned upside down by the banks' withdrawal, it did not cause a ripple in the Government. That proved, not that the Government had it right or that the Bill was compatible with anything, but that the Bill had run into serious constitutional, parliamentary and procedural problems.
      The Secretary of State said that there could be some difficulty with the Lords amendment if the two Houses differed in their attitude to proposals that the Government brought forward. But "Erskine May", on page 546, points out
      "If the two Houses differ in their amendments, machinery must be improvised for reconciling the differences".
      So we should not be perpetually bouncing back and forth waiting for fresh proposals from the Government; the Government could get together with their Lordships—the other place is not so far away—to try to resolve such issues. If that proved cumbersome, awkward or unusual, it would be due to the Government's having brought forward legislation of this sort. The other place has
      1272
      attempted to overcome some of those considerable difficulties and its efforts would be further assisted by our amendment.
      The affirmative procedure, which can be amended, is essential, for example, in relation to Northern Ireland measures, and this measure is particularly important to Northern Ireland. Nowhere in the United Kingdom will be more affected by the measure than Northern Ireland because of the percentage of the population there involved in higher education and its higher participation rates for people with working-class backgrounds and women compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, Northern Ireland has a significant interest in the measure.
      But when the House debates measures which extend legislation to Northern Ireland we are allowed only one and a half or three hours. When we debated the extension of the Education Reform Act 1987 to Northern Ireland we were allowed only three hours. Yet that measure contained 167 clauses and 10 schedules and its principles went beyond the Education Reform Act—for example, in its measures encouraging education for mutual understanding. Without those new principles it could have been dealt with by a negative procedure and there could only have been a debate on a prayer which would have dragged it on to the agenda for us to discuss. We do not want to be in that situation in this legislation which makes the position of Northern Ireland worse. For them we should learn from some of the procedural niceties to be found in "Erskine May", some of which were employed in the other place and gave rise to the amendment.
      Enabling legislation which requires measures only to be rubber-stamped makes it essential that the two Houses of Parliament should between them try to discover procedures whereby the Government can be put on the right track even if the measure itself is not correct. I hope that the Government will change their mind on the amendments.
      8 pm
      Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) referred to exchanges that took place in another place on whether or not the affirmative resolution should apply to administrative arrangements. We took the view that we were amply fulfilling the commitment that the noble Lord gave in relation to making the affirmative resolution apply to the regulations.
      The administrative detail of the scheme is subject to the normal processes of scrutiny by various other parliamentary methods. The Secretary of State will be responsible and accountable for the use of the funds that are required for the administration of the scheme, and he must secure them through estimates agreed to by Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee will be able to inquire into the efficient administration of the scheme, and we have also promised to publish the company's annual report.
      The Bill deliberately makes the terms of the scheme which affect individuals enactable through regulations and subject to the usual form of parliamentary scrutiny, which we are discussing now. It is right to leave the details of administration, which is a different matter, subject to the mechanisms that I have just described, and not to go into the need for a further layer of scrutiny that would be involved in the affirmative procedure on administrative issues. If we start to think about some of the

      1273
      administrative issues, we see that they are inappropriate for the affirmative procedure. They include such things as contracts of employment for employees and so on. Therefore, we rightly fulfilled our commitment.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to amendment No. 4. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I listened carefully to the debate on that amendment, which we thought was rather ingenious and which dealt with the point that on the first set of regulations there was a greater issue than in subsequent amendments. We were tempted to respond positively during that debate, but we felt that we needed some time for reflection to see whether there were any snags that we had not thought of before we agreed to the amendment. Therefore, we took it away and used the opportunity of the debate in the other place to accept the principle of it. It is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman that he clearly impressed us with the arguments in the debate.
      I regret that I cannot say the same about the arguments that we have heard tonight on amendment No. 5. There are a number of problems. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for his kind words and I want to make a point that I hope he will make to his vice-chancellor who felt that the Bill had been considerably improved in the other place. It is important to note that we are accepting most of the amendments from the other place, so if they are improvements, as we agree they are, they have been included in the Bill.
      My objection to amendment No. 5, in addition to those that I have stated, is that it would involve a considerable change to the normal affirmative procedure that deals with regulations. The Census Act is unusual. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made an interesting point when, by a slip of the tongue, he referred to student grants and the negative resolution procedure. In fact, the negative resolution procedure does apply to the regulations for student grants. We are going further in having the affirmative resolution for the first set of regulations. We were originally basing our approach on the student grant system, and the student loan arrangements have pretty well the same implications for a large number of students —the changes in regulations that one might wish to make from time to time—as student grants. There is a clear and direct precedent for what we are doing.
      The hon. Gentleman made the point that it will be necessary from time to time to make changes to regulations, and I accept that. We have said clearly that we shall be reviewing the scheme each year and we would expect to make changes to regulations from time to time. But that is a normal process. The flexibility that we have to do it through regulations gives us, as I have constantly said, the benefit of being able to make those changes quickly.
      Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend is dealing with the matter with his customary courtesy, but does he accept that much hardship can be caused in a year? I believe implicitly that my right hon. Friend wants to improve on matters that have gone wrong, but how much better it would be to improve them before they went wrong.
      Mr. MacGregor: We shall obviously be looking carefully at all the reviews and listening to many points made by colleagues in the House as well as others outside before we make any regulations. I hope that there would
      1274
      not be real hardship as a result of a delay from one year to another. I am not persuaded that having a special procedure, as this would be, to apply to those sets of regulations, allowing amendments to be made as they go through the House, would necessarily make that any less likely to occur. I hope that it will not. But it is not unknown for regulations to be wrongly drafted and for other regulations to follow quickly. I have myself, sometimes with some irritation, seen that happen.
      But the most important point, apart from the one that I have already made, is that the amendment involves a considerable change to the normal affirmative procedure. Some hon. Members may like to see that. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) in relation to Northern Ireland. But it would involve a significant change in the normal procedures of the House, which we should not make lightly in one Bill.
      The regulations that we shall be carrying through are similar to a range of other Government schemes where affirmative or negative procedures apply to regulations. In my previous capacity as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I had to take regulations through the House on a considerable number of Government schemes. That is a perfectly normal process and that is what should apply here. Therefore, I stick to my view and invite the House to accept Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but to disagree with amendment No. 5 and amendment (a).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
      "(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the draft to be amended the Secretary of State shall withdraw the draft and shall prepare a draft in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.
      (8) No resolution shall be passed by either House of Parliament under subsection (7) above in respect of a draft after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft was laid before that House; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
      (9) If, on the expiry of the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (8) above, no resolution requiring amendment of the regulations has been passed by either House of Parliament, the draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
      (10) Where the Secretary of State withdraws a draft under subsection (7) above, he shall lay an amended draft before Parliament and the amended draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
      The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 198.

      Division No. 160]

      [8.10 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Atkinson, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Allason, Rupert

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Amess, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Amos, Alan

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Benyon, W.

      1275

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hague, William

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hannam, John

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Harris, David

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bowis, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hill, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bright, Graham

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

      Holt, Richard

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Burns, Simon

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

      Burt, Alistair

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Butler, Chris

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Butterfill, John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cash, William

      Irvine, Michael

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Chope, Christopher

      Jack, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jackson, Robert

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Janman, Tim

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Conway, Derek

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Key, Robert

      Couchman, James

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Cran, James

      Knapman, Roger

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

      Knight, Greg Derby North)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knowles, Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lang, Ian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dunn, Bob

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Durant, Tony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Evennett, David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Fallon, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Forman, Nigel

      Malins, Humfrey

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mans, Keith

      Forth, Eric

      Marland, Paul

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Marlow, Tony

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Freeman, Roger

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      French, Douglas

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Fry, Peter

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gale, Roger

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gardiner, George

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mellor, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Mills, Iain

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gow, Ian

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mudd, David

      Gregory, Conal

      Neale, Gerrard

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Grist, Ian

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Ground, Patrick

      Norris, Steve

      1276

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Page, Richard

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Paice, James

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Sumberg, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Summerson, Hugo

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Pawsey, James

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Portillo, Michael

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Price, Sir David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Redwood, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Trotter, Neville

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Viggers, Peter

      Rost, Peter

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Waller, Gary

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Ward, John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Shersby, Michael

      Watts, John

      Sims, Roger

      Wells, Bowen

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Whitney, Ray

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Speller, Tony

      Wilshire, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Steen, Anthony

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stern, Michael

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      NOES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Corbett, Robin

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cormack, Patrick

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cousins, Jim

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Crowther, Stan

      Battle, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cummings, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Beith, A. J.

      Darling, Alistair

      Bell, Stuart

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

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

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dewar, Donald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dixon, Don

      Blunkett, David

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Boyes, Roland

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Bradley, Keith

      Eadie, Alexander

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Eastham, Ken

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Buchan, Norman

      Faulds, Andrew

      Buckley, George J.

      Fearn, Ronald

      Caborn, Richard

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

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Foster, Derek

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foulkes, George

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Fraser, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Clay, Bob

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Clelland, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      1277

      Gordon, Mildred

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Gould, Bryan

      Morley, Elliot

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mullin, Chris

      Hardy, Peter

      Murphy, Paul

      Haynes, Frank

      O'Brien, William

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Henderson, Doug

      Patchett, Terry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Home Robertson, John

      Prescott, John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Randall, Stuart

      Howells, Geraint

      Redmond, Martin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Reid, Dr John

      Hoyle, Doug

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Richardson, Jo

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Robertson, George

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Illsley, Eric

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Ingram, Adam

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Salmond, Alex

      Kennedy, Charles

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kilfedder, James

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Short, Clare

      Knox, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lambie, David

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lamond, James

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

      Leighton, Ron

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Snape, Peter

      Lewis, Terry

      Spearing, Nigel

      Litherland, Robert

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Livingstone, Ken

      Stott, Roger

      Livsey, Richard

      Strang, Gavin

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Straw, Jack

      Loyden, Eddie

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McAllion, John

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      McCartney, Ian

      Turner, Dennis

      McGrady, Eddie

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Walley, Joan

      McLeish, Henry

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Madden, Max

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Marek, Dr John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wilson, Brian

      Martlew, Eric

      Winnick, David

      Maxton, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Meacher, Michael

      Worthington, Tony

      Meale, Alan

      Wray, Jimmy

      Michael, Alun

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Mr. Matthew Taylor.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 4

      SHORT TITLE, CITATION, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 2, line 38, after "2" insert
      "and, as respects institutions in Northern Ireland, the power to make regulations under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2").
      Mr. Jackson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Lords amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 13, leave out from first "to" to "loans" in line 15 and insert
      "take such steps (whether by the issue of certificates or otherwise) as may be prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of, or in connection with, applications by those students for".
      Amendment (a), to amendment No. 11, at end insert 'but before doing so shall consult any persons with whom consultation appears to the Secretary of State should be desirable: and subsequent changes to these regulations shall be subject to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974'.
      No. 12, in page 4, line 15, at end insert
      "including the provision of information when a person ceases to be an eligible student."
      No. 13, in page 4, line 28, leave out "discharging functions" and insert
      "having the function of making loans".
      No. 14, in page 4, line 43, leave out "discharging functions" and insert
      "having the function of making loans".
      No. 15, in page 4, line 45, leave out "functions in relation to" and insert "the function of making".
      Mr. Jackson: Amendments Nos. 6 and 15 concern the role of the academic institutions in the scheme. In practice that role is limited—but knowing the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his taste for detail, I shall specify what it is.
      The institutions will identify students, certify their eligibility for loans, certify the level of loan to which the student is entitled, hand forms to students, keep copies of documents for audit purposes, and inform the company if a student leaves a course prematurely. Institutions are not to be involved in the application process. Students will apply for a loan direct to the company, by post. All further communications will be between the student and the company.
      We aim at ensuring that loans reach eligible students quickly and efficiently and at striking a balance between the work involved for the institutions, the responsibilities that rightly fall to the individual student, and proper protection for public money—which is a very important consideration. We believe that the proposed certification and application process meets those objectives.
      I recognise that Parliament is interested in the question of payment to the institutions. Education departments are discussing certification and application processes with the institutions. An initial meeting was held yesterday at which payment was on the agenda, and we shall make an announcement to the House in due course. We shall work closely with the institutions, as we always do.
      The company and the institutions have a mutual interest in developing an effective working relationship that benefits students and taxpayers. It is correct to take a general power on the face of the Bill. We were invited to do so by the vice-chancellors and directors of the polytechnics, and we have done so in a form that gives us flexibility to make minor changes if they are needed in the future.
      It is correct also to set out the precise role of the institutions in regulations, and to let Parliament debate those regulations when they are first made. Therefore, I commend those amendments to the House.
      I cannot do the same in respect of amendment (a), which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will

      1279
      speak to. Discussions are already taking place between education departments and representatives of institutions, and the Government have already said that they are willing to make payments to institutions. Costs were discussed at yesterday's meeting with representative bodies, so amendment (a) is unnecessary. I urge the House to reject it.
      Mr. Straw: I am glad to see that we are joined for this part of the debate at least by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who is campaign organiser for the leadership aspirations of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West was absent from our earlier debate on the timetable motion, when I was able to quote his sage words about the comparisons between this fandango of a scheme and the poll tax.
      The Secretary of State referred at the end of his speech on the timetable motion to remarks by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and tried to insinuate that it supported the scheme.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It supports the principle.
      Mr. Straw: I presume the hon. Lady means the principle, not principal—but in no sense does that committee support the principle of the scheme.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Willl the hon. Gentleman at least admit that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is in favour of a loans scheme, supplemented of course by grants?
      Mr. Straw: The committee has spoken only in general terms about a scheme under which those who benefit from higher education should make a contribution towards it. That is not the principle of a loan, but it is a principle to which we can all subscribe. I happily subscribe to such a concept, which is why I support the principle that people who earn more should pay more through taxation.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is wriggling.
      Mr. Straw: I am not wriggling. I am standing firm. It is the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who are wriggling. They both tried to insinuate that the Commitee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is behind the scheme, but in fact it fully opposes the scheme. That is why the Government had to introduce amendments in another place.
      Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening, because I was careful to say that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals subscribes to the principle of what I quoted from the Committee's own document. I agree that it was not the student loans scheme, but the principle. It had been advocating a form of graduate tax, and I have set out on several occasions why I think that that is not an acceptable way forward.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Straw: I am not surprised that the Secretary of State is in trouble with the scheme, if he does not understand the difference between this loans scheme and a
      1280
      scheme of graduate tax, and there is a world of difference between the principles involved. The principle of a graduate tax is that what people pay back is not related to what they receive by way of maintenance support while they are at university or college. It is related solely to their income after they have graduated.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Even if they graduated abroad?
      Mr. Straw: I leave aside the question whether they graduated abroad. Even if they graduated at Lancaster university, they would, under a graduate tax, receive grant support related to their income position and that of their parents at the time when they went on that course. What they paid by way of a tax would relate to their income thereafter. The two would not be related. There is a complete distinction between a graduate tax, which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is supporting, and the Government scheme, and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West—the same can be said of his choice of leadership candidate—is aware of the difference.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals does not distinguish those who—such as a couple of sons of mine—graduated abroad. They would be paying graduate tax although they had not received the benefit of a university education in this country. That could happen to any number of people who went abroad, who would still be paying, unjustly, not having received the benefit of a university education in this country.
      Mr. Straw: Should a graduate tax ever come before the House, I would agree with the hon. Lady that she had a strong point. Although I would have to think about it, I would almost certainly be on her side in saying that those who received their higher education completely outside this country, and for whom the taxpayers here had not paid a penny piece, would find it unjust if they then had to pay the graduate tax.
      Dr. Keith Hampson: I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is supporting. I thought, from what he said on an earlier amendment, that he was supporting the position of the vice-chancellors. The principle of their scheme is related to income—the fact of having higher education means that one will have a higher tax rate because one has had the privilege of higher education. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that?
      Mr. Straw: I am not supporting the position of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I was offering some education and illumination—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Ah.
      Mr. Straw: —to the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary about the difference between what the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals was proposing and the Government loans scheme, because it is dissembling in the extreme to suggest that the vice-chancellors are supporting even the principle of the Government scheme.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The position of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has been clear from before the Bill until now. It is that the vice-chancellors have always accepted the principle that those who

      1281
      graduate should contribute to society consequentially. But they have always strongly opposed the principle that people should have to borrow, in whole or in part, before and during the time that they undertake their education at universities and colleges. They take that view because they regard the latter as a deterrent and the former as no deterrent but, rather, as a fair way of recompensing for academic rewards attained.
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The best sign of the fact that the vice-chancellors do not support the Bill is that they have refused to co-operate with the Bill unless forced to do so by law. The provisions that the Government have been forced to put into the Bill are in amendment No. 11 from the other place. That gives the Secretary of State power to require institutions to administer part of the scheme. The vice-chancellors, polytechnic directors and other college directors have made it crystal clear in terms, in writing to the Secretary of State, that they would not co-operate unless they were forced to do so, and that is why we have the Government proposals now.
      The Under-Secretary tried to give what he described as some detail about the administrative arrangements that were being proposed by his Department, with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and he said that in due course the House would be informed. He said that because of that, and because it looked as if a hunky-dory scheme with the vice-chancellors was on the road, there was no need for our amendment, which picks up the wording of amendment No. 11, but adds that it should not operate
      "before consultation with, and the provision of full compensation for, the institutions concerned."
      As his Department has already given more detail to the press than the Minister has given to the House, it might be helpful if I read out the detail that is being offered.
      It is proposed that for each student who fills in, and has certified by a university or college administration, a Student Loans Company form, the institution concerned should receive the princely sum of £3·50. Whether that is an adequate sum for all the training of staff that will be required and for the administration of the system and the certification remains to be seen.
      I have with me a wonderful letter from the chairman of the Student Loans Company—the chairman of a nationalised board; I hope that it is being reported to the Prime Minister that she has presided over the nationalisation of a body that was to be wholly in the private sector—with a most felicitous choice of wording. Mr. Vereker writes:
      "I also explained that Ministers have decided that the maximum payment per eligibility certificate will be £3·50, but that this will be subject to an incentive regime."
      What a choice of words—a regime involving incentives. He continues:
      "I offered you a choice of incentive regimes … a regime rewarding a high rate of correctly completed forms, whereby institutions would receive £3·50 for each form if 80 per cent. of the forms received in a given period were correct, but £2 per form if the 80 per cent threshold was not met, or …a regime rewarding correct completion and penalising incorrect completion, whereby institutions would receive £3·50 for each correctly completed form and nothing for incorrect forms."
      After that choice of incentive regimes, the veritable Mr. Vereker goes on:
      1282
      "We agree that you and the others represented would endeavour to reach a consensus as to which of these incentive regimes you would prefer, and let me know in writing by the end of the week … But"—
      to make it clear that it is a fatuous choice—in other words, no choice at all—
      "I stand ready to convene a further meeting if that would he helpful … I recognise that institutional representatives may not reach agreement among themselves on which incentive regime is to be preferred, in which case Ministers reserve the right to decide."
      It is clear that the time of senior officials is wasted, as a result of this crazy scheme, on devising incentive regimes by which institutions shall receive £3·50 for each form if 80 per cent. of them are received in a given period, but £2 for those which are incorrect, or £3·50 for each correctly completed form, and nothing for incorrect forms.
      One wonders whether a standard assessment test will be established, to decide whether a form is correct or incorrect, and whether true facts will be specified in an order laid by the Secretary of State, with attainment targets—Mr. Vereker says that there probably will be attainment targets for the completion of forms. Probably, the view of the School Examinations and Assessment Council will be sought before final decisions are made on whether a form has been filled in correctly.
      We believe that if this onerous requirement is to be placed on institutions, they must be adequately compensated for it and they must be properly consulted. The Secretary of State cannot deny that people should be consulted. Indeed, the letter from Mr. Vereker says—
      Mr. Jackson: We are consulting people.
      Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary says that the Government are. I expect that he also does not wish to deny that there should be proper compensation. If he denies neither, why can we not have a requirement for consultation written into the Bill?
      One other aspect of this set of amendments, which has vexed Opposition Members a great deal, is the reference in the Bill, through amendment No. 6, to Northern Ireland. It is well known in the House—it is not necessary for me to repeat it now—that large chunks of legislation have to be pushed through by affirmative resolution. Measures that would take days, weeks or months if they referred to England, Scotland or Wales are allowed an hour and a half. For example, we had the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was discussed for one and a half hours on 30 December—
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Three hours.
      Mr. Straw: Yes, three hours. That order contained 167 paragraphs and 10 schedules and was almost as large as the Education Reform Act 1988, but it was pushed through the House in less than an evening. All that can be said for the present statutory provisions on Northern Ireland is that there have to be affirmative resolutions before legislation relating to Northern Ireland comes into force. In the Bill, the provisions, including amendment No. 6, mean that the Secretary of State is able to introduce the student loans system into Northern Ireland simply by a negative resolution. That is wholly unacceptable and insulting to the people of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary, as he anticipated that I would be, for giving us some information. One of the great battles during the

      1283
      various stages of the Bill has been to obtain information. That we have had to wait until the last possible moment—literally—before we get some information is consistent with the practice of the Government.
      I have two comments to make on the substantive administrative issues, and one comment on Northern Ireland in relation to this group of amendments.
      As the Under-Secretary will probably acknowledge, it was just the sort of information he supplied on the involvement of institutions that we have demanded from the beginning. We asked what the work of universities, polytechnics and colleges would be. Clearly it took a long time to work that out. It is helpful that at least it has been recognised that there needs to be a framework for the work done by the institutions, and it would have been helpful if we had been supplied with that information at the beginning of parliamentary debate on the Bill.
      The most important point that remains to be discussed is that alluded to by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—recompense for institutions. The institutions have consistently gone on record as opposing the Bill. They have never resiled from that position. They are against the Bill and they believe that it is detrimental to higher education. The parliamentary private secretary shakes his head, but he well knows that the institutions have consistently said that. [Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)—he is not a parliamentary private secretary, but he was in Committee, and he is sitting behind the Minister. We have clearly understood that that is the case throughout proceedings on the Bill.
      The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals made it clear, none the less, that as they would be required by law to carry out certain duties obviously they have no choice but to obey. The Government responded by saying that they realised it was not a scheme that the Committee liked but that they were going to impose it, in spite of advice to the contrary, and that they would legislate to ensure that the institutions could not escape from it. Therefore, the issue of financial recompense remains. I hope that during the present negotiations—whether they are conducted by the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary or another Minister—they will recognise that the institutions must be properly paid for the functions that they are to perform.
      The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) seems to think that academic Britain is wallowing in unusual and unique extravagance, but that is not the case. She thinks that it is suddenly the recipient of Government largesse, the like of which it has never seen before. One only has to ask. Any vice-chancellor or principal will say that they are particularly strapped and that there are many things that they cannot do, not least in research and postgraduate work. They cannot afford to make a contribution to the running of a student finance scheme, when in the past they have not had to make a contribution.
      Under the present regime it is the local authority which administers grants that students apply for, and the institutions do not have to play a part in that. The Bill proposes a quango. One of the extraordinary features of the student loans scheme is that the Government are effectively setting up a nationalised company to carry out the scheme. The Bill will also require universities to carry
      1284
      out extra tasks. I hope that the Government will recognise that it is important that the institutions must be properly recompensed. My noble Friend Lady Seear and many others in the other place put that point across as stongly as they could.
      8.45 pm
      As the Department of Education and Science is thinking of compensating universities, it might be nice if they passed a message to their friends in the Department of the Environment suggesting that it might compensate local government which is having to administer the poll tax without being granted adequate money to do so, particularly in the light of yesterday's announcement.
      One amendment in this group relates specifically to Northern Ireland. It is logical that there is an amendment that says that, if the Government want to legislate for Northern Ireland, they have the same facility to introduce secondary legislation for Northern Ireland as they do for the rest of the country. It would be illogical if that were not the case. There may be comments from colleagues representing Northern Ireland on this issue. Throughout the passage of the Bill in both Houses, there has been no enthusiasm, as far as I am aware, for the proposals in Northern Ireland from either institutions or students. Therefore, I expect that there will be opposition tonight to the idea that we should give Parliament and Government the wherewithal to legislate for Northern Ireland.
      The view of the institutions, the students and all those consulted so far in Northern Ireland is as strong as it ever was. They believe that the scheme will be particularly harmful to them. Like Scottish institutions, they consider themselves as having a particular problem and in many ways being particularly vulnerable. It is a pity that the Government did not listen to their words of warning. I hope that institutions in Northern Ireland as well as in Scotland will not suffer too harshly as a result.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: I agree with what has been said about students from Northern Ireland. I say "from Northern Ireland" because many of them are educated on this side of the water and that interchange works in the other direction too, and the Ulster Unionists party has always encouraged that.
      I reinforce the plea that students in Northern Ireland should not be further disadvantaged because of the peculiar arrangements we have for governing Northern Ireland from this place. This is not the time to engage in a history lesson on how we came to be in this difficult situation. When direct rule was imposed as a temporary measure 18 years ago, Northern Ireland legislation was moved down one peg. Primary legislation became secondary, and secondary went into third place and so forth. That has deprived Members of this House, whatever constituency in the United Kingdom they represent, of the opportunity to scrutinise Northern Ireland legislation in the way that we are entitled to do.
      The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) properly drew attention to the vast volume of education reform legislation for Northern Ireland. He referred to the fact that it has to be dealt with in three hours and that it cannot be amended. Even if we had been able to convince the team of Northern Ireland Ministers on the Treasury Bench that there was a misprint in line 14, they could do nothing about it. That illustrates how futile the exercise is.

      1285
      The hon. Member for Blackburn also said that if that volume of Northern Ireland legislation had been Great Britain legislation it would have taken weeks rather than just three hours to go through the House. However, I commend to Ministers a simple device. All that they need to do when they next introduce a Bill dealing with education or any other matter is simply to insert a clause which specifies that, when the Bill becomes an Act, it will apply to Northern Ireland. Then we should not have to sit up late at night debating an Order in Council which in most cases contains exactly the same provisions as those which have been passed by the House for Great Britain.
      Some hon. Members, some of whom are here tonight, have written in their constituency magazines how frightfully boring it is to be have to here late at night listening to the Irish drivelling on about Orders in Council. If they were to apply a little pressure to the business managers, I suggest that they would be relieved of that tedium late at night. We should be happy to engage openly—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Who said that?
      Mr. Molyneaux: I do not want to name names, but I can identify some hon Members who are present who have said precisely that.
      Let us put an end to such nonsense. We shall not then need the admirable amendment which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Blackburn and his hon. Friends
      Given the injustice that arises from such a peculiar system for governing Northern Ireland, I hope that the House will support the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). We do not want to place a further hurdle in the paths of those who legislate for Northern Ireland and of those hon. Members who have the privilege of attempting to scrutinise the legislation.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware from his reading of the Standing Committee proceedings that we sought to incorporate the principle which he supports: that legislation should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. However, in this case we tried diligently to ensure that the legislation did not apply to Northern Ireland because it is an unpopular measure. We succeeded on the first count but, unfortunately, not on the second. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would have been better had we succeeded on both.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who served on the Committee and who did their best to look after our part of the United Kingdom.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There are few hon. Members in the Chamber. I simply cannot believe that any of my colleagues who are here would have made the discourteous remark which the right hon. Gentleman has alleged. If he will not say who said that, he casts aspersions on us all.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I undertake to convey in private to the hon. Lady the identity of the hon. Member whose article I resented.
      I hope that the same diligence will be shown if any attempt is made to introduce the poll tax to Northern
      1286
      Ireland. The Government have not yet succeeded in applying it there. One of the reasons may be the difficulty of finding volunteers to collect it in Crossmaglen.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: I should be surprised if Conservative Members criticised our debates on Northern Ireland. Among those who are here, I do not see any who attended the numerous hour and a half or three hour debates on Northern Ireland. I should welcome the involvement of more hon. Members in Northern Ireland debates, despite the fact that they are held late at night and that no amendments can be made to Northern Ireland orders. The position of Northern Ireland was dealt with in Committee and on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Scott) introduced amendments on Report.
      Mr. James Pawsey: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Conservative Members who have had some contact with Northern Ireland, perhaps as parliamentary private secretaries in the Northern Ireland Department, acknowledge freely the valuable contribution that Northern Ireland Members of Parliament make to our debates? We also acknowledge the quality of education in the Province—but there, of course, they have retained the grammar schools. We could learn a lesson from that.
      Mr. Barnes: My point is that the quality of Northern Ireland debates and our understanding of its problems would benefit from the participation of many more hon. Members in our late night debates. If more hon. Members discussed economic and social developments in Northern Ireland and the daily bread-and-butter issues of Northern Ireland politics, we might be able to make a significant contribution towards the solution of the problems there. The House is full only when a dramatic terrorist outrage is being discussed. There is great concern about student loans because so many working class people and women in Northern Ireland take advantage of education. Their increased participation ought to be welcomed.
      When the amendments were moved by the Minister, he did not refer to Lords amendment No. 6. It was a general introduction. Nevertheless, this is an amendment that deals specifically with Northern Ireland. Clause 4(4) refers to the fact that, apart from subsection (2), the Bill will not extend to Northern Ireland. Subsection (2) refers to the fact that Northern Ireland will not be allowed to use the affirmative resolution procedure, which would automatically lead to an hour and half debate. Only the negative resolution procedure will be allowed. It would therefore have to be forced on to the agenda, presumably by Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, if they so wished.
      The Government intend to stick the student loans provision on to Northern Ireland. They said that a further debate on Northern Ireland matters would not be needed because Northern Ireland was already covered by the earlier measure. So quite a strange arrangement exists which just assumes that when a particular piece of legislation is passed it will go for Northern Ireland as well, although Northern Ireland is specifically excluded from the coverage of the Bill.
      It is an unfortunate arrangement. Apart from the problems of not being allowed in the House to amend resolutions and orders on Northern Ireland, if there are to be certain areas that are just ruled out because it has already been assumed that the decisions coming from the

      1287
      Department of Education and Science on this occasion are exact replicas of what has been produced before, we will be in a strange procedural position as regards Northern Ireland. That is not unusual on this Bill.
      When the amendment is added to the subsection that I read out earlier, it would read:
      "Except for section 2 and, as respects institutions in Northern Ireland, the power to make regulations under paragraph 2 of schedule 2, this Act does not extend to Northern Ireland."
      So there is to be another bit that is to extend to Northern Ireland.
      As I understand it, and as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) outlined it, the problem was that it had not been realised that many students from Northern Ireland studying in another part of the United Kingdom would require student loans under these provisions and were not being catered for by the legislation. Someone had missed this out. It had been overlooked, despite the fact that we had had no timetable provision. We had gradual development through Committee and full debate and discussion in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading, and still it had not been discovered that Northern Ireland was not included. It should not have been for Opposition Members to produce an amendment on this.
      Quite a good arrangement could exist whereby, if Northern Ireland students in Northern Ireland, perhaps temporarily, were not operating under this law but under grant provision, those who came to England, Wales and Scotland to study should maintain their grants under it as well.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Member agree that it is a matter of regret that parents who pay full rates at the level deemed appropriate in Northern Ireland are adversely treated when their children attend universities on the mainland and, in addition, are now required to pay poll tax?
      9 pm
      Mr. Barnes: A very strange situation exists with regard to poll tax. We are talking about operations equivalent to local education authorities and their provision of grants and now also the operation of loans. We have a different system of funding local government, or the equivalent of local government, provisions that exist in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. It may be that the Government will discover as they go along, if they are not going to give the advantages, as they see them, of the community charge to Northern Ireland, that they are in some kind of inconsistency. They may, therefore, not want to introduce exactly the same provisions for Northern Ireland students going to Northern Ireland universities as they are now placing on other Northern Ireland students attending universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. They could yet be in a constitutional conundrum.
      What I strongly object to is the assumption that a measure to be brought before us on some future occasion will be an exact replica of the measure now in front of us and that therefore other amendments have to be made in order to fit in with the legislation at this stage, so that the whole thing will work together within some general
      1288
      pattern. There is something nonsensical in the way in which we deal with Northern Ireland measures, which I referred to on earlier amendments, when there was a possibility that we could have had in front of us a procedure for student loans where proposals put before us would not just be dealt with by affirmative resolutions but could be amended by us. There would be some sense in that being added to Northern Ireland legislation, and perhaps a useful start could be made with regard to student loans.
      Mr. Jackson: May I first join the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in welcoming the presence in the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). The whole House knows of his great interest in these matters. If I may take this opportunity, I would like to say how much I appreciate the support that he has given to our proposals.
      Mr. Straw: I wonder if the Under-Secretary is trying to invite the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West to ensure that he is borne in mind under a Heseltine administration.
      Mr. Jackson: I would not dream of allowing such considerations to enter my mind.
      I was amused by the hon. Member for Blackburn's hair-splitting about the difference between principles and principals. It reminded me of the old crack about the collective noun for a collection of vice-chancellors being a lack of principals. The hon. Gentleman referred to the principle of loans, but the vice-chancellors are on common ground with the Government in affirming that graduates should make payments in respect of their maintenance over and beyond their normal tax obligations. We are all agreed—and Opposition spokesmen in another place were agreed—on the fundamental principle of the anticipation by students of some of their future earnings as graduates.
      Northern Ireland has been the subject of some misconception during the debate in the remarks of the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Southwark and Bermondsey, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). Amendment No. 6 does not introduce the loans scheme into Northern Ireland as has been implied; it is purely and simply a consequential amendment which flows from the other amendments, but that is not what appeared to be understood by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East.
      Amendment No. 6 is consequential on the other amendments which introduce various conditions in relation to institutions. We are requiring Northern Ireland institutions to certify institutions originating from Great Britain. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, that is a logical implication of the votes in both Houses to include students at Northern Ireland institutions within the scope of the Bill.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: If I have not understood what was being said, perhaps the Minister can explain a bit more clearly. I was arguing that if people from Northern Ireland study in England, Scotland or Wales, some institutional arrangements are needed in the same way as for other students. Is that the case?
      Mr. Jackson: Having served with the hon. Gentleman on the Standing Committee, I am afraid that he tempts me to say that I am not sure that he would benefit from an explanation.

      1289
      I noted the rather discouraging remarks from the hon. Member for Blackburn about the idea of incentive regimes. The hon. Gentleman should start to learn about such ideas. I understood that it was Labour party policy now to be converted to the idea of market economics. When he investigates that idea, he will find that the concept of income incentive regimes is a natural one.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: While we are learning about incentive regimes, if the Minister thinks that it is worthwhile to pay £3·50 to institutions for every correctly completed certification form, how much will he pay institutions for each completed application for access funds and for the processing of those access funds, which will cost a great deal more than certifying students for eligibility loans?
      Mr. Jackson: There were many occasions on which the Standing Committee went into seminar mode, but the House would not thank me for doing that now, because we want to press on with the amendments.
      Mr. Straw: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Jackson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      I noticed that neither the hon. Member for Blackburn nor the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, with whom it is always such a pleasure to debate, gave any ground for dissenting from our assessment of £3·50 per student account as an appropriate sum. The hon. Member for Blackburn also confirmed that the Government are consulting the institutions. In the circumstances, I construe that as an admission that the amendment is unnecessary and I recommend accordingly that the House rejects it.
      Mr. Straw: I should like briefly to refer to our amendment to Lords amendment No. 11. If hon. Members were in any doubt about the need to write into the Bill a requirement for the Government first to consult and then to pay full compensation for operating the ramshackle scheme, those doubts would be allayed entirely by the complete failure of the Minister to answer a simple and direct question from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I am not allowed to refer to the officials in the Box, but if the Under-Secretary looks to his left he will notice that someone is scribbling an answer to be passed to him. If he wishes to intervene, I shall allow him to read the answer.
      Mr. Jackson: I did not answer the question because I am interested in making progress. The question related to a matter that is not the subject of any amendment before us.
      Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary is wrong. The matter relates to Lords amendment No. 11 and to amendment (a) to that amendment. The regulations will require the institutions to administer a scheme to which they object. Amendment (a) provides that there should be full consultation and compensation before the regulations come into force. The Under-Secretary showed that he has not even thought about the need for compensation in respect of one important aspect of the operation of the Government's new policies on student maintenance—the access funds. How will the universities and colleges be compensated for operating those funds?
      Mr. Jackson: Of course the Government have thought about the point. Lords amendment No. 11 does not refer to consultation or to compensation for work connected with the access funds.
      Mr. Straw: Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 11 refers to consultation on and compensation for operating the student loan scheme. Throughout all the debates, the Government have endlessly sought to provide a fig leaf for their indignity and embarrassment about the scheme by referring to the loans scheme. The UnderSecretary cannot have it both ways—parading the access funds when it suits him, but when it does not, pretending that they are not part of the scheme. The only justification that he has been able to give for the removal of housing benefit, which we do not accept, is the existence of some measly access funds, which will barely compensate for the loss of housing benefit at even one university.
      I hope that the House will reject Lords amendment No. 6.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:
      The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 191.

      Division No. 161]

      [9.12 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Allason, Rupert

      Conway, Derek

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Amos, Alan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Couchman, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cran, James

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Atkinson, David

      Day, Stephen

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Devlin, Tim

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dicks, Terry

      Baldry, Tony

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dunn, Bob

      Bellingham, Henry

      Durant, Tony

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Benyon, W.

      Eggar, Tim

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Evennett, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fallon, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bottomley, Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Forman, Nigel

      Bowis, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Forth, Eric

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brazier, Julian

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bright, Graham

      Freeman, Roger

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

      French, Douglas

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fry, Peter

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gale, Roger

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gardiner, George

      Burns, Simon

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Burt, Alistair

      Gill, Christopher

      Butler, Chris

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Butterfill, John

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gow, Ian

      Carttiss, Michael

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Cash, William

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gregory, Conal

      Chope, Christopher

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      1291

      Grist, Ian

      Mudd, David

      Ground, Patrick

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hague, William

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Norris, Steve

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hannam, John

      Page, Richard

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

      Paice, James

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Harris, David

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Pawsey, James

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, James

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Portillo, Michael

      Holt, Richard

      Price, Sir David

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

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

      Redwood, John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Rost, Peter

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Ryder, Richard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Irvine, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Jack, Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Jackson, Robert

      Sims, Roger

      Janman, Tim

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Speller, Tony

      Key, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Knapman, Roger

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Stern, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Knowles, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lang, Ian

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sumberg, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      McCrindle, Robert

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Maclean, David

      Thornton, Malcolm

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thurnham, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Tracey, Richard

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Tredinnick, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Trotter, Neville

      Mans, Keith

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marland, Paul

      Viggers, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Walden, George

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Waller, Gary

      Mellor, David

      Ward, John

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mills, Iain

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Watts, John

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Wells, Bowen

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Whitney, Ray

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Wilshire, David

      1292

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wood, Timothy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Tom Sackvile.

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      NOES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Allen, Graham

      Grocott, Bruce

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hardy, Peter

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Haynes, Frank

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Henderson, Doug

      Battle, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Beggs, Roy

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Beith, A. J.

      Home Robertson, John

      Bell, Stuart

      Hood, Jimmy

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hoyle, Doug

      Blunkett, David

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Boyes, Roland

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bradley, Keith

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Illsley, Eric

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ingram, Adam

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Buchan, Norman

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Buckley, George J.

      Kennedy, Charles

      Caborn, Richard

      Kilfedder, James

      Callaghan, Jim

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lambie, David

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Lamond, James

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lewis, Terry

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Livsey, Richard

      Clay, Bob

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Clelland, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McAllion, John

      Cohen, Harry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McCartney, Ian

      Corbett, Robin

      McGrady, Eddie

      Cousins, Jim

      McLeish, Henry

      Crowther, Stan

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Madden, Max

      Darling, Alistair

      Marek, Dr John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Doran, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Eastham, Ken

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fearn, Ronald

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

      Fisher, Mark

      O'Brien, William

      Flynn, Paul

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Patchett, Terry

      Foster, Derek

      Pendry, Tom

      Fraser, John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Prescott, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Gordon, Mildred

      Radice, Giles

      Gould, Bryan

      Randall, Stuart

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Redmond, Martin

      1293

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

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

      Reid, Dr John

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Snape, Peter

      Richardson, Jo

      Spearing, Nigel

      Robertson, George

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Stott, Roger

      Rooker, Jeff

      Strang, Gavin

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Straw, Jack

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Salmond, Alex

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Turner, Dennis

      Short, Clare

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Walley, Joan

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wareing, Robert N.

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

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      "(1A) The maximum amount prescribed under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above for the loan to be made to a student in any year shall not exceed—
      (a) the amount specified as the ordinary maintenance requirement for students of the class of description to which he belongs by regulations having effect for that year under section 1(1) of the Education Act 1962 (mandatory awards); or
      (b) if no such amount is specified for students of the class or description to which he belongs, such amount as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for students of that class or description having regard to the amount specified as mentioned in paragraph (a) above;
      but regulations, other than the first, made under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above may prescribe a higher maximum if a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), leave out lines 13 to 16.
      With four debates to get through in one hour and 13 minutes, under the draconian guillotine procedure, I shall be brief.
      Lords amendment No. 7 concedes that which the Government would not concede in Committee or in the House previously, that incorporated in the legislation should be the requirement that the loan amount should not exceed the operative amount of grant, thereby setting the 50:50 parity between loan and grant.
      So far, so good. The bad aspect of the Lords amendment is contained in the lines which our amendment proposes to delete, which state that a higher maximum may be prescribed if a draft of the regulations is
      "laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
      That contradicts the concession given in the Lords by saying, albeit through affirmative resolution procedure, that the proportion of the loan could be increased. That is important, because we have always protested that the Government intend not merely to have a top-up loan scheme, but a loan scheme which supplements, and then supplants, grants.
      The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) gave the game away in the debate on the guillotine motion—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: She is very unrepresentative.

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Worthington, Tony

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilson, Brian

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Allen McKay

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      LOANS FOR STUDENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 3, line 40, at end insert—
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Smith: She is about as unrepresentative as the right-wing lunatics who have been advising the Government all the way through this steady march towards education depending on ability to pay rather than ability to benefit.
      It is because we believe that the ability to benefit should be the criterion for access to higher education that we wanted the Government to accept the full spirit and wording of the amendments initiated by our noble Friends in the Lords, and it is why we wish that they had not added in this opportunity for a higher proportion of loan to be brought in by secondary legislation under the affirmative procedure.
      If this top-up loan scheme is truly a scheme, as the Government have said, based on parity between loans and grant, they should be prepared to accept that definition in the primary legislation and recognise that further primary legislation would be necessary to change it. By conceding only what they have conceded, the Government have given away their real intention to go further down this slippery slope and make access to higher education depend on ability to pay. That is wholly unacceptable to us and to most of the public.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The only comment I want to make about the sedentary disclaimer about the views of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and their representatives of the Tory party is that Conservative politicians who represent Essex constituencies always seem to be the most hard-line brand of Toryism personified. If anyone wants to hear liberal views about education I suggest he stays away from the boundaries of Essex. I do not know what the poor people of Essex have done to deserve such a collection of right wingers as they enjoy now and have enjoyed in the past—
      Mr. Pawsey: And they have huge majorities.
      Mr. Hughes: Sadly, as the hon. Gentleman says, some of them do. As the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) reminded us, they include among their number another candidate for the Tory party succession—the right hon. member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
      I support the Opposition amendment. The Lords amendment was passed because the Government would not concede the principle that, when the regulation was drafted, it would not allow loans to go up beyond 50 per cent. There is so much opposition to the principle that loans should exist at all, let alone that they should go up to 50 per cent. of total funding for students, that it would have been enough to hold the line at that. The consensus in another place was that, if it was Government policy to change the system of fully funded student grants so that only half of students' funding came from grants, that should at least be written into the Bill. It would have been preferable if the last lines of the Lords amendment had been amended to take account of that.
      One of the great concerns that has not been allayed throughout all our deliberations is the fear that, if students are required to decide to go on to higher education but to borrow to fund it, that in itself will prove a disincentive; and the greater the borrowing, the more of a disincentive it will prove.
      If the Government argue that applications this year are up, as they are, those who do not believe that loans will be a disincentive should remember that that increase is on the basis of a grant system and that, even if there is only a small, although noticeable, effect on the scheme at the beginning, it could become more damaging the higher the percentage of money loaned in relation to the grant.
      No member of the Committee, including Ministers, could discover one country that has gone from a grant system to a grant and loan system. Therefore, there is no precedent for the argument that a loan system, even in part, would not be a disincentive. If our argument that it will be a disincentive proves wrong, we shall admit it, but Ministers should not take the risk. That is why the proposal is flawed.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said, it is strange that the Government should accept the need to write into the Bill that, in the fulness of time, the 50:50 parity proposal will come into being, yet in the same amendment provide to allow that to be changed without going through the process of primary legislation.
      We are talking about a significant number of students who would be affected if the legislation were in place today. I elicited from the Department of Education and Science the fact that almost 40 per cent. of all students currently studying received the full mandatory award. Some 151,000 students in universities, polytechnics and other higher education institutions will be dramatically affected by the proposal.
      Mr. Jackson: They will have more money.
      Mr. Griffiths: Some will have more money, but they will have to pay the money back. Moreover, the Minister and his colleagues have consistently refused to tell us how many students currently receive housing benefit of more than £420 a year, as the loan is planned to be in the first year, and the £310 it is planned to be in the last year. They
      1296
      have refused to give that information, because the likelihood is that thousands upon thousands of students will be worse off.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman says that students will have to pay back the loans, but he omitted to mention that they will not have to pay back anything until they are earning £11,500, which, compared with the income of some of those who will be contributing to their education, is a substantial income.
      Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Lady is leading me down a path which is not covered by the amendment. However, anyone who chooses to study for a degree, given that they have reasonable qualifications at GCSE and A-level, will have already sacrificed earnings in excess of £50,000 at current rates by the time that they receive their degree. That is the sum that they could have earned by taking a job at 16 or 18. In British Steel, British Gas, Marks and Spencer plc, W. H. Smith and Son, Ltd. or local government, between 16 and 22 an employee would have earned over £50,000. Therefore, people studying at university will experience a loss in real income because they will lose the full grant.
      With the passing of time, the grant will have only 50 per cent. of its value, and the rest will be made up by a loan which they will be expected to pay back. That is an additional burden which students have not had. Given the fact that the Government will place an additional burden on students when they go into employment after university—
      Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. His courtesy is always appreciated; I mean that sincerely. Does he not accept that the global value of social security payments in one form or another is about £68 million, whereas the total value of the loan is about £200 million? Therefore, students will receive a substantial additional amount in resources. While I acknowledge the fact that some students will be worse off, we have the access funds. As we have heard from my right hon. Friend, £20 million will be available to help students who are in difficulty because of the loss of housing benefit. Students will be much better off in real terms because of the amount of resources being made available to them, so the hon. Gentleman's argument is threadbare.
      Mr. Griffiths: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's point is that, at the moment, it is all hypothetical. We do not know exactly how students will be affected. We do not know how many students who currently receive the full mandatory award will be deemed to be eligible for money from access funds, nor do we know how much they will get, or what the difference will be between the mandatory award which a student currently receives, plus payments like housing benefit, and what he will get in future. The Government cannnot even tell me how many students will be worse off—
      Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is not denying the figures.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am not denying any figures. All I am saying is that it amazes me that a Conservative Member can talk with such confidence about the number who will be better off because of the increase in access funds, given that over 150,000 students receive the full mandatory

      1297
      award, when the Government cannot tell us how many students will be adversely affected by the introduction of the loan scheme and the loss of housing and other benefits.
      The lack of information gives us no confidence in what the Government are trying to do. It is an experiment for a large part of the population on whom we will depend for our well-being and our success in world markets. I am surprised in one way that the Government insist on including in the amendment the ability to vary the figure later without primary legislation. In one sense it astonishes me; on the other hand, when I remember that, previously in his ministerial career, the Secretary of State was in the Treasury, it does not surprise me.
      In the White Paper, there was a wonderful catalogue of tables based upon an inflation rate of 3 per cent. into the next century. We remember too that all the calculations were done on the basis of a student population which did not alter. Given all that, we wonder why this provision is in the Bill. It can only be to make it easy to vary the amount later.
      It is as though, last June or July, at a private meeting between Treasury and Education Department officials, the Treasury said, "The scheme is costing much more than the Department ever thought, and the Treasury cannot really afford it. You will have to cut, and the only way of doing that is by increasing the size of the loan, and thereby get more money back from the students as soon as their course is finished."
      Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the country as a whole has a serious problem with growing debt, and that we should as a matter of principle oppose encouraging young people to incur debt for any reason?
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Griffiths: I entirely agree. Given that the Prime Minister herself has said so much about how bad it is for people to get into debt, it is surprising that she now encourages them to do so.
      That part of amendment No. 7 that allows the Government to vary the limit without recourse to primary legislation must have the purpose of allowing the Government to reduce the grant, increase the loan and cut costs—which are already running headlong out of control.
      I hope that the Government will have the good grace —I know it is late, and that everyone wants to go home —to withdraw the amendment. The Under-Secretary has a gentle smile on his face, and I hope that it is one of agreement.
      Mr. Jackson: I hope that I may be allowed to chide the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). He made an excellent contribution in Committee, becoming very involved in all the debates, but he seems to have forgotten about annex D to the White Paper. If he studies that annex, he will find that his arguments about income forgone are completely refuted. At one stage, it seemed as though the hon. Gentleman had learnt that White Paper off by heart. That was a noble exercise on his part. If he will return to it, he will see that his point is met.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: Is that the same annex that suggests that there will be no increase in student numbers past the year 2000?
      Mr. Jackson: The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) is mixing up his annexes. Annex D presents economic analysis of the difference between personal and social rates of return from higher education.
      The Government amendment places on the face of the Bill the provision that a student's maximum loan facility should not exceed his or her maximum grant. It is similar to a probing amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), Oxford, East and Manchester, Blakeley (Mr. Eastham), so I inferred that it would be generally acceptable. In any event, the Government have always made it clear that, when the loans scheme reaches maturity, the value of the loans and the grant will be broadly equal.
      We recognise the concern expressed in another place that statutory provision is required to lend weight to the Government's intentions. We have produced an amendment that meets that concern and retains sufficient flexibility to allow future Governments to respond to changing circumstances without fresh primary legislation. If one assumes an inflation rate of 3 per cent. between now and then, that point will not be reached until 2007. If inflation reaches 6 per cent., that point will be reached a couple of years earlier. We shall not reach the 50:50 stage until a long time ahead—several Governments away from the present Government. In fact, we may get to it at about the time of the first Smith Administration—by which I mean, of course, the Andrew Smith Administration.
      The amendment allows the loan and grant balance to be altered beyond the 50:50 ratio, but only subject to explicit parliamentary approval. The loan regulations, which would otherwise require the negative resolution procedure beyond the scheme's first year, would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure if they were to involve a loan facility exceeding the value of the grant. That, we believe, would allow that first Andrew Smith Administration the flexibility to build on the success of our student loans scheme if it was felt appropriate to do so, but to do so in line with proper parliamentary scrutiny.
      Mr. Mike Watson: Does the Minister accept that, if the scenario that he is suggesting comes to pass and the loan accounts for more than 50 per cent. of maintenance, the Government will effectively have misled the House and the general public by calling the scheme top-up loans for students? They will not be top-up loans, because they will be more than 50 per cent. He cannot have his cake and eat it.
      Mr. Jackson: I refuse to join the hon. Gentleman in speculating about this long-distant horizon. I believe that the scheme will be a great success and that it will be possible for that Smith Administration, in perhaps the middle of the first decade of the next century, to consider how to take the matter further forward.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Are the Government ever surprised when people accuse them of wanting to do things that they pretend they do not want to do—in other words, of having a hidden agenda? It is not surprising that people do not believe the Government when they say that loans will be only 50 per cent., and then write into the legislation a provision saying that they can be more than 50 per cent. Why do Governments bite off more than they can chew and always ask not just for the cake but for something in addition?
      Mr. Jackson: I am not surprised. After all, Opposition Members are ingenious in finding hidden agendas, even if they have to invent them. The electorate are more sensible and see through such contentions. They saw through them at the last three general elections, and they will do so again.
      The Labour amendment to the amendment would remove the element of flexibility which we wish to leave in place for the benefit of the Smith Administration by requiring primary legislation before the loan facility could exceed the grant value. We think that that would be a waste of parliamentary time. We are thinking about the situation down the track. The affirmative resolution procedure is, we believe, sufficient and ensures that the regulations that would be found unsatisfactory by either House could be voted down.
      Question put and negatived.
      Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: Because, for reasons given at the start of the debate, Lords amendment No. 8 imposes a charge on the public revenue not authorised by a resolution of the House, under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 76, the Lords amendment is deemed to be disagreed with.
      Lords amendment: No. 9 in page 4, line 10, at end insert—
      "(4) Regulations made under this paragraph shall allow special conditions to be set in respect of repayment of loans for disabled students or graduates."
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, amendment (b) at end insert
      'taking into account the loss of social security benefits to deaf students whilst eligible for loans'.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient at the same time to discuss amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, at end insert
      ', and shall be subject to approval of both Houses of Parliament'.
      Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment, in page 3, line 40, at end insert—
      '(1B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall make such separate provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate with respect to the repayment of loans by borrowers who are disabled.'.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: The Opposition amendments are designed to strengthen the Lords amendment, not least in respect of some of the most needful of students who are deaf. I congratulate the other place on its achievement in carrying out the intentions of the amendment to which I spoke for the Opposition on Report in the House of Commons.
      In this House, the Minister expressed sympathy and gave a half-promise of eventual support. The Lords were no more content with ministerial statements than my hon. Friends and I were here, but they were able to vouchsafe the interests of disabled students in the Division Lobby.
      I know that Baroness Darcy de Knayth and Lord Henderson of Brompton were especially instrumental in winning the day and I thank them, as well as my noble Friends in the other place, for both the humanity of their concern and the success of their advocacy.
      One financial consequence of disability is the reduced earning power of many disabled graduates, compared with their non-disabled colleagues. In some cases, disabled graduates will remain unemployed and will be unable to repay a loan. Others will earn less and may be burdened by
      1300
      a loan for longer than their non-disabled colleagues. Sadly, all too many disabled graduates fail to find work or succeed in finding only low-paid employment.
      The report on disability in Great Britain from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that only 31 per cent. of all disabled adults of working age are actually working. That compares with 69 per cent. of the population as a whole. The ratio for men is even worse —33 per cent. compared with 78 per cent. Those findings shout the need for the action taken by the other place.
      The Government's own record, in terms of jobs offered to people with disabilities, is among the worst of all employers. How many registered disabled people does the Department of Education and Science employ? Again, is the Secretary of State aware that the earnings of disabled people who find work, in whatever employment, are substantially lower than those of non-disabled employees? Even many disabled people in better financial circumstances have to spend all their disposable income on the extra costs arising from their disability.
      The Government tend to dismiss the claims of organisations of and for disabled people about the extra costs of disabled living. Yet there are right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who know, from close contacts with their disabled constituents, that the Government's own estimates of the extra costs of disabled living do not match the real costs of disabled people. The fact is that they find it extremely difficult to make ends meet. It may well be that a disabled person will never be able to repay a loan because of the generally lower earnings of disabled graduates. If their earnings are never likely to exceed the 85 per cent. threshold, it is not fair to expect them to have an increasing debt, in cash terms, held against them until it is cancelled when they reach the age of 50 or 60.
      There is another important matter that I must raise in the debate. It concerns the Government's intentions in regard to young people who have become disabled after they graduate. How does the Minister intend to approach their problems? Are they to be pursued for the repayment of loans? I have been approached by a number of organisations whose members are deeply concerned about the Government's intentions in regard to people who become disabled after they leave places of higher education. I hope that the Secretary of State, in his reply, will state clearly the Government's intentions as they affect such people. They will suffer the same difficulties, in terms of employment, as other disabled people. They will have the same financial problems. What assurance can the Minister give about the problems that they face?
      Time is strictly limited, due to the guillotine. I ask the Secretary of State to appreciate that there is still some uncertainty about his intentions about disabled students. They are looking tonight for a reassuring ministerial statement. I press the Secretary of State to respond positively to their concerns.
      10 pm
      Mr. Alistair Burt: When the Bill was in Committee, both I and other hon. Members moved a series of amendments relating to disabled students. I listened with great care to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I disagree with his suggestion that the Government did not listen to the views of those who represent disabled people. The Minister with

      1301
      responsibility for higher education was at pains to speak to those who put forward the case on behalf of disabled students, in particular deaf students, and suggested that further consideration would be given, either in the other place or at another stage, to the points that they had made.
      I have made a note of several things that have been done since the Committee, which have given effect to those promises. First, the disabled are now specifically recognised in the Bill. That is provided for in Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 9. Secondly, we asked that the access funds should be increased. We recognised that disabled students might want to have access to those funds for their own purposes. A recent announcement has boosted the access funds. That will help disabled students. Thirdly, on 19 March 1990 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a number of announcements about increases for disabled students. The basic disabled students allowance is to be increased by 30 per cent. in 1990–91.
      In addition, another £3,000 will be made available for specialist equipment and £4,000 will be made available for non-medical helpers. That is a direct result of the pressure applied by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, to which I pay tribute for the care and concern with which it presented its case on behalf of disabled students. The Government also responded to the representations that were made by hon. Members on both sides in Committee, on this difficult and sensitive subject.
      We were deeply impressed by the case put to us by deaf students about the difficulties that they face when they enter higher education. They have to overcome considerable hurdles. Those difficulties are not faced by other students. Deaf students also experience difficulties while going through higher education because of the equipment and non-medical assistance that they need, such as interpreters. I believe that the Government have listened to their case. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I did not say that the Government refused to listen to the organisations representing disabled people. However, they have refused to respond to their concerns. The Lords amendments were carried in spite of, not because of, Ministers' attitudes. I hope that tonight there will be a statement which will reassure those organisations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins me in making that request to the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Burt: I go part of the way with the right hon. Gentleman, but I still hold that the Government's response was a little more genuine than he is prepared to concede. The Government's response in the other place showed that more clearly than the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.
      Mr. John Hannam: My hon. Friend may recall that, on Report, I tabled amendments to help disabled students throughout their period of study and during the repayment period. The Minister with responsibility for higher education accepted the purpose of the amendments and gave an assurance that he would take the necessary steps when the Bill was considered in the other place.
      Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will comment on that when he speaks.
      1302
      I understand that draft regulations relating to disabled students' social security entitlement are presently being considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. That gives us a further opportunity to press our case on behalf of disabled students. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to do so.
      I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for the attention that he has given to this particularly sensitive matter. Perhaps he has not given us everything that we should have liked, but the Government have moved a long way from the Bill's starting point, when rather too little consideration seemed to be given to the needs of deaf and disabled students. These concerns were raised in Committee, however, and my senior colleagues have listened, and I believe that the Bill will provide the reassurance that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe genuinely requests. I hope that he will be reassured when my right hon. Friend comes to answer.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Like others who have spoken on this group of amendments, I intend to be brief because, like the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), I have spoken previously on the needs of disabled students, not in Committee because I was not a member of the Committee, but as far back as 20 October when we discussed the White Paper, and on Report in the House.
      In welcoming the announcements made by the Government, we must all pay tribute to the strength of feeling on both sides of the House and to the work of the organisations based outwith the House, which so effectively represent the needs of disabled people everywhere.
      If certain hon. Members tend to sound grudging, it is perhaps because many of us would have expected the Government automatically to give consideration to those students in the initial drafting of the Bill. It is sad that we have had to get over so many hurdles to ensure that those genuine needs are recognised.
      I have some brief questions to put to the Secretary of State, which I hope that he will be able to answer, particularly in view of the fact that we have not yet had detailed statements of the exact workings of the figures that have been announced. Can he tell us exactly how the funds will be administered? There is an important issue at stake. In Scotland, for example, will the regional education authorities, along with the Scottish Education Department, be involved in deciding how the funds are administered and how disabled students will have access to the extra money? It is not clear whether there will be a cash limit on the amount made available to disabled students. How will the priorities be decided? Who will take those decisions? That is vital to our students, because disability comes in many forms and requires different attitudes and treatment.
      I should like again to refer to housing benefit as it affects some of our disabled students. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have been unable to discuss amendments Nos. 8 and 10, which relate specifically to this issue, because of privilege. However, it has been pointed out, both in the other place and in letters that many of us have received from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, that, while housing benefit has been defined as continuing to be available to some disabled students, it will certainly not be available to all. A large number of disabled people who are

      1303
      not eligible for disability premium or severe disability premium will therefore not be eligible for housing benefit; yet housing benefit could be of key importance to disabled students in helping them to enter higher education or to continue their studies. Can the Minister clarify whether all students suffering from deafness, blindness, dyslexia, arthritis or any recognised disability will have the right to apply for housing benefit during the course of studies? Such a guarantee would receive a broad welcome from all the organisations involved in representing the needs of the disabled.
      While welcoming the announcements, I hope that the Secretary of State will give us further details, and perhaps tell us when the social security offices will be able to spell out in more detail the exact implications of previous statements. Will there be an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to discuss them with the Secretary of State? I certainly hope that he will make a public statement and allow us to debate the matter.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Lady agree that income support and housing benefit are in no way intended to meet the needs of disability, but are intended to meet the basic needs of living? Those benefits do not in any way meet the needs of deaf or otherwise disabled students, so additional benefits are required.
      Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman makes a clear point, and given his recognised knowledge of disability, I am sure that the Secretary of State will take it into account.
      I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the House is given full details so that we can consider the matter with clear minds and a determined attitude, to ensure that no disabled students are disadvantaged.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I, too, shall be brief.
      I join other right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the Government's moves to help disabled students, but let us not give the impression that it was an easy process. There was considerable debate in Committee and much lobbying behind the scenes, and, perhaps because of the way in which it is worded, the Government amendment, perhaps unintentionally, provides that the special conditions will apply only to borrowers who are disabled and not to those who were able-bodied when they borrowed the money but became disabled later, a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).
      I should like to mention a case to illustrate the essential need to consider disabled students and to take a decision, and to seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that, when assessing the income of disabled graduates, the Government will take fully into account that part of their income which is needed to cover the cost of disablement. The case also illustrates the inadequacy of the disabled students allowance. It involves a social work student in her second year at a midlands university. She is seriously contemplating giving up her studies and her ambition to become a social worker working with disabled people. She is 25 years old, she has cerebral palsy, is physically unable to write and has severe mobility problems.
      At the beginning of her course she had to spend £2,500 on an adapted computer with twin disk drive and original commands plus an adapter printer. In addition, she has had to find £90 a month to pay two part-time carers to
      1304
      drive her to the campus as that is the only feasible means of transport available. Out of a maximum of £765 disabled students allowance, which is now going up to £1,000, she has had to pay £350 a year out of her maintenance grant towards those extra costs. She will have those extra costs after she graduates and, hopefully, finds the employment to which she aspires.
      Will the Secretary of State assure us that disabled students' extra needs are taken fully into account when assessing their disposable income and the level at which they trigger off their repayments?
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I join the tribute paid to the concessions made by the Government and to the work of those who represent the disabled. They have made strong representations to all concerned and have persuasively made their case.
      It is sad that the amazing disadvantages in education faced by many disabled people have not been recognised. Anyone who has looked into the additional costs and disadvantages experienced by disabled people knows that considerable financial prejudice is suffered by anyone who is deaf, blind or physically or mentally disabled.
      10.15 pm
      I hope that the Secretary of State will answer hon. Members' questions, but I have a further question. Two issues arise from Government amendment (a) and Lords amendment No. 9 which I hope the Secretary of State will address. First, what are the implications of Government amendment (a) for people who become disabled later in life? Secondly, what does he intend by the phrase
      "Shall make such separate provision"
      as he considers appropriate?
      Separate provision may mean that mobility or attendance allowance is excluded from a disabled person's income for the purpose of calculating the method or time of repayment. If that is so, separate provision should be automatic, because attendance and mobility allowance should not be included. They compensate for other needs and should be discounted, as they are for tax purposes.
      I hope that that is not the meaning of Government amendment (a), because if it is it means that no concession is being made. I hope that it means that substantial other improvements will be made in the financial terms for disabled people. Unless the Secretary of State sets out the details, we shall be sceptical. I hope that he will give detailed answers and thereby allay the continuing concerns of those for whom this is probably the most important debate on the Bill
      Mr. MacGregor: I shall be brief, because I know that the House wishes to move to the other debates, but in so doing I shall endeavour to answer all the questions that have been asked.
      The Government accept the principle of Lords amendment No. 9, which was made on Third Reading in the other place. Government amendment (a) is essentially a tidying amendment.
      Lords amendment No. 9 is intended to enshrine in primary legislaton the requirement that regulations shall set out conditions for disabled people repaying loans, which are separate from the conditions set out for the generality of borrowers. There are, however, difficulties with the drafting of Lords amendment No. 9, which Government amendment (a) tidies. First, it clearly imposes a duty on the Secretary of State. That was no doubt

      1305
      intended by the other place, but the wording did not quite achieve that. The amendment needs tidying in other respects to remove the unnecessary reference to students who will not be repaying loans and to make it clear that the regulations should contain this separate provision. Those points are covered accurately by the Bill and do not affect the substance of what we are trying to do.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) for pointing out that the Government have already responded. In a parliamentary answer on 19 March, I responded to several points that had been made about disabled people. The right way to proceed was to listen carefully to debates and then to respond. That partly answers the point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). He referred to disabled people not working in subsequent years or receiving low incomes, but they will not have to make repayments during those years. Those on low incomes will be fully covered by the arrangements that apply to everyone else.
      On 19 March I announced particular provision for disabled people: that there will be separate repayment arrangements for borrowers, which will take the form of a disregard of disability-related benefits for the purpose of assessing a disabled graduate's income for deferment.
      Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. MacGregor: I shall answer the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe first. He and other hon. Members asked about people who become disabled after graduation. The plan to disregard the disability-related benefit income of disabled repayers will apply at the time of the repaying if at that time the individual is disabled. Therefore, it will apply to those who become disabled subsequently.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: How will a young man or woman cope if, after graduation, he or she gradually becomes deaf or blind or suffers from a progressive disease? Will they be expected to repay their loans, although for the reasons I gave in my speech their financial problems increase as their working life proceeds?
      Mr. MacGregor: Such people will be expected to repay the loans if they have incomes which, after netting off the disability-related benefits, would take them into the income brackets where loans are repaid. They will have the advantage of netting off the disability-related benefits, which will make the appropriate difference.
      Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he has had any discussions with the Department of Social Security about the definition of disablement and say whether it includes those who are deaf?
      Mr. MacGregor: I know that this subject is being discussed in the Department of Social Security and that draft regulations relating to student social security entitlement are being considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is consulting widely. If hon. Members wish to make representations or points about these matters, they should make them to my right hon. Friend.
      The amendment does not affect the provision, because it will be included in regulations which will be subject initially to the affirmative resolution procedure. We are putting in the Bill a requirement to consider the needs of
      1306
      the disabled. Given the safeguard of inscription in the Bill, there is no need for the lesser safeguard contained in Opposition amendment (c), whereby such regulations would continue to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The provision in the Opposition's amendment (b) for deaf students would be misplaced in regulations applying to the timing and manner of repayment. Entitlement to benefit will have no bearing on the arrangements for top-up loans.
      The key points are these. Deaf students will have particularly extensive resources available to them, especially in view of our decision to enhance significantly the disabled students allowance, payable with the mandatory grant. That is my immediate rebuttal to the point made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. That allowance will go to deaf students. It has been increased by 30 per cent., as I announced on 19 March, and I hope that the House feels that that is a generous response to the previous requests and shows that we have taken note of points made during debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, not only is that an increase up to £1,000 for everyone, but in addition we have introduced allowances up to £3,000 for specialist equipment during a course and up to £4,000 for non-medical helpers. I hope that the House feels that these are important additions.
      I assure the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that the administration of the disabled students allowance, including the additional allowances, will be as now. They will be administered by the local education authority in England and by the Scottish Education Department in Scotland. There will be no cash limit. The disabled retention of benefits will be based on the disability premium criteria, subject to parliamentary scrutiny of the DSS regulations. Those regulations will come before Parliament in due course, which will enable further discussion to take place.
      Taken together, these are significant advances to help the disabled, including deaf students. They will enable deaf students to avoid building up additional debts as a result of disability, and I hope that the House will welcome them. I ask the House to accept the Government amendment in preference to that from another place and to reject the two Opposition amendments.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: I rule, as I ruled previously in respect of Lords amendment No. 8, that Lords amendment No 10 imposes a charge upon the public revenue not authorised by resolution of the House; therefore, under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 76, it is deemed to be disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 15 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 4, line 51, at end insert—
      "(8) No document sent in connection with loans under the arrangements by any such person or body as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above shall be regarded as sent with a view to financial gain within the meaning of section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (circulars to minors)."
      Mr. Jackson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical amendment for the avoidance of doubt. It allows the Student Loans Company to make information about the scheme widely available, including schools where pupils are thinking about undertaking

      1307
      higher education and higher education institutions where, of course, some students are minors. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made this matter of conveying information to everyone a top priority in his speeches in Committee. The amendment also enables the company to send loan agreement forms to students who are under 18 and who have applied for a loan.
      The Government always intended that students under 18 should be eligible for loans. We also intended that the scheme should satisfy the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 50 of that Act prohibits the sending of documents to minors with a view to financial gain, inviting them to borrow money or to apply for information or to get advice on borrowing money. That section is untested. The words are lucid, but the application is unclear. The crucial words in the amendment are
      "with a view to financial gain".
      The common-sense view, which I know hon. Members and the other place will take, is that the Student Loans Company Ltd. could not be construed as operating with a view to financial gain from loans. However, we have been advised that the courts might conclude that section 50 technically prevented the company from disseminating information about the scheme and from sending loan agreement documents to applicants. Of course it would have been quite wrong to allow the scheme to proceed in conditions of such uncertainty, and it is right to put it beyond doubt that, in sending information or invitations—
      Mr. Andrew Smith: The Minister is talking about sending out information. Has the law been broken by sending schools student loan information leaflets, thereby disseminating the information to people who are under 18?
      Mr. Jackson: I do not think that that could possibly be the case. We are talking about information on legislation that has not yet been enacted. The information was quite properly sent out under the rules that govern the provision of information following Second Reading. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was rightly eloquent about that matter. I can remember Opposition Members arguing in Committee that such information should be provided, and we have provided it.
      It would clearly be wrong to allow the scheme to proceed with such uncertainty and it is right to put it beyond doubt that, in sending information or invitations, the company is not acting with a view to financial gain. That is why I commend Lords amendment No. 16 to the House.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: The amendment is part of the shambles that results from the fact that the Government have not given proper thought to the Bill. We have come to a new matter for discussion, and the Minister introduced an amendment on that important matter 13 minutes before the guillotine motion expires. That is an indictment of the Government and shows the incompetent way in which they have handled the Bill from beginning to end.
      While the Government amendment from the other place attempts to get round the problems posed by the
      1308
      operation of the Consumer Credit Act, it does not really resolve the issue. It raises as many questions as it answers and, in the limited time available I shall list some of them.
      Are the information leaflets being sent out by the Government, and distributed through the schools, breaking the existing law? I have just put that question to the Under-Secretary, who did not answer it. The Government need to reconsider that matter. If someone signs up for the loan before they are 18, are they obliged to pay it back afterwards? I do not know, and the Government need to tell us.
      What of the position in Scotland, where many students commence their higher education before the age of 18? In the Bill, the Government have shown a despicable lack of regard for the Scottish interest in higher education—a disregard which they have shown from the outset, and show on all matters relating to Scotland. Is parental consent required for those under 18 to engage in the loans, and what is the position of students for whom it might not be forthcoming? Are guarantors required for those students taking out loans when under 18, and what provision is the administration of the scheme making for that?
      10.30 pm
      These are not minor administrative details, but important questions. It says a great deal about the incompetence and shambles which have characterised the Bill that they were discovered only at the last minute in the Lords and we are having to discuss them just nine minutes before the guillotine descends. In the Lords, Lord Peston said that such matters were all part of the danger of starting on the slippery slope of encouraging, virtually obliging, young people to go into debt to see themselves through higher education. It is shameful, and what is wrong here—and wrong with the Bill as a whole—is that it turns education into a matter of ability to pay and borrow. It gets young people into debt, when education should be available to them as of right.
      Will the Minister give a straight answer to the questions that I have put this evening? As it stands, the amendment is one more sign of the shambolic nature of a Bill that has been characterised by incompetence throughout.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) makes the telling points. He raised the question of Scotland, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and I have an interest. In Scotland, a higher proportion of students go to university at 17—a number go to university or college at 16. The amendment appears to encourage them to circumvent, if it needs to be circumvented, the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to ensure that credit can be offered to people under the age of 18, and the Government can induce such people to take out credit.
      The Minister said that he was moving the amendment for the avoidance of doubt. He certainly was not moving it for the avoidance of debt, because debt is what the amendment is all about. It is clear that the country is already awash with credit, yet the Government wish to unload even more on people and, in so doing, unload their responsibility to fund students and their education.
      Consumer credit has doubled in the past year, and more than £3 billion-worth is now given. The Minister wants to add to that credit among the crucial category of young

      1309
      people under the age of 18. Two thirds of the 21 million households in this country have a total of more than 40 million transaction commitments to credit companies and other credit organisations. In moving the amendment, the Minister seeks to add to their burden.
      One million people already have difficulty keeping up with their consumer credit agreements. Two million people already have problems repaying their debts. Four million already have four or more financial credit agreements, and the Minister is asking students under the age of 18, as well as those older than that to take on one more agreement.
      When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he saw nothing wrong with giving credit cards to children, we did not know that the Government would move so quickly to amend the law to permit that type of practice. I urge the Minister and the Government to think again on this inappropriate clause.
      Mr. Jackson: I was asked two questions by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). First, the leaflet certainly does not breach the Consumer Credit Act, because it is in no sense an invitation to borrow. Secondly, he asked about the enforceability of loans to minors—
      Mr. Straw rose—
      Mr. Jackson: I shall not give way.
      The leaflet is a description of a system that would enable—if it is approved by our two Houses—the possibility of borrowing. In no way would that be construed as contrary to the Consumer Credit Act.
      As for the enforceability of loans to minors, I have been informed that in Scotland, which is always in a special position, these loans probably are enforceable against minors. In England and Wales, they are probably not enforceable unless the minor ratifies them on reaching his majority, as they are not made for the purchase of necessities. When appropriate, minors who have received loans will be asked to ratify them on reaching their majority. If they refuse to do so, no action will be taken against them, but they will not be entitled to receive further loans under the scheme.
      This strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of the students and those of the taxpayer. Meanwhile, this is merely a technical amendment, for the avoidance of doubt. It embodies the common-sense view that the Student Loans Company Ltd. will not act with a view to financial gain. Section 50 of the Act is clearly difficult to interpret. The courts have not yet had occasion to examine it, and we believe that it would be wrong to leave minors or the company in a position of uncertainty. It seems sensible to the Government, therefore, and to the noble Lords in another place, to clarify on the face of the Bill what most people would in any case have thought: that the company will not operate with a view to financial gain from loans. I hope the House will join me in supporting the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: As we are driven towards the fall of the guillotine, I merely point out that the debate has revealed how inappropriate it is to start trying to mix the worlds of education and of credit. The Minister's last answer showed that it is impossible to reconcile the two interests. We should never have had to exclude students from the provisions of consumer legislation. As an epilogue to the Bill, the Government are introducing the marketplace to education, where it never belonged.
      Mr. Straw: It was apparent from the remarks of the Under-Secretary that the Government intend, and have already carried out the intention, to send circulars to minors inducing them to borrow money. The House also heard how the Under-Secretary could offer no proper answer to the detailed questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked him.
      In the closing seconds of this guillotined debate, I should like to place it on record that, because of the guillotine forced on the House by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends, the House has been denied the chance properly to debate major issues of principle [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Opposition?"] They are not here because they cannot debate the issues; if they could, they would be.
      This procedure represents an abuse of Parliament by the Government.
      Question put and agreed to.
      It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 17, in page 4, line 51, at end insert:
      "Restriction on disclosure of information
      3A.—(1) No person or body having by virtue of paragraph 3 above the function of making and recovering loans shall provide or make available to anyone else (whether for consideration or not) any information held for the purpose of discharging those functions if the information is to be used for soliciting custom for goods or services.
      (2) As respects information constituting personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1984 sub-paragraph (1) above is without prejudice to the requirements of that Act but applies irrespective of any consent given for the purposes of that Act by the person to whom the information relates." —[Mr. MacGregor.]
      Ordered,
      That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 5, 8 and 10.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mr. Secretary MacGregor, Mr. Andrew Smith and Mr. Jack Straw be members of the Committee.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
      Ordered,
      That three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
      Ordered,
      That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the amendments which was passed in the other place, and with which we have disagreed, was moved by my noble Friend Earl Russell. Is it not inappropriate that no colleague of his can take part in the Committee proceedings that you have now put in motion? Is it not an exclusion of an opportunity for hon. Members in this place, of my party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] —and of others, who have been here all evening, to participate in its proceedings? I speak for the nationalists as well as for the Ulster parties. We are allowed to take part in debates in both Houses, but we are not allowed to participate in a procedure that results in us telling the other place that we disagree.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is late in raising his point of order. The motion to which it relates has already been agreed to, and the Committee should withdraw immediately.
      Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you moved the remaining amendment at the end of our consideration of the Bill, you did not refer to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17, which related to the privacy rights of students, over which the Bill will ride roughshod. It is an important matter—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot advance that argument. He was caught, sadly, by the guillotine. It was not possible for him to move his amendment to the Lords amendment.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
      That the draft National Code of Local Government Conduct, which was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
      Question agreed to.

  Lakeside Health Centre
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  10.44 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the difficulties that are facing Lakeside health centre, which is located in my constituency. So often in Adjournment debates on health centres, the focus is on hospital facilities, and there is a tendency for the important role that is played by general practitioners to be taken for granted. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to draw attention to the valuable work that is being done by Lakeside health centre, which provides a comprehensive range of primary care services to those of my constituency who live in Thamesmead, a 1970s development which includes many system-built high-rise properties. Thamesmead has suffered from the misguided housing policies of successive Greater London council administrations and has more than its share of problems.
  The practice is housed in system-built accommodation which was designed to be a health centre for 6,000 patients. Lakeside now has 12,000 registered patients. As the practice was designed to deal with half that number, an additional burden has been placed upon those who work at the centre.
  Despite the difficulties, Lakeside is a good example of how a health centre should operate and it provides an extremely comprehensive range of services to the local community. The six-partner general practice based there offers the full range of additional services which general practitioners are being encouraged to provide, such as ante-natal care, minor surgery and diabetes and well woman clinics. In addition, district services such as dentistry, chiropody and speech therapy are provided at the clinic, as well as out-patient clinics held by consultants in a wide range of specialties.
  The senior partner of the practice when it first opened in 1969 until his retirement in 1988 was Professor Peter Higgins, professor of general practice at Guy's hospital. He has now retired, but he continues to take a keen interest in the work of Lakeside health centre and of other groups in Thamesmead, and I should like to place on record my gratitude for all that he has done in the area and continues to do.
  Peter Higgins forged a strong link between the centre and the education and training of general practitioners, and that link continues. Currently, all six partners hold part-time teaching posts with the united medical schools —Guy's and St. Thomas's—and medical students, both undergraduate and postgraduate, are regularly in attendance at the centre.
  The link with professional education also has an influence on the way that services are provided at Lakeside health centre. As one would expect of doctors who are involved in the education of general practitioners, the practice at Lakeside is already pursuing policies which other practices are now being encouraged by the Government to adopt.
  The doctors at Lakeside have worked hard to educate their patients and make them aware that good clinical practice does not require patients to be given a prescription every time they visit the doctor. As a consequence, the practice's prescribing costs are some 20

  1313
  per cent. less than the average for other practices within the Greenwich and Bexley family practitioner committee area and about 25 per cent. less than the national average. Similarly, over 50 per cent. of prescribing is of generic alternatives to brand name drugs.
  The practice has also embraced the use of information technology for a wide range of applications, and has appointed a practice manager to ensure efficient delivery of patient care.
  The partners at Lakeside are committed to putting the needs of the patient first and their success in doing so is borne out by the comments of my constituents. I often hear the doctors and other staff at Lakeside praised by constituents, and I have never yet received a single complaint about the quality of health care which the centre provides.
  In 1987, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who was then Minister for Health, visited Lakeside health centre as part of a visit to Bexley health district. His comment at the time was that Lakeside
  "was an inner-city practice serving an inner-city population but in an outer London borough."
  His view was, and still is, entirely correct and neatly sums up the situation in Thamesmead.
  A large number of Thamesmead residents are from the inner city, having been decanted from areas of south London, designated for slum clearance and compulsory purchase, to Thamesmead in the early 1970s. In addition, a number of local authorities took advantage of the opportunity which Thamesmead offered and moved some of their tenants with social difficulties to Thamesmead.
  Because the practice has all the problems associated with an inner-city practice, the work load of each doctor is high. With 12,000 registered patients, each doctor has a list of around 2,000. That is not particularly large for many practices, but it would be difficult for the doctors at Lakeside to expand their lists beyond that number without reducing the quality of the health care that they provide given that the consultation rate per patient at Lakeside is around 30 per cent. higher than average. A measure of the effect that that high consultation rate has is that the practice can expect to see over 90 per cent. of all female patients at least once a year.
  The difficulties that the practice faces are not helped by the building in which it is located. The design of the health centre is such that effective use cannot be made of the space available. There is no proper storage facility for patients' medical records, which are simply kept on open racks behind the reception desk. The number of consulting rooms is insufficient for a large and busy practice which offers a wide range of services. Until recently, these problems were made worse by the need for some of the partners to keep buckets on their examination couches to catch the rain water coming through the roof, although I am pleased to say that the roof has now been repaired.
  Because of all the problems associated with the building, the partners asked the district health authority to carry out repairs and alterations. It was agreed that a programme of work would be carried out in three phases at a total cost of £100,000. Phase 1 was the repair of the roof which, as I have already said, has been carried out. Phase 2 was internal structural alterations to make better use of the existing space by providing a proper storage facility for records and three much-needed additional consulting rooms. Phase 3 was minor general repairs and
  1314
  decoration. I regret to say that phases 2 and 3 have been halted by Bexley health authority because of a lack of funds for capital projects.
  When the partners first brought the matter to my attention, I naturally raised it with the Brian Hord, the chairman of Bexley health authority. While he was sympathetic to the needs of Lakeside, and hoped that the district would be able to complete the work in the next financial year, he told me that there were no guarantees that the work would proceed, because Bexley health authority had not received capital resources of £300,000 which it had expected from South Thames regional health authority. As a consequence, a number of projects had been stopped, including the remaining work at Lakeside.
  I am extremely concerned that the work has been abandoned because it is not simply a question of making the centre look better, although I believe that the partners, as tenants of the district health authority, are entitled to expect their landlord to keep the premises in reasonable decorative order. The delay in carrying out alterations affects the treatment which is being provided for patients, because the changes are necessary to ensure the effective delivery of service to patients. Until such time as the additional facilities are available, the pressure on existing consulting space will continue. The partners are asking not for lavish suites of room, but simply for the provision of enough consulting rooms to enable them to provide a proper service for their patients.
  I have no doubt that the district and the regional health authorities have prepared their arguments as to where the money is, why it was not available and who is to blame, although from my point of view all that is unimportant. My immediate concern is that some of my constituents are not receiving health care in an appropriate manner because essential work has not been carried out. The work must be done. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take whatever steps he can to ensure that the work is carried out with all possible speed.
  The other major issue which has caused considerable concern at Lakeside health centre applies equally to practices in other areas similar to Thamesmead. None the less, it has specific implications for Lakeside. I refer to the criteria for eligibility for deprivation payments under the new general practitioner contract. My hon. Friend will already be aware of some of my concerns from our correspondence on the issue. As I have already said, Thamesmead suffers many of the problems normally associated with inner-city areas, with possibly one exception—that there is little overcrowding because of the modern housing stock, although living in high-rise, system-built dwellings can bring problems of a different kind.
  As a consequence, the electoral ward of Thamesmead, East, which is in my constituency, has a score of over 27 on the Jarman index of deprivation, the measure of deprivation used to determine eligibility for payments under the new contract. To put that score into perspective, we must remember that only 15 per cent. of the population live in areas where the Jarman score is over 20. Thamesmead, East is certainly different from the other wards in my constituency. Of the other wards, the next nearest score is 18, and the remainder are much lower, mostly in single figures. That further confirms my earlier remarks about Thamesmead.
  The deprivation allowance paid since the beginning of this month is given only to practices in areas with a Jarman

  1315
  score of more than 30—not on a sliding scale or taper of any kind, but based on a once-and-for-all threshold of 30. The difference in the problems experienced by practices in areas that score between 29 and 31 must be negligible, yet one will receive the allowance in full while the other will receive nothing. That is illogical and unfair. As the Jarman score for Thamesmead, East is "only" 27, Lakeside does not qualify for the allowance.
  That is unsatisfactory, not only because Lakeside is the kind of practice that should receive additional help but because it is likely that the Jarman score would be higher if it were based on up-to-date statistics. The current figure is based on information from the 1981 census, but Thamesmead has changed significantly since then. For example, a Vietnamese community of about 600 has moved into the area since then, and its specific problems are not reflected in the Jarman scale.
  Lakeside is not the kind of practice that is able to generate additional income beyond the basic allowances. Despite the determined efforts of the centre's doctors, meeting immunisation and cervical cytology targets is a difficult, if not impossible, task. Doctors in a practice such as Lakeside can expect to work harder and to earn less than they would elsewhere—and with the high cost of living in the south-east, recruitment is always a problem.
  Deprivation payments should be made to practices such as Lakeside which have problems that they cannot alter or overcome by adopting a different approach, because the problems are beyond their control. There is no logic in the present system, which stipulates that if an area does not have a Jarman score of more than 30 it does not qualify. Given that a small percentage of the population live in areas having a Jarman score of more than 20, it would be logical to pay the allowance on a tapering scale, at least to areas scoring more than 25. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is always concerned with the quality of health care, to give that suggestion serious consideration.
  Lakeside health centre does a first-class job in difficult circumstances, and its situation has not been helped by the delay in making vital changes to the centre's fabric, or by the current system for paying deprivation allowances. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to exert what pressure he can to remedy the situation there. The doctors and staff at Lakeside do what is asked of them and the rest of the NHS, by putting the needs of their patients first. We must help by providing the resources that they need to continue providing my constituents in Thamesmead with health care of a standard that they are entitled to expect.
  10.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on his good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate and on the able way in which he presented the case for Lakeside health centre. My hon. Friend is a valiant and persistent defender of and advocate for his constituents. He is a Member of Parliament whom the Department of Health knows well and much respects for his activities in the south-east region and in his constituency.
  I had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency on 16 January in relation to Erith hospital
  1316
  —an issue that has not yet been resolved, although I hope that it soon will be. In any event, that is not the subject of tonight's debate.
  My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) was much impressed by Lakeside health centre when he visited it in 1987. It provides a wide range of services, and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford touched on some of them. They include audiology, dental care, dietary and speech therapy, family planning, child care, chiropody —an excellent range of services assisting his constituents, provided by a range of staff, including six general practitioners, a practice nurse, two qualified nurses, the equivalent of four and a half whole-time employees who act as receptionists and another four and a half whole-time equivalents acting as clerical and secretarial assistants. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend refer to information technology in use at the centre, a development that we are anxious to encourage.
  How great the local need is for health care services, primary services in particular, of that quality was graphically described by my hon. Friend. Those needs, arising from social deprivation—one-parent families, limited employment opportunities and the arrival of new communities from as far afield as Bangladesh and Vietnam —were much in the mind of Professor Peter Higgins when setting up the general practice at the Lakeside health centre in the mid-1970s.
  As professor of general practice at Guy's hospital, Professor Higgins was in the vanguard of those who believed that a health centre should play a positive social, as well as medical, role in the community, and for almost two decades he has guided young trainee GPs in that philosophy.
  Professor Higgins, as well as being the vice-chairman of South East Thames regional health authority, has done much valuable work in developing funding for general practice and is currently advising the Department of Health on the general practice implications of the White Paper. Indeed, Lakeside health centre could hardly have two more formidable champions than Professor Higgins and my hon. Friend. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Professor Higgins for his long service in the South East Thames regional health authority area. I recently had the pleasure of being with him when I visited the Medway towns.
  My hon. Friend raised as his first issue the question of deprivation payments. The Government believe that it is right to reward GPs for the extra work involved in caring for patients who live in areas of deprivation. As part of the GPs' new contract, a capitation payment has been introduced from 1 April linked to an index of deprivation developed by Professor Jarman of St. Mary's hospital medical school.
  The British Medical Association's general medical services committee agrees with the Government that the Jarman index provides the best means currently available. The index is made up taking into account a number of factors, including unemployment, the numbers of elderly people living alone, household overcrowding, the number of children under five, the number of unskilled, single-parent households, the number of residents in ethnic households and the numbers who have moved house, giving an indication of the mobility of the population.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the census of 1981. We will shortly have a fresh census, in 1991, and I am the Minister

  1317
  responsible for its preparation. The index figures will be updated once the new statistics from the census are available.
  Our policy objectives are to target deprivation payments on those practices that serve areas of highest deprivation. We have therefore chosen a cut-off point of 30 index points, although I accept that this means that some practices—for example, those to which my hon. Friend referred—which fall just short of that figure will not receive payment.
  That is not to say that we do not recognise the hard work and dedication put in by such practices in providing general medical services to their patients. As my hon. Friend will recognise, the question where to draw the line is a matter of judgment. Under the scheme, about 9 per cent. of patients in England will generate a deprived area payment for their general practitioner. That seems to us very reasonable.
  If we had chosen a much lower cut-off point—say, 16 on the Jarman index, which would then certainly include my hon. Friend's general practice patient lists—we would be including about 25 per cent. of the population in England. a much broader number, and we would, if we were not to provide additional resources by deducting them from some other part of the NHS, have to spread the £25 million, which it will cost in 1990–91 to make those payments, much more thinly.
  Therefore, I strongly believe that that would have been to the detriment of the existing scheme. In areas where the deprivation index is between 30 and 39, it amounts to £4·90 per head on the patient list; for an index of between 40 and 49 it amounts to £6·40; for an index of more than 50 points—that is very severe deprivation, such as in some of the inner-London wards—it amounts to a payment of £8·50. Therefore, as my hon. Friend will calculate, for an average patient list of 2,000 patients, that means £17,000 extra to the general practitioner to help him to develop his services.
  The Government believe that we have got the concentration and the targeting right, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance—we shall study the Official Report of the debate with care—that the Government will monitor the GPs' new contract to ensure that it is achieving the Government's objective of raising standards and extending services. We shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says about the consequences of a cut-off point at 30.
  On the second point that my hon. Friend made, I can perhaps give him greater encouragement and assurances than I have been able to give him so far—the building at Lakeside. It is perhaps a product of the 1970s— a glass and concrete design with flat roofs. There is so much glass that in cold weather the building has been too cold, and in sunny weather the staff and patients have been too hot. The Lakeside centre was an award-winning architectural design but technical problems have arisen and, sadly, vandalism has also defaced the building.
  In modern designs for such health centres, we would concentrate more on energy conservation; we might use brick, which is certainly a more friendly medium for a building; we would certainly have pitched roofs; and we would try to make buildings more vandal-proof.
  It is of course the roof that has been the cause of most recent problems but, as my hon. Friend has tellingly pointed out, other structural renovations are sorely
  1318
  needed. Bexley health authority and South East Thames regional health authority are both very much aware of this. In fact, a £100,000 renovation programme was planned for 1989, which would have brought the centre up to a generally acceptable standard. Unfortunately, after £40,000 of that sum had been spent on roof repairs, the programme had to be frozen. The reasons for that, although complicated in financial terms, can be traced back, link by link, to the primary cause of a fall in land values.
  Apart from capital money from regions, most district health authorities, particularly in the south-east, have planned to supplement their funds from capital derived from land sales. Bexley health authority was no exception. I understand that genuine expectations were held by Bexley health authority of selling a plot of land adjacent to Bexley hospital for more than £350,000. Of this sum, £100,000 was earmarked for the renovation of Lakeside health centre. South East Thames regional health authority had in fact advanced £350,000 to Bexley in anticipation of the sum being raised. Unfortunately, the sale has not been completed because of issues involving planning permission, particularly tree preservation orders.
  I recall that, as a Back Bencher, I introduce a private Member's Bill, which eventually became law, dealing with the protection of trees and the prevention of the removal of trees subject to preservation orders when planning permission was required. To that extent, I apologise to my hon. Friend if I have in any way caused problems to him and to his constituency.
  Bexley health authority hopes to find a way round those problems, but is not in a position yet to give any guarantee. In view of this, and in the light of its own serious shortfall in capital resources—another consequence of falling land values—South East Thames regional health authority had reluctantly to withdraw its bridging loan to Bexley.
  Bexley health authority's capital programme for 1990–91 stands at £1·1 million. The authority does not yet know how much of the programme it will be able to fulfil until it learns what uncommitted capital it can expect to receive from the regional health authority. Negotiations are taking place. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not say anything further here which may prejudge them. I can say, however, that Bexley health authority is optimistic that, from one source or another, it will have sufficient funds to complete the programme for Lakeside health centre during 1990–91. Thus rejuvenated, the centre will, I am sure, provide as fine a service for future generations of Thamesmeaders as it has for almost two decades past.
  As for my hon. Friend's point regarding deprivation allowances, although by targeting the resources we have omitted the ward in which the centre is placed, I can assure him that we shall monitor carefully the effect of the scheme. Where changes are necessary, we shall certainly consider them.
  I am as confident as I can be that the problems with the building to which he alluded will be put right. I plan to visit Lakeside, upon my hon. Friend's invitation, in the spring of next year—by which time I hope that Bexley's plans will have been brought to fruition—to see progress for myself and to see a fine health centre in operation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Marchioness
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has now received the results of the police investigation into the sinking of the Marchioness; and when he expects to reach a decision on whether to prosecute.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General whether it is proposed to bring any criminal prosecutions in relation to the sinking of the Marchioness; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The results of the police investigation of the sinking of the MV Marchioness have been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the final report having been received on 22 March 1990.

  The evidence has been submitted to Treasury counsel for advice. Consideration of the case is proceeding with all proper expedition.

  Mortgage Lenders
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Attorney-General if he intends to prohibit mortgage lenders from offering loans to their customers on exceptionally favourable terms if more than one service is offered as part of the loan package.

  (a) Payments of income tax (less child benefit), NICs and VAT by a married couple with non-earning wife as a percentage of gross earnings. Multiples of average male earnings.

  ½

  1

  1½

  2

  3

  5

  10

  1978–79

  Income Tax less Child Benefit

  -4·1

  14·4

  20·6

  23·6

  32·0

  47·1

  64·7

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  5·6

  4·2

  2·8

  1·7

  0·8

  VAT

  —

  2·7

  2·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  Income Tax less Child Benefit

  0·5

  12·7

  16·8

  21·8

  27·9

  32·7

  36·4

  NICs

  6·9

  7·9

  6·2

  4·7

  3·1

  1·9

  0·9

  VAT

  —

  5·0

  5·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Payments of income tax (less child benefit) and NICs by a married couple with wife working as a percentage of gross earnings. Multiples of average male earnings.

  ½

  1

  1½

  2

  3

  5

  10

  1978–79

  Income Tax less Child Benefit

  1·1

  6·4

  15·2

  19·7

  25·9

  32·9

  50·6

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  5·4

  3·4

  1·7

  1990–91

  Income Tax less Child Benefit

  -9·0

  8·0

  13·6

  16·5

  20·3

  27·3

  33·6

  NICs

  4·8

  6·9

  7·6

  7·7

  6·2

  3·7

  1·9

  Notes:

  1. Average male earnings in 1990–91 are assumed to be £303·80 per week, 8½per cent. higher than in 1989–90. This represents a real increase of 33 per cent. since 1978–79.

  2. NICs are assumed to be paid at the class I contracted-in rate.

  3. A married man's payment of income tax do not now depend on whether he has any children. But in order to provide comparability with 1978–79 when support for children was given partly through child tax allowances, the figures show income tax less child benefit.
  606
  The Attorney-General
  The Courts and Legal Services Bill contains proposals to prevent the tying-in to the mortgage of any other service in the domestic property market. The Government believe, however, that packages can be in the interests of the consumer and propose that they will be permitted under the legislation.

THE ARTS

  "The Three Graces"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proposals he has for the allocation of funds towards the purchase of "The Three Graces."

  Mr. Luce
  Purchase of works of art is a matter for the trustees of individual museums and galleries, who may apply to the national heritage memorial fund, which acts as a fund of last resort.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of gross income paid in income tax, national insurance contributions and value added tax by(a) a married man with a non-earning wife and two children and (b) a married man with an earning wife and two chilren at one half, one and a half, two, three, five and 10 times national average earnings in 1990–91; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  607
  4. From 1990–91 husbands and wives in two-earner couples will be taxed independently. Previously the tax liability of two-earner couples depended on their joint income. To permit comparisons between 1978–79 and 1990–91 the table therefore shows income tax (less child benefit) and national insurance contributions paid by a married couple as a proportion of their joint income, assuming that the husband and wife share the relevant multiple of earnings in the ratio 60:40.

  5. Estimates of VAT payments depend on a family's income and its pattern of expenditure. Such estimates are subject to a substantial margin of error and cannot reliably be made outside a range of 75 per cent. to 150 per cent. of average male earnings. Estimates for a single earner couple with two children are set out above. Corresponding figures for a two earner couple with two children are not available. Estimates are based on 1985 Family Expenditure Survey and assume that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why no account is to be taken of transitional relief when the community charge is introduced into the retail prices index in April.

  Mr. Lilley
  For purposes of the retail price index transitional relief will not be treated as reducing the prices charged. This conforms to a general principle governing the treatment of subsidies and discounts, which was laid down by the retail price index advisory committee in a report submitted to and accepted by Ministers in 1986 (Cmnd 9848). The principle is that reductions in the amount charged are treated as price effects if they are equally available to all consumers facing the charge in question or if they are financed by the supplier of the goods or services concerned. Transitional relief does not qualify on either ground as it is available only to consumers fulfilling certain criteria and is funded not by the local authority making the charge but by a transfer from central Government. The community charges taken for the retail price index will be those made by authorities after allowing for the "safety net" since this affects all charge payers in any one area.

  Correspondence (MEPs)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer since 18 June 1989, how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice where such matters are involved to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

  Mr. Major
  Since 18 June 1989 Treasury Ministers have received 40 communications from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or United Kingdom matters. Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards establishing the Central Office of Information as an executive agency.

  Mr. Major
  I am pleased to announce that the Central Office of Information (COI) will become an executive agency tomorrow. I have set demanding targets against which performance will be measured. These will ensure that the steady improvement in COI's efficiency over 608
  recent years continues into the future. Copies of the framework document will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report the outcome of the price variation negotiations with Racal Data Networks Ltd. for the Government data network.

  Mr. Ryder
  Negotiations are still in progress and scheduled for completion by 30 June 1990. These negotiations are taking into account marketplace movements since the GDN contract was let and are reviewing general administrative arrangements in the contract associated with the GDN tariff.

  Further consideration of the contract has shown that, contrary to earlier interpretations reflected in my right hon. Friend, the then Paymaster-General's answer of 22 June 1988, Official Report, col. 599-600, the contract does not necessarily prevent the cost of the GDN service from exceeding that of comparable public services. The Treasury and Racal Data Networks Ltd. are seeking to negotiate revisions to the contract which would incorporate a satisfactory basis for value-for-money comparison with available public services.

  I will announce the outcome of these negotiations when they have been completed.

  Civil Service Catering Organisation
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have for the future of the Civil Service Catering Organisation.

  Mr. Major
  I have commissioned a study of future options for the Civil Service Catering Organisation (CISCO).

  The aim of the study will be to examine how CISCO might be placed on a more commercial footing for the future in an increasingly competitive environment for the provision of staff catering.

  The study will centre on possibilities for the transfer of CISCO to the private sector. Operation in the private sector might provide a better basis and greater range of opportunities for building upon the success that CISCO has achieved to date. The options will include the possibility of management and employee participation in the privatisation of CISCO's business.

  If this approach is found not to be feasible or desirable, the study will consider whether CISCO should be retained within the civil service as a "next steps" agency or whether the delivery of catering services is best devolved fully to Government Departments.

  The study will involve discussions with Government Department clients of CISCO and consultation with relevant bodies in the catering trade. Consultation will also take place with the Council of Civil Service Unions and the joint coordinating committee for Government industrial establishments.
  609
  A decision will be made later in the year.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Creche
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 24, concerning child care facilities at the House of Commons, what arrangements are being made for consultation with and the full participation of each of the staff unions and the creche committee established by staff.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) has asked for an urgent feasibility study to be undertaken into the cost and accommodation implications of providing child care facilities for the children of Members and staff employed in the House. A decision on whether a survey of potential demand is needed will be taken once the results of the feasibility study are known.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Director for London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his intention to appoint a traffic director for London, he will list the terms of reference for that post, the bodies and resources attached or available to it; and to whom the director will be responsible.

  Mr. Portillo
  Proposals concerning the traffic director are set out in paragraphs 7.34 to 7.38 of the discussion document "Traffic in London". We are considering the powers and duties of the post in more detail, and will consult local authorities and other interested bodies further.

  Motorway Repairs
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what motorway repair works are scheduled for the M6 and M1 between April and October; and if he will publish full details of these in the Official Report.

  Mr. Portillo
  Capital maintenance schemes which have been given approval and are programmed1 to be carried out at various times between April and October 1990 are as follows:

  M1

  Major schemes (over £0·5 million)

  Junction 8 to junction 9 (resurfacing)

  Junction 26 to junction 27 (reconstruction)

  Junction 29 to junction 30 (reconstruction)

  Junction 43 to M621 (reconstruction)

  Per cent.

  Traffic Area

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Northern

  21·24

  16·86

  16·22

  14·93

  18·14

  Yorkshire

  21·96

  20·32

  18·66

  19·46

  20·37

  North West

  24·85

  22·03

  22·57

  19·99

  20·52

  West Midland

  27·25

  23·12

  18·66

  17·32

  16·69

  East Midland

  18·00

  16·45

  14·49

  14·87

  17·93

  Eastern

  21·37

  18·80

  20·26

  22·24

  24·20

  South Wales

  31·06

  23·06

  19·97

  21·06

  24·97

  610
  Non-major schemes

  Junction 2 slip roads (earthworks)

  Junction with A42 (part of national improvement scheme)

  Junction with MI-A1 Link (part of national improvement scheme)

  Junction 34 to junction 35 (earthworks)

  M6

  Major schemes (over £0·5 million)

  Junction 3 (reconstruction)

  Junction 8 to junction 9 (resurfacing)

  Junction 13 to junction 14 (resurfacing)

  Junction 17 to junction 29 (reconstruction)

  Junction 28 to junction 29 (resurfacing)

  Junction 41 to junction 42 (resurfacing)

  Non-major schemes

  Junction 5 slip roads (safety fences)

  Junction 5 to junction 6 (resurfacing)

  Junction 6 slip roads (safety fences)

  Junction 6 to junction 7 (safety fences)

  Junction 7 slip roads (resurfacing)

  Junction 7 to junction 8 (resurfacing)

  Junction 22 to junction 27 (cable laying)

  Junction 27 slip roads (resurfacing and safety fences)

  Junction 29 slip roads (safety fences)

  Junction 36 to junction 38 (safety fences)

  1 Programme may be subject to alteration due to local considerations.

  There will also be other urgent and routine works necessary on these roads during this time.

  The Department will announce further details of schemes in due course.

  Road Congestion
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on road congestion in the 1990s and the cost to the economy.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply of 6 March, volume 65, columns 545-46. We are concerned about the economic effects of congestion, and about the consequences for the environment and road safety. We have doubled the road programme to increase capacity on existing motorways and other strategic routes.

  MOT Tests
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the public service vehicle failure rates of vehicles undergoing their annual MOT test in Government-controlled testing stations, in each year since the scheme's inception, listing regional variations.

  Mr. Portillo
  Statutory annual testing for PSVs was introduced in January 1982. Between 1982 and 1987 the results were collated by traffic areas. Since 1987 they have been collated by sub-regions of the vehicle inspectorate. The fail rates, not including vehicles with minor defects rectified at the time of test, are:
  611

  Traffic Area

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Western

  26·52

  24·14

  20·81

  19·96

  23·71

  South Eastern

  28·97

  23·81

  18·96

  21·40

  22·23

  Metropolitan

  23·41

  19·16

  13·10

  12·15

  11·29

  Scottish

  27·69

  25·50

  25·98

  28·09

  25·45

  National

  24·70

  21·40

  19·20

  19·10

  19·90

  Per cent.

  Vehicles Inspectorate Sub-Region

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Metropolitan

  18·13

  17·75

  South-Eastern

  20·44

  17·69

  Eastern

  19·32

  20·95

  Western

  24·33

  23·29

  West Midland

  23·47

  24·37

  North-Western

  23·15

  22·14

  North-Eastern

  24·12

  23·23

  Scottish

  23·90

  23·54

  National

  22·20

  21·60

  UK-US Air Routes
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timetable he envisages for further talks with the appropriate American authorities on the future of air routes from the United Kingdom to the United States of America.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No specific timetable has been established, but my right hon. Friend is in direct touch with his US counterpart.

  Noise Insulation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide additional resources to local highway authorities specifically to enable them to deal with properties which qualify for insulation from traffic noise under the revised interpretation of the 1973 Noise Insulation Regulations.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. There is no revised interpretation of the Noise Insulation Regulation. The hon. Member may, however, be referring to the greater exercise of discretionary powers in connection with the proposed motorway widening programme, as announced in the recent roads report, which refers to motorways and other major trunk roads. It is a wider application of the existing discretionary power by the Secretary of State in relation to his trunk road programme, for which of course local authorities are not responsible.

  Correspondence (MEPs)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, since 18 June 1989, how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice, where such matters are involved, to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

  Mr. Portillo
  Ministers at the Department of Transport have received 54 written communications from Members of the European Parliament since 18 June 1989 that concern local or United Kingdom matters.

  If there is no Community content at all in the MEP's letter and a constituency interest predominates, it is our
  612
  general practice to suggest that the MEP should refer the case to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to MEPs' letters would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  Stop Notices
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to confer upon highway authorities the power to issue stop notices in respect of development projects where public rights of way have been rendered unusable as a consequence of works being started in the absence of lawful authority being secured either to stop up or divert the right of way.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is not necessary. Highway authorities already have powers under section 143 of the Highways Act 1980 to secure the removal of unauthorised structures from highways. A grant of planning permission for such a structure is not of itself such an authorisation.

  Wales (Official Visits)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the dates on which he has made an official visit to Wales since his appointment to his present post.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend made an official visit to Wales on 2 April when he launched the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea.

  Roads (Private Financing)
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further developments there have been in private financing for roads since the publication of the Green Paper, "New Roads by New Means"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Green Paper set out proposals for new legislation and procedures to authorise privately financed roads. We invited comments from the private sector and from a wide range of other organisations concerned with roads and transport.

  The response was encouraging, with over 160 interested parties commenting. A number of potential problems were exposed and debated, but the overall message was one of wide support for the Government's aims.

  Today the Government have published their response to the consultation.

  We are making some additions to the proposals in "New Roads by New Means". Their purpose is to enhance the attraction of major road schemes for private sector funding by reducing some of the uncertainties. The details are in the published response which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  I am pleased to be able to announce a number of other developments and initiatives. Last year the Government set up a competition for the Birmingham northern relief

  613
  road. The response to this challenge has been good. Three pre-qualifying bids were received from consortia which have assembled a wide range of expertise. Today I have issued final tender invitations to all three bidders. This means that we should receive, this autumn, firm indications of how the road can be built and operated in the private sector.

  I am also inviting the private sector to come forward with preliminary proposals for a new privately funded road between Birmingham and Manchester, as foreshadowed in the Green Paper. We have recently announced a public scheme to widen much of the existing M6 motorway. This will relieve congestion on the route of the motorway, but there will be a further need for extra capacity between the two cities in the longer term. We are looking to the private sector to consider innovative ways of meeting this longer-term need well into the 21st century.

  I am inviting views about the suitability of six other schemes for private finance. The schemes I have in mind are:

  a lower Thames crossing, east of the M25,

  a new crossing of the River Tamar,

  a new Mersey crossing serving Liverpool airport,

  a link between the M25 and Chelmsford,

  a new route parallel to the Al27 from the M25 to Rayleigh in Essex, and

  a short link between the Al and MI at Scratchwood in north London.

  The list is not a closed one. We are willing to consider proposals for the private financing of any scheme in the roads programme. We shall also welcome proposals for schemes not in the programme, since the Government do not have a monopoly of good ideas.

  All roads financed by the private sector will be subject to the same form of environmental assessment as public schemes. The Government will insist that they are designed and built to the highest standards. We shall want to ensure also that road investment provides best value for money for taxpayers and users.

  The response to the Green Paper shows that our proposals for the further development of private funding financing of transport projects enjoys widespread support. My new proposals will provide additional opportunities for the private sector to add to Britain's transport network.

  Second Severn Bridge
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the successful tenderer in the competition to provide a second Severn bridge.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I intend to accept the proposal from the John Laing/GTM Entrepose consortium to design, build, finance and operate the second Severn bridge, in conjunction with taking over the financing and operation of the existing bridge. This privately funded proposal offers the best overall value for money of all those submitted; it will be the most effective means of securing completion of the second crossing at the earliest practicable date. The final decision was between two very strong contenders with good designs, and I am grateful to all the groups which participated.

  The consortium's proposal is for a concession to collect tolls on the crossings for up to 30 years, depending on traffic levels. On current forecasts, tolls would be needed for only about 21 years. The consortium's proposal would minimise the impact on traffic by charging tolls in only one
  614
  direction—westbound—on each crossing. Some increase in tolls would be necessary to cover the cost—some £270 million—of this major improvement in this part of the road network. These rises would be phased in gradually. For car users the initial increase in equivalent single journey tolls in 1992 would be about 20p in 1989 prices, rising ultimately to about 40p from 1995.

  The new crossing—which I know is most eagerly awaited on both sides of the Severn—would more than double the road capacity across the estuary. It would relieve for the foreseeable future the traffic congestion already starting to be faced at peak times at the existing bridge. It would also include windshielding to minimise the need for traffic restrictions or closure.

  This decision is subject to confirmation of the provision of finance and to a satisfactory conclusion to detailed negotiations on the terms of the concession. I shall make a further announcement when the necessary arrangements are confirmed.

  I hope to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to seek the necessary powers for the provision of the new bridge and its approach roads. Subject to the necessary parliamentary approvals, construction could start at the beginning of 1992 and be completed in 1995.

  This announcement on the Severn bridges demonstrates that the skill and initiative of the private sector can be employed to provide new infrastructure at good value for the public.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to set financial objectives for London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend expects to be able to set these objectives when the House reconvenes following the Easter recess.

  EC Transport Council
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the meeting of the European Community Transport Council yesterday.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [holding answer 30 March 1990]: I attended the meeting of the European Council of Transport Ministers which was held in Brussels on 29 March.

  A 40 per cent. increase in road haulage quotas was agreed for 1990. The Council also gave a commitment to take simultaneous decisions on the quotas for 1991 and 1992, and on the safeguard measures in the event of a crisis in the road haulage industry, at its next meeting in June.

  The Council made further advances towards agreement of the second phase of aviation liberalisation. In particular it agreed on a zone scheme for fares, and on the treatment of region-to-region and hub-to-region services for capacity sharing purposes. Progress was also made on other aspects of the liberalisation package and several reservations were withdrawn. The Commission confirmed its intention of coming forward with proposals for dealing with anti-competitive practices in the context of the second package. The Council will return to the subject at its June meeting. There were also useful discussions on air traffic control and personnal licences in aviation. The Council agreed in principle that negotiations should get under way

  615
  on a package of civil aviation measures with the European Free Trade Association, and further work will now be undertaken on the negotiating mandate.

  I am glad to say that a debate on shipping cabotage enabled the presidency to conclude that a proposal should be prepared for positive debate in June.

  In a short discussion on the establishment of a transport infrastructure fund, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany maintained their unequivocal view that, although the Community could assist in planning, there was no need for a fund as such since member states were best able to decide their own funding priorities. Again, the Council agreed to return to the subject in June.

  The June meeting of the Council will also consider again the issue of harmonisation, on which some helpful developments at the Council meeting were offset by the announcement by the Federal Republic of Germany that it intended to introduce, with effect from 1 July, a tax on foreign lorries travelling through Germany.

  The Commission reported on the progress of negotiations with Austria, Switzerland and Yugoslavia on third country transit. There were discussions, but no conclusions, on the length of road trains, and on the hire of vehicles without drivers. The following topics were raised under other business: developments in East Germany and elsewhere in eastern Europe; the liberalisation of bus and coach transport; marine pollution; the revision of AETR (the European agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport); the width of vehicles; rail policy; drivers' hours; noise reduction around airports; and concerns about delays caused by customs staff at some borders.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Exchange Programmes
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what exchange and collaborative research and educational development programmes exist between the United Kingdom and Belgium.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department, through the central bureau, provides funds to support and encourage exchange activity in the following areas:

  (i) A school links programme: there are currently some 11 schools known to have links with Belgian schools.

  (ii) A foreign language assistants programme: in the current academic year there are 10 British language assistants working in Belgium and eight Belgian language assistants working in the United Kingdom.

  (iii) Vocational and technical education links: there are five colleges of further education with links with establishments in Belgium. In addition, under the auspices of IAESTE (the International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience) there is a small-scale annual programme of course-related practical training placements for higher education students.

  (iv) Teacher exchange programme: it is hoped that the 1990–91 academic year will see the first post-to-post teacher exchanges with Belgium.

  In addition, there are arrangements for exchange and collaborative activity with Belgium under European Community programmes such as COMETT, ERASMUS and ARION.
  616
  United Kingdom scientific research collaboration and exchanges with Belgium occur mainly through common membership of a range of multilateral schemes. These include the European Science Foundation, the European Space Agency, CERN (the European particle physics organisation), the NATO science programme, and the European science exchange programme, as well as the various programmes within the European Communities research and development framework.

  In addition, the British Council, under the cultural convention with Belgium, promotes exchanges and collaborative research in scientific and educational fields. Activities are agreed at biennial meetings of the mixed commission, the most recent of which, the 26th meeting, was held in December 1989. All activity with Belgium is fragmented, in that the Flemish and francophone communities function completely separately. Formal statistics of links are not kept because activity is agreed rather in terms of particular projects and budgets.

  Professional visits between Britain and Belgium are arranged to study developments in education at all levels. These have led, for example, to the Belgian Ministry of Education seeking council assistance in the introduction of computers in schools, and to a project in drama education with the Brussels circus school. The Flemish universities and the Open university have collaborated to set up a Flemish open university with British inputs and materials. Long-term joint projects at university level are also encouraged in fields such as science parks, engineering, medicine and criminology.

  In 1989, new Government funding enabled a programme of academic and professional exchanges to be established. For example, groups of British engineers and environmental scientists visited both Flemish and francophone universities. The links between the university of Gent and the university of Newcastle in linguistics and English literature, and the Vrije universiteit Brussel and Huddersfield polytechnic, in human ecology, have been particularly successful. The latter will now receive funding as part of the mixed commission cultural agreement. A double degree awarded jointly by the university of Liège and Cranfield institute of technology has also been established as part of a major link. All links have attracted matching funding from the Belgians.

  In March 1990 two senior British academics headed a mission to Belgium, and the Netherlands to initiate further collaborative programmes. This follows a recent pattern in Europe, where programmes have been established with Spain, Portugal, France, Germany and the Republic of Ireland.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the recent changes announced in funding disabled students' extra educational costs will apply to disabled students with central Government awards pursuing postgraduate degrees.

  Mr. Jackson
  The rates of postgraduate awards made by the Department for 1990–91 will be announced in due course. My right hon. Friend expects to make appropriate provision for the disabled students' and other allowances, on lines broadly similar to that for mandatory undergraduate awards but allowing for any relevant differences in the postgraduate awards arrangements.
  617
  Other postgraduate award-making bodies determine the rates for their subjects within the resources available to them.

  School Buildings (Repairs)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total expenditure for each education authority on repairs to school buildings.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest available information is for 1987–88 and is given in the table.

  Expenditure by local authorities

  Repairs and maintenance of buildings, nursery, primary and secondary schools

  Local Education Authority

  £'000

  Barking

  1,717

  Barnet

  2,150

  Bexley

  1,998

  Brent

  2,112

  Bromley

  3,434

  Croydon

  3,679

  Ealing

  n/a

  Enfield

  28

  Haringey

  n/a

  Harrow

  876

  Havering

  1,954

  Hillingdon

  44

  Hounslow

  1,173

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  733

  Merton

  672

  Newham

  1,540

  Redbridge

  1,849

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  658

  Sutton

  800

  Waltham Forest

  2,293

  ILEA

  24,400

  Birmingham

  8,225

  Coventry

  1,923

  Dudley

  1,642

  Sandwell

  4,076

  Solihull

  1,609

  Walsall

  1,492

  Wolverhampton

  2,027

  Knowsley

  1,001

  Liverpool

  6,047

  St. Helens

  1,272

  Sefton

  2,111

  Wirral

  1,885

  Bolton

  1,288

  Bury

  1,458

  Manchester

  3,958

  Oldham

  1,510

  Rochdale

  1,388

  Salford

  803

  Stockport

  2,377

  Tameside

  1,842

  Trafford

  1,188

  Wigan

  2,104

  Barnsley

  2,509

  Doncaster

  2,756

  Rotherham

  2,015

  Sheffield

  n/a

  Bradford

  3,143

  Calderdale

  1,357

  Kirklees

  2,425

  Leeds

  600

  Wakefield

  2,061

  618

  Local Education Authority

  £'000

  Gateshead

  1,359

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,675

  North Tyneside

  933

  South Tyneside

  1,259

  Sunderland

  2,189

  Isles of Scilly

  23

  Avon

  8,012

  Bedfordshire

  4,024

  Berkshire

  n/a

  Buckinghamshire

  4,193

  Cambridgeshire

  5,201

  Cheshire

  496

  Cleveland

  7,773

  Cornwall

  3,338

  Cumbria

  4,647

  Derbyshire

  6,389

  Devon

  7,003

  Dorset

  4,893

  Durham

  6,887

  East Sussex

  2,810

  Essex

  17,830

  Gloucestershire

  3,100

  Hampshire

  8,149

  Hereford

  4,249

  Hertfordshire and Worcester

  5,908

  Humberside

  10,211

  Isle of Wight

  272

  Kent

  4,365

  Lancashire

  10,449

  Leicestershire

  7,363

  Lincolnshire

  3,344

  Norfolk

  4,386

  North Yorkshire

  5,162

  Northamptonshire

  3,842

  Northumberland

  1,730

  Nottinghamshire

  7,569

  Oxfordshire

  4,421

  Salop

  4,240

  Somerset

  3,243

  Staffordshire

  8,559

  Suffolk

  3,865

  Surrey

  4,973

  Warwickshire

  3,368

  West Sussex

  5,486

  Wiltshire

  3,776

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on LEA recurrent expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment.

  2. They do not include any items of expenditure that were capitalised.

  3. Expenditure returns were not received from those authorities marked n/a.

  Examinations
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about trends in examination results in Greater Manchester since 1975.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The table gives the percentage of leavers from the Greater Manchester area and for England obtaining five or more grades at A to C in the GCSE (or its equivalent at O-level and CSE) and one or more A-level passes, since 1974–75.
  619

  Examination attainments of leavers from maintained schools Percentage of leavers

  5+ graded results at GCSE, O-level and CSE (A to C)1

  1+ A-level passes2

  Greater Manchester

  England

  Greater Manchester

  England

  1987–88

  24·0

  26·6

  13·6

  15·2

  1986–87

  22·7

  23·2

  13·8

  13·9

  1985–86

  22·9

  23·6

  13·6

  13·6

  1984–85

  22·7

  23·7

  12·3

  13·9

  1983–84

  23·1

  23·8

  12·3

  14·3

  1982–83

  21·6

  23·3

  13·3

  14·4

  1981–82

  20·6

  23·0

  11·3

  14·1

  1980–81

  19·3

  21·8

  11·0

  13·5

  1979–80

  19·0

  20·9

  11·1

  12·6

  1978–79

  19·6

  20·6

  11·5

  12·6

  1977–78

  18·8

  20·5

  11·4

  12·7

  1976–77

  17·7

  20·3

  10·3

  12·8

  1975–76

  16·4

  19·5

  10·0

  12·8

  1974–75

  17·1

  19·1

  10·4

  12·5

  1 GCSE grades A to C; 0-level grades A to C; CSE grade 1.

  2 Grades A to E.

  Notes:

  1. The School Leavers Survey, from which the figures in the table are derived, is based on a 10 per cent. sample of pupils at each school. Sampling error may lead to distortion in the trends.

  2. The figures do not provide the overall picture. There has been a growing tendency among 16-year-olds in particular to leave school for GCSE/0-level/A-level study in full-time further education.

  3. All figures exclude leavers from direct grant schools. Such leavers were included in an answer to a similar question to Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) on 21 March 1990 for the earliest three years given.

  Reorganisation (Bath)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decision he has made on the application of Beechen Cliff school, Bath, for grant-maintained status; and what response he is making to Avon county council's application for the reorganisation of schools in Bath following the recent court judgment.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has reconsidered these proposals, as required by the High Court judgment given on 23 February, which set aside his earlier decisions on them. On 30 March he announced his decisions to approve the proposals for grant-maintained status published by the governors of Beechen Cliff school and to reject those for the reorganisation of secondary education in Bath published by Avon local education authority and the governors of St. Mark's Church of England aided school.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will announce the rates of supplementary allowances payable within the mandatory student award in 1990–91.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Subject to Parliament's approval of the necessary regulations, supplementary allowances payable within the mandatory student award by local education authorities in England and Wales will be increased in the academic year 1990–91. I announced substantial improvements in the disabled students' allowance on 19 March at columns 417-18.Other allowances will be raised broadly in line with the main grant increases which I announced on 19 December 1989 at columns 220-222. I am placing details in the Library.

  Dyslexia
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to include in the local education authority training grants scheme dyslexia as a national priority area.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Legislation would not be needed to designate the training of teachers of dyslexic children as a national priority area under the local education authority training grants scheme (LEATGS).

  The possibility of including a wider range of training within the national priority areas was raised in the recent report of the efficiency scrutiny of education support grants and LEATGS. My right hon. Friend is reflecting carefully upon this recommendation.

  Research
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the value of research undertaken for commercial concerns by universities and polytechnics in the last financial year.

  Mr. Jackson
  Provisional figures indicate that, in the academic year 1988–89, universities in Great Britain received £92 million from industry in the form of research grants and contracts. Comparable information for polytechnics is not currently available.

  Ancillaries
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish for each local authority area the number of ancillaries employed in(a) 1970–71, (b) 1979–80 and (c) 1988–89 in (i) the primary and (ii) the secondary sector, and the ratio of ancillaries to teachers and pupils in each case.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

  History Teaching
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what steps he intends to take to introduce study of the Nazi holocaust into state schools as a core part of the national curriculum;

  (2) when he intends to publish the final report of the working group on history in the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The final report of the history working group was published yesterday. Because history is an important and a controversial subject we are consulting a wide variety of interested bodies on its recommendations. In the light of this consultation, and his own further examination of the group's recommendations, my right hon. Friend will in due course publish his proposals on attainment targets and programmes of study for history for pupils aged five to 16 in schools in England. They will then be sent to the National Curriculum Council for the statutory consultation required by the Education Reform Act. I shall not try to anticipate the nature of my right hon. Friend's proposals.

  Correspondence (MEPs)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament since 18 June 1989 that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice where such matters are involved to provide the honourable Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. Members of the European Parliament who raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest are advised to refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, ministerial replies to MEPs are normally copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had copied his original letter to the hon. Member.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to require the supervisory bodies seeking recognition under the Companies Act 1989 to inform their members and the public of the voting of(a) their councils and (b) their major committees.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 2 April 1990,Official Report, column 399.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to investigate and identify the companies which operate off-balance-sheet financing schemes in their financial statements.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The Companies Act 1989 has extended the definition of a subsidiary undertaking, which will bring on to the balance sheet a number of schemes which would previously have been off-balance sheet. The issue of off-balance sheet financing is also being addressed by the profession.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the conditions under which a work of art, subject to an export licence, may be acquired by private individual.

  Mr. Ridley
  The acquisition of works of art is not a matter for me; I am concerned solely with export licensing. Works of art which might be subject to an export licence (whether or not an application for an export licence has been made) may be acquired by a private individual through a private sale at any time, if the owner so agrees.

  On 2 March I announced that, in considering an application for a licence to export a work of art which meets the Waverley criteria, I proposed to take into account the existence of private offers, as well as offers by public institutions, to purchase the item, and said that I would be ready to consider any representations by persons affected by this refinement of policy.

  I have received a number of representations in this connection which I am considering with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Arts and Libraries.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes to address the concerns expressed about the uncertainty of how the statutory regulations made under the Financial Services Act 1986, and the rules made by the self-regulating organisations and professional bodies recognised under that Act, interact with the common law duties of those carrying on investment business.

  Mr. Redwood
  I recognise the concerns which have been expressed on this matter and the complexity of the issues involved. I have therefore made a reference to each of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission in the following terms:"Certain professional and business activities are subject to public law regulation by statutory or self-regulatory control. The Law Commission/Scottish Law Commission is to consider the principles which should govern the effect of such controls on the fiduciary and analogous duties of those carrying on such activities, and to make recommendations. The inquiry will consider examples from differing areas of activity but will be with particular reference to financial services".

  The general issue of the inter-relationship of fiduciary duties arising under the common law on the one hand, and statutory and self-regulatory rules on the other, arises in relation to a variety of activities. Fiduciary duties relating to matters such as disclosure of information to clients, liability to account, for example, for commissions, and conflicts of interest, can apply in areas such as estate agency and insurance brokerage as well as in the financial services area.

  I have therefore asked the two Law Commissions not to restrict themselves to examining the financial services area, but to consider the issue, and make whatever recommendations they feel appropriate, in the wider context.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest position on the implementation by member states into national legislation of single market measures.
  623
  Mr. Redwood
  I am very pleased to announce that the Commission's fifth progress report on the single market shows that the UK as recorded by the EC is now in the lead in the Community for the implementation into national legislation of single market measures. Member states' figures for non-implementation are as follows:

  Number

  United Kingdom

  9

  Denmark

  10

  Germany

  12

  Ireland

  18

  France

  19

  Netherlands

  24

  Luxembourg

  27

  Spain

  30

  Greece

  35

  Belgium

  34

  Portugal

  44

  Italy

  50

  It is also satisfactory to note a considerable improvement in implementation across the Community. The number of measures implemented in all member states has risen from seven in September 1989 to 21 by the end of February 1990.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will consider amending the law to raise the age at which an individual can purchase fireworks from 16 years to 18 years.

  Mr. Forth
  No. A person of 16 is considered old enough to work full time and at 17 to drive a car. It would not therefore be practical to raise the minimum age for purchasing fireworks from 16 to 18.

  Visas (United States)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with members of the travel industry about the practice of charging holidaymakers for visas to the United States of America in cases where visas are not required.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 3 April 1990]: I have had no discussions with the industry on this issue.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the practice of charging holidaymakers for visas to the United States of America in cases where visas are not required.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 3 April 1990]: There are no plans to introduce legislation in this area and I have received no representations to indicate that this is a problem which needs to be addressed. There are certain circumstances where the United States visa waiver scheme does not apply to holidaymakers travelling to the USA, and in some cases travellers may desire a visa for reasons of convenience. These holidaymakers would be able to obtain a visa free of charge from the United States embassy or, if they prefer, to pay any adminstrative charge which their travel agent may levy where they provide this service.

  Environmental Technology Network
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the contribution made by his Department to the European Communities' network of environmental technology transfer programme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: The network of environmental technology transfer (NETT) was established in 1988 and aims to facilitate the exchange of information on a range of techniques, equipment and markets in the areas of clean and low waste technology. NETT is jointly funded by the European Commission and by its membership and services, with the Commission support reducing over the next few years as membership is expected to build up. The president of NETT is Mr. A. J. Fairclough, formerly of the Department of the Environment and the European Commission.

  My Department's environmental agency, Warren Spring Laboratory, is a founder member of NETT and its Dr. Schofield is a member of the international board of management. My Department is therefore playing an active role in the further development of NETT.

  At present, there are 170 European members, including 27 United Kingdom organisations. Membership is expected to grow as more services come on line. The NETT secretariat has dealt with 30 inquiries from United Kingdom organisations.

  Unlisted Securities Market
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the steps his Department has taken to protect investors in the unlisted securities market since June 1987.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: Throughout the period since June 1987, the issue of shares other than those to be included on the official list of the stock exchange has been regulated under part III of the Companies Act 1985. Shares may be offered only by public limited companies, and there must be a prospectus which complies with the requirements set out in schedule 3 of the Act.

  The stock exchange, of which the unlisted securities market is part, has been a recognised investment exchange (RIE) within the terms of the Financial Services Act 1986 since the main provisions of that Act came into force in April 1988. Prior to this, the stock exchange was a recognised stock exchange under the terms of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958. Responsibility for RIEs has been transferred to the Securities and Investments Board, including ensuring their compliance with schedule 4 to the 1986 Act, which sets out the safeguards for investors which RIEs must provide.

  Since April 1988, those carrying on investment business in the United Kingdom, including advising and dealing or arranging deals in securities for them, have had to be authorised or exempt under the terms of the Financial Services Act.

  Faulty Goods
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many letters concerning the problems consumers have experienced with faulty goods he has(a) received directly, or (b) had forwarded to him since 11 March.
  625
  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: Since 11 March I have directly received approximately 300 letters about consumer problems with faulty goods and approximately a further 140 letters have been forwarded to me.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Yeast
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reply he has sent to representations from the director of Consumer Watch about the need to provide consumers with information about products made with genetically engineered yeast.

  Mr. Maclean
  I will send my hon. Friend, in his capacity as chairman of Consumer Watch, a copy of the reply which the Minister will shortly be sending to the director of Consumer Watch on this matter.

  Dairy Farming
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the amount payable each year to United Kingdom dairy farmers in co-responsibility levy.

  Mr. Curry
  United Kingdom dairy farmers paid an estimated £35·1 million in co-responsibility levy in the financial year 1989–90. Co-responsibility levy receipts are used for a number of purposes, including the promotion of milk products and the funding of milk sector subsidies. It is estimated that levy receipts contributed some £42 million towards such measures in the United Kingdom in 1989–90, but this figure is expected to fall in 1990–91 as a result of the cuts in the rate of levy agreed by the Council of Ministers in 1989 and hence the reduction in available levy receipts.

  Bristol Channel (Dumping)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many permits have been issued for the piping or dumping of waste materials into the Bristol channel; how many of these are for industrial, chemical or nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  There are 14 current licences for the dumping of waste materials from vessels into the Bristol channel including the Severn estuary. Two of these involve sewage sludge and the rest dredged spoil.

  Authorisations issued by my Department jointly with the Department of the Environment permitting the pipeline discharge of liquid radioactive wastes currently exist for nuclear power stations at Berkeley and Oldbury, which discharge into the Severn estuary, and at Hinkley Point, which discharges into the Bristol channel.

  Other discharges of radioactive wastes are a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales. Pipeline discharges of non-radioactive waste are a matter for the National Rivers Authority.

  National Farmers Union
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union; and what subjects were discussed.
  626
  Mr. Curry
  The Minister is meeting the president of the National Farmers Union and others today to discuss how United Kingdom industry can best respond to the recent developments in eastern Europe.

  Mink
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink farmers have been prosecuted for allowing mink to escape into the wild since 1979 under(a) the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 and (b) the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Maclean
  No prosecutions have been taken by the Ministry under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 since 1983, the first year for which records exist.

  Enforcement of the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is the responsibility of the police. Details are not held centrally, but I am not aware of any recent prosecutions.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink farms in the United Kingdom have closed in 1988–89; and what measures his Department is taking to dicourage the breeding of mink.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of licensed mink farms in the United Kingdom has varied in recent years, as follows:

  Number

  31 March 1988

  54

  31 March 1989

  61

  20 February 1990

  50

  The Government do not encourage or discourage mink farms, but seek to ensure that they keep mink securely and humanely.

  Arctic Fox Farms
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the number of arctic fox farms in the United Kingdom and where they are situated.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1987, the last year for which statistics are available, arctic foxes were farmed at three establishments, two in England and one in Scotland.

  Exports
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which are the volumes and values of the top five agricultural products exported from England and Wales in the last financial year.

  Mr. Curry
  The following table, based on provisional data, shows the five main agricultural products, by value, exported from the United Kingdom during the calendar year 1989. Data for financial years are not readily available and information for England and Wales cannot be separately identified.
  627

  Value (£'000)

  Volume (000s tonnes)

  Alcoholic beverages

  1,767,980

  745

  Meat (other than from bovine animals) and edible meat offal for human consumption; fresh, chilled or frozen

  358,025

  227

  Cereal preparations and preparations of flour or starch of fruits or vegetables

  343,027

  514

  Wheat (including spelt) and meslin, unmilled

  326,247

  3,278

  Meat of bovine animals; fresh, chilled or frozen

  303,698

  138

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Environment Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has received an invitation to be represented at the environmental biotechnology conference in Braunsweig on 23 to 27 April, organised by the GFB and the European Environmental Research Foundation.

  Mr. Maclean
  No such invitation can be traced.

  Correspondence (MEPs)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, since 18 June 1989, how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice, where such matters are involved, to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

  Mr. Curry
  We have received a number of inquiries during the period. Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  Offal
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether those offals specified in the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 are permitted for use in(a) animal feedstuffs for pigs and poultry and (b) pet food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. There is no scientific justification for prohibiting the use of any ruminant-based protein in food for pigs, poultry or domestic pets.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the updated total figures for confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in England and Wales since records were first kept.
  628
  Mr. Gummer
  Since November 1986, when BSE was first identified, until 23 March 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, 10,409 cases have been confirmed in England and 764 cases in Wales.

  Research
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the criteria under which he funds research projects under the open contracting and strategic fund 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The open contracting and strategic fund 1990–91 was used, as in previous years, to meet urgent needs for research and development in line with MAFF's policy requirements. In doing this, we have sought also to widen the range of contractors beyond MAFF's own in-house laboratories and those of the research councils. Proposals made far exceed the sums of money available and decisions are made in favour of those proposals which best meet MAFF's needs, give good balance to wider programmes, have the best scientific and technical quality and represent value for money.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the projects he is funding on bovine spongiform encephalopathy under the open contracting and strategic fund 1990–91, giving the name of the relevant body and amount of money to be paid for each project.

  Mr. Gummer
  A £6·1 million programme of research on BSE being funded by my Department was announced on 9 January in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns),Official Report, column 572.

  In addition, under the open contracting and strategic fund 1990–91, one project on BSE was approved which will be funded subject to contract:

  Title

  Duration

  Total cost £000

  Population genetics of BSE: evidence for the inheritance of susceptibility to BSE

  3 years

  155

  It would be inappropriate to provide more detailed contractual information at this stage.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his reasons for refusing grant aid under the open contracting and strategic fund 1990–91 for a project for the development of a routine diagnostic test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy as an alternative to histopathology.

  Mr. Gummer
  Research to find a diagnostic test in the live animal was considered a high priority by the Tyrrell committee and funds have already been made available for this work. A proposal was made under the open contracting and strategy fund for a post-mortem test. A technique for post-mortem confirmation of bovine spongiform encephalopathy already exists and, while the project was examined carefully, when compared with other project applications under the fund, it was not considered to be of sufficient merit to warrant funding on this occasion.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has determined the market support prices for potatoes to apply in Great Britain for the 1990–91 crop year beginning 1 July.

  Mr. Gummer
  Agriculture Ministers have consulted the farmers' unions about the market support arrangements to apply for the 1990–91 crop year. Ministers have decided that the guaranteed price should remain £53 per tonne. They have authorised the board to decide whether it wishes to support the market by entering into pre-season contracts with producers or by intervening directly, provided that total purchases do not exceed 500,000 tonnes. The target area for potato plantings by registered producers in Great Britain was fixed last July at 154,500 hectares.

ENERGY

  Correspondence (MEPs)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament since 18 June 1989 that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice, where such matters are involved, to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Information on the number of communications from Members of the European Parliament is not identifiable except at disproportionate cost. However, it is the practice, where an MEP raises a matter in correspondence which is exclusively of local interest, to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, the reply to such a communication would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he is reviewing his policy on the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation to 12GW of coal-burning electricity generating capacity;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to deal with coal-burning power station emission problems by means of combustion process controls as distinct from importing low-sulphur content coal:

  (3) what effect he envisages on the make-up of British Coal, after the current three-year contract with the principal generators, if flue gas desulphurisation proceeds only at the 4GW Drax project.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 March 1990, c. 274]: Subject to scrutiny of their detailed plans, I expect National Power and PowerGen to meet the SO2 emissions reductions required by the EC large combustion plants directive in 1998 by each undertaking 4GW of FGD retrofits and by adopting supplementary measures such as the burning of low-sulphur fuels.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Police (Vacancies)
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many current vacancies there are at chief officer rank in each constabulary in England and Wales.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    There is only one force, Derbyshire, where the post of chief constable remains unfilled until the police authority makes an appointment.

    Prisoners (Malaysian Diet)
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are made for providing a Malaysian diet to remand prisoners who may request such a diet; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Mellor
    Remand prisoners receive the same meals as convicted inmates. Although a Malaysian diet is not provided, dietary variations are supplied on grounds of religion, and any inmate may request a vegetarian or vegan diet. Rice is issued in lieu of potatoes if it is a basic part of the diet in the inmate's country, and establishments use a wide variety of spices in preparing meals.

    Pentonville Prison (Unconvicted Prisoners)
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what educational facilities and opportunities for association there are for unconvicted prisoners in Pentonville prison; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Mellor
    There are education classes for two hours each morning and afternoon from Monday to Friday for those who wish to attend. In addition to recreational association for two hours once a week, each prisoner may associate with others in the course of routine activities, which include one hour's exercise in the open air each day (weather permitting), social visits for at least 15 minutes each weekday, physical education sessions lasting one and a half hours twice a week, visits to the prison canteen twice a week and attendance at religious services on Sundays. The regime will be considerably improved when these prisoners move to a completely refurbished wing in about six weeks' time.

    Life Imprisonment
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average term of imprisonment served by offenders sentenced to life imprisonment and the minimum periods served by those offenders sentenced to life imprisonment and released from custody during each of the years 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1989; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Mellor
    Information on the average time served under sentence was published in table 8.5 of the prison statistics England and Wales 1988 (Cm 825), a copy of which is in the Library.

    Details of the shortest time served are given in the table. All these prisoners were released on licence following a favourable recommendation by the Parole Board and after consultation with the judiciary as required by section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
    631
    Information for 1989 is not yet complete.

    Shortest period spent under sentence in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales by life sentence prisoners1 first released on licence in each of the years 1984 to 1988.

    Year of release

    Years under sentence2

    1984

    4·4

    1985

    4·2

    1986

    4·2

    1987

    2·2

    1988

    5·0

    1 Including detention for life or during Her Majesty's pleasure under s.53 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and custody for life.

    2 Excluding any time spent on remand in custody, in non-prison service establishments or following any subsequent recall.

    Fraud Squad
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish for each police force in England and Wales the percentage of officers assigned to fraud squad duties for each of the last five years;

    (2) if he will publish for each police force in England and Wales for each of the last five years (a) the number of officers assigned to fraud squad duties, (b) the number of prosecutions brought and (c) the number of convictions secured.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    The figures for the last five years for which records are available are set out in the table. Offences of fraud and forgery are recorded together; the figures for prosecutions and convictions in 1989 are not yet available. Statistics on the strength of fraud squads before 1987 are not readily available; the figures for 1985 come from those published in the Roskill report.

    Fraud and Forgery
    1984

    Proceeded against

    Found guilty

    Avon and Somerset

    654

    597

    Bedfordshire

    256

    195

    Cambridgeshire

    374

    344

    Cheshire

    465

    458

    Cleveland

    365

    341

    Cumbria

    196

    182

    Derbyshire

    406

    361

    Devon and Cornwall

    673

    605

    Dorset

    391

    350

    Durham

    243

    217

    Dyfed Powys

    220

    184

    Essex

    542

    466

    Gloucestershire

    287

    286

    Greater Manchester

    1,864

    1,761

    Gwent

    293

    249

    Hampshire

    906

    818

    Hertfordshire

    342

    308

    Humberside

    448

    413

    Kent

    535

    535

    Lancashire

    1,102

    1,028

    Leicestershire

    302

    281

    Lincolnshire

    287

    251

    Merseyside

    1,058

    901

    Norfolk

    303

    274

    Northamptonshire

    267

    246

    Northumbria

    647

    556

    North Wales

    319

    305

    North Yorkshire

    293

    265

    Nottinghamshire

    503

    450

    South Wales

    947

    814

    632

    Proceeded against

    Found guilty

    South Yorkshire

    612

    552

    Staffordshire

    449

    423

    Suffolk

    264

    236

    Surrey

    324

    300

    Sussex

    632

    617

    Thames Valley

    651

    617

    Warwickshire

    158

    148

    West Mercia

    403

    395

    West Midlands

    1,504

    1,306

    West Yorkshire

    1,337

    1,126

    Wiltshire

    176

    174

    City of London

    138

    90

    Metropolitan

    6,516

    5,696

    Total

    28,652

    25,721

    1985

    Proceeded Against

    Found Guilty

    Avon and Somerset

    709

    613

    Bedfordshire

    306

    267

    Cambridgeshire

    351

    310

    Cheshire

    483

    465

    Cleveland

    359

    326

    Cumbria

    237

    204

    Derbyshire

    540

    439

    Devon and Cornwall

    662

    591

    Dorset

    340

    315

    Durham

    226

    203

    Dyfed Powys

    171

    166

    Essex

    541

    501

    Gloucestershire

    267

    256

    Greater Manchester

    1,998

    1,864

    Gwent

    230

    230

    Hampshire

    894

    780

    Hertfordshire

    365

    321

    Humberside

    380

    342

    Kent

    514

    517

    Lancashire

    1,065

    989

    Leicestershire

    415

    360

    Lincolnshire

    277

    247

    Merseyside

    1,024

    851

    Norfolk

    322

    284

    Northamptonshire

    250

    225

    Northumbria

    674

    613

    North Wales

    284

    273

    North Yorkshire

    276

    255

    Nottinghamshire

    601

    583

    South Wales

    918

    791

    South Yorkshire

    640

    586

    Staffordshire

    421

    393

    Suffolk

    223

    210

    Surrey

    269

    230

    Sussex

    568

    547

    Thames Valley

    598

    588

    Warwickshire

    184

    174

    West Mercia

    445

    422

    West Midlands

    1,490

    1,341

    West Yorkshire

    1,179

    1,003

    Wiltshire

    184

    170

    City of London

    119

    86

    Metropolitan

    6,307

    5,573

    Total

    28,306

    25,504

    1986

    Proceeded against

    Found guilty

    Avon and Somerset

    725

    603

    Bedfordshire

    224

    179

    Cambridgeshire

    333

    301

    Cheshire

    403

    391

    Cleveland

    410

    392

    Cumbria

    256

    211

    633

    Proceeded against

    Found guilty

    Derbyshire

    351

    283

    Devon and Cornwall

    613

    548

    Dorset

    270

    252

    Durham

    269

    230

    Dyfed Powys

    177

    142

    Essex

    465

    422

    Gloucestershire

    224

    186

    Greater Manchester

    1,535

    1,456

    Gwent

    268

    205

    Hampshire

    866

    751

    Hertfordshire

    322

    326

    Humberside

    364

    320

    Kent

    532

    518

    Lancashire

    956

    828

    Leicestershire

    394

    369

    Lincolnshire

    264

    217

    Merseyside

    1,044

    817

    Norfolk

    296

    273

    Northamptonshire

    272

    255

    Northumbria

    697

    609

    North Wales

    286

    265

    North Yorkshire

    282

    238

    Nottinghamshire

    512

    471

    South Wales

    842

    674

    South Yorkshire

    686

    538

    Suffolk

    287

    239

    Surrey

    256

    243

    Sussex

    579

    527

    Thames Valley

    634

    589

    Warwickshire

    151

    137

    West Mercia

    442

    382

    West Midlands

    1,322

    1,107

    West Yorkshire

    1,017

    864

    Wiltshire

    181

    151

    City of London

    133

    108

    Metropolitan

    5,340

    4,899

    Total

    25,885

    22,845

    1987

    Proceeded against

    Found guilty

    Avon and Somerset

    595

    486

    Bedfordshire

    334

    228

    Cambridgeshire

    317

    257

    Cleveland

    419

    355

    Cumbria

    265

    224

    Derbyshire

    372

    336

    Devon and Cornwall

    615

    553

    Dorset

    250

    195

    Durham

    233

    199

    Dyfed Powys

    214

    172

    Essex

    601

    468

    Gloucestershire

    310

    258

    Greater Manchester

    1,605

    1,378

    Gwent

    394

    291

    Hampshire

    830

    719

    Hertfordshire

    366

    322

    Humberside

    379

    321

    Kent

    598

    540

    Lancashire

    1,015

    820

    Leicestershire

    338

    295

    Lincolnshire

    310

    268

    Merseyside

    933

    687

    Norfolk

    363

    323

    Northamptonshire

    248

    201

    Northumbria

    698

    631

    North Wales

    281

    255

    North Yorkshire

    334

    277

    Nottinghamshire

    627

    579

    South Wales

    871

    687

    South Yorkshire

    664

    534

    Staffordshire

    438

    359

    634

    Proceeded against

    Found guilty

    Suffolk

    243

    214

    Surrey

    240

    203

    Sussex

    613

    598

    Thames Valley

    581

    548

    Warwickshire

    159

    156

    West Mercia

    478

    393

    West Midlands

    1,379

    1,131

    West Yorkshire

    970

    819

    Wiltshire

    167

    169

    City of London

    192

    99

    Metropolitan

    5,124

    4,572

    Total

    26,371

    22,473

    1988

    Proceeded against

    Found guilty

    Avon and Somerset

    727

    556

    Bedfordshire

    291

    209

    Cambridgeshire

    273

    251

    Cheshire

    456

    391

    Cleveland

    347

    278

    Cumbria

    254

    205

    Derbyshire

    453

    381

    Devon and Cornwall

    642

    571

    Dorset

    306

    243

    Durham

    275

    199

    Dyfed Powys

    197

    161

    Essex

    59l

    446

    Gloucestershire

    311

    292

    Greater Manchester

    1,591

    1,501

    Gwent

    324

    267

    Hampshire

    1,018

    811

    Hertfordshire

    332

    283

    Humberside

    468

    404

    Kent

    552

    504

    Lancashire

    1,070

    869

    Leicestershire

    394

    324

    Lincolnshire

    286

    263

    Merseyside

    998

    713

    Norfolk

    372

    309

    Northamptonshire

    258

    202

    Northumbria

    646

    531

    North Wales

    323

    282

    North Yorkshire

    339

    271

    Nottinghamshire

    546

    503

    South Wales

    966

    738

    South Yorkshire

    703

    564

    Staffordshire

    444

    372

    Suffolk

    258

    210

    Surrey

    306

    242

    Sussex

    740

    579

    Thames Valley

    621

    523

    Warwickshire

    194

    152

    West Mercia

    514

    414

    West Midlands

    1,364

    1,155

    West Yorkshire

    1,189

    945

    Wiltshire

    219

    184

    City of London

    134

    107

    Metropolitan

    4,860

    4,285

    Total

    27,152

    22,690

    Fraud Squad Strengths

    1985

    Avon and Somerset

    10

    0·34

    Bedfordshire

    6

    0·61

    Cambridgeshire

    5

    0·44

    Cheshire

    4

    0·22

    Cleveland

    9

    0·62

    Cumbria

    4

    0·36

    Derbyshire

    8

    0·45

    Devon and Cornwall

    10

    0·36

    635

    Strength

    Per cent.

    Dorset

    5

    0·42

    Durham

    8

    0·62

    Dyfed Powys

    2

    0·22

    Essex

    11

    0·41

    Gloucestershire

    5

    0·43

    Greater Manchester

    19

    0·28

    Gwent

    4

    0·41

    Hampshire

    21

    0·68

    Hertfordshire

    7

    0·44

    Humberside

    12

    0·62

    Kent

    12

    0·42

    Lancashire

    11

    0·37

    Leicestershire

    7

    0·40

    Lincolnshire

    6

    0·53

    Merseyside

    16

    0·35

    Norfolk

    6

    0·48

    Northamptonshire

    3

    0·29

    Northumbria

    12

    0·36

    North Wales

    4

    0·32

    North Yorkshire

    4

    0·30

    Nottinghamshire

    11

    0·50

    South Wales

    13

    0·42

    South Staffordshire

    9

    0·32

    Staffordshire

    7

    0·33

    Suffolk

    6

    0·53

    Surrey

    2

    0·12

    Sussex

    10

    0·36

    Thames Valley

    11

    0·34

    Warwickshire

    7

    0·75

    West Mercia

    8

    0·42

    West Midlands

    34

    0·52

    West Yorkshire

    26

    0·551

    Wiltshire

    4

    0·39

    City of London

    62

    7·93

    Metropolitan

    147

    0·55

    Total

    588

    0·49

    1987

    Strength

    Percentage

    Avon and Somerset

    15

    0·50

    Bedfordshire

    6

    0·60

    Cambridgeshire

    5

    0·43

    Cheshire

    4

    0·22

    Cleveland

    10

    0·68

    Cumbria

    3

    0·26

    Derbyshire

    15

    0·84

    Devon and Cornwall

    10

    0·36

    Dorset

    5

    0·40

    Durham

    5

    0·37

    Dyfed Powys

    3

    0·32

    Essex

    13

    0·48

    Gloucestershire

    5

    0·43

    Greater Manchester

    28

    0·40

    Gwent

    4

    0·41

    Hampshire

    21

    0·67

    Hertfordshire

    7

    0·44

    Humberside

    11

    0·56

    Kent

    11

    0·38

    Lancashire

    10

    0·32

    Leicestershire

    6

    0·34

    Lincolnshire

    6

    0·51

    Merseyside

    18

    0·39

    Norfolk

    6

    0·46

    Northamptonshire

    4

    0·37

    Northumbria

    12

    0·35

    North Wales

    4

    0·31

    North Yorkshire

    4

    0·29

    Nottinghamshire

    13

    0·58

    South Wales

    16

    0·51

    South Yorkshire

    11

    0·37

    Staffordshire

    7

    0·33

    Suffolk

    4

    0·34

    Surrey

    1

    0·06

    Thames Valley

    10

    0·29

    336

    Strength

    Percentage

    Warwickshire

    11

    1·13

    West Mercia

    9

    0·46

    West Midlands

    49

    0·74

    West Yorkshire

    35

    0·67

    Wiltshire

    4

    0·36

    City of London

    52

    6·66

    Metropolitan

    143

    0·52

    Total

    624

    0·51

    1988

    Strength

    Percentage

    Avon and Somerset

    23

    0·77

    Bedfordshire

    8

    0·78

    Cambridgeshire

    5

    0·42

    Cheshire

    6

    0·32

    Cleveland

    8

    0·54

    Cumbria

    3

    0·26

    Derbyshire

    17

    0·95

    Devon and Cornwall

    10

    0·36

    Dorset

    5

    0·41

    Durham

    5

    0·37

    Dyfed Powys

    3

    0·32

    Essex

    14

    0·51

    Gloucestershire

    5

    0·43

    Greater Manchester

    28

    0·41

    Gwent

    5

    0·51

    Hampshire

    20

    0·65

    Hertfordshire

    7

    0·43

    Humberside

    11

    0·56

    Kent

    16

    0·54

    Lancashire

    10

    0·32

    Leicestershire

    6

    0·34

    Lincolnshire

    6

    0·50

    Merseyside

    35

    0·75

    Norfolk

    6

    0·45

    Northamptonshire

    7

    0·64

    Northumbria

    12

    0·35

    North Wales

    4

    0·31

    North Yorkshire

    4

    0·29

    Nottinghamshire

    13

    0·57

    South Wales

    16

    0·51

    South Yorkshire

    12

    0·41

    Staffordshire

    7

    0·33

    Suffolk

    5

    0·42

    Surrey

    3

    0·18

    Sussex

    10

    0·35

    Thames Valley

    12

    0·34

    Warwickshire

    7

    0·72

    West Mercia

    8

    0·41

    West Midlands

    44

    0·65

    West Yorkshire

    36

    0·69

    Wiltshire

    5

    0·46

    City of London

    64

    8·02

    Metropolitan

    135

    0·48

    Total

    666

    0·54

    1989

    Strength

    Percentage

    Avon and Somerset

    27

    0·88

    Bedfordshire

    6

    0·66

    Cambridgeshire

    6

    0·50

    Cheshire

    6

    0·32

    Cleveland

    8

    0·54

    Cumbria

    4

    0·35

    Derbyshire

    15

    0·84

    Devon and Cornwall

    10

    0·35

    Dorset

    12

    0·95

    Durham

    6

    0·44

    Dyfed Powys

    3

    0·32

    Essex

    14

    0·50

    Gloucestershire

    6

    0·52

    Greater Manchester

    31

    0·45

    Gwent

    6

    0·60

    637

    Strength

    Percentage

    Hampshire

    22

    0·71

    Hertfordshire

    7

    0·43

    Humberside

    10

    0·50

    Kent

    16

    0·54

    Lancashire

    10

    0·32

    Leicestershire

    9

    0·51

    Lincolnshire

    11

    0·93

    Merseyside

    29

    0·62

    Norfolk

    6

    0·44

    Northamptonshire

    7

    0·63

    Northumbria

    12

    0·34

    North Wales

    4

    0·30

    North Yorkshire

    4

    0·29

    Nottinghamshire

    13

    0·56

    South Wales

    16

    0·51

    South Yorkshire

    14

    0·48

    Staffordshire

    7

    0·32

    Suffolk

    6

    0·51

    Surrey

    4

    0·24

    Sussex

    12

    0·41

    Thames Valley

    12

    0·33

    Warwickshire

    8

    0·82

    West Mercia

    8

    0·41

    West Midlands

    54

    0·79

    West Yorkshire

    39

    0·75

    Wiltshire

    6

    0·54

    City of London

    63

    8·03

    Metropolitan

    143

    0·51

    Total

    712

    0·57

    Race Relations Act
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prosecutions have been made by the police since 1980 under section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976 in respect of written material likely to incite racial hatred;

    (2) how many requests have been made to the police since 1980 under section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976 in respect of written material likely to incite racial hatred but where the police have taken no notice concerning the request.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Prosecutions in respect of written material likely to incite racial hatred are brought by or with the consent of the Attorney-General. Since 1980 there have been 60 such prosecutions. These have been under section 5A of the Public Order Act 1936 introduced by section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976, section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, which replaced section 5A of the Public Order Act 1936 with regard to the publication or distribution of written material, or section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which relates to conspiracy to commit offences.

    Information on the number of complaints that have been made to the police since 1980 about material likely to incite racial hatred or the ensuing prosecutions is not centrally available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Asylum
    Mr. Bernie Grant
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the Turkish Kurdish asylum seekers who sought entry in May and June 1989(a) are still to be interviewed and (b) have been interviewed but no decision has yet been made;
    638
    (2) whether he will make a statement on the length of time it is taking for initial decisions to be reached in the case of the Turkish Kurdish asylum seekers who came to the United Kingdom in May and June 1989.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Of the 3,700 Turkish nationals who claimed asylum on arrival in April, May and June 1989, some 1,900 claimed asylum in their own right and their dependants will have their cases decided accordingly. A special unit has been established which is conducting 40 interviews each week. Some 1,500 applicants have now been interviewed and initial decisions taken in the majority of cases. On 30 March 1990, in 134 cases interviews had been conducted but no decision reached.

    We expect to complete most of the remaining interviews and to reach initial decisions on their cases by the end of May. The timetable for interviews has been agreed with solicitors representing the applicants.

    Correspondence (MEPs)
    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament since 18 June 1989 that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice, where such matters are involved, to provide the honourable Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Since 18 June 1989, I have received 44 communications from Members of the European Parliament concerning local or United Kingdom matters. Where members of the European Parliament raise matters which are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As to other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

    Wales (Official Visits)
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the dates on which he has made an official visit to Wales since his appointment to his present post.

    Mr. Waddington
    I visited Wales on 19 February 1990 when I addressed a conference on alcohol and disorder in Newport. I also met organisers and members of the Gwent victims support group on that day.

    Serious Disorder, London
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis giving details of the intelligence information available to the Metropolitan police prior to the protest march on Saturday 31 March in London against the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    No. The Commissioner will consider any relevant information as part of his review of the events on 31 March.

    Voluntary Sector Funding
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the report of the efficiency scrutiny of Government funding of the voluntary sector; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waddington
    The report has been published today. The Government value highly the great contribution made by voluntary bodies to individuals, the communities in which they live and work, and their environment. Effective voluntary organisations channel the energies of individuals to help themselves and others. They meet people's needs imaginatively. They encourage individual and community responsibility.

    The Government already support the voluntary sector on a very large scale. In 1988–89 Government grants exceeded £2 billion. This money must be used for good purposes; and it must be used efficiently. The report of the efficiency scrutiny of Government funding of the voluntary sector provides a basis for improving arrangements to secure this.

    The Government will continue to provide funds for efficiently managed voluntary organisations which provide worthwhile services, yield practical benefits and meet other valuable objectives. Support for the voluntary organisations involves a partnership between the public sector, the corporate sector and individual donors. We have made tax concessions to encourage this. Voluntary bodies should be encouraged to raise more money from private and corporate donations: it would, clearly, be damaging to the whole nature of voluntary effort if voluntary bodies were to become over-dependent on public funding.

    Government funding for voluntary bodies will be governed by a number of principles:
    They will support organisations which can achieve a direct practical effect: for example, assisting disabled people; improving the environment; providing skills for the unemployed.
    Projects and bodies receiving Government money must uphold accepted ethical standards: for example to support family life.
    Government financial support for voluntary bodies should help to achieve the overall policies of Departments: they must carefully determine how this should be done.
    The opportunity which voluntary bodies give ordinary people to make an active contribution to the life of the community is one of their important strengths. One of the factors to be taken into account in Goverment support to voluntary bodies should therefore be the extent to which they use or encourage volunteers.
    Any campaigning in which voluntary bodies engage must be ancillary to their objectives as required by charity law. Government grant conditions will, therefore, take this fully into account.
    Government funding will normally be for specific services or for projects limited to a particular period. It will be subject to review as policies evolve with changing circumstances; though where a body has a continuing role in achieving particular policy goals or provides services for other voluntary organisations Goverment funding for the body's administrative core costs may in certain circumstances be appropriate.
    Departments funding voluntary bodies will monitor the results obtained from their funding and have regard to the efficiency with which the body is administered and the costs of its administration.

    In the light of these principles Departments will take action to review their funding programmes. They will prepare action plans which will be considered in July by the ministerial group on the voluntary sector chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

    Mr. John Stalker
    Sir John Wheeler
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consideration of the document handed to his private secretary on 25 January by Mr. John Stalker; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waddington
    I have now completed my study of this document, which is a typed copy of manuscript notes from the diary of Sir John Hermon, then Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, relating to the period 16 May 1986 to 2 June 1986. I have also further examined the statement which Mr. Stalker issued to the press at the same time.

    Mr. Stalker drew particular attention to two entries in Sir John Hermon's diary. The first, under the heading "18 May 1986—Sunday", records a telephone call to Sir John from Sir Philip Myers, Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. At the end the following words appear: "Mentioned a CC seeing BS RA TK and that DH was au fait with developments". Sir John Hermon has confirmed that the persons referred to by their initials were Sir Barry Shaw, then Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, Sir Robert Andrew, then Permanent Under-Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, then Secretary of State for the Home Department. Sir John has also confirmed that "a CC" meant a chief constable and that he did not, at that time, know the identity of that chief constable. He was, however, in no doubt that Sir Philip was talking about future contacts between a chief constable and the persons identified by their initials.

    Sir Philip Myers has confirmed that the chief constable, to whom he referred but did not name in the conversation recorded by Sir John Hermon, was in fact Mr. Colin Sampson, then Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire police who was subsequently to replace Mr. Stalker as leader of the inquiry in Northern Ireland. Mr. Sampson has confirmed that he knew nothing about the possibility that Mr. Stalker might be the subject of an investigation before he attended a meeting at Scarborough on 19 May chaired by the then chief inspector of constabulary, Sir Lawrence Byford. The other persons present at that meeting were Sir Philip Myers, Mr. James Anderton, Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police, Mr. Ralph Lees, Assistant Chief Constable of Greater Manchester police, and a staff officer. That was the meeting at which Mr. Anderton decided to refer certain information relating to Mr. Stalker to his police authority.

    Against this background, it is a matter for regret that, in his published statement of 25 January, Mr. Stalker misquoted Sir John Hermon's diary entry so as to make it refer to Sir Philip Myers telling him that "a Chief Constable has seen BS RA and TK and that DH was au fait with developments", with a clear implication that the entry referred to events that had already taken place. In fact, Mr. Sampson had at that time seen none of the persons to whom Sir John was referring.

    As regards the words "DH was au fait with developments", it would have been perfectly natural for Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary to have informed the Home Secretary that problems were arising in relation to Mr. Stalker's position, but there is now no

    641
    other record to show whether he did so before 19 May. My right hon. Friend's recollection is that he was first informed after 19 May.

    The second diary entry to which Mr. Stalker has drawn special attention appears under the heading "May 30. 1986—Friday". It contains the following words "Expressed concern regarding structure of enquiry. Clearly collusion between PM/RA/CS and DPP. I must hold the line". By the time this entry was made, Mr. Stalker had already been placed on extended leave. Sir John Hermon has confirmed that this was a reference to the arrangements for the appointment of a replacement for Mr. Stalker and to arrangements for the continuance of the inquiry, about which he felt, at that time, that he was not being adequately consulted. He has also said publicly that nothing sinister should be read into the "collusion" in this context and that he regrets both its use and the subsequent publication of what were intended to be purely personal notes. I am entirely satisfied that, contrary to the assertion made by Mr. Stalker in his statement of 25 January, Sir John Hermon's diary entry for 30 May 1986 had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Stalker's removal from the inquiry in Northern Ireland.

    The facts leading to the removal of Mr. Stalker from the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation are straightforward. During the course of a criminal investigation in Greater Manchester unconnected with the inquiry in Northern Ireland, information came to light which cast doubt on Mr. Stalker's conduct. The information was referred to the Greater Manchester police authority, which decided that there should be an investigation into the conduct of Mr. Stalker and placed him on leave of absence. They were the disciplinary authority for Mr. Stalker, and the decision was entirely a matter for them. An officer who is under investigation himself cannot continue an investigation into the actions of officers in another force, since doubts about his probity must cast doubt on any work which he does. Mr. Stalker therefore had to be replaced as leader of the investigation in Northern Ireland.

    Computer Fraud
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the amount of money stolen by computer fraud in 1989; and what measures are being taken to combat this type of crime.

    Mr. Forth
    I have been asked to reply.

    Information on computer fraud is not collected centrally, and an estimate cannot therefore be made with any degree of accuracy. However, it is clear from anecdotal evidence that computer fraud and the broader problem of computer misuse are sufficiently widespread to be of concern.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) is sponsoring a private Member's Bill to strengthen the criminal law to deal with these issues. The Bill is currently before Parliament, and my Department is giving Mr. Colvin all the support it properly can. We have also launched a three-year awareness programme to emphasise the importance of good computer security.

    Criminal Justice
    Mr. Janner
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the organisations and individuals that have made submissions to him since the publication and on the subject of "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", the Government's proposal for legislation.

    Mr. John Patten
    [holding answer 30 March 1990]: We invited comments by 30 April and we have already had an encouraging response. As soon as possible after that date, I shall let the hon. and learned Gentleman know which organisations have commented.

  WALES

    Sewage Outfalls
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many short sea outfalls known to his Department discharge untreated sewage into the sea around the Welsh coast.

    Mr. Grist
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 8 November 1989, Vol. 159, column 649.

    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information his Department holds on the future plans by Welsh Water plc for constructing long sea outfalls around the Welsh coast; and if he will give the Ordnance Survey grid references for each such site.

    Mr. Grist
    The future plans of Welsh Water plc are a matter for that company.

    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate the other participants in the research into sea waters contaminated by sewage, referred to in his reply of 31 October 1988,Official Report, column 550; and what progress has been made in the research.

    Mr. Grist
    The working group advising on the conducting of the research include officials from the Department of the Environment, Department of Health, Scottish Development Department, Welsh Office and HMIP and representatives from the public health laboratory service, Water Services Association, Water Research Centre, Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre, the Robens Institute, the university of Wales, Altwell Ltd. and the National Rivers Authority. The first report is due to be presented soon.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to attend any meetings of the European Council of Ministers.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    It has not been the normal practice of Welsh Office Ministers to attend meetings of the European Council of Ministers. I have, of course, met members of the European Commission to discuss issues of importance to Wales, and I am in close touch with developments.

    Bathing Waters
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to require Welsh Water plc to erect signs on those bathing beaches that have failed to comply with the 1976 EEC bathing waters directive.

    Mr. Grist
    No.

    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that all bathing waters in Wales comply with the 1976 EEC bathing waters directive by the summer of 1992.

    Mr. Grist
    The £96·8 million investment programme which has been agreed with Dwr Cymru should ensure that all bathing waters in Wales listed under the directive comply with its bacteriological standards by 1995. A list of the individual schemes has been placed in the Library.

    Water Prices
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the percentage increase above the retail prices index that the price of water will rise in the year 1991–92 within the area served by Welsh Water plc.

    Mr. Grist
    Dwr Cymru will be allowed to increase the average of its principal charges by the percentage change in the retail price index plus an adjustment factor of 6·5 per cent. in 1991–92.

    Alzheimer's Disease
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to inform general practitioners of the eligibility for community charge exemption of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease and senile dementia.

    Mr. Grist
    The acting chief medical officer wrote to all doctors in Wales on 10 November 1989 to give them information and guidance about the certification procedure for exemptions from the personal community charge on grounds of severe mental impairment. The ACMO's letter, a copy of which I am placing in the Library, included guidance on the criteria according to which severe mental impairment is to be judged.

    Viruses
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial contribution his Department has made to the study into the survival rates of viruses in sea water.

    Mr. Grist
    The Department contributed £27,757 towards a study, funded jointly with the Welsh water authority, by Dr. J. M. Tyler concerning viruses in sea and fresh water.

    Motor Neurone Disease
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if(a) L-Threonine and (b) branch chain amino acids are available for the treatment of motor neurone disease in the National Health Service; and how many people in Wales suffer from motor neurone disease.

    Mr. Grist
    Under National Health Service regulations medical practitioners have freedom to prescribe whatever 644
    drugs are considered to be clinically necessary for the treatment of their patients except those items which are included under the selected list scheme. Foods and food supplements are not normally prescribable and branch chain amino acids, which include L-Threonine, are more properly classified as foods. Doctors can, however, prescribe food supplements where these are, in their clinical judgment, necessary for the treatment of patients, but they may be required to justify their prescribing to the district medical committee.

    Exact information on how many people suffer from motor neurone disease is not held centrally.

    British Steel
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit British Steel, Shotton.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to meet the chairman of British Steel.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    I met him on 19 March.

    Toxic Waste
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to visit toxic waste tips in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    Members of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution visit licensed waste disposal sites in the course of their duties as necessary.

    Aberystwyth-Machynlleth Road
    Mr. Geraint Howells
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to improve the trunk road from Aberystwyth to Machynlleth during the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Roberts
    The A487 Furnace Bridge-Eglwys Fach improvement scheme is programmed to start after April 1994, as indicated in table 6 of "Roads in Wales—Progress and Plans for the 1990s".

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Geraint Howells
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to how many extra staff have been employed by local authorities in Dyfed and Powys for the administration of the poll tax system; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    This information is not held centrally.

    Aberystwyth (Bypass)
    Mr. Geraint Howells
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to build a bypass in Aberystwyth, Cardiganshire; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Roberts
    No. One hundred per cent. principal road grant assistance has been approved for improvements to the A4120, a local authority road, which helps to remove through traffic from Aberystwyth. A study of the road network in the Aberystwyth area is also being undertaken in conjunction with Dyfed county council.

    Queensferry High School
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Queensferry high school consequent upon Clwyd county council's decision to close Queensferry high school.

    Mr. Roberts
    I have no plans to do so.

    Flooding, North Wales
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what extra subvention he will pay to the borough councils of north Wales whose territory was affected by the March 1990 sea inundation; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to him on 14 March—Volume 169, columns 243-44—and am keeping the situation under review.

    Workers Educational Association
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has completed his review of the funding of the Workers Educational Association in Wales.

    Mr. Roberts
    The Workers Educational Association has played an important role in the provision of adult liberal education in Wales for many years. There continues to be a need for this type of provision and I have concluded that in the context of the educational scene in Wales, Welsh Office support for Workers Educational Association activity in Wales should continue. Discussions will be held with the Workers Educational Association however on establishing a new funding regime which reflects more directly the level of course provision and student participation in Wales.

    Parent Teachers Associations
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has met the parent teacher associations of Wales.

    Mr. Roberts
    [holding answer 3 April 1990]: I addressed the annual general meeting of the parent teacher associations of Wales in November 1987.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Tourism
    Mr. Speller
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which professional bodies within the hotel and catering industry he consults when matters relating to tourism are under consideration.

    Mr. Nicholls
    My right hon. and learned Friend consults those organisations which are appropriate for the issue under consideration.

    Young People (Earnings)
    Ms. Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the most recent figures derived from the 1989 New Earnings Survey, showing the average weekly gross earnings not affected by absence, full-time, for 16-year-olds and for 17-year-olds.
    646
    Mr. Nicholls
    The information requested is provided in the following table:

    Average gross weekly earnings April 1989

    1Age

    All employees

    16

    £85·9

    17

    £98·9

    1 As at 1 January 1989.

    Note: Full-time employees, earnings not affected by absence.

    Training Courses
    Ms. Armstrong
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what system of quality control he envisages for training courses run by private training organisations or by employers under his announced system of training credits.

    Mr. Nicholls
    The operation of training credit schemes will be the responsibility of training and enterprise councils (TECs) which are invited to submit bids for approval to run pilot schemes against the criteria set out in "Training Credits for Young People: A Prospectus". In all cases training will have to be to approved standards and skill levels.

    In particular, the schemes will have to ensure training that leads at a minimum to qualifications at or equivalent to the second level of the framework established by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. Employers and others who provide training under the credit scheme will have to meet the same quality criteria which apply more generally under youth training. The schemes will be aimed at demanding targets for participation by young people, levels of skills attainment and jobs with training.

    There will be vigorous, regular monitoring and evaluation of the schemes including visits by the training standards and advisory service, and follow-up of all young people when they leave the credit schemes.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secetary of State for Employment whether any members of staff of the Health and Safety Executive have examined the accident books from the Channel tunnel sites; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Nicholls
    Regulation 7 of the Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 places duties on employers and others to keep records of every event which is required to be reported under the regulations to the appropriate enforcing authority. Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive have examined samples of the record kept by the Channel tunnel contractors and are satisfied that the contractors have complied with the requirements of the regulations.

    Training Vouchers
    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received regarding his training vouchers scheme.

    Mr. Nicholls
    My right hon. and learned Friend has received a considerable number of representations from a range of interested organisations, all of which have expressed support for the scheme of training credits for young people.

    Unemployed People (Advice)
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to improve the help and advice given to unemployed people by the employment service; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Howard
    I have today agreed with the employment service a number of changes which extend and improve the present system of offering counselling and advice to unemployed people. These changes will be of particular benefit to those who have been unemployed for over six months.

    The changes are aimed at those unemployed people who are prepared to get back to work but have not been able to do so and also at making sure that the recent legislative changes which require those in receipt of benefit to be actively seeking work are properly enforced.

    The main points where improvements to the present system will be made are:
    a back to work plan agreed with the adviser which gives individual guidance for each unemployed person on how best to find work. This will be reviewed and revised at regular intervals. Accompanying it will be a new booklet emphasising that the need to look for work is a fundamental responsibility of everyone who expects to receive unemployment benefits and giving general guidance on how best to go about it;
    a new advisory interview after 13 weeks of unemployment with a check on activity in looking for a job and subsequent help for those who have been unable to get work even though their skills are in demand in the local labour market;
    a unified advisory service which will abolish the increasingly artificial distinction between restart counsellors and claimant advisers and enhance the support that the employment service can give to unemployed people. In particular, the employment service will aim to ensure that each unemployed person after the fresh claims stage is seen by the same adviser during any period of unemployment;
    a more systematic follow-up of those who do not take up places on employment training, in job clubs or on restart courses even though they have agreed to do so. Advisers will be given a caseload of unemployed people whom they will re-interview if necessary so that the reasons behind individual decisions can be checked and further advice and action considered;
    extra intensive counselling and advice for those who have been unemployed for two years.

    Taken together, these measures will improve the effectiveness of the help that the employment service is able to give to unemployed people in getting them away from dependency on benefit and into work or other opportunities that will improve their chances of getting a job.

    Skill Centres
    Mr. Cryer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the skill centres to be sold and the purchasers in each case; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Eggar
    [holding answer 3 April 1990]: The following list includes details placed in the Vote Office on 13 February concerning the successful bids by Astra Training Services Ltd and Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd, together with information provided in answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) (Official Report, 28 February 1990, column 249), and my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) (Official
    648
    Report, 7 March 1990, column 672) and for Hexham (Mr. Amos) (Official Report, 13 March 1990, column 216) concerning the successful bids by Mr. J. James, a consortium headed by Mr. Christopher Lakin, and Training Business Ltd. It lists skill centres, and other units within the Skills Training Agency, which are to be sold and the successful bidder in each case. There will be no more sales of training businesses.

    To Astra Training Services Limited Management Buy-out Team

    Head Office—Sheffield

    Anglesey Outreach

    Barking Skillcentre

    Basildon Skillcentre

    Bellshill Skillcentre

    Billingham Skillcentre

    Birmingham Skillcentre

    Bradford Skillcentre

    Bristol Skillcentre

    Cardiff Skillcentre

    Cardiff Bay Outreach

    Catrine Outreach

    Cheshire Skillcentre (Runcorn)

    Chesterfield Skillcentre

    Coventry Skillcentre

    Deptford Skillcentre

    Derby Outreach

    Dundee Skillcentre

    Dunfermline Skillcentre

    Durham Skillcentre

    Edinburgh Skillcentre

    Enfield Skillcentre

    (Business only, transferring to site of former Annexe)

    Gloucester Skillcentre

    Gwent Skillcentre (Newport)

    Millington Skillcentre (and Instructor Training College)

    Hull Skillcentre

    Irvine Skillcentre

    Leeds Skillcentre

    Leicester Skillcentre

    Letchworth Training College (not Skillcentre)

    Manchester Skillcentre

    Medway Skillcentre (Gillingham)

    Milton Keynes Skillcentre

    North Staffs Skillcentre (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Norwich Skillcentre

    Nottingham Skillcentre

    Peterborough Skillcentre

    Plymouth Skillcentre

    Preston Skillcentre

    Redruth Skillcentre

    Rochdale Skillcentre

    Salisbury Outreach

    Scunthorpe Training Centre

    Sheffield Skillcentre

    Slough Skillcentre

    Sneinton Outreach

    Somerset Training Centre (Bridgewater)

    Southampton Skillcentre (not Millbrook Skillcentre)

    Stafford Outreach

    Swindon Skillcentre

    Telford Outreach

    Tyneside Skillcentre (Newcastle)

    Wakefield Skillcentre

    West Glamorgan Skillcentre (Port Talbot)

    West Sussex Skillcentre (Lancing)

    Wigan Skillcentre

    Wolverhampton Skillcentre

    Wrexhan Skillcentre

    Mobile Training Service

    Sales Teams

    To METEL (Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd)

    Liverpool Skillcentre

    To Mr. James

    649

    Gas and Water Safety Training business presently located at Letchworth Skillcentre

    To Consortium headed by Mr. C. Lakin

    Cumbria Skillcentre (Maryport)

    East Lanes Skillcentre (Accrington)

    Ipswich Skillcentre

    St. Helens Skillcentre

    To the Training Business

    Lambeth Skillcentre

    Skills Training Agency
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response the Minister of State has had about his offer to meet representatives of the trade unions about position papers prepared by bidders for the Skills Training Agency, together with assessments by the Government Actuary's Department of the successful bidders' pension proposals.

    Mr. Eggar
    [Pursuant to his reply, 20 March, Official Report, c. 573]: I met representatives of the STA trade unions on 16 March.

    Education Building Projects
    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the major capital building projects carried out by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland in each year since 1980; and if he will list those capital projects currently scheduled to start over the next five years.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    Major capital building projects are not carried out by the Department of Education. However, I am sending to the hon. Gentleman and copying to the Library details of major capital building projects carried out by various bodies which were approved for grant aid by the Department of Education in the financial years 1980–81 to 1989–90. Information on capital projects currently scheduled to start in the 1990–91 financial year is also included; projects starting in the next four years are not known at this stage.

    Culture
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of expenditure incurred to date related to the cultural traditions programme in Northern Ireland.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    Since the cultural traditions programme was introduced the Department of Education and the central community relations unit have incurred the following expenditure:

    Department of Education

    £000

    Arts Council

    Various drama, music, dance and story-telling projects and local arts festivals

    140

    Ulster Museum

    "Kings in Conflict" Exhibition and production of associated work-packs for schools

    95

    Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

    (i) Completion and conversion of Cluan Place Terrace to schools residential accommodation

    (ii) Initial work towards the production of an Ulster Dialect Dictionary

    105

    Ulster-American Folk Park

    (i) Secondment of teacher to develop classroom materials on the emigration theme

    650

    Department of Education

    £000

    (ii) Feasibility study relating to possible establishment of schools residential accommodation

    (iii) Fees for guide/lecturers.

    50

    Institute of Irish Studies

    Part publication of Ordnance Survey Memoirs and support for salary of part-time researcher and assistant in this field

    11

    BBC

    "Today and Yesterday" Festival for primary schools at Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

    9

    Old Museum Building

    Contribution towards refurbishment costs to enable building to open for local community arts activities

    30

    Education for Mutual Understanding Programme

    Production of materials for use in the classroom, by Stranmillis Training College and others

    80

    Central Community Relations Unit:

    Publications Subsidy Scheme

    Support for cultural traditions publications

    100

    Media Support

    Local history programmes, cross-community drama

    81

    Ulster Local History Trust Fund

    Support for publications by local history groups

    125

    Irish Language Support

    Ultach Trust and adult education programmes

    86

    Cars
    Mr. Arbuthnot
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the purpose of the annual inspection of cars aged five years and over; and what are the statutory responsibilities of car owners.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    The annual visual inspection of vehicles by officers of the Department of the Environment is to ensure that on the date of inspection the requirements of the Construction and Use Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1976 are complied with.

    This does not absolve the owner/user from his obligation, under article 29 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, to ensure that the vehicle complies at all times in all respects with the Construction and Use Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1976.

    The issue of a vehicle test certificate should not be relied upon as indicating the condition of particular test items of the vehicle other than at the moment of issue.

  HEALTH

    Mental Hospitals
    Mr. Gould
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will update information given in the answer to the hon. Member for Dagenham on 20 March 1987,Official Report, column 669.

    Mr. Freeman
    The tables list mental illness hospitals with over 200 beds which we are aware were approved far closure in 1988, hospitals which were closed between 1987 and 1989 inclusive and those mental illness hospitals which health authorities plan to close by about 1995. No mental illness hospitals with over 200 beds were approved far closure in 1989.
    651

    Table 1—mental illness hospitals with over 200 beds, approved for closure, following public consultation.

    Number of beds

    Date closure approved

    Yorkshire

    Clifton Hospital

    303

    March 1998

    Table 2—Mental illness hospitals closed between 1987 and 1989.

    Number of beds

    Yorkshire

    Naburn Hospital, Near York

    —

    Trent

    Saxondale Hospital

    —

    St John's Hospital, Lincolnshire

    —

    South Western

    Horton Road Hospital

    —

    Digby Hospital, Exeter

    —

    West Midlands

    Powick Hospital, Worcester

    —

    Middlewood Hospital, Sheffield

    606

    Towers Hospital, Leicestershire

    394

    Kingsway Hospital, Southern Derbyshire

    363

    East Anglian

    St Audry's Hospital, Woodbridge

    372

    St Nicholas' Hospital, Great Yarmouth and Waverney

    131

    St Andrews, Norwich

    335

    North East Thames

    Friern Hospital1

    673

    Claybury Hospital

    722

    South East Thames

    Cane Hill Hospital

    343

    Tooting Bec Hospital

    420

    Hellingly Hospital

    154

    St Augustines Hospital

    235

    South West Thames

    Long, Grove Hospital, Epsom

    404

    Brookwood Hospital

    489

    Wessex

    Whitecroft Hospital

    75

    Herrison Hospital, Dorchester

    263

    Old Manor Hospital1

    216

    Oxford

    St John's Hospital, Aylesbury

    282

    St Crispin's Hospital, Northampton

    263

    Littlemore Hospital, Oxford

    226

    West Midlands

    Barnsley Hall Hospital, Bromsgrove and Redditch

    169

    Rubery Hill Hospital, South Birmingham

    211

    Central Hospital, South Warwickshire

    298

    Hollymoor Hospital, Solihull

    279

    Mersey

    Rainhill Hospital

    487

    Parkside Hospital

    485

    Winwick Hospital

    815

    North Westrn

    North Manchester (Springfield) Hospital1

    145

    Northern

    St Mary's, Stannington

    495

    South Western

    Mendip Hospital

    96

    Moorhaven Hospital

    157

    652

    1 With some facilities remaining on site.

    HIV
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people there are in the northen region who are HIV positive because of contaminated blood transfusions.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    At the end of 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of people in Northern region who had been reported to the communicable disease surveillance centre as being HIV positive as a result of contaminated blood transfusions was greater than zero but less than 10. In line with the procedure followed in reports under the AIDS (Control) Act, to safeguard confidentiality, the actual figures in this range are not published.

    Drugs
    Mr. Michael Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) of 26 March,Official Report, column 46, whose forecast increase in the cost of drugs will be used in deciding the factor to set indicative drug budgets for general practitioners.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    The Department will give 372 annual guidance on the allowance to be made for the forecast increase in the cost of drugs when setting indicative drug budgets for the following year.

    Wales (Official Visits)
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the dates on which he has made an official visit to Wales since his appointment to his present post.

    Mr. Kenneth Clarke
    Responsibility for the health services in Wales lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I have therefore made no official visits to Wales as Secretary of State for Health.

    Family Planning
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support is being given by his Department to the Family Planning Association and Brook Advisory Centre.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Section 64 grants to both organisations are being renewed for the three-years ending 31 March 1993. The Family Planning Association will receive £165,000 in 1990–91, £130,000 in 1991–92 and £100,000 in 1992–93 from the Department of Health towards their headquarters administrative expenditure and regional activities. Financial support will also be provided by the health departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The equivalent grant for the last three-year period was £130,000 per annum.

    For the period 1990–1993 the grant to Brook will be maintained at the existing level of £45,000 per annum. This funding goes towards its headquarters administrative 145 costs, including the education and information activities designed to encourage responsible attitudes to personal relationships among young people under 25 and the co-ordination of the local Brook centres working directly with young people. In addition to the core grant a further award of £20,000 per annum for each of three years is being made to fund a new development officer post.
    653
    The conditions attaching to these organisations' grants, in relation to expenditure, activities and liaison with Government Departments, will continue to apply.

    Occupational Therapy
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the manpower planning advisory group on the future supply of occupational therapists has reported; if he will make it his policy to place its report in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    The manpower planning advisory group expects to report on occupational therapy skill mix and supply issues shortly. When the report is ready. I shall arrange for a copy of it to be placed in the Library.

    Pesticide Exposure
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the ability of doctors within the National Health Service to diagnose pesticide exposure.

    Mr. Freeman
    All doctors receive training during their undergraduate and postgraduate years in the diagnosis of acute poisoning, for instance by pesticides. In addition all general practitioners and hospital accident and emergency departments were issued with a copy of the book, "Pesticide Poisoning". This gives guidance on the diagnosis and treatment if acute poisoning from pesticides is suspected. If a doctor requires further advice on poisoning he can contact any of the five national poisons information centres, which offer a 24-hour service.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence is available to his Department of any connection between pesticides and Parkinson's disease.

    Mr. Freeman
    We have no conclusive evidence of any connection between pesticides and Parkinson's disease. Some recent preliminary research has shown that in individuals with an inherited tendency to metabolise in a restricted way certain classes of biochemical compounds, including some pesticides, there could be a link with degenerative nervous diseases like Parkinson's disease. The results are inconclusive and work continues.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what independent research has been carried out in the United Kingdom on the health effects of pesticide exposure.

    Mr. Freeman
    The Department of Health does not hold comprehensive information centrally about independent research carried out in the United Kingdom on the health effects of pesticide exposure. Nevertheless, medical staff in this Department keep abreast of developments published in relevant scientific journals.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department has of a connection between pesticides and cot deaths.

    Mr. Freeman
    We are not aware of any evidence suggesting a connection between cot deaths and pesticides. A diagnosis of cot death, or more specifically sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), is made when, after careful 654
    inquiry and through pathological examination, no specific cause of death can be found. In such circumstances it is not, of course, possible to be certain that some unidentified toxic agent has not contributed to a premature death. However, the epidemiological characteristics of SIDS, as a whole, are not consistent with a direct connection with pesticides.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what routine blood tests are available to determine levels of pesticide within an individual's blood.

    Mr. Freeman
    There is no evidence that blood tests for pesticide levels would be of benefit to symptomless individuals. Where patients present with symptoms which could be due to poisoning, for instance by pesticide, clinicians have access to local and supra-regional pathology laboratories. Laboratory staff carry out blood tests necessary to aid diagnosis and treatment.

    Correspondence (MEPs)
    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament since 18 June 1989 that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice where such matters are involved to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

    Mr. Freeman
    We have had 30 such letters. Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest, the practice should be to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

    NHS Buildings
    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the proportion of National Health Service buildings constructed(a) before 1890, (b) before 1918, (c)between 1919 and 1939, (d) between 1940 and 1964 and (e) after 1965.

    Mr. Freeman
    Up-to-date information on the age profile of the estate is not held centrally.

    Agency Staff
    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the amount spent on(a) agency nurses and (b) agency clerical and administrative staff for 1987–88 for each district health authority, special health authority and regional health authority and England as a whole.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Information derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department for 1987–88 is shown in a table which has been placed in the Library.

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 29 March at columns 318-20.

    NHS Consultants
    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the date and details of the last occasion on which the breach of contract by a National Health Service consultant was reported to him.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Allegations of breach of contract by an NHS consultant are a matter for the employing authority, and are not necessarily reported to the Department. Any such information affecting particular individuals is treated in confidence.

    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to ensure that hospital consultants honour their National Health Service contracts.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    This is primarily a matter for employing authorities. "Working for Patients" and its associated working paper 7 announced the Government's proposal to introduce fuller job descriptions for all hospital consultants to improve their accountability. Discussions with the profession are not yet completed. We intend to issue guidance to health authorities advising them to define more clearly the scope of consultants' duties, which will help to ensure that all consultants fulfil their NHS commitments.

    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any districts have taken action to deal with consultants who may have breached their National Health Service contract in the last year.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    This information is not collected centrally. Questions about consultants' fulfil-ment of their NHS contracts are a matter for resolution by employing authorities.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

    Mr. Kenneth Clarke
    [holding answer 12 March 1990]: No expenditure prior to 1986–87 has been identified. Expenditure in 1986–87 and subsequent years has been incurred for work by professional advisors on the sale of the General Practice Finance Corporation. The expenditure for each year is as follows:

    £

    1986–87

    23,000

    1987–88

    37,800

    1988–89

    174,621

    1989–90

    414,000

    The figure for 1989–90 is estimated.

    All expenditure up to and including 1988–89 has been from a joint Health and Social Security budget.

    There are no plans for any expenditure in 1990–91.

  SCOTLAND

    Firearm Licences
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many firearm licences have been revoked in Scotland in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Sections 30 and 52 of the Firearms Act 1968 as amended by section 12 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 provide powers to revoke firearm and shotgun certificates. The number of revocations in Scotland, since 1980, the earliest year for which figures are readily available, are as follows:

    Year

    Firearm

    Shotgun

    1980

    27

    59

    1981

    20

    52

    1982

    23

    66

    1983

    16

    54

    1984

    25

    67

    1985

    39

    99

    1986

    25

    69

    1987

    31

    101

    1988

    39

    142

    1989

    36

    124

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish pensioners have written to him since the Budget supporting the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from pensioners about different aspects of the community charge since the Budget statement.

    Violent Crime
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the numbers of violent crimes where firearms have been involved in each year since 1979.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    I refer the hon. Member to the annual bulletins published by the Scottish Home and Health Department under the title "Recorded Crimes and Offences Involving Firearms, Scotland", which give a comprehensive analysis of offences involving firearms including information on categories of firearms used, type of offence committed, and so on. The latest bulletin, which gives the figures for 1988, was published as SHHD statistical bulletin No. 4/1989. A copy is in the Library.

    Departmental Employees
    Mr. Home Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of people employed by his Department, including full-time and part-time employees and consultants.

    Mr. Rifkind
    The March 1990 figures for staff employed in the Scottish Office, Scottish prison service and the four minor Departments for which I am responsible (Scottish Record Office, General Register Office (Scotland), Department of the Registers of Scotland and the Scottish Courts Administration) are as follows:
    657

    Department

    Full-Time

    Part-Time

    Total

    Scottish Office

    6,173

    228

    6,401

    Scottish Prison Service

    3,855

    34

    3,889

    Scottish Record Office

    108

    11

    119

    General Register Office

    289

    28

    317

    Department of Registers

    987

    20

    1,007

    Scottish Courts Administration

    899

    61

    960

    Total

    12,311

    382

    12,693

    In addition, the Scottish Office has current contracts with 144 individual consultants or with consultancy firms. The Scottish prison service similarly has 29 such arrangements.

    Hepatitis B
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding newly reported cases of persons infected by the hepatitis B virus in each health board area in Scotland in each of the last five years.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    The number of reported cases of persons infected by the hepatitis B virus in each of the last five years is set out in the table:

    Health Board

    1985

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    Argyll and Clyde

    29

    27

    9

    2

    8

    Ayrshire and Arran

    18

    12

    4

    7

    4

    Borders

    1

    1

    0

    1

    0

    Dumfries and Galloway

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Fife

    2

    1

    3

    3

    5

    Forth Valley

    24

    12

    3

    4

    5

    Grampian

    69

    32

    34

    24

    14

    Greater Glasgow

    371

    231

    151

    174

    180

    Highland

    9

    7

    3

    2

    3

    Lanarkshire

    26

    24

    8

    5

    6

    Lothian

    101

    72

    53

    35

    35

    Orkney

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Shetland

    0

    1

    0

    1

    1

    Tayside

    53

    33

    41

    55

    24

    Western Isles

    3

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Other1

    2

    15

    13

    4

    12

    Total

    709

    469

    322

    317

    298

    1Cases which cannot be attributed to a specific Health Board.

    These figures show a welcome decline in the incidence of the disease.

    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the level of take-up of the hepatitis vaccine in each health board area in Scotland.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    This information is not routinely recorded by health boards.

    Schools
    Mr. Dewar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital expenditure on local authority schools in each Scottish regional and island council in each of the past 10 years in cash and constant prices.

    Mr. Rifkind
    The information is given in the following table, which has been compiled from local authority financial returns. The reduction in expenditure in real terms during the period reflects a substantial and progressive decline in pupil numbers which in turn reduced the requirement for new school building.658

    Capital Expenditure by Local Authorities on Schools

    1979–80

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At outturn prices

    At 1988–89 prices

    Borders

    552

    1,039

    Central

    3,264

    6,143

    Dumfries and Galloway

    1,509

    2,840

    Fife

    2,292

    4,313

    Grampian

    6,844

    12,880

    Highland

    2,326

    4,377

    Lothian

    7,745

    14,576

    Strathclyde

    17,292

    32,542

    Tayside

    2,228

    4,193

    Orkney

    155

    292

    Shetland

    2,906

    5,469

    Western Isles

    485

    913

    1980–81

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At outturn prices

    At 1988–89 prices

    Borders

    1,046

    1,663

    Central

    2,716

    4,319

    Dumfries and Galloway

    1,572

    2,500

    Fife

    2,503

    3,980

    Grampian

    8,658

    13,678

    Highland

    2,624

    4,173

    Lothian

    8,722

    13,870

    Strathclyde

    19,013

    30,235

    Tayside

    1,723

    2,740

    Orkney

    95

    151

    Shetland

    3,093

    4,919

    Western Isles

    626

    995

    1981–82

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At outturn prices

    At 1988–89 prices

    Borders

    921

    1,334

    Central

    2,419

    3,504

    Dumfries and Galloway

    1,668

    2,416

    Fife

    2,471

    3,579

    Grampian

    11,803

    17,095

    Highland

    3,203

    4,639

    Lothian

    7,073

    10,244

    Scrathclyde

    23,468

    33,990

    Tayside

    1,799

    2,606

    Orkney

    602

    872

    Shetland

    3,555

    5,149

    Western Isles

    1,422

    2,060

    1982–83

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At outturn prices

    At 1988–89 prices

    Borders

    643

    869

    Central

    1,388

    1,875

    Dumfries and Galloway

    2,042

    2,758

    Fife

    2,330

    3,147

    Grampian

    8,583

    11,594

    Highland

    2,813

    3,800

    Lothian

    8,003

    10,811

    Scrathclyde

    19,013

    25,684

    Tayside

    2,003

    2,706

    Orkney

    1,212

    1,637

    Shetland

    2,710

    3,661

    Western Isles

    1,638

    2,213

    1983–84

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At outturn prices

    At 1988–89 prices

    Borders

    703

    907

    Central

    1,068

    1,378

    Dumfries and Galloway

    2,400

    3,097

    Fife

    1,705

    2,200

    659

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At outturn prices

    At 1988–89 prices

    Grampian

    6,499

    8,388

    Highland

    1,649

    2,128

    Lothian

    5,898

    7,612

    Scrathclyde

    19,724

    25,456

    Tayside

    1,449

    1,870

    Orkney

    897

    1,158

    Shetland

    2,507

    3,236

    Western Isles

    917

    1,183

    1984–85

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At outturn prices

    At 1988–89 prices

    Borders

    913

    1,123

    Central

    1,083

    1,332

    Dumfries and Galloway

    2,376

    2,921

    Fife

    2,881

    3,542

    Grampian

    5,805

    7,137

    Highland

    817

    1,005

    Lothian

    5,941

    7,305

    Strathclyde

    19,969

    24,552

    Tayside

    2,114

    2,599

    Orkney

    1,253

    1,541

    Shetland

    1,829

    2,249

    Western isles

    964

    1,185

    1985–86

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At outturn prices

    At 1988–89 prices

    Borders

    1,064

    1,242

    Central

    1,407

    1,642

    Dumfries and Galloway

    2,463

    2,874

    Fife

    4,284

    4,999

    Grampian

    8,247

    9,624

    Highland

    1,320

    1,540

    Lothian

    6,132

    7,156

    Strathclyde

    20,072

    23,424

    Tayside

    2,751

    3,210

    Orkney

    1,211

    1,413

    Shetland

    1,055

    1,231

    Western Isles

    1,188

    1,305

    1986–87

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At out-turn prices

    At 1988–89 prices

    Borders

    876

    989

    Central

    2,378

    2,684

    Dumfries and Galloway

    2,102

    2,372

    Fife

    4,589

    5,179

    Grampian

    7,931

    8,951

    Highland

    1,125

    1,270

    Lothian

    3,732

    4,212

    Strathclyde

    17,290

    19,514

    Tayside

    2,012

    2,271

    Orkney

    913

    1,030

    Shetland

    502

    567

    Western Isles

    3,244

    3,661

    1986–87

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At out-turn prices

    At 1988–89 prices

    Borders

    951

    1,019

    Central

    2,798

    2,997

    Dumfries and Galloway

    656

    703

    Fife

    2,077

    2,225

    Grampian

    2,262

    2,423

    Highland

    2,521

    2,701

    Lothian

    8,108

    8,685

    Strathclyde

    19,714

    21,118

    Tayside

    3,267

    3,500

    Orkney

    979

    1,049

    660

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At out-turn prices

    At 1988–89 prices

    Shetland

    537

    575

    Western Isles

    3,872

    4,148

    1988–89

    Region/Islands Council Area

    At out-turn prices

    Borders

    1,060

    Central

    4,372

    Dumfries and Galloway

    1,661

    Fife

    4,753

    Grampian

    3,409

    Highland

    3,655

    Lothian

    7,828

    Strathclyde

    24,897

    Tayside

    3,605

    Orkney

    1,027

    Shetland

    929

    Western Isles

    2,196

    The figures include expenditure on nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

    Out-turn figures have been converted to 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator.

    Sir David Steel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has taken, and proposes to take, to ensure that schools meet an acceptable level of first aid provision by(a) meeting the Government's own guidelines and (b) matching the health and safety requirements required of factories and offices; and what time limit he has set for the attainment of such standards.

    Mr. Rifkind
    Education authorities are responsible for the operational management of schools and are responsible for the safety of pupils attending schools under their management. Health and safety legislation applies to schools as it does to other workplaces. Health and Safety Commission guidance on first aid in educational establishments recommends that the total number of people on site, not just the number of employees, be considered in assessing first aid needs.

    Regulations, which also provide for playground supervision in Scottish schools, came into force on 1 April this year putting a statutory duty on education authorities to take reasonable care for the safety of all pupils attending schools under their management. In addition, my Department is currently preparing guidance on first aid provision in schools and colleges which will be issued to education authorities.

    Trunk Roads
    Sir Hector Monro
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress on trunk road schemes during 1989–90 and about the progress expected in 1990–91.

    Mr. Rifkind
    Details of the major scheme starts made and expected to be made are as follows:

    Schemes with an estimated cost of over £1 million started since 1 April 1989

    M80 Stepps Bypass

    A82 Luss Bypass

    A7 Dalkeith Bypass

    A68 Newton St. Boswells Bypass

    A76 Cumnock and Auchinleck Bypass

    A87 Dornie Bypass

    A701 Ae Bridge

    A94 Stracathro Junction

    661
    These schemes had a total value of £66 million.

    Schemes with an estimated cost of over £l million expected to start by 31 March 1991

    M74 Millbank-Nether Abington

    A74 Upgrading schemes

    M74 Kirkpatrick Fleming-Gretna

    A74 Upgrading schemes

    M74 Elvanfoot-Paddy's Rickle Bridge

    A74 Upgrading schemes

    M74 Maryville-W. of Fullarton Road (Advance Works)

    A1 Tower-Dunglass

    A96 Nairn Railway Bridge Replacement

    A9 Greenloaning-Blackford

    A929 Tarbrax-Forfar

    A75 Carrutherstown-Hetland

    A77 Bennane Hill

    These schemes have a total value of £130 million, reflecting the 28 per cent. increase in trunk road funds for this year and the still further increase for the following year. I will be making a more detailed announcement on A74 upgrading schemes later this month. As to completions of major schemes, in 1989–90 eight major schemes were completed and in 1990–91 another 10 schemes are expected to be completed.

    Motorway Service Areas
    Mr. Bill Walker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy and practice for providing new motorway service areas in respect of development of the motorway network in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The Scottish Development Department is currently progressing a massive motorway building programme in Scotland and schemes valued at over £650 million are now coming on stream. An integral part of the development of the motorway network will be ensuring the provision of adequate services in strategic locations, such as network focal points. The general policy will be to secure new service areas spaced roughly 20 to 30 miles apart on existing motorways where there is a gap in provision and on new motorways.

    The general policy as to the siting, planning, design and operation of motorway service areas (MSAs) is to ensure:

    (a) the development of an adequate network of service facilities;

    (b) genuine competition for service provision through competitive tendering for provision of services;

    (c) road safety, by restricting and controlling access to the motorways, and by preventing inappropriate activities at service areas (such as the sale of alcohol);

    (d) the maintenance of the necessary range of services for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including facilities for the disabled and provision for heavy goods vehicles.

    The Department's policy will therefore be to ensure that the consumer is provided with an adequate range of choice and good value for money, while upholding the highest standards of road safety. This depends among other things on promoting fair competition among firms seeking to provide services. Normally competitive tenders are sought from the private sector for the development and a long lease of the site, in return for an appropriate rent which reflects the market value of the site as developed. In implementing its policy the Department will, of course, remain flexible to the specific needs and circumstances of particular routes, areas and local communities.

    To achieve the control over the planning, development and future use of MSAs it is intended that the Secretary of State should, except in very exceptional circumstances, own the sites which are identified as suitable for the provision of MSAs and that the Department should obtain
    662
    the appropriate planning clearance. If an identified site is not already in the Secretary of State's possession it will be acquired either voluntarily or, if necessary, by using compulsory purchase powers. The site would then be open to competition and thereafter leased to a firm which would provide the services with the necessary control over the site being exercised through appropriate conditions in the lease. Other things being equal, leases for adjacent sites would not be awarded to the same firm. The lease control would not entail intervening in the detailed management of sites, which is best left to the firm providing the services, but would ensure that basic requirements—for example, round-the-clock provision of certain facilities—continue to be met and that basic restrictions, for example, on the sale of alcohol, continue to be observed.

    As part of the route studies for the M74 and M80 motorways consultants will be advising on suitable sites for service areas. Once these have been identified and they are in the Secretary of State's ownership they will then be the subject of an application for planning clearance before making the necessary arrangements for leasing the site.

    Where proposals are brought forward for service areas which are designed to meet the needs of motorway users but which would not actually be sited on the motorway itself—that is, off a road or roundabout giving access to it—the relevant planning applications will fall to be considered by the local planning authority. In such cases planning authorities will no doubt take into consideration not only the road safety and traffic implications of the proposals but existing and proposed service areas on the motorway itself.

    I hope that I shall be able to make a further statement about our preferred locations for service areas in the near future.

    Electricity
    Mr. Allan Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to exercise his powers under section 97 and schedule 12 of the Electricity Act 1989.

    Mr. Rifkind
    I have today placed in the Library a copy of an agreement under section 97 and schedule 12 of the Electricity Act 1989 entered into with Scottish Nuclear Ltd. to provide assistance towards qualifying expenditure in respect of certain back-end costs of the nuclear cycle. The agreement relieves SNL of some of its inherited liabilities in relation to the generation of electricity by Magnox stations of up to £716 million by 1994. The qualifying expenditure to which the agreement relates will be incurred by the company over a period which is likely to exceed 100 years from the present. It is not therefore expected that payment of grant under the agreement will be made for some years.

    Student Allowances
    Mr. Allan Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish full details of student allowances for session 1990–91.

    Mr. Lang
    I announced the main rates of student grant for the 1990–91 academic year on 19 December 1989 a t columns 147-48 and I announced the new provisions for disabled students on 19 March at columns 450-51.

    I am publishing today the remaining supplementary grant rates for 1990–91 and full details have been placed in

    663
    the Library. The increases in these rates are broadly in line with the 5 per cent. increase in the main rates, previously announced.

    Consultancies
    Mr. Tim Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts; excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

    Mr. Rifkind
    [holding answer 28 March 1990]: Estimated expenditure on management consultancies and computer consultancies in the 1989–90 and 1990–91 financial years is, in rounded terms, as follows:

    £'000

    Management

    Computer

    1989–90

    300

    675

    1990–91

    400

    725

    The contracts awarded by my Department in 1989–90 are as follows:

    Management Consultancies and Subject of Assignment
    A Fegent—HBM Procurement.
    Touche Ross—Health Education Review.
    Peat, Marwick McLintock—Lothian Health Board.
    Coopers and Lybrand—HBM Executive Agency proposals.
    A Fegent—Overview of Scottish Office Purchasing.
    Price Warehouse—Creche facilities.
    British Institute of Management—Network analysis on probation court services and parole.
    Peat, Marwick McLintock—Further Education development planning.
    Edinburgh University—Interpretation of a new statistical method.
    CSL Group Ltd—Financial Regulations for School Boards.
    Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—Education Finance.

    Computer Consultancies—Subject of Assignment
    Gimms Ltd—Feasibility study on digital boundary conversion.
    DWH Associates—Advice on survey of geographical data.
    Know Edge Ltd—Feasibility study on incorporating environmental data into roads database.
    North West Regional Research Laboratory—Feasibility study on mapping application.
    BIS Applied Systems Ltd—Quality management workshops.
    Logica UK Ltd—Production of Scottish aspects for the National Response Plan (RIMNET).
    BIS Applied Systems Ltd—To review aspects of Scottish Criminal Record Office computer system.
    PA Consulting Group Computers and Telecommunications—Automatic Fingerprint Recognition System.
    Gimms (GIS) Ltd (2 contracts)—Digital mapping.
    Purchasing and Supply Consultants—Purchasing Operating and Information Systems.
    Edinburgh University Computing Service—Digital mapping.
    Dunsmore Data—Preparation and implementation of financial spreadsheet.
    CS Consultants—Programming various data systems. Preparation of roads database.
    Taylor Woodrow Management and Engineering Ltd—Specification for and running of Scottish Office Emergency Exercise.
    Napier Polytechnic—Computing requirements and staff training.
    Price Waterhouse—Management information systems in grant-aided colleges.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Riddick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will calculate the amount payable by a man on average earnings living in a house valued at £60,000 under a system of local government finance based on capital values rates with a local income tax element based on Kirklees council's projected spending in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and what the figures would have been for a woman on average earnings in similar circumstances.

    Mr. Chope
    The amount payable would depend on the precise detail of how such a system would operate and on the taxable income of the individuals.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secetary of State for the Environment what is the Government's estimate of the number of households who pay the full rate who would gain under the poll tax; and what is their estimate of the average gain in such cases.

    Mr. Chope
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 29 March 1990,Official Report, Vol. 170, column 247.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the estimated numbers in each sample category of people paying more poll tax than rates, together with the Government's estimate of their contribution under the present system and the amount which the Government considered they ought to pay.

    Mr. Chope
    The Government have not prescribed an amount that people ought to pay.

    An analysis of the distributional impact of the introduction of the community charge was placed in the Library on 15 February.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing in each case the assumed underlying long-run community charge per adult as a percentage of average earnings in the northern region and the south-east for full-time adult male manual workers in the year to April 1989, together with an explanation for the difference.

    Mr. Chope
    The assumed long-run community charge used for 1990–91 revenue support grant purposes, expressed as an amount per week, represents 2·9 per cent. of average full-time earnings at April 1989 for male manual employees on adult rates of pay in the Northern region and 2·2 per cent. of the equivalent figure in the south-east including Greater London.

    The assumed personal community charge, which reflects the transitional arrangements for 1990–91, expressed as an amount per week, represents 2·4 per cent. of average full-time earnings at April 1989 for male manual employees on adult rates of pay in the Northern region and 2·3 per cent. of the equivalent figure in the south-east including Greater London.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from members of the public(a) supporting and (b) opposing the poll tax.
    665
    Mr. Chope
    I have received and continue to receive many representations on the community charge reflecting a wide range of views.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment if he will update the figures put in the Library on 6 November 1989 showing, for each local authority area, what level of (i) capital value rates and (ii) local income tax would be required in order to raise the same amount of revenue as with the 1990–91 community charge.

    Mr. David Hunt
    I have today placed in the Library a table showing the information requested.

    Mr. David Martin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a table showing for each rating or charging authority(a) his estimate of the average rate bill per domestic ratepayer in 1989–90, (b) the information he has on the average personal community charge actually set in each area in 1990–91, (c) the percentage domestic rate increase which would have taken place in 1990–91 if the same amount of revenue had been raised in each area as is being raised in community charges and (d) the rate bill per domestic ratepayer in each area consequent upon that increase in domestic rates.

    Mr. David Hunt
    I have today placed in the Library a table showing the information requested.

    Mr. French
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities now known to him which have announced their intention to levy a standard community charge at less than twice the personal community charge.

    Mr. Chope
    [holding answer 3 April 1990]: I have gathered the information requested except on an informal basis from a few authorities on a basis which did not imply that it would be published.

    Mr. Gould
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration was given in calculating standard spending assessment and grant to Westminster city council to the daily population figure; and if he will set out the sum thereby arrived at.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Standard spending assessments and revenue support grant entitlements are calculated in the same way for all local authorities. The basis of calculation is set out in the revenue support grant distribution report approved by this House on 18 January. Resident population, adjusted for visitors and for the net inflow of commuters, features in the SSA element for all other services; resident population features in the SSA for fire and civil defence; and resident population adjusted for the net inflow of commuters features in the SSA for highway maintenance. There is thus no single daily population figure used in the calculation for Westminster city council.

    Mr. Gould
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider the standard spending assessment for Brighton and other holiday and conference resorts.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    [holding answer 2 April 1990]: I have made it clear that I am willing to consider any new evidence on standard spending assessments with a view to making changes for 1991–92 if that should prove necessary.
    666
    Mr. Gould
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table in the Official Report setting out for each council the impact on its standard spending assessment arising from new duties under the Environmental Protection Bill and the Food Safety Bill [Lords].

    Mr. Chris Patten
    [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Duties under these bills will not affect local authority spending in 1990–91. New duties will be taken into account in setting standard spending assessments for 1991–92.

    Mr. Gould
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the authorities which benefited in their standard spending assessment and revenue grant allocation from a consideration of the impact of daily population increases.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    [holding answer 2 April 1990]: The basis of calculation of standard spending assessments and revenue support grant entitlements is set out in the revenue support grant distribution report (England). Resident population adjusted for daily visitors and for the net inflow of commuters features in the assessment for all other services. All authorities receive a positive contribution to their SSAs from the allowance for visitors. The authorities listed in the table receive a positive contribution to their SSAs from the allowance for net inflow of commuters. The latter also features in the SSA element for highway maintenance.

    Authorities with positive day time net inflow

    Alnwick

    Ashfield

    Avon CC

    Barking and Dagenham

    Barrow in Furness

    Bassetlaw

    Bath

    Birmingham

    Blackburn

    Boston

    Bournemouth

    Brighton

    Bristol

    Burnley

    Cambridge

    Cambridgeshire CC

    Camden

    Carlisle

    Carrick

    Cheltenham

    Chester

    Chesterfield

    Christchurch

    City of London

    Cleveland CC

    Colchester

    Copeland

    Coventry

    Crawley

    Crewe and Nantwich

    Darlington

    Derby

    Devon CC

    Dover

    Durham

    East Staffordshire

    Eastbourne

    Ellesmere Port and Neston

    Exeter

    Forest Heath

    Fylde

    Gloucester

    Great Grimsby

    Great Yarmouth

    667

    Hackney

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    Hartlepool

    Hastings

    Hereford

    Hillingdon

    Hounslow

    Ipswich

    Isles of Scilly

    Islington

    Kensington and Chelsea

    Kingston upon Hull

    Knowsley

    Lambeth

    Leeds

    Leicester

    Leicestershire CC

    Lincoln

    Liverpool

    Luton

    Manchester

    Medina

    Middlesbrough

    Milton Keynes

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    North Bedfordshire

    Northampton

    Northavon

    Norwich

    Nottingham

    Nottinghamshire CC

    Oxford

    Peterborough

    Plymouth

    Poole

    Portsmouth

    Preston

    Reading

    Restormel

    Rochester upon Medway

    Rugby

    Rushmoor

    Salford

    Salisbury

    Sandwell

    Scunthorpe

    Selby

    Sheffield

    Shrewsbury and Atcham

    Slough

    South Somerset

    Southampton

    Southwark

    St Edmundsbury

    Stafford

    Stockton-on-Tees

    Stoke-on-Trent

    Taunton Deane

    Thamesdown

    Tower Hamlets

    Trafford

    Wakefield

    Walsall

    Warrington

    Watford

    Welwyn Hatfield

    West Dorset

    West Somerset

    Westminster

    Winchester

    Wolverhampton

    Worcester

    Worthing

    York

    Mr. Speller
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce regulations to require YTS trainees to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge.
    668
    Mr. Chope
    [holding answer 29 March 1990]: No. From May, 18-year-old YTS trainees will receive £35 per week plus top-up payments which can be substantial. Their liability for the community charge will depend upon their net income, but it is likely that most will be eligible for community charge benefit.

    Mobility
    Mr. McWilliam
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for rehousing under the national mobility scheme there have been in each year since its inception.

    Mr. Michael Spicer
    The number of nominations made by authorities on behalf of applicants for rehousing in another authority were as follows for each year:

    Number

    1981–82

    16,401

    1982–83

    25,322

    1983–84

    27,776

    1984–85

    33,877

    1985–86

    26,796

    1986–87

    33,407

    1987–88

    27,224

    1988–89

    120,369

    1Interim figure.

    Mr. McWilliam
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those local authorities which have rehoused applicants under the national mobility scheme by authority, number accepted and year accepted, and in total;

    (2) if he will list those local authorities which have unsuccessfully asked for rehousing of their residents to another local authority under the national mobility scheme by authority, number rejected, year applied and total.

    Mr. Michael Spicer
    The information is not held centrally.

    Mr. McWilliam
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of applications for rehousing under the national mobility scheme have been successful.

    Mr. Michael Spicer
    During the period from 1981, when the scheme started, to the end of 1988–89, 26 per cent. of all those who were nominated by their local authority for rehousing elsewhere were successful in moving to their area of choice; a further 7 per cent. are still on waiting lists.

    Bellwin Scheme
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals for making a scheme under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

    Mr. David Hunt
    It will be necessary to make a scheme under this section only following an emergency and a decision by the Government to provide financial help for local authorities. The details of the scheme will reflect the nature of the emergency. My Department has recently written to local authorities in England outlining the
    669
    changes envisaged in the Bellwin scheme following the reform of local government finance. I have placed a copy in the Library. It is proposed to pay grant at the rate of 85 per cent. of eligible expenditure over a threshold equivalent to £2 per adult.

    Uniform Business Rate
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the uniform business rate for small rural village business concerns to include turnover and profit in its calculation.

    Mr. Chope
    Rateable values reflect the rent that might reasonably be expected to be paid from year to year for each property, on the assumption that the tenant pays the cost of repairs and insurance. In the 1990 revaluation, the level of value relates to 1 April 1988 but reflects the physical state of the property on 1 April 1990. To the extent that generally profit margins may be smaller in rural areas, these could be expected to be reflected in rents, which would in turn be reflected in rateable values.

    House Renovation Grants
    Mr. French
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about changes in the system of house renovation grants.

    Mr. Chope
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 22 February,Official Report, Vol. 167, column 888.

    Groundwater Contamination (Oxfordshire)
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any information from the National Rivers Authority concerning the contamination of groundwater at the Blewbury borehole in south Oxfordshire.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    The National Rivers Authority and Thames Water Utilities have kept the Department informed of recent observations and developments concerning groundwater quality in the Blewbury area of south Oxfordshire. Carbon tetrachloride has been detected in water supplied at about half the concentration prescribed in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989. There is no cause for concern. Work is in hand to ascertain the source of the solvent and any corrective measures required.

    Merchant Seamen
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking following the recent ruling of the Humberside valuation and community charge tribunal concerning the liability of merchant seamen to the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Chope
    The Humberside valuation and community charge tribunal found that the individual circumstances of some merchant seamen whose employment required them to be absent from home for substantial periods meant they should not be registered as liable for the community charge. It is not for my right. hon. Friend to comment on the decisions of an independent tribunal.

    Correspondence (MEPs)
    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament since 18 June 1989 that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice, where such matters are involved, to provide the honourable Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

    Mr. Trippier
    This Department has received approximately 100 communications from Members of the European Parliament since 18 June 1989.

    Where the correspondence raises questions of exclusively local interest, the practice is to recommend the MEP to refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

    Drinking Water, Northumbria
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the location and staffing by grade and size of the drinking water inspectorate for the Northumbrian water authority area.

    Mr. Trippier
    The drinking water inspectorate is located in central London and recruitment is in progress. There are currently 12 staff in post: a chief inspector; deputy chief inspector; a further four professional staff; and six administrative and support staff. At present, staff are not allocated to any specific region or area.

    Caravan Sites
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long he intends to allow Kirklees and Calderdale local authorities to have to make suitable caravan site provision before he decides to issue directions to those authorities to make such provision; what is his assessment of how many sites each local authority should provide; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Chope
    My Department is in discussion with both authorities. The statutory requirement on metropolitan districts is to provide for 15 caravans. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give a direction to either or both authorities if he considers it necessary to do so.

    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to delay the granting of designation of caravan sites in Bradford until he is satisfied that adjacent authorities have made suitable site provision.

    Mr. Chope
    No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already decided to designate Bradford on the grounds that it is not expedient for that authority to make adequate provision for the gipsies residing in or resorting to the area. We are continuing to monitor closely action being taken in respect of the provision of sites by neighbouring authorities.

    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he took account of in
    671
    considering an application from Bradford council to designate caravan sites in Bradford about (a) the cost and location of existing and proposed private caravan sites and (b) improvements Bradford council intends to make to council-owned caravan sites in Bradford.

    Mr. Chope
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took account of all relevant factors before deciding to designate Bradford, including those relating both to private site provision, and to the improvements which the council proposes to local authority sites.

    Housing Association Tenants
    Mr. Malins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department's research report on new housing association tenants is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Chope
    I welcome the report's findings. These demonstrate that housing associations are targeting their lettings at lower-income groups in housing need. They vindicate our policy of making housing associations the main providers of new subsidised housing for rent.

    The research, published today, was carried out for the Department of the Environment by Research Surveys of Great Britain after a census of new lettings in 1988 by the National Federation of Housing Associations. Interviews were sought with all households in the census where there was someone in employment or receiving an occupational pension, in order to collect detailed information about household characteristics and incomes.

    The findings confirm that the incomes of new housing association tenants, even those in work, are low. The average gross income of households with an income from employment was £153 per week and average net weekly household earnings were £115.

    Occupational pensions averaged £29.10 per week with the state pension and other benefits bringing average total income for these households to £91·70 per week.

    Nearly nine out of 10 of the households with someone in work had savings of less than £1,500. Households receiving an occupational pension had higher savings but only one third of these had savings of more than £3,000.
    Among households with an earned income, over half were in manual jobs and a third were in unskilled manual work. About half the respondents in the survey had been on a council waiting list. Most people had applied direct to the housing association for accommodation, but about a fifth had been nominated by their local council.

    Action for Cities
    Mr. Stern
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now give(a) the final cost of the action for cities anniversary events on 28 February and (b) the costs of the publication "People in Cities".

    Mr. David Hunt
    (a) The final cost of the launch in Bradford and the television link-up on 28 February averaged under £15,000 for each of the seven centres involved, and locally incurred costs amounted in addition to an average of £5,000 for each centre.

    (b) 50,000 "People in Cities" booklets and wallets—£74,542.

    Greenhouse Effect
    Mr. Mans
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government expect to respond to the report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on the greenhouse effect.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    We have today laid before the House the Government's response to this report. The Committee produced a detailed and thorough report and we broadly welcome its conclusions. The report stressed the need for continued research into the science of climate change, we have already responded to this need by announcing significant increases in our funding for climate-related research in the coming year. The report also emphasised the importance of seeking a global solution to this global problem and we will continue to play an active and constructive role in the work of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change and in promoting an international framework convention on climate change.

    Valuation Disputes
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has completed his consideration of the response to the consultation paper on valuation disputes under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

    Mr. Chope
    We and the Welsh Office have now completed a full analysis of the response to the consultation paper. The consultation was undertaken in the light of suggestions that the existing statutory procedure—under which valuation disputes can be referred to the local leasehold valuation tribunal with a subsequent right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal—was in practice working to the disadvantage of leaseholders, in that some freeholders were using the threat of an appeal, and the consequent risk of substantial costs, to deter leaseholders from having recourse to the procedure. Views were sought as to whether such allegations could be substantiated and, if so, whether there was a case for withdrawing or curtailing the right of appeal.

    The consultation yielded no firm evidence that the alleged effect is occurring in practice. We have concluded, therefore, that there is at present no case for making changes to the statutory procedure. We will, however, keep matters under review and will not hesitate to take action if evidence comes to light that the procedure is failing to maintain an equitable balance between the interests of freeholders and leaseholders.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Ward
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the Housing Act 1985 as far as it affects homeless people, in view of the recent comments made by Lord Justice Watkins in the High Court about the lack of clarity in the Act.

    Mr. Michael Spicer
    [holding answer 3 April 1990.]: The Government completed a major review of the homelessness legislation only last November. It concluded that the Act provided an adequate safety net for those in genuine need, homeless through no fault of their own. It recognised, however, that there was a need for local authorities to adopt more consistent procedures and criteria. A revised code of guidance is being prepared to help them to achieve this and we will look carefully at Lord Justice Watkin's comments in preparing the revised code.

    Dangerous Substances
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation in the United Kingdom of European Commission directives 76/769/EEC, 79/663/EEC, 82/806/EEC, 82/828/EEC, 83/264/EEC, 83/478/EEC, 85/467/EEC and 85/610/EEC, on the marketing and use of dangerous substances.

    Mr. Trippier
    [holding answer 2 April 1990]: The Control of Pollution (Supply and Use of Injurious Substances) Regulations 1980 (SI 1980 No. 638) restricted the use of polychlorinated biphenyls and terphenyls in the manner specified in directive 76/769, as amended by directive 82/828.

    The Dangerous Substances and Preparations (Safety) Regulations 1980 (SI 1980 No. 136) implemented directive 76/769 as respects vinyl chloride monomer (chloroethylene) in aerosols, and also implemented directive 79/663 in respect of ornamental objects and Tris in certain textile products.

    Reduction

    Budget £ million

    Proposed cap

    £ million

    £ per adult

    Avon

    533.7

    507.1

    26.6

    37

    Barnsley

    142.0

    132.0

    10.0

    59

    Basildon

    27.9

    23.7

    4.2

    35

    Brent

    249.3

    241.7

    7.6

    39

    Bristol

    64.2

    56.6

    7.6

    26

    Calderdale

    132.9

    125.4

    7.5

    52

    Camden

    181.4

    177.0

    4.4

    34

    Derbyshire

    560.6

    520.6

    40.0

    56

    Doncaster

    190.1

    178.5

    11.6

    53

    Greenwich

    213.0

    203.0

    10.0

    65

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    167.5

    155.8

    11.7

    99

    Haringey

    216.5

    206.5

    10.0

    71

    Hillingdon

    151.0

    141.7

    9.3

    53

    Islington

    189.5

    185.8

    3.7

    30

    North Tyneside

    129.7

    122.9

    6.8

    45

    Rochdale

    152.0

    144.0

    8.0

    51

    Rotherham

    165.4

    157.5

    7.9

    39

    St Helens

    126.7

    122.8

    3.9

    29

    Southwark

    241.0

    226.9

    14.1

    86

    Wigan

    200.6

    190.6

    10.0

    43

    Note: Reductions shown as £ per head of relevant population.

  DEFENCE

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the fall in defence expenditure in eastern Europe over the last year; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr Allen) on 2 February,Official Report, column 406.

    Armed Forces (Welsh Speakers)
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fluent Welsh speakers are currently serving in each of Her Majesty's armed forces.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    674
    The Benzene and Toys (Safety) (Regulations) 1987 (SI 1987 No. 2116) implemented directive 82/806.

    The Novelties (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 128) implemented directive 83/264.

    The Asbestos Product (Safety) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 2042) and the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 910) implemented directive 83/478.

    The Control of Pollution (Supply and Use of Injurious Substances) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No. 902) implemented directive 85/467.

    The Asbestos Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 1979) and the Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988 No. 711) implemented directive 85/610.

    Mr. Hayes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the authorities which he designated on 3 April for community charge limitation and the maximum amounts which he is proposing.

    Mr Chris Patten
    The list is as follows:

    Rescue Helicopters
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many land-based Royal Navy helicopters are available on a 24-hour, 365 day a year basis for rescue operations around the British coast.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Two Royal Navy air stations are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for search and rescue (SAR) duties. At each of these there are two helicopters available for SAR. More helicopters can be made available at longer notice.

    Oil Tankers
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to add to the current number of Royal Fleet Auxiliary oil tankers serving the British Navy.

    Mr. Neubert
    There are currently two of the new class of auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels (AORs) on order for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Further orders are planned but no decisions have yet been made on their size or timing.

    Natural Disasters
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of those activities in which Her Majesty's armed forces have assisted civilian populations during periods of natural disasters over the past 20 years.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    The armed forces have supported civilian authorities during periods of natural disaster both at home and overseas on numerous occasions over the past 20 years. An exhaustive list of those activities could be provided only at disproportionate cost, but the following list compiled from the readily available records, gives an indication of the frequency with which the services' help is provided.

    Date

    Country

    1970

    Bangladesh (East Pakistan)

    Floods

    1970

    Tunisia

    Floods

    1970

    Turkey

    Earthquake

    1972

    Hong Kong

    Landslide

    1972

    Fiji

    Hurricane

    1972

    Rodriguez

    Cyclone

    1972

    Philippines

    Floods

    1973

    Pakistan

    Floods

    1973

    West Africa

    Famine

    1973

    Nepal

    Famine

    1974

    Belize

    Hurricane

    1974

    United Kingdom

    Floods

    1974

    Ethiopia

    Famine

    1974

    Honduras

    Hurricane

    1974

    West Africa

    Famine

    1976

    United Kingdom

    Drought/Fires

    1978

    United Kingdom

    Bad Weather

    1979

    United Kingdom

    Floods

    1979

    Jamaica

    Floods

    1979–80

    West Indies

    Hurricane

    1980

    Nepal

    Famine

    1980

    United Kingdom

    Bad Weather

    1980–81

    Italy

    Earthquake

    1980–81

    West Indies

    Hurricane

    1981

    United Kingdom

    Bad Weather

    1981–82

    United Kingdom

    Bad Weather

    1984

    Mexico

    Earthquake

    1985

    Ethiopia

    Famine

    1986

    Jamaica

    Bad Weather

    1986

    Solomon Islands

    Hurricane

    1986

    West Indies

    Floods

    1986

    El Salvador

    Earthquake

    1986–87

    United Kingdom

    Bad Weather

    1987

    Cook Islands

    Cyclone

    1987

    Bermuda

    Hurricane

    1987

    Vanuatu

    Cyclone

    1987–88

    United Kingdom

    Bad Weather

    1988

    West Indies

    Hurricane

    1988

    Nepal

    Earthquake

    1989

    West Indies

    Hurricane

    1990

    United Kingdom

    Bad Weather

    1990

    Western Samoa

    Cyclone

    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish for each of the past 10 years the number of civilians rescued at sea by Royal Navy helicopters.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Information for the years before 1983 is not held in the form requested. Since 1983 Royal Navy helicopters have rescued the following number of civilians at sea:676

    Year

    Number Rescued

    1983

    133

    1984

    88

    1985

    102

    1986

    74

    1987

    85

    1988

    80

    1989

    161

    Complaints
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report for each of the last 10 years (a) the number of complaints made against his Department to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, (b) the number of complaints upheld and (c) the action he took on (b).

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    The number of complaints (a) made and (b) upheld for the last 10 years is as follows:

    (a) complaints made

    (b) complaints upheld

    1989–90

    1—

    1—

    1988–89

    22

    Nil

    1987–88

    11

    Nil

    1986–87

    16

    Nil

    1985–86

    17

    1

    1984–85

    21

    Nil

    1983–84

    20

    Nil

    1982–83

    23

    1

    1981–82

    28

    1

    1980–81

    27

    Nil

    1Figures not yet available.

    When the PCA upholds a complaint it is departmental practice to provide an appropriate remedy.

    Trident
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the first submarine capable of carrying Trident missiles to commence her sea trials.

    Mr. Neubert
    Vanguard will undertake a series of sea trials, the precise dates of which are classified. However, I can say that the first of these will commence about two years before the UK Trident deterrent going into service in the mid-1990s.

    Military Personnel
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the practice of his Department on releasing the names of military personnel who are witnesses to an event which is the subject of a criminal prosecution.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    The Ministry of Defence seeks to be as helpful as possible in answering requests from the police, prosecuting authorities and legal representatives of defendants in criminal proceedings for the names of service personnel who would be in a position to give evidence as witnesses. The Department needs in each case to be satisfied as to the purpose and validity of the request before providing such information. Personal security considerations may also need to be taken into account.

    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the names of witnesses who are alleged to be service
    677
    personnel have been witheld in the case of a criminal prosecution of three people for an incident which took place involving a convoy of military vehicles near the Clyde submarine base on 15 August 1989.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the recent request from one of those charged as a result of this incident to be given the name of the driver of one of the military vehicles involved. The Department declined to provide this information, as it is not the practice to release details of individual members of military convoy crews in response to requests of this sort.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Easington dated 5 February concerning living conditions of service men's families in Germany.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    The hon. Member should by now have received a reply from my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces.

    RAF Brawdy
    Mr. Boyes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amounts of money spent on construction and equipment for joint United Kingdom-United States of America projects at Brawdy, Wales, in each of the past five years; and which votes and sections of the defence accounts have borne these expenditures.

    Mr. Alan Clarke
    The United Kingdom has spent no money on construction and equipment for joint United Kingdom-United States projects at RAF Brawdy in the past five years.

    Mr. Boyes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the operating cost of the United Kingdom national joint ocean surveillance information centre in each of the last five years; and what proportion of these costs is borne by the United States of America.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    I assume the hon. Member is referring to the United States Navy's oceanographic research facility at RAF Brawdy. Running costs of the facility are borne by the United States, although United Kingdom provides five Royal Navy and three Royal Air Force personnel to assist in operating the facility.

    Vacant Properties
    Mr. Robert Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of vacant houses classified for the use of service personnel.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    As at 30 November 1989, the latest date for which complete figures are available, the total number of vacant properties in the United Kingdom, both houses and flats, classified as service married quarters was 12,423. Many of these properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly and others were in the process of disposal.

    Royal Arsenal West
    Mr. Cartwright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department presented its proposals for the development of the Royal Arsenal West site to the London borough of Greenwich; and what response it has received.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Our development proposals for the Royal Arsenal West site were presented to the London borough of Greenwich on 19 December 1989. The council is generally supportive of our ideas.

    Correspondence (MEPs)
    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament since 18 June 1989 that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice, where such matters are involved, to provide the honourable Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Some 15 letters covering a variety of topics have been received from members of the European Parliament in the period in question.

    Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEPs had themselves copied their letter in this way.

    Cambridge House, Woolwich
    Mr. Cartwright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the flats at Cambridge house, Artillery place, Woolwich, were first offered for sale; and when he now expects the sale to be completed.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    The flats at Cambridge house, Artillery place, Woolwich were first offered for sale on 8 February 1990. The sale was completed on 30 March 1990.

    Main Battle Tanks
    Mr. Macdonald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom main battle tanks are held in storage.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    It is not our practice to disclose detailed information on equipment held in storage. For information on total holdings of main battle tanks I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 15 March,Official Report, column 328.

    Wales (Official Visits)
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the dates on which he has made an official visit to Wales since his appointment to his present post.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    My right hon. Friend has made no official visits to Wales while Secretary of State for
    679
    Defence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) paid an official visit to several service establishments in Wales in July 1988. I visited RAF Brawdy on 17 July 1989.

    Eastern Europe (Soviet Troops)
    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the effect on threat assessments of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    The complete withdrawal of Soviet troops from Czechoslovakia and Hungary is currently due to be completed by mid-1991, and we shall monitor this process with interest. When completed, these withdrawals will obviously have a significant effect on Soviet military capability in the central region.

    German Unification
    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the implications of German unification for the strategy of forward defence.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    We expect forward defence to remain a central feature of NATO's strategy for deterrence. However, German unification may have implications for how it is implemented, which will need to be considered in the light of the defence and security arrangements that emerge from the two plus four negotiations. We welcome the opportunity for a fresh look at this aspect of our defence posture, to ensure that it is well fitted for the new security setting.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the influence that the team of Royal Engineers currently teaching Afghan refugees in Pakistan will have on the conflict in Afghanistan.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Royal Engineer teams have been taking part in a UN programme designed to train Afghan refugees currently in Pakistan in techniques of mine clearance and mine awareness. This programme has been set up purely for the humanitarian purpose of reducing the danger to refugees when they return to their homes.

    Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
    Mr O'Neill
    To ask the Secretay of State for Defence what assessment he has made of procedures for monitoring and verifying a complete nuclear test ban treaty.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) on 27 June 1988,Official Report, Vol. 136, column 61, and to the working paper on seismic monitoring tabled in the conference on disarmament in 1985 (CD 610), a copy of which is held in the Library. Scientists at the MOD's research establishment at Blacknest near Aldermaston continue to undertake seismological research which might support a verification regime for further constraints on nuclear testing.

    Atomic Weapons Establishments
    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what documents he has sent to the firms that have expressed an interest in bidding for the initial management contract at the atomic weapons establishment.

    Mr. Neubert
    Potential contractors have been sent copies of the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 5 December, and of the consultative document to which that statement referred. They will shortly receive the invitation to tender.

    Mr. Martin O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the shortfalls of staff were at each of the four atomic weapons establishments at the end of each year between 1980 and 1987.

    Mr. Neubert
    AWE shortfalls at the end of 1987 will equate to those given for 1 January 1988 in the answer which I provided to the hon. Member on 17 January 1990 at column 300. Details of staff shortfalls before the amalgamation of AWRE and the nuclear royal ordnance factories on 1 September 1987 are not readily available.

    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision about the detailed relationship between the existing safety division and the proposed compliance office at the atomic weapons establishment.

    Mr. Neubert
    The detailed relationship between the compliance office and the existing safety division at AWE will be finalised before the commencement of the initial management contract, planned for later this year.

    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a decision about what financial criteria will be used to monitor the performance of the management contractors to be appointed at the atomic weapons establishment.

    Mr. Neubert
    The criteria against which the management contractor's performance is to be assessed will be included in the invitation to tender, which is now being finalised for issue shortly.

    Soviet Navy
    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current assessment of levels of Soviet naval activity.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Levels of Soviet naval activity out of area have been falling since 1985. There has been an increase, however, in training activity close to all the main naval bases in the Soviet Union. It should be noted that although the number of Soviet units deployed out of area has reduced, a presence has been maintained in all traditional areas of Soviet interest.

    Soviet Army
    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current assessment of Soviet levels of production of military equipment for the Soviet army.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    We believe that in 1989 Soviet production of tanks fell markedly from the levels of recent
    681
    years to around half the previous total. Production of light armoured fighting vehicles and artillery also declined but far less dramatically. However, such cuts were from high historic levels and current production volumes remain high, with the Soviet Union out-producing the whole of NATO in all categories of land arms equipment.

    Naval Disarmament
    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies he has undertaken regarding the feasibility of negotiations on(a) naval confidence-building measures and (b) naval disarmament treaties.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    The greatest threat to stability in Europe comes from land-based forces, and United Kingdom and NATO efforts have therefore concentrated on those. The importance of sea lines of communication to NATO remains very great, and no proposals on maritime confidence-building measures or naval arms control have been formulated by the United Kingdom.

    United Nations Military Operations
    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he expects the extent of military operations carried out under the auspices of the United Nations to increase over the next 10 years.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    The extent of the future contribution of British service men to such operations will depend on the number and nature of any requests for assistance we receive from the United Nations, and how we are able to respond to them.

    Nuclear Non-proliferation
    Mr. O'Neill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of technical methods of improving the non-proliferation measures available to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    Mr. Baldry
    I have been asked to reply:

    The assessment of technical methods to ensure the capability of the timely detection of diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities is a continuing activity for the IAEA and its member states. The United Kingdom, along with a number of other member states carries out a safeguards research and development programme in support of the IAEA. Our technical programme, carried out by AEA Technology on behalf of my Department, involves the provision of technical reports to the IAEA on many areas of interest identified by them. The IAEA has expressed satisfaction with the programme.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Nursing Homes
    Mr. Andrew Bowden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what evidence is available to him on the extent to which claimants in private and voluntary residential and nursing homes throughout the country are able to meet the fees in full from available income support;

    (2) what is the source of his independent research on costs and charges in private and voluntary nursing and
    682
    residential care homes which he takes into account when setting income support limits; and if he will place copies of such evidence in the Library.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Many interested individuals and organisations make representations and submit evidence on costs and charges in homes. The authors are free to publish this if they wish. The Department has commissioned a number of studies, the best known of which was by Ernst and Whinney, published in 1986. Statistical information from the Department's own local offices is also used and this is published where practicable in aggregated form in response to questions from hon. Members.

    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of persons living in residential and nursing homes and currently receiving income support.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    At August 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, it is estimated that there were around 117,000 people in independent residential care homes and around 56,000 in nursing homes receiving income support.

    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of the residents of nursing homes and residential care homes in receipt of income support(a) receive the full cost charged by their home and (b) receive income support payments below the charge levied by their home.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    [holding answer 6 March 1990]: The most reliable estimates are available only in respect of all claimants in homes. The proportion of claimants whose fees were at or below the income support limits for the year ended August 1989, the latest period for which figures are available, was just over half. The average number of claimants during that period was 166,000, rounded to the nearest 1,000.

    State Retirement Pension
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what ages state retirement pensions are made available to(a) men and (b) women in (i) Germany and (ii) France; and what is the estimated increase in public expenditure if these age criteria were applied in the United Kingdom.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    There is no single state pension scheme in either the Federal Republic of Germany or France.

    The principal requirement for the award of a pension in the main state schemes in both the Federal Republic and France is that the claimant should have completed a certain number of years of contributions. Provided that this condition is met the minimum age at which the full pension is payable is 63 for the Federal Republic and 60 for France. Women in Germany can claim a pension at 60 if they have worked for at least 15 years, but as pensions in Germany are related to earnings level and length of working life, a woman in this position would be likely to receive only a small pension. There are no separate retirement ages in France for men and women.

    The cost of a common retirement age for both men and women at 63 in the United Kingdom at 1985–86 benefit rates is estimated at £800 million and at £3,000 million for age 60.

    Chief Adjudication Officer (Report)
    Mr. Rowe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the fifth annual report of the chief adjudication officer.

    Mr. Newton
    The report is being published today. It reflects considerable variation in standards of adjudication. While the report is critical of the Department of Social Security local office standards it recognises that initiatives such as the creation of social security centres should lead to improvement through greater specialisation. I am pleased that the report highlights the high standard achieved by Newcastle central office and a marked improvement in most benefits administered by North Fylde central office. While adjudication in the Department of Employment remains unsatisfactory, it is recognised that the monitoring initiatives introduced since the previous report have not yet had a chance to take effect, and these, together with changes this year in staffing and training, are noted as offering hope for future improvements. We shall respond formally to the chief adjudication officer's specific recommendations in due course.

    Occupational Pensions
    Mrs. Roe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average increase in real terms since 1979 in the amount received by people in respect of occupational pensions.

    Mr. Newton
    For all pensioners, the average amount of occupational pension received, in 1987 prices, was £13·20 in 1979 and £23·30 in 1987—an increase of 77 per cent.

    For those pensioners actually receiving an occupational pension (52 per cent. of all pensioners in 1987) the average amount of such pension, in 1987 prices, was £32·10 in 1979 and £44·80 in 1987—an increase of 40 per cent.

    I regret that in a supplementary answer to my hon. Friend on Monday 2 April at column 883, I inadvertently related the percentage increase for the average pensioner to the 1987 amount for the average occupational pensioner. I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify the position.

    Income Support
    Mr. Andrew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, East of 19 February,Official Report, columns 548-49, if he will consider the case for a special exemption from the process of signing on in respect of recently bereaved income support claimants signing on for the first time.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Title to benefit is decided on the facts of each individual case. We have given careful consideration to the case for exempting recently bereaved people from signing on in order to receive income support. We have no plans to make such an exemption.

    Correspondence (MEPs)
    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security since 18 June 1989, how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament that concern local or United 684
    Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice where such matters are involved to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    We have received 47 letters from MEPs since June 1989. Although MEPs have no locus in respect of exclusively domestic United Kingdom matters, our practice is to reply in full to the MEP, to avoid delay for the constituent concerned. We do not copy correspondence to third parties unless the recipient has specifically requested that we do so.

    Unemployment-related Benefit
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the grounds for disallowance of unemployment-related benefits and the number of claims disallowed for each such reason in 1989.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The information in relation to national insurance unemployment benefit is in the tables. Similar information for other unemployment-related benefits is not available.

    Decisions of adjudication officers on doubtful claims for unemployment benefit period 1 January 1989 to 31 December 1989

    Fresh or renewal claims disallowed

    Reviewed claims revised adversely to claimant

    Capability

    2,633

    209

    Employment not terminated

    98

    62

    Engaged in employment

    12,175

    7,263

    Employed to full normal extent

    12,583

    239

    Normal idle day

    1,559

    202

    Payment in lieu of notice or wages etc.

    114,836

    22,025

    Recognised or customary holiday

    4,609

    387

    Whether unemployed

    31,243

    5,804

    Share fishermen:

    Work as

    176

    26

    No work available

    123

    24

    Dependant's benefit:

    Child

    32

    34

    Adult

    912

    597

    Delayed claim

    94,819

    158

    Failure to attend for interview

    225

    25

    Failure to kepp to signing time

    13

    5

    Occupational pensioners

    131

    154

    Availability

    41,361

    4,526

    Restricted availability

    16,326

    4,178

    Share fishermen—neglect to avail

    197

    4

    Trade dispute (including R.A.O. decisions)

    302

    11

    Seasonal workers

    1,611

    27

    Leaving voluntarily

    201,633

    695

    Misconduct

    65,151

    344

    Employment:

    Neglect to avail

    2,923

    18

    Refusal of

    2,780

    19

    Refusal or premature termination of training

    863

    18

    Refusal to carry out Written recommendations

    95

    6

    Restart

    492

    66

    Other questions

    24,552

    24,365

    All questions

    634,453

    71,491

    685
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average number of claimants to unemployment-related benefits for each year since 1979; and what was the cost of such benefits in each year.

    Estimated numbers of unemployed people receiving unemployment-related benefits 1979–80 to 1988–89

    Thousands

    1970–80

    1980–81

    1981–82

    1982–83

    1983–84

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Unemployment benefit only

    470

    785

    985

    815

    405

    810

    740

    795

    660

    475

    Unemployment benefit plus income support/supplementary benefit

    80

    175

    235

    275

    215

    210

    215

    210

    155

    125

    Income support/supplementary benefit only

    486

    675

    1,085

    1,395

    1,645

    1,745

    1,815

    1,895

    1,775

    1,255

    Total benefit expenditure on unemployed beneficiaries Outturn 1979–80 to 1988–89

    £ millions

    1979–80

    1980–81

    1981–82

    1982–83

    1983–84

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Total benefit expenditure on unemployed beneficiaries

    1,470

    2,530

    4,020

    5,010

    5,440

    6,320

    6,940

    7,290

    6,670

    5,390

    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of people referred to adjudication officers by employment service staff because of doubts about their availability for work and restricted availability; and how many were disqualified from receiving benefit on grounds of non-availability for work and restricted availability for the years 1988 and 1989.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The information requested is in the table:

    Availability

    Restricted Availability

    Referrals

    Disallowances

    Referrals

    Disallowances

    1988

    150,889

    78,436

    90,463

    23,940

    1989

    83,400

    45,887

    64,080

    20,504

    Disability
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department has yet agreed on criteria which will prescribe the circumstances in which deaf-blind people will be treated as being unable to walk or virtually unable to walk to enable them to become entitled to mobility allowance this April.

    Mr. Scott
    The Mobility Allowance Amendment Regulations 1990, which prescribe the circumstances in which deaf-blind people will be able to qualify for the allowance, were laid before the House on 20 March. Officials have met representatives of the Mobility Allowance Campaign to discuss the regulations.

    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if invalid care allowance will be payable to carers of the recipients of all three rates of the new disability allowance.

    Mr. Scott
    I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 12 February at col 83.

    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if recipients of mobility or attendance allowance can be put on either of the two lowest rates of disability allowance, should their benefits be reviewed after April 1992.
    686
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The information is in the following table:

    Mr. Scott
    The qualifying criteria for the two upper levels of the care component of the disability allowance and the upper level of the mobility component will be on lines similar to those currently employed for attendance allowance and mobility allowance. The intention is that people now receiving attendance allowance and mobility allowance will continue to receive help at the same rates as under current arrangements if their condition is unchanged. In addition, in common with other disabled people, current attendance allowance recipients will also be eligible to claim the new lower rate of the mobility component of the disability and current mobility allowance recipients will be eligible to claim the new lower rate of the care component.

    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether mobility allowance will be payable to claimants who are terminally ill with a life expectancy of less than 12 months if they satisfy the other criteria for receiving mobility allowance; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Scott
    Yes. Possible life expectancy is not taken into account in deciding how long a person is likely to continue to meet the medical eligibility criteria for the allowance.

    Hillsborough Disaster Fund
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on how many claimants have had benefits stopped or reduced as a result of receiving payments from the Hillsborough disaster fund.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    On the information currently available, the trustees for the Hillsborough disaster appeal fund have made payments to 647 people and five claimants have had their benefits affected.

    Industrial Diseases
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which industrial diseases his Department recognises as rendering sufferers incapable of following their regular occupation.
    687
    Mr. Scott
    Whether a claimant is capable of following his regular occupation is decided on the evidence in each individual case.

    Family Benefits
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claimed both family credit and housing benefit in 1989–90; and how many he estimates will do so in 1990–91.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The information is not available.

    Mr. Speller
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the family credit regulations to treat mortgage interest relief on a basis similar to the treatment of rents in the housing benefit regulations.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    We have no plans to do so. Family credit makes no provision related to the actual cost of any outgoings in the individual case. To do so, whether for mortgage interest or any other form of outgoings, would fundamentally change the nature of the scheme.

    Housing Benefit (Students)
    Mr. Shersby
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make an estimate of the cost to public funds of maintaining eligibility for housing benefit for students.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The most recent housing benefit statistical returns available are from May 1988 and indicate that 78,000 students were in receipt of benefit at that time. On the assumption that the numbers claiming remain at that level and taking the proposed top-up loan into account as income, the net cost of maintaining students' eligibility for housing benefit is estimated to be £35 million in a full year. Nevertheless, with the introduction of top-up loans and access funds the Government expect to be spending over £100 million more on student support even after the withdrawal of entitlement to income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit for the majority of full-time students.

    Income Statistics
    Sir George Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables showing percentage changes in real income between 1981 and 1985 before and

    c. Percentage changes in real income by cumulative decile group mean: 1981–85

    Below 10 per cent.

    Below 20 per cent.

    Below 30 per cent.

    Below 40 per cent.

    Below 50 per cent.

    Total population

    Percentage change in real income

    Before housing costs

    8·7

    6·9

    6·2

    5·9

    5·8

    6·9

    After housing costs

    2·6

    2·6

    2·5

    2·6

    3·0

    5·4

    Figures at (a) and (b) are rounded to the nearest whole number.
    The information at (c) corrects figures, particularly after housing costs, contained in the current edition of "Households Below Average Income", following the discovery of errors in the treatment of housing costs in the assessment of family income in 1981 which came to light as a result of detailed work carried out by researchers from the Institute of Fiscal Studies with the co-operation of DSS officials. Corrected full details of the 1981 analysis will be included in the next edition of "Households Below Average Incomes".
    As explained in paragraph 7 of the Technical Annex to the current edition of "Households Below Average Income" the figures contained in these tables are subject to sampling error. These sampling errors, and other peculiarities in the Family Income Survey data, increase the risk of distortion at the extremes of the income distribution where the number of sample cases available is quite limited. The Government, on the advice of statisticians, have therefore concluded that measuring changes in real income by reference to decile midpoints (the median of each decile group) provides a statistically more reliable picture of living standards and propose to adopt this approach in future. However, to ensure continuity the next edition of "Households Below Average Income" will also contain figures from 1981 based on decile group means.
    688
    after housing costs by (a) the midpoint of each decile group for the whole of the income distribution, (b) decile group means for the whole of the income distribution and (c) cumulative decile group means for the bottom half of the income distribution and the percentage increase for the total population, in each case using assumptions contained in households below average income; and if he will make a statement on which methodology is statistically more reliable.

    Mr. Newton
    The information is set out in the tables.

    a. Percentage changes in real income by decile group midpoint (medians of decile groups)

    Percentage change in income

    Midpoint of decile group

    before housing costs

    after housing costs

    1

    5

    4

    2

    6

    2

    3

    5

    3

    4

    6

    2

    5

    5

    4

    6

    7

    7

    7

    7

    7

    8

    8

    7

    9

    8

    8

    10

    9

    9

    b. Percentage changes in real income by decile group mean: 1981–85

    Percentage changes in income

    Decile

    before housing costs

    after housing costs

    1

    9

    3

    2

    6

    2

    3

    5

    3

    4

    5

    3

    5

    6

    4

    6

    7

    6

    7

    7

    7

    8

    8

    7

    9

    8

    8

    10

    7

    5

    Total

    7

    5

    Pensioners (Incomes)
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his statement on 27 November 1989,Official Report, column 525, on what basis he calculated that average incomes of pensioners had risen by about 23 per cent. since 1979; if he will set out the percentage increase in incomes of pensioners over this period from (i) the basic state pension, (ii) SERPS, (iii) occupational pension schemes (iv) dividends and interest and (v) other sources of income; if he will set out this information by deciles; and if he will indicate what weighting he gives to each of these sources of income in calculating the overall increase in pensioner incomes;

    (2) if he will indicate the level of total incomes of each decade of pensioners, at constant prices, in 1979 and 1989, and the percentage increase in each case or whatever data most closely approximate to this;

    (3) pursuant to his answer of 12 January, Official Report, column 782, what was the cumulative increase above inflation on the basic national insurance pension in the periods (a) 1974 to November 1979 and (b) November 1979 to April 1990;

    (4) what has been the percentage increase in the total incomes in real terms of each income decile of pensioners

    Table 1

    Pensioners' incomes

    1974

    1979

    1987

    Real terms increase 1974–79 percent.

    Real terms increase 1979–87 percent.

    Total Social Security benefits

    45·00

    50·50

    59·20

    12

    17

    Occupational Pensions

    11·80

    13·20

    23·30

    12

    77

    Savings Income

    10·70

    9·10

    20·90

    -16

    130

    Earnings

    13·60

    9·90

    7·90

    -27

    -20

    Total Gross Income

    81·10

    82·80

    111·20

    2

    34

    Total Net Income

    73·80

    75·90

    99·90

    3

    31

    Notes:

    1. Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

    2. £s per week at 1987 prices.

    The more detailed information sought about the breakdown of pensioners' incomes is not available in precisely the form requested, since (for example) the FES

    Table 2

    Percentage increase: Components of pensioners' income 1974–79 and 1979–87

    RP and related benefits

    Other benefits

    Occupational pensions

    INV income

    Earnings

    Total net

    Decile

    1974–79

    1979–87

    1974–79

    1979–87

    1974–79

    1979–87

    1974–79

    1979–87

    1974–79

    1979–87

    1974–79

    1979–87

    Lowest

    19

    19

    -35

    -42

    -13

    65

    -3

    119

    25

    -70

    14

    18

    2

    16

    11

    -29

    51

    -10

    408

    1

    109

    -82

    125

    12

    20

    3

    13

    21

    -77

    2

    131

    54

    -3

    71

    -44

    -1

    10

    23

    4

    9

    23

    157

    -33

    5

    89

    -24

    64

    -86

    231

    7

    24

    5

    3

    21

    140

    63

    13

    76

    -11

    36

    -12

    -51

    5

    24

    6

    5

    18

    138

    54

    3

    85

    10

    37

    -39

    -36

    5

    24

    7

    17

    9

    100

    250

    -29

    116

    -17

    52

    -50

    -42

    4

    25

    8

    1

    12

    81

    42

    16

    71

    -32

    234

    7

    -44

    4

    27

    9

    10

    6

    7

    116

    35

    56

    -20

    131

    -25

    -10

    5

    29

    Highest

    28

    14

    27

    30

    10

    78

    -16

    152

    -29

    -17

    -6

    53

    Overall

    11

    15

    39

    60

    12

    76

    -16

    131

    -27

    -21

    3

    31

    Note:
    This table breaks down the available sample survey information into too detailed an analysis for the results to be statistically significant and it is not possible to draw meaningful conclusions from it.
    690
    since 1979; and, in the case of each decile, what has been the real increase over the same period in income from (i) SERPS, (ii) occupational pension schemes, (iii) interest and dividends and (iv) other sources of income;

    (5) what was the net income at 1986 prices of those pensioner tax units who obtained all their income from state benefits in each year since 1979; whether he will show separately the amount of income from (a) national insurance pension, (b) the amount in (a) represented by the state earnings-related pension, (c) supplementary benefit or income support, (d) housing benefit, (e) disability benefits and (f) other; and whether he will show data separately for single and married tax units.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    [holding answers 8 January, 22 January, 26 February 1990]: The figure of a 23 per cent. increase in pensioners' average total net incomes to which the hon. Member's question refers relates to the increase from 1979 to 1986, and has therefore now been superseded by the analysis drawn from the 1987 family expenditure survey which has recently become available, showing an increase of over 31 per cent. in such incomes between 1979 and 1987. The table is therefore based on this more up-to-date information, and gives figures for both 1974–79 and for 1979–87.

    does not separately identify the basic state pension and the earnings-related SERPS element, but the table gives the available information broken down by deciles.
    691

    Table 3

    Pensioners' total net income at constant prices 1974, 1979 and 1987

    1974

    1979

    1987

    Increase percentage

    £

    £

    £

    1974–79

    1979–87

    Decile:

    Lowest

    31·10

    35·50

    41·80

    14

    18

    2

    38·40

    43·00

    51·50

    12

    20

    3

    43·60

    48·20

    59·10

    10

    23

    4

    49·20

    52·70

    65·60

    7

    24

    5

    56·00

    58·60

    72·40

    5

    24

    6

    63·80

    66·70

    83·00

    5

    24

    7

    72·90

    75·80

    95·00

    4

    25

    8

    84·40

    87·50

    111·50

    4

    27

    9

    103·90

    109·10

    141·50

    5

    29

    Highest

    194·30

    182·20

    277·90

    -6

    53

    Overall

    73·80

    75·90

    99·90

    3

    31

    Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

    For similar reasons it is also not possible to give precisely the information requested about pensioner tax units wholly dependent upon state benefits, but the table gives the available information for the years 1979 to 1987.

    Table 4

    Incomes of pensioner tax units with all income in state benefits 1979 to 1987

    Average total net income

    Retirement pension+ supplementary benefit/income supplement+ housing benefit

    Other benefits (including disability benefits)

    Single

    1979

    46·30

    43·50

    2·80

    1980

    47·80

    45·40

    2·40

    1981

    51·10

    47·40

    3·60

    1982

    53·50

    50·70

    2·80

    1983

    55·80

    53·60

    2·20

    1984

    57·10

    53·50

    3·60

    1985

    57·70

    54·00

    3·70

    1986

    57·00

    53·60

    3·40

    1987

    58·60

    54·70

    3·90

    Married

    1979

    72·80

    69·50

    3·50

    1980

    71·70

    68·50

    3·20

    1981

    78·50

    75·80

    2·70

    1982

    79·70

    73·90

    5·80

    1983

    82·30

    78·20

    4·10

    1984

    87·90

    80·20

    7·70

    1985

    84·20

    77·10

    7·10

    1986

    90·50

    78·50

    12·00

    1987

    88·40

    78·60

    9·90

    All

    1979

    50·60

    47·70

    2·90

    1980

    52·80

    50·20

    2·50

    1981

    56·00

    52·60

    3·50

    1982

    59·00

    55·50

    3·40

    1983

    61·10

    58·50

    2·50

    1984

    62·80

    58·50

    4·30

    1985

    62·10

    57·80

    4·20

    1986

    63·40

    58·40

    5·00

    1987

    64·40

    59·30

    5·00

    Notes to tables 2, 3, and 4:

    1. All cash figures are £ per week at 1987 prices.

    2. All figures refer to pensioner tax units.

    3. Retirement pension and related benefits includes basic retirement pension, additional pension, income support and housing benefit.

    4. See note 5.

    5. In common with all other surveys, the Family Expenditure Survey draws information from a random sample of the population. This means that the FES will occasionally include some individuals whose weekly income are considerably higher
    692
    or lower than those of the remainder of their group. The unrepresentative income of such individuals, when averaged, may give wide swings in year-to-year comparisons. In general, when viewed over the longer term, the data provides a more reliable overall indication of the movement in average weekly incomes. We are considering whether the use of decile medians for tables involving deciles would enhance their statistical reliability.

    Comparisons of changes in the basic national insurance pension over the periods requested, and between those periods, are complicated by a number of changes in uprating requirements and dates, including both those mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member on 20 December 1989 at column 299-302 and the earlier change, in 1976, from uprating based on known movements in indices of prices-earnings to uprating based on forecasts. This change had the practical effect that the change in prices or earnings over the period March 1975 to November 1975 was never taken into account for any uprating.

    The table therefore gives the figures requested on the same basis as in my reply of 20 December 1989, giving comparisons both for November 1978 and for November 1979 (when long-term benefit rates were increased by 2 per cent. more than inflation to make up for an under-forecast in 1978), and for changes in the average real value of benefits in the relevant uprating periods as a whole. Figures for April 1990, and therefore for the uprating year April 1989–90, are not yet available.

    Table 5

    Per cent.

    Uprating dates

    July 1974-November 1978

    5·6

    November 1978-April 1989

    0·4

    July 1974-November 1979

    7·5

    November 1979-April 1989

    -1·4

    Uprating periods (average value)

    July 1974-April 1975—November 1978-November 1979

    3·9

    November 1978·79-April 1988·89

    7·1

    Training Schemes
    Ms. Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the effect on the income support of participants in training courses run by local authorities or funded by the European social fund who receive financial help or help in kind towards their travel to training and meal costs; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) what is the position of income support claimants who are participating in training courses funded by the European social fund or local authorities who receive equivalent payments as enjoyed by participants in employment training; what is the effect on their benefit entitlement if they receive (a) a training premium of £10 a week, (b) a cash payment equal to the person's earnings disregard in each week, (c) a cash payout equal to the person's earnings disregard for work done outside the training each week, (d) a training bonus of up to £200 at the end of training, (e) a charitable payment or training bonus at the end of their training or (f) their travelling expenses; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    [holding answer 1 March 1990]: For income support purposes, the treatment of payments made to trainees who are not participating in arrangements for training made under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 will depend on

    693
    whether they are made on a contractual basis. Payments made on a contractual basis in respect of a weekly training premium, a weekly cash payment which is not a payment of earnings, and regular payments for meals and travel expenses will be taken fully into account as income. However, where these payments are made on a voluntary basis, the first £5 a week of the total amount is currently disregarded. From 9 April, this disregard will be increased to £10 a week, and voluntary payments which are intended and used for travel costs will be completely ignored. In addition, a payment of earnings from employment which is equal to the person's earnings disregard is ignored. Any charitable payment or training bonus (of whatever amount) paid on completion of a training course is treated as capital in the normal way and will not affect income support unless the payment brings the claimant's total capital to more than £3,000. Regular payments in kind are ignored.

    Income Support
    Mr. Nellist
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide the income support (supplementary benefit) earnings equivalents, and the assumptions underlying the calculations, for 1989, or the latest available year, 1987 and 1979 for(a) a two adult household, single earner, with two children aged between 11 and 15 years, (b) a single person aged over 25 years and (c) a single parent with one child aged between 11 and 15 years.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    [holding answer 8 March 1990]: Figures for 1987 and 1989 are given in the table. Figures for 1979 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Levels of gross earnings at which net income after housing costs in work becomes equal to that when unemployed and in receipt of Supplementary Benefit/ Income Support

    Family Type

    Supplementary Benefit April 1987 £ (gross)

    Income Support October 1989 £ (gross)

    Couple, 2 Children aged 11, 15

    35·06

    27·50

    Single person

    32·10

    34·90

    Single parent 1 child aged 14

    9·35

    6·40

    1. April 1987 figures exclude fares to work.

    2. All other assumptions are the same as the Tax Benefit Model Tables (TBM) for April 1987 and October 1989. Copies available in the Library.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what savings in social security payments would have accrued in each of the last two years if unemployment benefit were paid for(a) two years and (b) three years;

    (2)what would have been the annual cost of extending payment of unemployment benefit to (a) two years and (b) three years in each of the last two years.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    [holding answer 23 March 1990]:
    Estimated costs and savings are set out in the table.

    1988–89

    1989–90

    £ million

    £ million

    Extending UB duration to 2 years:

    UB cost

    340

    260

    IS/HB saving

    210

    170

    694

    1988–89

    1989–90

    £ million

    £ million

    Extending UB duration to 3 years:

    UB cost

    540

    400

    IS/HB saving

    330

    260

    Social Fund
    Mr. McLeish
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of income support applicants, by lone parents, disabled, pensioners and unemployed, who were receiving social fund budget and crisis loans for each month in 1989 for the Leven, Dunfermline, Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy social security offices.

    Mr. Scott
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The information given in the table represents the number of awards made each month. An individual applicant can make more than one application in each accounting period.

    Leven

    Lone parents

    Disabled

    pensioners

    unemployed

    Budgeting Loans 1989

    January

    23

    2

    0

    13

    February

    52

    1

    1

    45

    March

    29

    6

    1

    27

    April

    39

    3

    0

    19

    May

    34

    5

    0

    32

    June

    36

    2

    2

    24

    July

    36

    7

    2

    27

    August

    40

    4

    1

    16

    September

    25

    2

    1

    22

    October

    37

    6

    1

    24

    November

    66

    9

    7

    43

    December

    30

    2

    2

    28

    Crisis Loans 1989

    January

    3

    0

    1

    15

    February

    6

    1

    0

    12

    March

    10

    1

    0

    20

    April

    10

    0

    0

    13

    May

    9

    0

    0

    5

    June

    9

    0

    0

    12

    July

    7

    1

    0

    11

    August

    9

    0

    0

    20

    September

    25

    2

    1

    22

    October

    6

    0

    0

    9

    November

    9

    0

    0

    5

    December

    13

    3

    0

    13

    Dunfermline

    Lone Parents

    Disabled

    Pensioners

    Unemployed

    Budgeting Loans 1989

    January

    27

    4

    3

    24

    February

    63

    7

    2

    46

    March

    56

    4

    2

    54

    April

    34

    2

    5

    38

    May

    60

    6

    3

    28

    June

    35

    6

    1

    28

    July

    35

    0

    2

    30

    August

    42

    4

    3

    36

    September

    40

    3

    2

    24

    October

    49

    10

    3

    33

    November

    69

    10

    2

    36

    December

    57

    4

    3

    44

    695

    Lone parents

    Disabled

    Pensioners

    Unemployed

    Crisis Loans 1989

    January

    23

    0

    0

    64

    February

    20

    1

    1

    54

    March

    29

    0

    3

    99

    April

    32

    0

    0

    60

    May

    23

    3

    1

    46

    June

    15

    6

    0

    44

    July

    32

    0

    1

    40

    August

    27

    2

    1

    36

    September

    28

    0

    1

    50

    October

    24

    1

    0

    61

    November

    29

    0

    2

    62

    December

    24

    0

    1

    54

    Cowdenbeath

    Lone parents

    Disabled

    Pensioners

    Unemployed

    Budgeting Loans 1989

    January

    19

    14

    4

    21

    February

    41

    5

    2

    40

    March

    28

    2

    0

    26

    April

    30

    4

    3

    27

    May

    18

    8

    4

    29

    June

    20

    12

    2

    34

    July

    16

    8

    4

    33

    August

    21

    5

    2

    28

    September

    21

    3

    1

    34

    October

    35

    3

    0

    21

    November

    34

    4

    2

    31

    December

    42

    7

    3

    30

    Crisis Loans 1989

    January

    21

    5

    0

    39

    February

    15

    3

    0

    31

    March

    11

    2

    0

    52

    April

    20

    3

    0

    45

    May

    16

    2

    1

    37

    June

    21

    2

    0

    50

    July

    10

    0

    1

    43

    August

    11

    3

    1

    45

    September

    21

    1

    1

    25

    October

    21

    1

    0

    54

    November

    17

    1

    1

    59

    December

    23

    5

    0

    42

    Kirkcaldy

    Lone parents

    Disabled

    Pensioners

    Unemployed

    Budgeting Loans 1989

    January

    49

    9

    8

    77

    February

    73

    8

    7

    107

    March

    79

    14

    7

    134

    April

    53

    4

    9

    63

    May

    75

    10

    8

    64

    June

    72

    6

    7

    82

    July

    87

    6

    5

    106

    August

    93

    16

    5

    81

    September

    68

    3

    6

    72

    October

    48

    5

    11

    47

    November

    73

    4

    13

    94

    December

    33

    4

    0

    39

    Crisis Loans 1989

    January

    20

    2

    1

    38

    February

    19

    0

    0

    24

    March

    22

    1

    1

    58

    April

    27

    0

    1

    41

    May

    21

    0

    1

    44

    June

    28

    3

    1

    61

    July

    30

    1

    0

    60

    August

    21

    3

    2

    82

    September

    16

    0

    0

    52

    October

    17

    2

    1

    55

    696

    Lone parents

    Disabled

    Pensioners

    Unemployed

    November

    19

    0

    0

    49

    December

    8

    1

    0

    42

    Mr. McLeish
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amounts of social fund budgeting and crisis loans outstanding for each month in 1989 for the Leven, Dunfermline, Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy Social Security office.

    Mr. Scott
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The information given in the table represents the provisional amounts outstanding on the last day of each calendar month.

    1989

    Budget loans

    Crisis loans

    (£)

    (£)

    Leven

    January

    52,563·52

    6,297·83

    February

    63,544·73

    6,258·66

    March

    68,537·83

    6,726·50

    April

    71,611·65

    6,955·27

    May

    73,977·50

    7,122·63

    June

    73,017·27

    7,017·27

    July

    78,216·31

    6,951·29

    August

    79,517·10

    7,655·51

    September

    75,753·29

    8,097·69

    October

    76,736·58

    7,654·35

    November

    86,429·02

    8,750·99

    December

    86,973·78

    8,644·66

    Dunfermline

    January

    67,246·52

    11,537·70

    February

    83,566·82

    12,367·44

    March

    97,512·92

    15,107·08

    April

    101,245·75

    18,349·62

    May

    103,645·04

    19,611·94

    June

    98,957·80

    20,305·59

    July

    101,249·86

    21,211·71

    August

    99,349·26

    21,267·69

    September

    93,082·53

    21,681·80

    October

    99,147·63

    21,892·93

    November

    105,879·19

    22,775·03

    December

    104,953·74

    22,377·97

    Cowdenbeath

    January

    49,392·03

    7,168·26

    February

    53,251·22

    7,038·70

    March

    54,467·45

    7,057·49

    April

    53,759·24

    7,448·10

    May

    59,750·70

    9,043·62

    June

    58,617·41

    9,333·20

    July

    56,545·92

    9,374·68

    August

    57,175·58

    9,891·57

    September

    54,927·22

    9,405·62

    October

    55,617·72

    10,583·48

    November

    55,925·95

    10,831·85

    December

    59,162·71

    10,655·93

    Kirkcaldy

    January

    140,197·49

    7,189·66

    February

    157,793·09

    9,977·93

    March

    176,368·69

    13,905·46

    April

    185,456·24

    16,897·26

    May

    194,855·49

    18,563·63

    June

    197,111·36

    19,673·15

    July

    203,872·02

    19,649·12

    August

    216,603·23

    20,937·19

    September

    218,780·52

    20,117·60

    October

    214,305·20

    19,793·41

    November

    217,396·08

    22,343·70

    December

    203,458·70

    21,563·54

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Namibia
    Mr. Hunter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Namibian independence.

    Mr. Boyes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with the independent Namibia.

    Mr. McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with the independent Namibia.

    Mr. Wilson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on relations with Namibia.

    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with independent Namibia.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs represented the Government at the Namibian independence celebrations on 21 March, and met President Nujoma and other Ministers. We strongly supported Namibia's entry into the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friend opened the new British high commission in Windhoek on 21 March and announced £10 million in bilateral aid over the next three years. We are also helping Namibia with military and police training, at President Nujoma's request.

    Sir David Steel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks he has had with the Government of Namibia about the status of Walvis bay.

    Mr. Hurd
    Walvis bay was one of a number of subjects discussed during my meeting with President Nujoma in Windhoek on 21 March.

    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from Namibia for assistance in negotiations for the future of Walvis bay.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The future of Walvis bay is a matter for discussion between the new Namibian Government and the Government of South Africa. We have not been asked to intervene in these negotiations.

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks the Minister has had with the Namibian Government on their economic situation.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had wide-ranging talks with President Nujoma during his recent visit to Windhoek for the Namibian independence celebrations. They discussed economic issues, mainly in the context of Namibia's priority for aid.

    South Africa
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the Commonwealth in ending apartheid in South Africa.
    698
    Mr. Waldegrave
    We believe that the international community, including the Commonwealth, should make a positive and practical response to the important changes taking place in South Africa.

    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the Government of South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met President de Klerk, Mr. Pik Botha and other South African Ministers in Cape Town on 19 March. They had useful talks which reinforced our views that the South African Government are committed to fundamental reform. He urged them to lift the state of emergency as soon as possible. He also met several opposition leaders in South Africa and saw some of the 250 aid projects which Britain is supporting to help prepare black South Africans for the future after apartheid. He made it clear to everyone he met that our aim is to see apartheid abolished and to help the development of a peaceful, prosperous and democratic South Africa.

    German Unification
    Mr. Skinner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the West German Foreign Minister regarding reunification; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the West German Foreign Minister during the Anglo-German summit on 30 March, where they had useful discussions on a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including the external aspects of German reunification. They meet frequently and shall certainly do so again at, for example, NATO and EC meetings.

    Mr. Wareing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the two plus four conference on the unification of Germany.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    Preparatory talks at official level were held in Bonn on 14 March in accordance with the mandate given by the Foreign Ministers of the Federal Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic, France, United Kingdom, USSR and United States in Ottawa on 13 February. Officials discussed procedural questions and the agenda of future meetings. The next meeting will take place after the formation of a new German Democratic Republic Government.

    Mr. Dykes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's response to steps towards German reunification following the East German election results on 18 March.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    We have welcomed the GDR elections on 18 March as a great day for Europe and East Germany. We hope the two plus four talks can get down to substantive business as soon as the new democratically elected GDR Government are formed.
    699
    Mr. Hind
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the Foreign Minister of East Germany to discuss German unification; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    After the appointment of a new Foreign Minister for East Germany, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs looks forward to discussions of matters of mutual interest. He would, in any case, expect to meet him/her at the first meeting at ministerial level of the two plus four talks on the external aspects of German unification, for which, as yet, no date has been set.

    Ivory
    Miss Hoey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of the stockpiled ivory in Hong Kong.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The latest available figure for the current stock of elephant ivory held in Hong Kong (to the nearest tonne) is 472 tonnes, 356 tonnes of which are available for trading.

    EC Policies
    Mr. Knox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Community partners for the development of Community policies.

    Mr. Maude
    We have taken the lead in the Community on a wide range of issues, among them giving effect to the detailed measures called for in stage 1 of the Delors report on economic and monetary union; the development of policy towards eastern Europe, strengthening the partnership between the US and the Community and urging rapid progress towards completing the single market.

    We shall press our EC partners to continue to give top priority to completion of the 1992 programme, and to maintaining an outward-looking and liberal Community, in line with the commitments which we have secured in successive recent European Councils.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Andrew MacKay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Hong Kong.

    Mr. Maude
    I shall be visiting Hong Kong from 7 to 11 April.

    Drugs Trade
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he intends to give to south Asian countries in their attempt to curb the international drugs trade.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    South Asia, as the principal source of heroin reaching the United Kingdom, is a priority area for our drugs-related assistance. We are currently funding large-scale, drugs-related projects, in both Pakistan and India, managed by the United Nations fund for drug abuse control.

    German Democratic Republic
    Mr. Barry Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what message has been sent by his Department to the victors in last month's general election in the German Democratic Republic.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    We would expect to send a message to the new Foreign Minister of the GDR once a Government have been formed. We have welcomed the elections as a great day for Germany and for Europe.

    Mr. Watts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the elections in the German Democratic Republic.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The elections in East Germany on 18 March were, as confirmed by foreign observers, free, fair and well organised. We have welcomed the elections as a great day for Europe and for Germany.

    Brazil
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Brazil about their development of ballistic missiles.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    None.

    United Nations (Human Rights)
    Mr. Bill Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the last meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

    Mr. Eastham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the last meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    The Commission on Human Rights is the major United Nations forum for discussion of human rights issues. At its last session from 29 January to 9 March it discussed a very large number of human rights problems and, in particular, adopted resolutions critical of the human rights situations in a number of countries. The wide range of views represented at the commission meant, however, that on a number of issues it did not go as far as we would have wished.

    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking following the last meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    As a member of the commission the United Kingdom delegation played an active part in its work. We shall continue our efforts to promote respect for human rights and to urge compliance by all states with their international obligations.

    Romania
    Mr. Arbuthnot
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take all possible steps to encourage free and fair elections in Romania.
    701
    Mr. Waldegrave
    We wish to encourage free and fair elections in Romania. To promote this we invited a group of members of the Romanian political parties to visit the United Kingdom in March to study our political and electoral systems. We hope to fund the visit to Romania of a group of up to 12 local government officers to observe the election campaign and poll on 20 May. We also welcome the decision of the IPU to send observers, and are encouraging the Romanians to invite observers from the Council of Europe. We have also contributed 118 tonnes of paper to a wide range of political parties for their use in the election campaign.

    China
    Mr. Viggers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any current plans to visit Peking.

    Mr. Maude
    No.

    Central America
    Mr. Bradley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet members of the Government of the United States to discuss human rights in central America.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the members of the Government of the United States to discuss human rights in central America.

    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet members of the Government of the United States to discuss human rights in central America.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    We have regular discussions with the United States Administration on a wide variety of subjects, including central America.

    Eastern Europe (Electronics)
    Mr. Stern
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the consolidated reports of observers sent to recent east European elections.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    I will gladly arrange for any such reports to be placed in the Library.

    Baltic States
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with officials and Ministers of the Soviet Union and Lithuanian Governments about the future of thë Baltic states.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    We have recently taken a number of opportunities to make our concerns known to the Soviet Union. We have emphasised that it is vital that progress should be made through dialogue between the Soviet authorities and the Lithuanians, and that a settlement should be reached which is acceptable to both sides and which enables the Lithuanian people to decide their own future. We have stressed the need for restraint on all sides.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the right to self-determination of Estonia and the other Baltic states.
    702
    Mr. Waldegrave
    We have received a number of representations about Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from individuals and interest groups in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Our views are clearly on record.

    Mr. Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any recent requests from the Baltic states in support of self-determination; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    Our criteria for recognition of a state were set out in an answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 19 March. Our support for the right of the Baltic peoples to decide their own future is clearly on record.

    Nicaragua
    Mr. Norris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the handover of power to the new democratically elected Government of Nicaragua is proceeding satisfactorily.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    Preparations for the transfer of power appear to be going well. The agreement of 27 March between transition teams clarifies some important points, notably on civilian control of the army. The agreement of 23 March between Contra leaders and representatives of the new Government on demobilisation of the Contras also gives grounds for optimism. We are, however, disturbed by reports that the Sandinistas are distributing weapons to loyal followers, stripping Government assets, depleting reserves, and voting for themselves privileges and immunities.

    Middle East
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to finding a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

    Mr. Latham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east.

    Mr. Ernie Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to further peace in the middle east.

    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of peace negotiations in the middle east.

    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of peace negotiations in the middle east.

    Mr. Watson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress towards a peace settlement in the middle east.

    Mr. David Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to help advance the peace process in the middle east.
    703
    Mr. Waldegrave
    We aim to encourage a dialogue between Israel and representative Palestinians as the first step towards a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the peace process with King Hussein last month and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had a useful meeting with Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif on 1 March. We look forward to the formation of a new Israeli Government able to carry the process forward. We continue, in the meantime, to work for the improvement of conditions in the occupied territories.

    Sri Lanka
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Sri Lanka about human rights.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    The British high commissioner in Colombo most recently raised the subject with President Premadasa on 28 February. The Sri Lankan Government are in no doubt of our concern.

    Cuba
    Mr. Janman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet President Castro of Cuba.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no such plans.

    Cyprus
    Ms. Armstrong
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Cyprus following the breakdown of the United Nations talks.

    Mr. Maude
    We have worked actively to promote the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 649 on Cyprus. In line with it, we will continue to support UN efforts to bring about a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement to the Cyprus dispute.

    NATO
    Mr. Moss
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the result of the East German elections for the NATO alliance.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    NATO has long supported the cause for freedom in the German Democratic Republic and throughout eastern Europe. We welcome the democratic election in the GDR. The establishment of a genuine democracy there will contribute to stability and security in Europe. We stress the crucial importance of continued German membership of NATO.

    Cameroons
    Mr. Fraser
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the application for the Cameroons to join the Commonwealth.
    704
    Mr. Waldegrave
    I have nothing to add to the reply I gave in response to a similar question from the hon. Member on Wednesday 13 December 1989.

    Hungary
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the elections in Hungary.

    Mr. Simon Coombs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the elections in Hungary.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    We welcome Hungary's free and democratic elections on 25 March. They are an important milestone in the development of a pluralist democracy. We look forward to the formation of a new Government after the second round of elections on 8 April and to continued good relations.

    Sir Russell Johnston
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to meet a representative of the new Hungarian Government.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs looks forward to early contacts with the new Hungarian Government once formed, but has no firm plans as yet.

    European Parliament
    Mr. Butler
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to promote representation within the European Parliament based on a proportional ratio of population to seats.

    Mr. Maude
    The allocation of seats in the European Parliament has been the subject of negotiations within the framework of successive treaties since that of 1951 establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, under which the original Common Assembly was set up. Relative population has become the principal factor in determining the allocation of seats.

    Vietnam
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what talks the Minister has recently had with NGOs about the situation in Vietnam.

    Mrs. Chalker
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 12 March. ODA is in close touch with the NGOs. They have recently submitted proposals for projects in the areas from which most of the boat people have come. These are receiving careful consideration.

    Taiwan
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Taiwan; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Maude
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to do
    705
    so; in 1950 we ceased to recognise the nationalist authorities as the Government of China; since that date it has been our policy to have no formal dealings with the authorities in Taiwan.

    Vietnamese Boat People
    Mr. Ted Garrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the situation of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong.

    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the situation of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong.

    Mr. Eadie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the situation of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong.

    Mr. Maude
    For the first time since May 1987, there is now a sustained net outflow of Vietnamese boat people from Hong Kong. But it is too soon to know whether there will be another large influx into Hong Kong this year.

    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on living conditions in the closed camps for Vietnamese boat people.

    Mr. Maude
    The standard of living conditions in Hong Kong's 10 detention centres depends to a large extent on the degree of overcrowding. At present there are 44,000 Vietnamese boat people living in these detention centres, which have a combined design capacity of 43,000 places. A further 5,000 places will become available during May to accommodate the new influx which it is feared will arrive in the coming months.

    The UNHCR provides a full range of services to all detention centres through programmes operated by voluntary agencies. These services include education for children and adults, medical and family planning services, social work and welfare services.

    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to improve conditions in the closed camps for Vietnamese boat people.

    Mr. Maude
    Following the influx of 34,000 Vietnamese boat people in 1989, the Hong Kong Government have constructed new accommodation providing a total of 23,000 places. This has eased the overcrowding and has led to a significant improvement in conditions. In 1989–90 the total cost of providing asylum in Hong Kong was about £90 million. Of this, Her Majesty's Government provided £21 million to cover part of the cost of the building programme.

    Jacques Delors
    Mr. McFall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet Jacques Delors, and what matters he hopes to discuss.

    Dr. Kim Howells
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission; and what matters he hopes to discuss.
    706
    Mr. Sean Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission; and what matters he hopes to discuss.

    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet Jacques Delors; and what matters he hopes to discuss.

    Mr. Maude
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs next expects to meet the President of the Commission at a meeting of Foreign Ministers on 21 April, at which the special informal meeting of EC Heads of State or Government on 28 April will be discussed.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the General Affairs Council of Ministers meeting of 2 to 3 April.

    Mr. Frank Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the General Affairs Council of Ministers meeting of 2 to 3 April.

    Ms. Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the General Affairs Council of Ministers meeting of 2 to 3 April.

    Mr. Maude
    The Council which my right hon. Friend and I attended considered preparations for the inter-governmental conference due to open before the end of the year, and Herr Genscher reported on recent developments in Germany. The Commission reported on talks in Tokyo on EC/Japan trade; and on progress in EC/EFTA discussions; and on the signature of a trade, commercial and economic agreement with Czechoslovakia. We proposed that all quantitative restrictions on imports from Czechoslovakia should be removed from 1 July.

    The council discussed work on immigration problems, and member states' policies on visas for eastern Europe. My right hon. Friend argued for further measures of Community support to the black population of South Africa, and a trade and co-operation agreement with Argentina was signed.

    Ministers of the Twelve agreed, at my right hon. Friend's suggestion, to issue a further statement on Lithuania, urging restraint and dialogue as the way to achieve an outcome acceptable to all.

    Irish Republic
    Mr. Gow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic about the claim of articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution and of the Irish Supreme Court to jurisdiction over part of Her Majesty's dominions.

    Mr. Hurd
    We are in regular touch with the Irish Government. A judgment of the Irish Supreme Court cannot affect Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom in international law. Irrespective of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, both
    707
    Governments are agreed that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

    Chancellor Kohl
    Mr. Snape
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet Chancellor Kohl, and what issues he hopes to discuss.

    Mr. Maude
    My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Chancellor Kohl at the Anglo-German summit on 30 March. At that meeting the two sides had a useful and wide-ranging discussion on matters of mutual interest, including the external aspects of German unification.

    We remain in close contact with the Federal German Government. Our next meeting with Chancellor Kohl is likely to be at the EC summit in Dublin on 28 April.

    Mr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed during his recent meeting with Chancellor Kohl on 29 and 30 March.

    Mr. Maude
    A range of issues were discussed during Chancellor Kohl's visit on 29 and 30 March, including German unification, NATO matters, Lithuania, South Africa and the European Community.

    Anti-Semitism
    Mr. Janner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding anti-semitism in eastern Europe.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    We of course deplore anti-semitism in all its forms and will do all we can to counter it. Our embassies are monitoring the situation in eastern Europe carefully. Although some incidents have been reported, we think that there has been no general increase in anti-semitism in the area, although the free atmosphere has allowed it to be expressed more openly. We will be glad to have the hon. and learned Member's own assessment after his forthcoming visit to the area.

    Nelson Mandela
    Mr. Adams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet Nelson Mandela, and what matters he hopes to discuss.

    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to have discussions with Nelson Mandela; and what issues will be raised.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    When they met briefly in Namibia on 21 March, Mr. Mandela told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that he hoped to have a further meeting before long. My right hon. Friend looks forward to discussing with him the recent positive developments in South Africa, and the best way to maintain a process of peaceful change.

    Bulgaria
    Mr. Amos
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria to discuss ways in which the United Kingdom can assist in the establishment of democracy; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no firm plans to meet the Bulgarian Foreign Minister again. They met in Ottawa in February and had a useful discussion. I met Mr. Dimitrov in Sofia also in February and at the recent Council of Europe Ministers meeting in Lisbon. A group of Bulgarian politicians recently visited London under the auspices of the Great Britain-East Europe Centre and the IPU to study our democracy in action. We greatly welcome progress towards democracy in Bulgaria and hope the election to be held on 10 June will be completely free and fair.

    EC Organisations (Siting)
    Mr. Day
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for Britain's bid for the siting of the European Environment Agency and the European bank for reconstruction and development.

    Mr. Maude
    We continue to pursue vigorously our bids to have the European Environment Agency and the European bank for reconstruction and development located in the United Kingdom. Both our candidates, Cambridge and London respectively, have an excellent case and are strong contenders.

    Cambodia
    Mr. Geraint Howells
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent diplomatic efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to find a solution to the situation in Cambodia.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 26 March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

    Anglo-German Summit
    Mr. Gregory
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the Anglo-German summit on 30 March.

    Mr. Temple-Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the Anglo-German summit on 30 March.

    Mr. Maude
    At the Anglo-German summit in London on 30 March, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had useful discussions with their German opposite numbers on a wide range of issues of mutual interest. The successful occasion underlined our close relations with the Federal Republic of Germany, one of our most important allies and partners.

    Lithuania
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consideration the British Government have given to their relations with Lithuania and the Soviet Union.

    Mr. Andrew Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consideration the British Government have given to their relations with Lithuania and the Soviet Union.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consideration the British Government have given to their relations with Lithuania and the Soviet Union.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    We support the right of the Baltic peoples to decide their own future, and have welcomed the considerable progress made in the past two years.

    In view of recent developments in Lithuania, we think it vital that restraint should be shown on all sides and that progress should be made through dialogue between the Soviet authorities and the Lithuanians. We attach particular importance to the repeated statements by the Soviet leadership that there is no question of use of force. We have made clear our concerns to the Soviet authorities.

    Herr Genscher
    Mr. Adley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet Herr Genscher; and what he proposės to discuss.

    Mr. Maude
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the West German Foreign Minister during the Anglo-German summit on 30 March, where they had useful discussions on a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including the external aspects of German reunification. They meet frequently and shall certainly do so again soon at, for example, NATO and EC meetings.

    UN Peacekeeping Forces
    Mr Livsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what budget Her Majesty's Government set for this year's contribution to United Nations peacekeeping forces' activities.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    The 1990–91 supply estimates published in March 1990 seek provision of £34·680 million for the United Kingdom's contribution to specific United Nations peacekeeping operations. In addition, a small number of United Nations peacekeeping operations are financed directly from the United Nation's regular budget.

    Kuwait
    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Kuwait Government; and what matters were discussed.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister at the EC/GCC ministerial meeting in Muscat on 17 March where Foreign Ministers of both groupings discussed issues of common interest. His last bilateral meeting with a Kuwaiti Minister was in November 1989 with the Minister of the Interior.

    Council of Europe
    Mr. Hardy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy as to whether the wider role which the Council of Europe has recently developed should lead to an acceptance that it be involved in formal and continuing consideration of at least some aspects of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    Both the Council of Europe and the CSCE have crucial roles in furthering democratic values in Europe. These roles should complement and not duplicate one another. The Council of Europe's special ministerial meeting in Lisbon on 23-24 March agreed that the Council of Europe should be represented in a member state's delegation at the forthcoming CSCE conference on the human dimension in Copenhagen.

    Foreign Policy
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many volumes of the series on British foreign policy 1945–55, "Documents on British Policy Overseas," have been produced; how many copies have been distributed to(a) United Kingdom embassies or diplomatic missions abroad and (b) United Kingdom universities and research institutes; how many departmental staff or consultants to his Department are employed on preparation and production of the series; and what has been the cost to date in current prices of the series.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    The series "Documents on British Policy Overseas," announced in the House of Commons by Sir Alec Douglas-Home on 2 July 1973, is a collection of the most important documents in the archives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office relating to British policy overseas, and is regarded as an indispensable source for British foreign policy in the period from 1945 to 1955.

    The following eight volumes have been published so far:
    Series I (1945–50)
    Volume I The Conference at Potsdam, July-August 1945 (HMSO, 1984) £85.
    Volume II Conferences and Conversations 1945: London, Washington and Moscow (HMSO, 1985) £75.
    Volume III Britain and America: Negotiation of the United States Loan, August-December 1945 (HMSO, 1987) £35.
    Volume IV Britain and America: Atomic Energy, Bases and Food, December 1945-July 1946 (HMSO, 1987) £35.
    Volume V Germany and Western Europe, 11 August-31 December 1945 (HMSO, 1990) £55.
    Series II (1950–55)
    Volume I The Schuman Plan, the Council of Europe and Western European Integration 1950–1952 (HMSO, 1986) £70.
    Volume II The London Conferences, 1950 (HMSO, 1987) £35.
    Volume III German Rearmament, 1950 (HMSO, 1989) £39.

    British embassies and diplomatic missions abroad do not receive copies of DBPO, but information material is sent to overseas posts and copies of the volumes are available on loan from the FCO library. In cases where a volume is of particular current relevance to an embassy a copy may be supplied for retention.

    United Kingdom universities and research institutes purchase their copies of DBPO.

    DBPO is produced by a small team of independent historians working in the historical branch of the library and records department of the Foreign and

    711
    Commonwealth Office. The editorial staff, who also provide historical advice within the FCO, comprise two editors, two assistant editors and three research assistants. No consultants are employed.

    The costs of the printing and publication of DBPO are borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and are recovered by it as revenue from sales.

    Whitehead Detention Centre
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking concerning the recent case of the suffocation of a child at birth due to lack of medical facilities at the Whitehead detention centre clinic; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Maude
    The Hong Kong authorities have recently completed a thorough investigation of this case.

    The medical evidence indicates that the child died at least 24 hours before the onset of labour and probably considerably earlier. The child did not suffocate at birth.

    The allegations of inadequate medical facilities are unfounded. Whitehead has a well-equipped clinic but it is the usual practice to transfer women in labour to a nearby hospital as happened in this case.

    Ministers' Meeting, Lisbon
    Mr. Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Lisbon.

    Mr. Maude
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) on 26 March.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Foulkes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on changes in the human rights situation in East Timor since January.
    712
    Mr. Sainsbury
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 29 March to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

    Mr. Foulkes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the policy of the Indonesian Government towards people demonstrating in favour of independence from Indonesia.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    We have received written representations from two human rights organisations and several Members of Parliament.

    Correspondence (MEPs)
    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament since 18 June 1989, that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice where such matters are involved to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

    Mr. Maude
    Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way. We have received no such communications since 18 June 1989.

    A separate arrangement applies in respect of consular cases, under which our normal practice is to copy correspondence with MEPs to the appropriate hon. Member in view of the direct personal involvement in such cases of hon. Members' constituents.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Lord McNair—Lord McNair— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford—Viscount Runciman of Doxford— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

The Three Graces: Export Application
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a further statement (H.L. Deb., 26th February, col. 509) on their policy on the proposed export of the statue known as The Three Graces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 2nd March in another place that he proposed to take into account in the future private as well as public offers. He is currently considering representations by persons affected by this change of policy, and will reach a decision shortly on the Canova and on any other export applications deferred until 4th April.
Noble Lords will also be aware that the Barclay brothers have offered to purchase the statue and place it on loan for 20 years to the Victoria and Albeit Museum and a Scottish institution.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and I give it, if I may, two cheers. I ask him to accept my congratulations on having advanced this cause so substantially. Does he realise that a private purchaser is wholly acceptable provided the public have permanent access to the object? Meanwhile, can he tell the House what has happened to Mr. Jacob Rothschild's ingenious offer? Has that fallen into limbo or is it about to be resurrected?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not too certain about limbo or resurrection, particularly at this time of the year. The fact is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State put forward the date of 4th April for any representations on behalf of any parties interested or concerned. As my noble friend pointed out, there is the recent offer by the Barclay brothers, together with the previous Rothschild concept which was discussed in this House the last time I replied to a similar Question from the Dispatch Box, and there have been other representations. That is why my right honourable friend is now considering the sum total of those various interests.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, as the position is extremely complicated will the Government consider deferring the export licence for a much longer period— say, six months— rather than on a monthly basis so that they can consider fully the two very generous offers that have been made?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships would like to see not only a satisfactory but also a speedy solution. If that is possible the Government hope to achieve it. But it is important to remind your Lordships that the Government's position is in a sense at arm's length because The Three Graces is the property of a private company.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that an offer of this kind deserves more than two cheers? It deserves three rather enthusiastic cheers. It is a generous offer that would result in keeping the Canova here indefinitely and on exhibition to the public. Will he take the opportunity to express some appreciation in order to encourage others to do exactly what the Barclay brothers are offering to do?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, certainly I shall give three cheers. I agree entirely with my noble friend.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in giving three cheers, in which I join up to a point, will the Minister point out to his right honourable friend the difference between the offer by the Barclay brothers and that by the now noble Lord, Lord Rothschild? Is it not true that the Barclay brothers' offer is that the statue should be on public view for 20 years at the V&A and at a Scottish gallery?
Does not the Minister further agree that in discussing objects of this kind and value 20 years is a dot in time, which could be varied by a court during that period? Will he press his right honourable friend to look again at the offer by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, in which he makes a gift to the nation of the Canova? There is then no question of the statue going back to the family and no question of only a limited period of time operating. To many of us, including those in the arts world and the Museums and Galleries Commission, that would seem a much better result for the nation.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there are two distinct points on which we must focus. First, whatever offer is made by the Barclay brothers, it is not made to Her Majesty's Government; it is made to the owners of The Three Graces and it is up to them to decide whether they consider that 20 years is acceptable. It has nothing to do with Her Majesty's Government.
The second point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, relates to the offer from the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. It is not the same offer in any shape or form because it is a variation on an offer of art in lieu, and that has substantial public expenditure implications.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to press this point, but is it not a fact that £ 10 million a year is supposed to be put aside by the Treasury for these acceptance-in-lieu offers? That allowance was not

1401
used up in 1989–90; it seldom is. The fact is that money is available for that purpose. I appreciate the difference which the Minister pointed out, but the fact remains that in one case it is an offer of a gift to the nation of a pre-eminent object whereas the other is something which, as he rightly says, the Government do not come into.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness that the key to the problem is that the Rothschild offer is a variation on a scheme which does not exist. As I said earlier, that is one reason that further consideration is taking place.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister about the new policy which was hidden in his Answer. Hitherto the export control procedures affecting heritage items have always been based on the public interest. How is it possible for a Minister, without any previous discussion in Parliament, completely to alter those procedures which hitherto have always meant that the item would go to a public gallery? Now it will be open to any dealer to make an offer for such an item and then, at a later date, to flog it off in the public domain at an enhanced price and to the detriment of the public. How has that change of policy been made possible?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord does not recall an event which caused a certain amount of concern in the art world last October when a private offer was made for the Blake-Varley sketchbook. That offer was unable to fulfil the conditions that existed at the time and thus the sketchbook was lost to this country, even had it remained in a private collection available to scholars.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Government express some preference in this matter in favour of the Rothschild scheme despite the fact that it involves Government expenditure? Will the Government further examine the scheme with a view to ascertaining whether or not this item can be brought within the customs and practises which have existed hitherto?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is now trying to draw me into a very general area of nearly unlimited public expenditure in anticipation that all estates will be allowed to apply to offset estate duty arrangements for any cause which one may care to name. I look at the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, as his eyes roll somewhat at the thought that I should be able to commit the Government to that. I assure your Lordships that I cannot provide an answer which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would consider to be suitable and satisfactory.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, cannot we all give four cheers for the Barclay brothers? If one simple amendment to the offer were made, instead of the public being allowed to see the item for 20 years, they would be allowed to see it in perpetuity. In those circumstances everybody would be happy.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the object of the Secretary of State's change in policy was not to restrict but to expand the opportunities for retaining artistic objects of virtue in this country. There was no public offer to fund the purchase of The Three Graces at the time. Regardless of what the Government do, agreement has to be reached between a willing vendor and a willing buyer. The Government cannot intervene in that arrangement.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can the noble Lord please answer my question? I believe that the deferral period for the export licence is due to run out today. For how long are the Government going to extend it? In view of the complications of the matter, which have been evidenced in this exchange, will it be extended for several months, as I suggested?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the purpose of the date, 4th April, was to provide an opportunity for views to be received by the Secretary of State. He is now reviewing those views.

UK Companies: European Bids
2.44 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to prevent the takeover of large United Kingdom companies based in Western Europe, while United Kingdom companies are barred from bidding for companies in many other European countries.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, no. The proper way to tackle the problem of discriminatory treatment is not to erect one's own barriers, but to seek to reduce or eliminate those erected by other countries.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that last year about 2, 000 public and private companies in the United Kingdom were taken over by foreign companies? That would not be too disturbing if the reverse process were possible. However, in many Western European countries there are technical obstructions to prevent us reversing the process. Does my noble friend agree that, in view of the very serious position that is developing, it is time the Government brought all the parties together, including the EC, to agree a level playing field where we are all on equal terms in this takeover battle?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that takeover regulations are being discussed in the European Community. They are likely to come into effect in September this year. They will substantially level the playing field to which my noble friend referred. However, your Lordships may be interested to know that, relatively speaking the United Kingdom is much more active in overseas markets than are overseas companies in the United Kingdom market. For example, in 1989

1403
United Kingdom companies were responsible for acquisitions in the USA and Canada totalling £ 19, 812 million, involving 296 companies. On the reverse side of the coin, only 44 companies were concerned involving £ 4, 859 million.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as the Minister also observed, a growing number of privatised British firms are being renationalised as subsidiaries of French state-owned companies. Can the Minister say whether that was one of the objects of the Government's privatisation policy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that that is a matter which needs to be kept under fairly careful scrutiny. It is certainly no part of United Kingdom policy to move companies from the public to the private sector and then back into somebody else's public sector, particularly when that overseas public sector does not operate in a properly commercial and competitive way.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his optimism about the levelling of the playing field is not shared everywhere? It is quite clear that people will give up something which they believe is to their advantage if there is affinity between the 12 who constitute the EC, but that ingredient is lacking. Will the Government keep that fact very soundly in mind so that they do not follow an illusion only to present it as a fact?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend that until recently, anyway, the European playing field has not been very well tilled. There have been some sticky spots on part of the wicket, if I may describe the situation in that way. That is why we have been playing such an active part in the preparation of the current regulations and why we attach such importance to some of the directives which are currently being considered in the same area.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is it not the fact that 1992 means not so much the completion of a single market but rather more a double-cross as far as this country is concerned?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not agree with that at all. The EC is moving steadily towards the completion of the single European market. We greatly support all the steps that are being taken in that area. We are in the forefront in ensuring that our own regulatory and statutory system meets all the requirements which have been set out and which have been agreed across such a wide base. All the members of the EC have declared and agreed their objectives to complete and perfect the single European market by the end of 1992. We now hope and believe that that will happen.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say a little more about the
1404
state of this process of assimilation of the laws of the member states? Is he aware that I raised this question some time ago when my noble friend, Lord Young, answered from the Dispatch Box? Unless we are prepared to put up some temporary barriers for the purpose of achieving a reasonable agreement, does my noble friend not agree that as regards the EC this matter will go on and on?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in general terms I believe that my noble friend is mistaken. In moving to a free trade situation, whether it be in matters of this kind or as regards more conventional trade arrangements, these objectives are not achieved by the United Kingdom or other important players in those areas raising barriers in the way which my noble friend would have us do. We have to lead from the front in these matters. I am very proud of the United Kingdom's record in this respect.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that giving statistics about United Kingdom companies' activities in the United States of America and about United States companies in the United Kingdom is no answer to his noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and is well wide of the Question on the Order Paper? Does he further recognise that this is not a question of regulation? It is a question of the relationship between shareholders and their companies which in continental Europe are quite different from those prevailing in the United Kingdom. Whatever the regulations may be, and however level may be the playing field in terms of regulations and in terms of takeover practice, the fact is, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, pointed out, we shall never have a level playing field that matters in those relationships?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. I am entitled to quote those figures to my noble friend because of the implication in his Question that United Kingdom companies were being taken over on a large scale while United Kingdom companies had no opportunity in overseas markets. That is not the case. United Kingdom companies have achieved wide success in world markets, particularly in acquiring overseas companies. We are a major player on the world investment scene.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to read the Question which his noble friend asked, he will see that the United States is quite irrelevant.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord wants other examples about other parts of the world, I shall be happy to recite those too.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, my noble friend kindly told us what is happening in the Community but the Question relates to Western Europe. What action are the Government taking to make sure that the playing field is level between the United Kingdom and Switzerland. I give the example of Nestleé taking over Rowntree. Nestle could work it one way but Rowntree could not work it the other way. What is happening about Australia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not claim that the position is perfect in every market in which we have to operate. My noble friend is quite right to point out that Switzerland is not a member of the European Community and is therefore not bound by the European Community regulations and directives unless it chooses to be so. Certainly we shall be arguing in specific cases for countries to bring their arrangements more into line with those which we regard as acceptable. By and large, references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission— I imagine that this is what my noble friend had in mind— are made on grounds of competition, not on grounds of who the new owner might be.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on these Benches strongly support the Government's determination to advance freedom of trade?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I wish she had intervened a few moments earlier.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that of the 100 largest United Kingdom companies, all of which play a very prominent part in our export trade, 12 are now taken over each year? Time is not on our side. Whatever we are doing in other fields is admirable, but will the Government adopt a sense of urgency in gathering people together so that we can achieve a better balance in and out of this country and Western Europe?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the implication of my noble friend's Question was that it was a bad thing that these firms were being taken over in the way he described. I do not accept that proposition. Each case has to be examined on its merits, principally from the point of view of competition. But it is also open to the shareholders of the companies concerned to decide what is in their best interests. In almost every case these takeovers take place because shareholders like the offer that is made to them. Who am I to qualify their judgment?

EC Documents: Speed of Availability
2.52 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether copies of agreed "common positions", declarations, opinions, revised decisions, regulations, amended regulations and directives or amended directives will be deposited in Parliament as soon as possible after each meeting of the European Council or the Council of Ministers.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, copies of the English language version of all Commission proposals for legislation and other documents that are published for submission to the Council of Ministers and the European Council are deposited
1406
in Parliament within two working days of their receipt in London.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I do not know whether that is a helpful Answer or not? I shall have to consider it. Is he further aware that documents are sometimes not available in their translated form for weeks after important decisions have been made and in some cases implemented? Will he have another look at the matter? Will the Government also examine the Kremlinesque way in which these decisions are taken, in secret and without Parliament knowing anything about them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not know whether my Answer was helpful or not. I thought it would be helpful for him and other noble Lords to know that the documents to which he referred in his Question are deposited in Parliament within two working days. I shall of course take note of what he has said and see if any further improvement can be made.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the European Parliament had rather more power many of these decisions would not be taken in secret? Matters would be monitored by the European Parliament before the decisions were taken.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a very interesting question from my noble friend, but it is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the Minister has given very good news about the speed with which the documents arrive before Parliament. Can he say who outside Parliament has access to those documents? With regard to the Commission inquiry into the Rover Group, can he say when documents relating to that matter will be put before Parliament?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give an answer in regard to the specific case raised by the noble Baroness. I am not sure whether that document is one of those referred to. As to availability outside Parliament, I do not know how that takes place. But I am sure that those interested would be able to get hold of the documents as soon as they liked.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in relation to the supplementary question asked by his noble friend Lady Elles, the proper place for decisions to be made regarding the people of this country is at Westminster and not at the upstart, polyglot assembly in Strasbourg?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, much as I would enjoy debating the subject with the noble Lord, it is probably not appropriate to do so on this Question.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that decisions affecting the whole of Europe, from Sicily to the Orkneys, and from Portugal right across Western Europe, are not necessarily taken only in the Parliament at Westminster?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am beginning to find myself somewhat superfluous to this exchange.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is it not obvious from this torrent of declarations, directives and so on from Brussels that this country is inexorably being sucked into a European federation for which no party in this country has a mandate? Does the noble Lord recollect that the referendum asked the question: are you in favour of Britain entering the EEC (Common Market)? The Government have a mandate to take this country into a common market but not into a federation which seeks to limit every aspect of our national life, from the length of sausages to the specific gravity of beer? Is it not time that we had another referendum about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is well wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But I can assure the noble Lord that if there are any documents relating to the length of sausages or the specific gravity of beer they will be deposited in English in Parliament within two working days.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the matter is regulated by statute, namely, the European Communities Act 1972?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for reminding the House of that.

Bloomsbury Health Authority: Funding
2.58 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider the proposed reductions in funding for Bloomsbury Health Authority, with consequent cuts in acute psychiatric beds, given that the population of Bloomsbury includes many homeless people with mental health problems.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Bloomsbury Health Authority has agreed to a service plan for 1990–91 designed to make savings of £ 7 million so that it can clear its recurrent income and expenditure deficit. No decisions affecting the specific services for mentally ill people will be agreed until the authority discusses the district's mental health strategy at its next meeting later this month.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. She did not actually answer my Question but said that decisions will be taken at a later date. Is she not aware that the rate of schizophrenia among the 4, 000 or so homeless people in Bloomsbury is so high that it has been estimated that they would represent a caseload to mental health services more appropriate to a population of 300, 000? The population of Bloomsbury is only 180, 000. Is she also aware that this problem is not restricted to Bloomsbury,
1408
although it is more acute there? It is a general problem among inner city health authorities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are well aware of the concerns he has expressed in this exchange. In fact I can go further than that by mentioning some of the statistics. Thirty per cent. of the acute mentally ill in-patients in Bloomsbury are homeless, which presents a particular problem. I believe that the question is precipitate at this time in that there is a great deal of reorganisation taking place with regard to health provision in this part of London, as the noble Lord well knows. The department is reconsidering its policies in relation to the homeless and the mentally ill. I believe that much of what is being done in the Bloomsbury health authority is designed to produce better, more effective and more efficient services for this category of patient.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind the point just made by the noble Baroness about the close link between those who are homeless and those who are psychiatric patients; the fact that London has a very much higher proportion of homeless pshychiatric patients than other parts of the country; and the Question we had last week about the likely closure of the Maudsley Hospital, as well as the beds which may go as regards the Bloomsbury health authority, is there not a case for some sort of funding for London to try to deal with this special problem of the homeless, of which every visitor, every tourist and every human being who lives here is now consciously aware?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is an issue which concerns noble Lords on all sides of the House. It is an especially difficult area of provision for the health service. As regards the resources which will go the health service generally, it is not the amount of resources which is important but their deployment. Much of the reorganisation and reconsideration of the current strategy for patients is designed to make better use of the resources. Therefore, in that sense the question is precipitate.
It is worth mentioning one of the initiatives. We are currently exploring what practical steps can be taken to assist homeless mentally ill people to obtain help when they are in need. Moreover, in the coming year we hope to set up an initiative in central London— which was the point of the noble Lord's question— whereby voluntary bodies in partnership with health and local authorities, will provide accommodation for mentally ill people with accompanying health and social support. Therefore, support will be brought in to help them in that accommodation. The lessons learnt in that initiative could be applied not only in London but also across the country in our more urban cities.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I warmly welcome that announcement by the Minister. I particularly welcome the involvement of voluntary as well as statutory bodies. However, perhaps she can tell the House whether some resources will be made available to enable such initiatives to take place.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot be specific in my answer. However, I can say that there are extra resources and that their application will be interesting. I say that because much of the application will be in exploratory areas to ascertain the most effective way of bringing treatment to these people in London.
Lord Ennals: Pilot studies.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. I think that it is hardly necessary to lay down a standard length of speech because, on the principle that the mover is allowed 20 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, the limit for other speakers may be just short of 15 minutes.

City Dwellers: Social Problems
3.4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to call attention to the social, financial and environmental problems facing the inhabitants of our cities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in relation to the remarks just made by the Government Chief Whip I am bound to say that, much as I welcome the participation of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, two noble Lords from the Cross-Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Broadbridge, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the debate bids fair to become a seminar within the Labour Party.
The Motion was deliberately drawn extremely widely to reflect the concern which we have on these Benches for what is perhaps the most serious and worsening range of social issues facing a very high proportion of the people in this country. It is a matter of some surprise to me that noble Lords other than those on the Opposition Benches do not feel that these issues are of sufficient importance for them to join in the debate. Only last week when we were discussing similar matters I was moved to observe that many noble Lords seemed to be more concerned with problems of salmon fisheries than with the problems facing the majority of our people, including that majority who are in the most financial, social and environmental difficulties. I am sorry to see that my observations on that occasion have been borne out by the speakers' list for today's debate.
However, there is always some levelling of such problems in that we have on these Benches, both behind me and beside me, a range of expertise on the problems of our cities which I think is unequalled.
I very much look forward not only to the sparse participation from other Benches but also to the participation of my noble friends. All I can hope to do with such a wide Motion is to set the scene for the debate to which they will contribute with far more expertise than I can.
The Motion is about the cities of Britain. But is is appropriate that we should put it into context because cities are not a new invention in our society and they are not peculiar to Britain. Indeed, cities have existed for thousands of years. I do not know how well known it is, but the Republic of Sri Lanka had a city of over 1 million people, Anuradhapura, in the centre of the country in 500 BC. The city was self-sufficient in the sense that it looked after all the needs of its citizens in an agrarian society, with a series of what were in effect allotments and common land holdings and a very complex irrigation system which was so perfect that the drop in water level over an area of several square miles was less than one foot. The relevance of that fact is greater than may appear at present.
If we look at Shanghai today, it will be seen that its boundaries, which I saw a few years ago, have been so drawn that the townships surrounding it are responsible for all of the food needs of this city of 5 million or 6 million people. The relevance of this information is that cities can and have survived and that they are a necessary and natural part of our civilisation but that they require organisation, co-operation and some degree of planning and understanding if they are to succeed. That is not to say that the cities in this country are conspicuously worse than those in other countries.
Anyone who has realised that Cairo has increased its population from 4 million in 1970 to 12 million in 1989 and that at least 1 million of its people are today living in the cemetaries— that is, living on top of the tombs in the cemetaries— will know that our cities are not the worst. Similarly, anyone who has seen Caracas, where the middle classes live in the valleys and those who serve them live in huts dangerously perched on the steep hills, with no water or power supply, will know that there are indeed other cities that are in a worse condition.
Moreover, anyone who has read Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities will know that many of the problems which face the city of New York are more extreme than anything we have yet to see in this country. Even closer to home, anyone who has witnessed the problems of the city of Naples will know that worse conditions exist in the world than are to be found in our cities.
Yet there is a degree of complacency about the problems of our cities on the part of the Government and of many people in our society which is actually making them worse rather than better. It started perhaps as a reflection of a principle which has now come to be called Thatcherism. Edward Banfield, the head of President Nixon's task force on model cities, over 20 years ago expressed the view that there was no major problem of the cities. The problem was only of inner suburbs close to the central area. It was only that there were poor people coming in who, because of the success of our cities, then became richer. Banfield said that:

1411
"The city attracts the poor by offering better conditions of life— better food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, schools, and treatment from employers and officials: this is why it always has so many poor. The problem of poverty in the cities is seldom of the cities' own making; it is essentially a problem made elsewhere and then brought to the cities".
Banfield made a distinction between different kinds of deprivation in our cities: destitution, where people die as they have died in cities since the industrial revolution and are buried in paupers' graves, not having been able to support any degree of acceptable life. There are problems of want for people whose lives are defective in some major aspect, but they are able to stay alive. There are problems of hardship which are thought to be less severe and problems of relative deprivation, which Banfield argues is the major problem of cities in the 20th century. People are not really poor, there is nothing wrong, it is just that they are not as well off as their neighbours.
I suggest that far from moving up the scale with a reduction in destitution and an increase in problems of relative deprivation, in many respects because of government policies in this country the situation in our cities is getting worse. I wish to concentrate on two matters which are at the forefront of the problems that we see in our cities. One is the problem of housing, the other is the problem of individual poverty. They are closely related.
The problems of housing in our cities are fundamentally of defective thinking in official circles. I shall not restrict this to the Government because they are widespread defects of thinking. There is defective thinking about the nature of the investment which must be made in the public provision for housing for our people. It is assumed that somehow it is possible for the private sector to take over responsibility for a provision which has never, in any developed country in the 20th century, been able to be devolved to the private sector.
As a result of policies of shuffling off responsibility, in our housing policies in this country we have a grave decay in the existing stock because neither public nor private landlords have the resources to make the physical investment which is necessary to deal with a housing stock which dates largely from the 19th century. There is the virtual collapse of public provision of affordable housing for those most in need.
If we look at council housing over the period from 1976 to 1988, we see that council housing starts dropped from 105, 000 in 1976 to 15, 000 in 1988. If we look at provision by housing associations, which are supposed in government thinking to replace the provision by local authorities, we find that even there starts dropped from 24, 000 in 1977 to 9,000 in 1988. There is the shuffling off of responsibility from central government to other bodies such as the Housing Corporation.
I have a great deal of admiration for the work of the Housing Corporation in many ways. It has shown a businesslike approach to dealing with housing problems. But the restrictions under which it works force it to build where it is cheaper rather than where housing is needed. The result is that the corporation
1412
is like the drunk searching for his keys who looks under the lamppost rather than looking where he lost his keys. That will not solve our housing problems and I believe that the Housing Corporation knows it.
At the same time, over the past two years there has been a dramatic reduction in effective housing benefit as a result of changes in benefit policies which have meant not only that the provision on the supply side of housing in our cities is worse than it was, but also that the demand side is worse in the sense that fewer and fewer people are able to afford that which is already in short supply.
We have a housing situation in which we can see the sharp end— homelessness. Others of my noble friends will refer to this in more detail, but I do not think that anybody with an open mind can walk around this city in particular without seeing what happens when 120, 000 households— that is the total number of households in the city of Bradford— are accepted by local authorities as being genuinely homeless. That is even by the strict rules which are applied to homelessness under the 1977 Act. It means that last year one-quarter of a million people had to be accepted as being homeless.
I suggest to your Lordships that there has been no time, at any rate since the war, when so many people in our cities have been falling off the end of what is supposed to be— and in a civilised society has been in the past— the basic minimum of public provision. The result is that in London alone there are 33, 000 people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and costing our local authorities £ 130 million per year to keep. That is not only a social disgrace, it is a financial scandal. It has been self-evidently proved that it would be cheaper for us to invest in more homes for those who need housing than to provide inadequate accommodation in bed-and-breakfast hotels with damaging results to the children and parents in the families concerned. The 1977 Act, which the Government tried to repeal on more than one occasion, has proved impossible to repeal. What is now required is that it should be improved.
Similarly we have seen in the past few weeks evidence that even those who are not homeless are being made to suffer because of the increases in council house rents being forced on local authorities. The matter has been debated in your Lordships' House recently. I shall not pursue the issue but it is evident that this is another example of the direction in which one of the most important attributes of the civilised city society is proceeding. Things are getting worse rather than better.
Alongside the decline in civilised standards in housing, there is the decline in civilised attitudes towards poverty. Banfield and many other people have argued that poverty is not a serious problem, that the trickle-down theory from the increased disposable incomes of the better off will in the end reduce and finally remove poverty. If ever there were an occasion where Karl Marx has been proved right, this is one. He forecast not that there would be absolute immiseration, that people would get absolutely worse off, but that the gaps between rich and poor would become greater.
In every one of our cities we can see the justification for what Karl Marx said about relative immiseration. We may go to the South Bank, or to the arches under Charing Cross Station or to the bed-arid-breakfast hotels in North Kensington or Paddington. We may go to the employment offices in the East End or in the North East of London or to many comparable places like the housing estates on the outskirts of Glasgow and Toxteth in Liverpool. Those of us with eyes to see and minds open to learn can see that this is happening in those places. People are getting absolutely, as well as relatively, worse off.
We can see the way in which— as has been made clear by my noble friend Lord Rea— people come on to the streets from our mental hospitals under what is called by the polite name of community care. It results in homelessness, suffering and agony on the part of people who in a more civilised society would have been dealt with by the community in a real sense within the hospitals which are qualified to look after them.
I shall not dwell on this matter as several of my noble friends will speak on it later, but I should say that in the past few days we have seen the effect of the changes in local authority taxation. We have seen where a programme of reform— I should put the word "reform" in quotes— of local authority finances has resulted in the poor in our cities becoming poorer and the rich becoming richer. That is clear to all of us now. Within the past 24 hours the Government, having failed to achieve a conversion by conviction, are now attempting through poll tax capping a conversion by the sword. That is the reality of the poll tax as it is today. The Government have given up any attempt to claim that it is fair or accountable. They are merely saying that the calculations which are reached in Marsham Street are superior to the wishes of the people who live in our cities and to the wishes of those who will have the responsibility for re-electing their local authorities in just over four weeks' time.
We have seen the effect of all those policies in the increase in crime. Almost every year there is an increase in the level of crime in our cities. We have seen the effect of the disengagement by the Government from transportation policy. That has been most noticeable in London but it has also occurred in other cities. One might think that to move around was a basic right. However, that right is being taken away because the Government have the extraordinary idea that they are justified in paying 100 per cent. of the costs of road widening and what are called road improvements, while not contributing a single penny towards the effective improvement of public transport.
I know that the Minister will say that the Government have announced that they are abandoning some of the more dangerous of the proposed road projects in our city and that they have promised— but in rather vague terms— some improvement in the capital funding of London Transport. However, that does not take away from the fact that all of this Government's policies towards public transport are based on the false assumption that it is possible for public transport in
1414
our cities to break even on a day-to-day revenue basis. That is a fallacy and it has been seen to be a fallacy.
The Government's policies on education and training, as they are reflected in the funding of local authorities, are now seen more clearly to be discriminatory against those most in need and those living in our cities. In all those respects the Government have walked away from the problems of our cities. They have done so partly through theory and partly because theory in the Conservative Party is the handmaiden to enrichment of the richer parts of our society.
I am not saying that the remedy lies in the hands of central government alone. However, I believe that a meaningful collaboration between central government, local government and the private sector is an essential part of the road back from the disastrous policies of recent years. It is possible for us to get out of the vicious circle of deprivation which has been affecting more and more people in our cities; it is possible for us to turn it into a virtuous circle. However, I doubt very much whether this Government have either the will or the understanding to do so. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for introducing the debate. However, I believe that he does noble Lords on Benches other than the Labour Benches something of an injustice. We on these Benches are deeply involved with the state of the inner cities and their future. It is a pity that I am the only person to speak on behalf of these Benches and that there are few speakers from the other side of the House. However, I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is to speak. I know that he has a lot of expertise in his field and a great concern for the area on which he will speak.
This debate is, sadly, timely because it comes a week after some of the worst disturbances that have been seen in an inner city area, certainly in London, for some time. It is not surprising that anxiety and concern have spread beyond the ranks of the police and beyond the places where politicians gather. Everybody is concerned.
It is true that the demonstrations were based on an objection to the Government's community charge. It is also true that there were relatively small groups of active political demonstrators whose aims were clearly to create mayhem if they could do so. However, most people must be aware of the fact that running through this matter there undoubtedly is discontent, particularly among young people in inner cities. That discontent is particularly felt in inner city areas and it is becoming increasingly dangerous, as last week showed. All noble Lords in this House and everyone in all sections of British life should take great heed of the situation and ensure that the right actions are taken to correct those matters which obviously should be corrected in our inner cities.
The Government claim that over the past 10 years people in this country have attained a prosperity which has not been seen for many years. They claim

1415
that we are all better off for it. I do not disagree that the Government have brought in some good changes, but that is not the whole story by any means. The increased prosperity has been felt mostly by those people who are best equipped to deal with most circumstances, if I may put it that way. The deprived in our society are generally those who are the least well equipped to deal with any circumstances. It is the disadvantaged in our society who feel a simmering discontent and frustration. Many of those people live in our inner city areas. That discontent and frustration are building up all the time and are expressed in the kind of disorder that we witnessed last week.
I think it is too simplistic to say, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has just said, that the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer. I believe that the problems involved are not purely economic. Quality of life is not just a question of money, although it may seem easy and rather flip to say that. But it is a lot more difficult to develop socially and culturally if one does not have enough money to live a decent life. The emphasis in the assistance that the Government have laudably offered to the inner cities has been by and large economic. I suppose that that is understandable. I am thinking particularly of where the Government have offered to match contributions from business to new enterprise pound for pound. However, I wonder whether that is sufficiently imaginative or effective for the long term.
The term "inner city" is unfortunate nowadays. There is a negative idea connected with it. It conjures up a vision of a wasteland and of areas of deprivation and hopelessness— yet cities can be and often are good places to live. People like to live in inner city areas because they are central. Many inner city areas have distractions for those who live there such as parks, and they often have well organised amenities and services. Glasgow is obviously a good example of a city which has done a great deal to create for itself an international reputation. The university and the art school in that city seem to have become a top choice for young people. That is a great compliment in terms of what has been achieved in the city.
Cities are not always problems and have not always been problems. They have opportunities as well as needs. I do not wish to appear carping, but, in revenge for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, introduced us as an afterthought, perhaps I may say that the Labour Party controls vast swathes of our inner cities and we on these Benches do not regard with enormous delight what they have achieved there. Perhaps noble Lords on the Benches opposite will put that view in rather stronger terms.
In many areas— and particularly in the area in which I live when I am in London— the energies of Labour-controlled councils are too overtly political. That seems to be a facet of Labour control in the country generally and is at the expense of services. The ready solution appears to be to throw money at problems. I see no indication of any change in that approach. It has provoked strong and regrettable action by the Government. No doubt other noble
1416
Lords will agree with me that that has been one of the main reasons for the introduction of the disastrous community charge.
On these Benches we believe that for the inner cities the key is the freeing of the spirit of the people. That is a rather high flown phrase by which I mean that rather than decisions being imposed on people we should like to see more initiatives coming from the people themselves in the inner cities. We should like to see the people invite action. We should like to see consultation take place so that there is involvement and pride in the inner cities in their own development. That would be preferable to targeted assistance being aimed at them over a period of years. We believe that that kind of pride and community energy is a great creator.
All of that can only be achieved by the economic measures that I have mentioned being taken together with cultural and social measures. I have a particular interest in the film industry, and that interest spreads over into other areas of artistic endeavour. It has been very encouraging in recent times to see the amount of work that is being done in a number of inner cities, not just by arts groups but by activists on the ground together with arts groups, the local authorities and private interests. They have got together to introduce more cultural life into the inner city areas.
That is apparent particularly in an inner city such as Sheffield. There has been an enormous development around the station area. I have been particularly interested in the collaboration between the council, the regional arts bodies and Channel 4 to create a media zone. Such activity not only creates interest among people who live in the inner cities, it also creates jobs. That is an important aspect of such assistance. The same has happened in Birmingham, Nottingham and Liverpool, with slightly different emphases. That is encouraging because it shows that the overall view around the country now is that such a package of assistance is needed.
The Government do not oppose such developments but I cannot help feeling that they hang back and allow it to happen without giving the encouragement that is needed. I believe that they are frightened of being asked for subsidy. However, subsidy is not what is required in that particular area except in certain parts of it. For example, in developments such as those I have described injections of support over and above what might normally be considered necessary may be needed for disabled people, ethnic groups and so on. That is an aspect which has to be carefully considered. Generally speaking, the Government should provide the encouragement for such developments to take place.
In summing up, I should say that greater imagination is what is needed. I look forward very much to the speeches of all Members of your Lordships' House, from whatever Bench they speak. I hope that as a result of this timely debate the Government will provide a lead for improvement without delay.
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I shall take your Lordships on an even longer journey in your minds than Ceylon and Caracas. The other day I instituted a new vicar in a parish in the inner city of Sheffield. That is a very short journey. I meditated on the curious dedication of that church to William Temple— a rare dedication for a church. At a time when archbishops were in the news I found myself wondering what it was that gave William Temple such a hold on people's minds and hearts in the war years when he sadly died. I came to the conclusion that it was because he expressed in his teaching and his ministry a belief that it was at least worth trying to build Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land.
William Temple expressed a belief that when we pray, "Thy Kingdom come, on earth as well as in Heaven," it was not simply a prayer for a never-never time of the future but an aim, which might not be fully achieved, but which was at least worth thinking about for the present. It was a belief that the claim of Lord Jesus that he came to preach to the poor, to release captives, to give healing to the sick and sight to the blind and to help the poor in every way was not something that was simply to be left to the mighty hand of God and an uncertain date in the future but was something that we dared to work for now. That was the vision of William Temple in the war years. I believe that it is a vision that we have laid on one side, to our loss.
There is an alternative view: that is that far from the Kingdom of Heaven, in some form, being capable of being built on earth, and this earth being a potentially God-centred place, it is really the playground of the devil, a vale of sorrows and a battlefield. If one accepts that latter view, then one's hopes for the world amount to little more than sending out Red Cross parties into the battlefield in the hope that they can put bandages on the most grievously wounded. Possibly, and that is a particular temptation to church people, one can send out snatch parties to rescue people from the world and find a place of security for them in churches or elsewhere, leaving the rest of mankind to its fate. I have to admit that of the two possibilities, despite the temptation that it offers for easy optimism, I prefer the belief that it is possible to work for the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
I am reminded of the remark of two old ladies at a time when Professor Maurice was sacked from his professorship at King's, London, for daring to teach universalism. They were heard to remark "Mr. Maurice believes that all men will be saved, but we believe something much better".
I am one of those who want to keep in the forefront of their minds the belief that we are meant to have some vision of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. It is for that reason that I believe that the report Faith in the City was of significance. It came at a time when, particularly in church circles— and I accept that what it had to say to the Church is of even greater significance than what it had to say to the community at large— the Temple type of thinking was being dismissed as dangerous liberal Protestantism, a worldly gospel that did not take
1418
seriously enough the problems of sin. It may be true, but, as I have said, the consequences of abandoning those hopes totally are desperate.
I accept that there are two dangers in that "kingdom theology", if I may use that rather unsatisfactory phrase. One is an easy optimism that somehow or other all will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds and we therefore need not be too distressed when things are so self-evidently for the worst. However, there is an equal parallel in what I call an easy pessimism; namely, that the gulf between that vision and the reality that we know is so great that nothing that we can do is worth doing, except praying in theological terms for divine intervention and in political terms for the revolution. I have always thought that the zealot who thinks that it is not worth doing something because you
cannot do everything is one of the most dangerous of people.
I dare to quote, althoough it is a cliché now, the old slogan that it is better to light a candle than to curse the dark. The consequence of Faith in the City and its impact on the Church, particularly through the Church Urban Fund and many other parallel efforts in almost every diocese of the Church of England, has been the lighting of a candle replacing the cursing of the dark— the placing of the needs of our inner cities, of our areas of social deprivation, in a higher profile in the life of our congregations and, I dare to hope, in the life of the nation than they would otherwise have attained.
I have to admit that it is all small beer, as they say. The Church Urban Fund is setting out to raise £ 18 million from the people of England. It has raised £ 12 million. It has spent £ 5 million. The most it has spent in any one neighbourhood is less than half a million pounds. That is Birmingham, where 18 projects have shared over £ 400, 000. The figures are so trivial that I hardly dare mention them to noble Lords who are accustomed to thinking in terms of billions of pounds rather than in terms of hundreds or thousands. Alas, we think in hundreds and thousands and just occasionally in tens. We can do nothing else.
However, those hundreds and thousands of pounds have enabled a certain number of important things to be done. I was pleased that the noble Viscount made the remarks that he did about Sheffield and about giving people the chance to do things for themselves. That has been central in the response to Faith in the City. We are not from outside doing good. Somehow or other,
"we are here to enable those whom we support to find their own solutions [and to help] those in our cities who are poor, disadvantaged and feel excluded from the mainstream of our national and Church life",
to find their way into that mainstream and to be able to take decisions; and to enable them to,
"implement ways of meeting the spiritual and material needs of their own communities."
It is a disappointment that the expectations are infinitely greater than can possibly be realised, but I dare to record the fact that something is being done which, because of its method of working, can enable great changes to be made.
That is one of the reasons why the references to the Kingdom of God on earth which I made at the

1419
beginning of my speech are important. The temptation of another way of thinking is to look upon the inner cities, the poor and the mentally handicapped as people other than ourselves and to believe that we can leave their problems unsolved and ourselves untouched. However, if you have that vision of a kingdom on earth, you will realise that we are all affected by those areas of deprivation. We cannot leave them on one side without hurting ourselves. Here again, I believe that the impact of Faith in the City and what has followed from that has enabled— I quote the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool— comfortable Britain to become more aware of what that other Britain is facing up to.
I have the privilege of being Bishop of Sheffield. Sheffield is a fine city to live in, where, we have already been told, many good things are happening, brought about by co-operation between local and national government and between local government and business and the arts and so on. I dare say that in many ways it is a model, yet the most intractable areas of deprivation are largely untouched by the great buildings that we see go up. They are our plans and our hopes for the future, but they are not touched. I have no doubt that other noble Lords will deal with those matters in much greater detail, but I should like to mention one or two matters which, from a Sheffield perspective, I dare to believe are more candles that must be lit and more areas where progress could be made, which should benefit all of us.
One of those matters is the subject of debt. I was greatly interested by the report of the Policy Studies Institute on credit and debt.
As so often with such solemn reports, it ends by stating the obvious; namely, that debt is not a problem to the rich; it is a problem to the poor. I can add to that: credit is not a problem to the rich; it is a problem to the poor. I had elderly parents and grandparents. My grandmother would rather have died than admit that she ever owed anyone a penny. My mother thought that hire purchase was something rather shameful which other people did, but which we certainly did not do. I find it sightly puzzling that a Conservative Administration should be so keen to encourage people to be in debt, whether they are students or the poorest people dependent on the Social Fund and least able to cope with debt.
One sees that debt is a grave problem to the poor in the poorest parts of Sheffield. The sums involved are not the millions about which we read in the financial pages— we are again talking of tens and hundreds, hardly ever of thousands— yet, with some modest funding of people who can advise those in debt, considerable help could be given.
Debt arises from low wages. We shall increasingly see housing problems made worse by people's inability to pay even the rents which the Housing Corporation says must be set and maintained within the reach of people in low-paid employment. People in low-paid employment in Sheffield earn £ 100 a week and sometimes a little less. The new rates that will have to be set by the housing associations cannot be paid by those people, so there will be problems there.
1420
It is hardly worth mentioning homelessness as so many other noble Lords will do so. However, Sheffield is a place where we do not expect to find homelessness, yet the Salvation Army claims that it has to say over and over again, "We're full up. Try again tomorrow". But where do those people go tonight?
I want to finish with the words of a doctor who works in inner-city Sheffield. He brings home to me the fact that, if we are to think in terms of a kingdom, it is the people who live in that kingdom who are crucial and whom we must enable to achieve their true worth. He says that the fundamental problem of people living in the inner city is that many increasingly feel trapped in a situation where they are unable to benefit themselves, there being no prospect of employment or of achieving self-respect and dignity. People feel that there is no place for them in society, no place to go and no purpose. They see no future.
What the doctor says is almost a cliche. There is a lack of personal worth because they feel that no one values them. The Social Fund, although it was not meant to do so, has made matters worse for both families and single parents who try to manage their affairs as best they can. Their concern about lack of money to feed the children drives them to constant irritability. They are so much less able to manage that they do not know where to start. I feel that it is inevitable that for that section of the community which somehow remains untouched by the good news of a burgeoning Sheffield the community charge will make matters worse.
I dare to plead that all of us— I do not consider this in any sense a party political matter— who have some vision of what a Jerusalem here can be should try to take at least some steps which give back to those people their sense of worth.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will understand if I concentrate on London for my illustrations. I practised medicine in London for more than 40 years and was active in London's government for nearly half that time. It is therefore the city that I know best. However, from my knowledge of most of the larger cities of Great Britain, I am aware that much of what I shall say about London is also applicable to them.
London has a long and ancient history. It suffers very much from the consequences of the 19th century worship of growth when size was regarded as desirable for its own sake and urban planning was based on growth. Today we are reaping the whirlwind. We are faced with environmental and social problems inherited from the mad rush of over-rapid urban expansion. There is a legacy of urban blight and decay. London has an ageing infrastructure that has to be made to serve the changing needs of the present day.
I am afraid that we are undertaking that process at a time when many of our towns and cities are experiencing a decline in population and employment. From the 1930s onward the social stresses and inhuman conditions characteristic of

1421
uncontrolled urban growth were beginning to be recognised. The aim became to contain them and cope with them. Measures designed to check urban spread were devised. New towns were established to serve as counter-magnets. It was reasoned that they would ease the pressures on the large towns and cities and the conurbations that had grown up around them. They would provide scope for urban renewal. They worked.
But today the basic situation has once again changed. Ever since the early 1960s the cities and conurbations of Britain have been losing population. Very little of that has been due to planned movement. People have moved out from the towns of their own accord in order to find more pleasant living conditions for themselves and their families. That is one of the current headaches because with people goes wealth. Industry chases a workforce and as the process accelerates it leaves unemployment in its wake.
Moreover, it is usually the skilled workers who go while the unskilled and the aged stay. Those who move cut tend to be the people who are best able to look after themselves and their families. Those who remain are at the lower end of the income scale or those who for various reasons are unable to cope. The city is tiled of resources: it becomes more difficult to solve the problems of decay and deprivation that are left behind. Strangely enough the fall in population has had no noticeable effect on the scale of the social problems. On the contrary, in some parts of London the rapid rate of decline has created extra stresses as well as an unbalanced employment situation.
It is not only London's population that has fallen. There has also been a fall in employment. However, total employment has declined less than has the number of employed residents because of the growth of commuting. One effect of the decline in population and employment in London has been that in practice the burden of providing the resources required to resolve London's community problems has fallen on the shoulders of a decreasing number of people who are less prosperous and less able to provide those resources. In a nutshell, London's problem is that more money is needed to deal with the problems confronting those who are least able to provide the necessary resources.
London's problems are very severe. The housing situation is bad. There is overcrowding, homelessness, chronic shortage of accommodation, high prices and a deteriorating inner city housing stock. Many people are forced to travel great distances to work. As manufacturing industry closes down or moves out of London people face a decreasing choice of jobs to match the skills that they can offer. Traffic congestion and severely strained public transport make movement about the area increasingly difficult for everyone. The high cost of public and private travel places at a particular disadvantage people who do not have high incomes.
The broad picture of London is of an unequal and socially divided city which reflects the social and economic divisions of the nation. What is required is a balanced structure of population and employment which will enable Greater London to flourish economically and provide sufficient
1422
resources to improve the environment, build more good homes and give Londoners the public services and facilities that they need. That requires the co-operation of central and local government and the private sector with the support of voluntary organisations.
Unfortunately, during the past 10 years the urban areas of England have become worse than ever as places to live and work. While it is not fair to put all the blame for the situation upon the Government, it can fairly be said that they have pursued policies which have made the situation worse and have strenuously resisted policies which could be helpful. They have adopted a policy of strenuous opposition to local authorities and have endeavoured to exclude them from having any proper say in urban regeneration. What is worse, they seem to think that it is right and proper to play party politics with the central government/local government relationship. That is something that I think most of the country will live to regret.
During the past 10 years there have been more than 20 Acts of Parliament aimed at restricting the activities of local government. Those have reduced the powers of local government over finance and its ability to provide the services needed by the inhabitants. In many cases, local government activity in the restricted field was essential to success in tackling the problems of the area.
I shall give two illustrations; I could give many more if there were time. First, on transport, London's poor transport infrastructure is identified by the Henley Centre for Forecasting as a major constraint on the capital's growth and its cultural attractiveness. London has been grinding to a halt for more than 30 years. The London County Council and the Greater London Council were both concerned about the situation and were taking steps to cope with it. The consensus of opinion is that a combination of improved public transport, coupled with restraint on use of the private car, is needed if London is not to grind to a halt.
The Greater London Council introduced a policy of cheap fares which was to be combined with park-and-ride facilities through the provision of parking places at railway terminals so that commuters could leave their cars and use the trains. However, the Government have been carried away by their ideology and have refused to accept that provision. The subsidy to London Transport has already been cut by a third since 1985 and an extensive road building programme was planned and has since been scrapped.
In a penetrating article on transport in London in the Independent on Sunday this week headlined, "Confusion breeds a capital jam" David Nicholson-Lord and Nicholas Comfort stated that the Government seem to want the car option but cannot have it, have the public transport option but do not want it, and are stuck with an ideological jam of their own devising. For the foreseeable future, Londoners are stuck with it. I am afraid that I agree with the article.
We have had many debates on housing in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord McIntosh

1423
has already touched on the subject. I make no apologies for referring to it again. In all our debates we have been unable to make the Government see the error of their ways. The number of homeless households accepted by London boroughs has more than doubled in the past 10 years. The evidence mounts of continuing homelessness, including large numbers of people sleeping rough. In 1979 there were 2, 750 homeless households placed in temporary accommodation. Of these 1, 560 were living in bed-and-breakfast hotels and the remainder in council hostels. In September 1989 the number was 25, 577. The number of new homes built by councils in London in 1979 was 8, 600. The number of new homes built by councils in London in the first nine months of 1989 was 997. Output from housing associations has also declined.
The homeless in London now account for the overwhelming majority of new council lettings. The total number of households accepted as homeless by London boroughs has exceeded the supply of new lettings every year for the past three years. This means that even if all available homes were used for new homeless households, setting aside the needs of everyone else, including those on the waiting list or homeless persons already in temporary accommodation, there would still not be enough council housing to cope with the demand. And we continue to have a deteriorating housing stock.
The Government's objective is to get local authorities out of housing and to increase the proportion of private rented dwellings. The Government's approach to housing investment has made us the lowest investor in housing in the EC. In terms of public expenditure on housing as a proportion of our gross domestic product it has dropped from 4.1 per cent. in 1976–77 to 1.6 per cent. in 1988–89.
I could go further and point out the Government's approach to local authorities, their deliberate exclusion of local authorities from playing their proper part in the regeneration of their cities, and the steady reduction of the percentage of central government grant to local government as part of local government expansion. The poll tax has placed the burden for meeting local government expenditure on the poor rather than on the rich. The poll tax was the last blow. What happened before had a devastating effect on the situation in London. The poll tax will make it worse. Even the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office have criticised government policy in this area. I hope that we can find some way to persuade the Government to change course before it is too late.
4.8 p.m
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for tabling this debate. I am also grateful for the care with which he has worded it. The social financial, economic and environmental problems are too interwoven and too mixed to be examined in isolation. Therefore the solutions are also complicated.
1424
The problem of inner cities is caused by and is to be solved by the people who live in them. It is not party-political and it is therefore right that it should be politically debated. Nor can it be solved by government policy alone. In Britain when anything goes wrong we have an unfortunate tendency to squeal that the Government must do something. But that can only ever be part of the solution. Governments can prod, push, motivate and we hope, lead. They can create a climate in which the business of day-to-day life can go on. But it is up to ordinary people to undertake that business.
In the days when we were a rural society village life centred around four institutions. We lived under the overall leadership of the lord of the manor; under the spiritual guidance of the church in the form of the local vicar; our children were educated in the village school; and we socialised in the village pub. That was all rather cosy. The squire, the vicar, the schoolteacher, the publican and later the doctor were well-known figures in the community. The family was still the basic unit with at least three generations living, growing up and working together. The communities were small and therefore problems were of a more manageable size. Because the communities were small and, it must be said, rather incestuous, problems were not allowed to run on but were dealt with quickly. Most importantly, there was a sense of security and with that a sense of self-worth which is vital to the survival of the individual.
However, all that changed with the growth of the city as the main habitation of Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen. The squire has gone and with him the leadership that most people need. The local councillors, or the mayor, are unable to make their mark as they used to. Most people do not know who their local councillor is and most care even less.
The Church too appears to have lost all meaning for most people. They still have the same spiritual needs but the established Church appears to have abdicated all responsibility in meeting them. The shepherd appears to have put away his crook and has ceased to train his dogs so the flock is wandering the hills aimlessly. Until we have a Church which is prepared to stand up and be counted, instead of carping on the sidelines, there will be a great gap in people's lives.
As regards schools, there is now a light at the end of the tunnel. I believe that the national curriculum is a major step forward in obtaining real and achievable standards of which we can be proud. The splendid argument now raging in the newspapers about the teaching of history is most heartening. History is vitally important because if a child has no idea how this funny little island became what it is today, and how it got here, how will he be able to see where he is going and take his place in the cavalcade? I congratulate the Government on the national curriculum and the placing of schools under local management, thereby making local people take the lead in their communities. The education support grants— both the existing and new grants— focus on inner city primary schools and social responsibility and they are exactly the right tools that government should use to create that responsibility and awareness.

1425
I recently spent some time in several cities in the Midlands. I believe that what we have created there is wrong. In the daytime the cities are full of bustling crowds going about their business. But at night there are only pubs, clubs, fast-food joints and cinemas. As a result there are groups of young people milling around, drinking and taking drugs with all the trouble that results.
Lately I have had occasion to walk several times through the centre of the city of Nottingham late at night. I can only describe it as mayhem with few police in evidence. The problem as I see it is that no one actually lives there so there are no residents to put their feet down. By making our inner cities into places of work by day and of entertainment by night we have destroyed the communities. We must persuade people to live there again because that is the only way to retrieve them.
I have mentioned drinking and drug-taking and, as they are areas in which I have a great interest and in which I work, I must make further comments. Make no mistake about one issue: bad housing, bad schooling and unemployment do not cause people to take drugs. It is rather the other way round. People who take drugs are ineducable, unemployable and will turn their home, however nice, into a slum, and will do so very quickly. They also enjoy poor health thereby putting further strain on the services.
I know that that is the uncommon and unpopular view but regrettably it is correct. Therefore I welcome the Government's drug prevention programmes both in the inner cities and in the national curriculum. Widespread drugtaking destroys the fabric of a community, and thus its environment, possibly faster than anything else. It leads to crime, fear and to everything that is bad in our cities. Therefore the Government's policies on drug prevention are most definitely the right approach, albeit that they have just begun.
However, let me utter one important word of warning: one cannot teach drug prevention like French irregular verbs. In fact it is doubtful whether it can be taught at all. Children take drugs because of peer pressure and they copy the behaviour of the adults whom they respect. However, government can give a lead in the workplace. In the offices of central and local government there need to be comprehensive policies on drugtaking and drinking in order to set an example to businesses throughout the land, and employer assistance programmes to back them up.
However, that is only the tip of the iceberg. Research carried out in the United States and elsewhere has shown one overriding fact: those who abuse drugs and alcohol have a low sense of self-worth. Therefore, if you wish to stop people taking drugs in order to fill the spiritual void you must bring them up to have a sense of self-respect and a sense of belonging and purpose in their lives.
Government— that is any government— can clear away the rubble of past failures and inject resources, money and motivation to rebuild. In short, government can create the right climate; that is government's job. However, I believe that with urban regeneration grants, derelict land grants and,
1426
most important, the Urban Development Corporation, government are beginning to fulfil that role. It is a slow task. I believe that the many employment training schemes, particularly the YTS, will introduce the kind of grounding that will lead to a workforce which can have pride in its achievements. Last year's Local Government and Housing Act was a step— but only a step— towards better housing for city residents. The Housing Act 1988 will allow the private sector to provide more rented accommodation at a price that young people can afford.
Ultimately, it is up to the people who live in the cities, local politicians, local businessmen, schoolteachers and other responsible citizens to do their bit and show a little civic pride. That was greatly in evidence in our cities as are the wonderful 19th century buildings. It is that civic pride that we need to regenerate. Government can lead but it is up to the people to follow.
I made my maiden speech in this House on the Second Reading of the community charge Bill. With hindsight that may have been a little rash. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who probably did not agree with a single word, was kind enough to speak to me outside the Chamber. During my speech I made one political point, although perhaps I should not have done so. I used a phrase which, at the time, I was pleased with. I referred to "petty political posturing" by local councils. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, touched on the subject earlier. I have always believed that national and international politics should be kept in the forum of Parliament. The place for national and international politics is not local councils. Too much money, time and effort has been wasted outside the locale for which the council is responsible.
The classic and most horrific example was Liverpool. What took place there under Derek Hatton's regime was unacceptable by anyone's standards. It was certainly unacceptable by the standards set by all Members of this House. The events were nothing to do with Labour or socialist politics, although they took place under that banner. The tremendous contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his colleagues are destroyed when, under their banner, such events are allowed to occur. It was not politics but gangsterism, mobsterism and the destruction of a city under a political banner. It had nothing to do with the responsible politics that we see and hear in this House. It would help all Members of this House if noble Lords opposite dissociated themselves from such events—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to assure him that these days we hold both poles of the banner and all the supporting strings.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, again, before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to assure him that my crook is firmly in my hand and at this moment the dogs are hard at work.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that too. I hope that other right reverend Prelates will take the same view.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, in my short time in this House I have become very conscious of the conventions and I respect them. Normally when I take part in a debate I try to be assiduous in observing the convention that if one speaks one should also hear the other participants. Therefore, I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that later this afternoon I must leave to attend a state function and I shall not be able to listen to the latest speakers, nor the winding-up speeches from the Front Bench.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned the recent disturbances in London. We should bear in mind that, while a large number of people there were genuinely concerned about the issue, various groups notably the Socialist Workers Party were using the occasion as a well-orchestrated attempt to destabilise society. They understand that as long as there are a government and a strong opposition, their dreams of revolution are a long way off. Therefore, they lie in wait for a genuine public grievance. They then move in in an organised way, which, believe me, has been in the process of being organised for the past few months.
It is not simply the Labour Party which is tarnished by that sort of effort but also the party opposite. I mention that only because of the last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. When I was in the other place I went to the Minister for Sport to show him the statistics. They demonstrate that there is a direct correlation between the football grounds where there was substantial crowd trouble and the local vote cast for the National Front and the British National Party. Therefore, we should appreciate that, where there are genuine grievances in society or crowds gathered together, there are extreme elements at both ends of the spectrum which try to turn them to their advantage.
It is a sad commentary on our society today that some of the loneliest people live in the largest cities. In the old days when we were organised on a very much more rural scale the people in the village who needed help were known, as were those who were getting old, and there was a communication network so that everyone was aware of everybody else's problems. There was a feeling of togetherness which has to some extent been lost.
I am particularly aware of the problem. I am the deputy chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation. One of our main tasks is to integrate as far as possible the indigenous people who have lived in the East End of London all their lives, as have their families for generations back, with the new growing community. That entails a wide consultative process, discussion and the integration of our projects as far as possible with training schemes and social housing. There is a natural apprehension among many people who have not only lived in the area all their lives but who survived the attacks during the war from German bombers that the investment in the docklands may
1428
bypass them. In microcosm, in the docklands we are trying to do what Members on all sides are asking the Government to do here.
I do not wish to dwell on the docklands because of my direct interest in the matter, but to turn to one aspect which has already been mentioned— the question of housing. As I have told your Lordships before, anybody who has held elected office in this country whether as a Member of Parliament or a local councillor knows that the bread and butter of the casework is to do with housing. Whatever else may crop up, there is a constant procession of people who are badly or inadequately housed, having grown out of their accommodation. That is the recurrent theme in all the casework.
I had the privilege of representing a constituency in Bristol for 17 years. I am very conscious of that. Both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his reference to defective thinking, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in calling for greater imagination, touched on the theme which I wish to pursue. I say that I wish to pursue it; so let me point out that one reason that I held the office of Chief Whip in the other place was my obsessive nature, which manifests itself in various ways, and I confide in your Lordships that I have touched on the problem of homelessness before.
I was recently invited to an inaugural meeting of a local group that Shelter is setting up in Bristol. Figures were provided to show the needs there. There were 1, 000 homeless family units, approximately 600 people in Bristol sleeping rough and over 12, 000 people on the housing waiting list. The situation is not improving.
I mention those matters in connection with Bristol because as a former student of Bristol— if I may boast for a moment, a former graduate— I have constantly raised the question of the academic procedures for selecting students. Bristol is a thriving red brick university. From the 1988–89 intake, only 0–8 per cent. of the students lived at home. Eight out of 1, 000 is pretty poor. A number of students were in halls of residence, but 58 per cent. lived in accommodation outside university-owned premises. Bristol University students totalled some 8, 000 or 9, 000. Therefore, that is an enormous burden on the private rented sector.
Despite all the hand-wringing which has gone on both here and in the other place recently about the plight of students, they are very privileged people in society. They are receiving a good education and can proceed to jobs for which they are qualified. I do not believe that their lot is too difficult. In fact, the vast majority come from middle-class and upper-class backgrounds. Indeed, in Bristol 45 per cent. of student entrants come from fee-paying schools. Therefore, I believe that there is a presupposition that we are not drawing on the worst-off strata of society. Yet it seems to be accepted that it is perfectly natural for students to wish to study away from home. If they study away from home, they put a burden on local accommodation. It seems impossible to get people to relate one sector of provision to another. However, it is absolutely self-evident that, with some encouragement from the university authorities, head teachers and the

1429
Government, more students could live at home, thus automatically freeing rented accommodation for people in difficult circumstances without any great call on more public financial provision. Indeed, to somebody studying our society from scratch it would probably seem quite bizarre that, faced with this problem of housing and homelessness, we pay students more to study away from home than if they took the nearest available course.
I have already said that this is an obsession of mine. Some of your Lordships may have suffered before at my hands. However, in self-expiation perhaps I may establish something of a track record. I recently came across an extract from The Times Higher Education Supplement, which I hasten to add is not my normal reading. On 16th January 1976 there was an article entitled:
" 'Prefer the home-based student' plea rejected".
The article stated that I was a local Member of Parliament and an ex-officio member of Bristol University court, and that at the annual meeting I had endeavoured to get the university to give preference to home-based students in order to alleviate the critical housing problem. Needless to say, my plea was rejected, but in much more polished and formal wording than that which I have used today However, that is one of the benefits of the academic world. I pleaded for this issue to be taken up as long ago as 1976, so I have been riding this particular horse for 14 or 15 years.
The answer is so obvious that I wonder sometimes why we cannot make progress. I have come to the tentative conclusion that as so many of the opinion-formers in society are successful products of the system, it is extremely difficult to get any other kind of thinking looked at.
I shall not weary your Lordships any longer. This is one of the major problems facing society today. There is not a solution to the problem but there is a comparatively straightforward easement of the problem that lies in the hands of the education and university authorities. I hope that my short contribution will have given one more little push towards obtaining some alleviation of the problem.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I normally rise to speak in your Lordships' House on the question of housing, particularly at the lower end of the spectrum, and make a plea on its behalf. However, that subject has been adequately covered by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and therefore I shall not speak to it today.
I should like to spend the time available to me talking about inner city regeneration, not cities across the board. I have said in the past that when we talk about government schemes for regeneration of inner cities, we are in the main talking about redeveloping the city centre, the heart of the city. In my experience the centre of Manchester has never been populated by a great number of people. When I have spoken about the refurbishment of Manchester I have been concerned about the areas on the periphery of the city centre. There is the area from which I take my name, Beswick, and on the
1430
other side of the city there is Hulme. Those areas are dying of sclerosis and are not receiving anything like the government funding that the local authority needs in order to refurbish them. Finance for housing, rate support grant and anything else required to reprime those areas and to deal with the deprivation within them have been massively cut over the past 10 or 11 years. The figures prove that.
I should like to talk principally about the imposition of the urban development corporations, the way in which they were spawned by the Government and what they were supposed to do. I was opposed to them when they were introduced. I am not as familiar with London as the areas that I should like to talk about, but in a huge metropolis there may be a case for that kind of body to co-ordinate matters with local authorities.
Having said that, my party is on record as being opposed to the principle of urban development corporations, although reluctantly it came to accept them. I have heard the term "welcome" used, but that is not my view of what happened. Most of them were accepted as being the lesser of two evils. At that time there may well have been a case on paper for those bodies to be instituted because one or two local authorities were not behaving as well as they might be deemed to be behaving in redeveloping their cities. The picture changed very quickly. There was an acceptance that the private sector had to be heavily involved in the redevelopment of inner cities if the job was to be tackled, and that no government, whatever their colour, would be able to find the sums of money that were required from the public purse.
Something appears to have gone wrong. After the last general election success the Prime Minister referred to the fact that the Government would turn their attention to the cities. All I have seen in the areas with which I am concerned is a production of glossy brochures and very little in the way of bricks and mortar. The Government deemed it to be such an important matter that there has been a succession of Ministers dealing with inner cities in the past two or three years, almost as many as there have been in housing— and that would take some catching up.
The Minister presently charged with inner city responsibility has already been designated as the next Secretary of State for Wales, and he took office as the Minister for inner cities only in October or November last year. Nobody becomes an instant genius on any subject, and the fact that the Government have been switching Ministers around is an indication as to their priorities. I think that it is a cosmetic exercise, and that it has been shown to be just that.
The sooner the Government allow partnerships to be developed in the inner cities, the faster matters will proceed, and with more acceptance. There was an occasion when two urban development corporations cut right across major development contracts that were about to be signed by the local authorities and private sector investment companies. I should like to go on record as saying that it has already been proved that local authorities, in partnership with the private sector, can put deals together on a massive scale on the basis of mutual trust.

1431
Are the Government really serious about the redevelopment of inner cities other than London? It is strange that, while the Government are poll tax-capping boroughs just outside the City of London, they seem to find bucketfuls of money to pour into other areas. The figures from the Department of the Environment calculate that £ 400 million plus will be made available in the next few years for development areas, but of that figure £ 359 million is earmarked for the London Docklands. A total of £ 41 million pounds will go to all the other schemes. When calcualted on a multiplier basis that figure is five times more than that for all other urban areas, including that for the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies. Therefore is it any wonder that there is more than a little cynicism developing, even among the private sector, in cities such as Manchester and Leeds, which are the two cities that I know?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is an organisation in being called the Phoenix initiative. It is not a government organisation but it receives some form of encouragement from the Government. It operates across the country with a tremendous amount of success. Phoenix provide a forum where local government and the private sector and anybody else who is interested can get together and produce schemes that are acceptable to the local population and the business community. A massive scheme has just been agreed in relation to the area where the centre of the city of Manchester meets the centre of the city of Salford at the Irwell near the cathedral. I know that that sounds a little odd.
The scheme has been put together on the basis of being co-ordinated by the Phoenix initiative which will redevelop the whole of that area, including the Irwell. People who are familiar with the area will know that it is time that was done. I have no doubt that the scheme will be a success because local and national finance is involved, as are the local authority, local builders, architects, and so on. There is a tremendous input of interest from local people. It has to be seen in the context of what is happening in the urban development corporation.
I refer briefly to an article in the business section of the Manchester Evening News which is headlined, "Just another big flop?". It states:
"The urban development corporations, launched after the brutal inner city riots of the early 1980s, were heralded as the new gleaming Thatcherite response to economic development. They were to be a complete break from the supposed woeful incompetence of the local authorities, which with more stringent financial straitjackets, were no longer in a position to influence economic regeneration. The new UDCs— there are now 11, including Trafford Park and Central Manchester— were to be run by hard-headed industrialists and developers devoid of the theoretical cant."
But what has happened since then? The article points out that private sector investment is not being attracted. Local authorities were told at the time of the innovation of the UDCs that each £ 1 of government money would attract as much as £ 7 or £ 8 from the private sector. However, in some areas what is happening is that every £ 3 of government money is attracting only £ 1 from the private sector. One cannot claim that to be an outstanding example of an attraction which will keep people involved. I
1432
am not waging a political argument because the evidence is coming from wider areas of the community on what is actually taking place.
Mr. Rod Hackney, a man of not unknown capabilities and opinions, says that the UDCs are failing. He is quoted in some of the magazines to which I could refer. The building industry in the private sector holds the view that everything is not as it should be. I am told by the industry that the private sector welcomed the Government's initiative in the early 1980s to regenerate Britain's inner cities, and it is generally accepted that much has been done over the past few years. The industry is of the opinion that there is, however, a general belief that Government policies are too restrictive on both local authorities and the private sector. A general cynicism in the private sector has crept in.
That has arisen because of the situation where, in some cases, urban development corporations have interfered with schemes which, as I have said, are ready to be signed. In some respects it could almost be said that they have been sabotaged.
There are a number of problems within government policies, as the National Audit Office report recently pointed out. I give some of the reasons which should be taken on board. My brief from the industry states:
"Ministers are publicising the amount of money available for inner city regeneration rather than promoting and marketing the opportunities available to builders and developers. There is a distinct perception in the industry that not all is well with the frequent relaunching of inner city programmes and initiatives. Putting already stretched ministers in charge of city areas does nothing to improve things".
On that basis, the system itself is in serious danger of breaking down.
The articles to which I have referred are not Labour Party political publications. They are from the private sector. I have referred to Mr. Rod Hackney. He is referred to in the 27th October issue of Building Design:
"Hackney told BD that the £ 34 million city grant allocated last year to the 57 'designated' areas was 'simply not enough money' to tackle urban decay in areas outside the urban development corporations".
Incidentally, the 57 designated areas do not include the urban development corporations which get all the money. These areas need the money but cannot get it, or can get it in only small amounts.
I give one or two more items from a feature in the same magazine headed "Strange but true". They are:
"Twenty-eight of the 57 areas eligible for city grant received nothing last year".
'Thirteen London boroughs qualify for city grant. Last year nine got nothing and 75 per cent. of the £ 5–57 million awarded went to one project".
"Hackney, one of London's poorest boroughs received only £ 70, 000 in city grant last year".
That is about enough to build one council house these days, and I should have thought that, by any standards, Hackney, as one of London's poorest boroughs, should receive priority. That is the measure of the Government's priority in putting money where it is needed.
I make my final point on this issue. I am totally convinced that we were right in the first place when we said that the UDCs would not progress as they

1433
ought to do if they were imposed on local authorities. All the local authorities of which I am aware are in need of redevelopment in their inner cities and adjoining districts. They know that they have to make agreements with the private sector and private builders. In my opinion it is nonsense to continue with the UDCs in these cities when the good will is present to do it without them. I hope that the Government will make time to rethink their policy and come up with some new answers.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, this is one of the occasions when we can see exactly what are the interests of the party opposite. If we were discussing horse-riding, fox-hunting, salmon fishing, the City or stockbroking, noble Lords on the Government Benches would be here in force. However, because we are debating the problems of the inner cities, they are engaged elsewhere.
First, I thank my noble friend for so splendidly introducing this debate. It is a wide-ranging debate, as he meant it to be. One could have covered all of these problems— social, financial and environmental—but clearly that would be foolish because with so many speakers it is sensible to confine one's speech to a specific aspect.
I should however like to say to the noble Viscount that I am proud to be a citizen of London. I was born in the borough of Fulham and I still live there. Fulham is now to be heavily rate-capped, but I do not know why because the borough does a jolly good job and certainly does not waste its money. One of my grandsons is chairman of the planning committee so I can speak with some family confidence in the matter. It is a borough of which I am extremely proud. I am proud to be a Londoner. I would say that 98 per cent. of the population in any city, or indeed in any small town, consists of people who work hard, who go about their business and pleasure without any need for someone to control them. Sadly, we always have that very small percentage which upsets our standard of life.
This Government judge by results. Everything is calculated according to cost. We heard yesterday that in hospitals everything will be assessed on its cost-effectiveness. How that is to be done, I do not know. Only the hospitals can know. I am not sure that business gives us very good examples. I recall that certain banks have lost £ 4 million of my money in gambling somewhere in the world, so I am not sure that capitalism has much to teach the services of education and health.
But let us leave that subject alone because judgment is made according to results. I wish to ask the Government about crime and what they intend to do about it. In the Queen's Speech there was only one reference to it which states:
"My Government"—
presumably that is a reference to Her Majesty and not to the Prime Minister—
"will vigorously pursue their policies for reducing crime".
However, it was also said:
"My Government will continue to take action to raise standards in education". [Official Report, 21/11/89; col. 3.]
1434
As an ex-teacher, I take issue with the Government on that though that is not the subject today.
I turn now to the current crime situation. Figures were published last week from which we learnt that we have not quite as much crime as other countries. I have never been quite sure what consolation it is for your house to burn down and then to be told that a man's house in the next street, which was larger, was also burnt down. I am dealing with what is happening here. These days the papers are full of what is happening in Lithuania and China, but there is not enough information about what is happening in our own country. There is certainly not any good news about what is happening in our own country, but it is there to be found.
Crime has increased whether the Government like it or not. There is more theft from the person and more theft of property from shops and houses. On my own little estate, we have had six burglaries in about three weeks. On the last occasion two gentlemen—if I may so describe them—smashed a window with a hammer, climbed in, extracted the goods and carried them back out through the broken window. That occurred in a quiet peaceful suburb. A neighbour went to the shops at four o'clock in the afternoon and she was accosted by some people with a knife. They took her handbag. A boy's cycle also was stolen.
These offences may seem trivial. The Government are in the habit of describing them as minor crimes. Noble Lords have heard me say this before, and I say it again: no crime is minor to the person against whom it is committed. If someone breaks into your house and you are not there, that person has despoiled your house. Nothing is minor because there is a victim just as surely as there is an offender. Robberies are a daily occurrence and so are armed robberies. There is vandalism, assaults and criminal damage.
Let us consider the events of last weekend and the hatred and viciousness shown on the faces of those who were flinging things at the police. For heaven's sake, why the police? If missiles are to be flung anywhere, I know where they should have been directed, but they were not. The missiles were thrown at the police who were out there in front. Violent crime is on the increase. There is also vandalism in schools and in hospitals.
What has been done by the Government? It is no use turning to the Opposition, as they often do, and asking what the Labour Party did. I am asking. We are not in power and we do not have the figures which the Government have. Therefore, remembering their promise, I ask what have the Government done? I once employed a very cynical man who said that the best way to run anything was to flood the so-and-so's— that was not the expression he used—with paper. I believe that the Government are very good at that. We have had a number of documents from them and I have in my hands just a few of them. We have had Practical Ways to Crack Crime, which is a beautiful, glossy booklet. We have also received Business and Crime—a Consultation. We now have Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public. These are only three booklets

1435
and I could have brought along many more. One of them costs £ 6.50, if any citizen wishes to purchase it.
These booklets are examples of what the Government refer to as "doing something". They advertise on television at great expense, but what are they telling us? The Government are telling us that we have to prevent crime. The onus is back on the citizen. I am not suggesting that we should not do something about crime; but, in the end, you decide the kind of country in which you want to live by the kind of government you receive. If we are to judge Russia or China in that way, then we also have to judge ourselves in a way which allows people to live in harmony and peace. That certainly cannot be done in the inner cities.
I digress here to pay tribute to the police. Nobody really says enough about the marvellous job that they do. If anything goes wrong, it is their fault. It is suggested that in the events of last weekend they provoked people. I love that! According to a judge, a lady who walks down the street and who looks attractive has provoked a man to rape her. That is a very interesting analysis; but that is the way in which matters are moving. It is always the fault of the police. The British always look for a scapegoat. If a football team loses, you sack the manager: if something goes wrong with the Government, you sack the Prime Minister.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Seconded!
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, there is no doubt that we are always looking for scapegoats, so we pick on the police. I pay tribute to them. We are jolly lucky to get police, ambulance drivers or firemen at the kind of rates of pay for which we expect them to work. I like gratitude, but you cannot eat it. There needs to be some kind of tangible example for gratitude. Crime Concern was created by the Government as a means for preventing crime. They poured a lot of money into the scheme, and a great deal of money was obtained from business. Two marvellous jobs were found for two Tory MPs, and that is fair enough. It is a very good rule that when you are in power you look after your friends and when the other lot are in they should look after their friends. However, we are not quite as good at that as the Government.
What has Crime Concern done? A great deal of money went into NACRO which was marvellous. One of the ideas was that if you gave ex-convicts the chance to go horseriding and yachting they would not offend again. I know many good young people who work hard and earn their money; but no one is ever going to pay for them to go horseriding. We make no attempt to prevent crime.
I was delighted to hear the right reverend Prelate say that we leave our young people vulnerable to all the kinds of problems that they will encounter. In my borough there are 75, 000 people, but there is only one swimming pool. As a teacher you encourage children to do all kinds of things; but when they leave school there are no facilities for them. Can we blame them therefore if they get into all kinds of
1436
mischief? Can we blame them if they rush into our football grounds in an ill-behaved way?
We have to return to the subject of crime prevention. Every citizen, whether he or she lives in a city or a small town, must be able to go about his or her business and pleasure without hindrance. It is a very simple proposition. I say to the right reverend Prelate that I still believe that Our Lord came to fight the evils of His time. That is what we should be doing. We are all concerned with these matters, but we want a practical lead from this Government. Let us crack crime in the inner cities; but let us do it with real leadership from the people who have the money and the facilities. We want their backing.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for introducing this very important subject this afternoon and for giving us the opportunity to debate it. In spending a good deal of time on the subject of housing, he was targeting well an important aspect of the subject. I am not going to talk about housing except to say that in the borough of which I have some knowledge, the problem is not so much a total lack of housing as a mismatch between the housing needs and the housing supply. Nearly all the accommodation consists of one- or two-bedroomed flats and houses. However, the character of the borough has changed and larger families have moved in, which is leading to appalling problems such as brothers and sisters having to sleep together long beyond the age when they should. I believe that this is one of the causes of child abuse and other problems which are occurring in some of the inner areas of London.
I cannot join with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his swingeing criticism of government policies. There are a number of things going wrong which need a certain measure of refinement or fine tuning. I have said before in the House that I support the concept of targeting. The essence of targeting is that one must hit the target. There is increasing evidence that at present some of the targets are being seriously missed. I say at once that my information relates to only one group of London boroughs. It is not a Labour controlled group. I admit at once that one swallow does not make a summer and that I may be wrong.
There are three points of government policy to which I shall draw attention initially. The first concerns the policy of "go home to the family". I entirely approve of this policy being applied to young people wherever possible. But it does not work if there is no family for them to go home to. To some extent this consideration has been left out of the Government's reflection on the matter. The noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Cocks, referred to the wider community. There must also be a wider community for the young person to go back to.
My second point concerns the increased pressure on social services departments which seem not to have sufficient resources, in some of the inner city boroughs anyway, to cope with the enormous problems facing them. My third point concerns the Government's approach to the problems of the more

1437
deprived members of the community. Sometimes they may not give sufficient consideration to the people who are not able to cope with the system. We live today in an extremely complex society and there are people who just cannot cope.
In the context of those three thoughts perhaps I may quote one real life example. I shall change the child's name and call her Marie. She was badly beaten by her stepmother on her 16th birthday. A supervision order had been made on her when she was 11. No social worker had been allocated at any time during the intervening five years, presumably because of a shortage of resources, so she did not have the very minimum of support she needed. She was beaten by her stepmother, turned out of the house and left homeless. She tried to place herself in care. This was strongly resisted by social services because of the cost of putting her in a children's home. As a result of pressure from a voluntary organisation, social services eventually agreed to put her into care in a children's home, where she now is. She cannot go back to the family. She has not yet established herself adequately. She is not sufficiently grown up to cope with her life. Only last week she was badly mugged and had to be hospitalised. She is now under pressure from social services to move into a flat because it is less costly. The cost comes off the social services budget and goes on to the housing budget.
I fully accept that every case is different but this example illustrates the pressures under which the system is working. I refer in particular to the pressure, which I think is frightening, to get these young people into flats when they clearly need adult support in their lives for a further year or two.
More and more problems are having to be picked up by voluntary agencies which happen to be on the spot. This applies even to those whose job is quite different from the job of giving basic support. The organisation with which I have the privilege to be connected is concerned with giving country holidays to children. To an increasing extent, social workers, who themselves are frustrated and hurt by their inability to help their clients, are turning to the charities for help.
I suggest that the cost of supporting these young people until they are old enough properly to care for themselves is minimal compared with the cost of the health service, which we debated yesterday, and compared with the cost of the prison service, which we shall doubtless be debating shortly. Prevention in this case is not only better than cure, but almost certainly very much cheaper.
My next point concerns the Social Fund. The feeling coming through to us is that the Social Fund does not have adequate resources to cope with the needs of the inner cities and that loans are not really a solution. Most of those whose need is greatest do not qualify for loans because they are already deeply in debt. To an increasing extent charities are receiving appeals for financial help from people who have been turned down by the Social Fund. Indeed, social workers themselves are coming forward with cases. The charity with which I am connected has received more than 100 applications in the past six months for help with such basics as beds, bedding,
1438
clothing and even food, and above all for help with the repayment of debts: debts to utilities, rent arrears, debts to the back street money lenders, often against a background of threats to "send the lads round" to break the debtor's arm if he does not pay, and, worst of all, debts to catalogue companies which prey upon disadvantaged people.
Perhaps I may give the House an example which came in this morning. It is an application from a social worker on behalf of a single mother with four children aged seven and five and two year-old twins. The husband had left. She has a history of depression and is in a desperate housing situation. She has a two-bedroom flat which has been infested with cockroaches for the past four years. The children play with the cockroaches. Her friends have deserted her. There are not enough beds for the children. The children are becoming disturbed. She has a problem with the gas supply which she does not have enough money to put right. This is an application from a social worker to a charity connected with giving holidays. The social worker seeks a grant of £ 500 for household items to assist this lady who is keen to address her problems.
I shall quote one further case which occurred a little over a year ago. It is particularly harrowing. It concerns a mother who was so desperate to repay a moneylender that, having come to the charity and not having been able to raise enough, went home, locked her two children in the house and went on to the streets to prostitute herself for two days. She came back with an envelope containing £ 200 in greasy notes. She gave it to the leader of the charity concerned and asked him to pay off the debt.
I am not proposing solutions. I am asking for a little more help for the voluntary sector. I hope that your Lordships will not have minded my bringing these problems before you.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I intend to address myself to only one issue. It concerns both the environmental and social problems of the city. It was introduced by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and dealt with at some further length by my noble friend Lord Pitt. The problem of traffic and its bearing on the environmental and social problems of our cities is universal. Of course it is worse in London than elsewhere because London is a bigger city. My noble friends spoke from different experiences in different parts of the country. I am speaking about all cities in the country although noble Lords will recognise that the problem especially attacks the health of the population of London.
It was no exaggeration when my noble friend Lord Pitt said that traffic in London is grinding to a halt. It is doing more than that. It is becoming so congested that it is directly and progressively reducing the mobility of people. It is becoming claustrophobic. Yet according to the Government there are now preparations for a very substantial increase in the number of private cars which will be owned by the population of this country. I believe the estimate is that the figure will double by the end

1439
of the century. Why is this happening, and why is it being allowed to happen? I do not think that I need to go into the social effects because we all experience them on a daily basis. However, it is not an accident; it is at least partially due to government policy.
The Government prepared a road programme which was to cost £ 12 billion. However, part of it has now been dropped, largely because of public protest. An expansion of roads means an inevitable expansion of traffic. Therefore, this was a plan— and what remains of it is still a plan— which would widen roads but also have the inevitable consequence of increasing the traffic. In other words, it would increase the use of those roads and the number of vehicles using them.
At the same time, as my noble friend pointed out, the Government are starving public transport. They are starving the expansion in public transport which alone could provide mobility without increasing the use of cars. The cuts in subsidies to British Rail have shown this to be true. So far as concerns public transport, it is being starved right across the board. I do not want the Government to give me the old story of how much more they are now spending than they did 10 years ago. The costs and the demands have increased and, as in the health service, there must be an increase in provision to keep pace with that.
I have said before in this House, although it has always been denied by the Government, that there appears to be a complete contradiction between the policies of the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment. On the one hand, the Department of Transport is planning and encouraging the increasing use of private and company cars and road freight, whereas, on the other, the Department of the Environment is, at least in words, committed to the reduction of the emissions which the use of such vehicles inevitably produce.
I believe, and no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, that the Government are forecasting and providing for a 140 per cent. increase in the emission of carbon dioxide over the next 15 years. Why is that happening? It is not only because of the foolishness and perhaps the ignorance or ideology of Ministers; there is something more behind this policy.
I should like the Minister to answer this question, based upon advice which Ministers are being given today to form government policy. The Government boast that they have just appointed an officer to look after the needs of cyclists; indeed, they have been preening themselves on the fact. There are 15, 000 civil servants engaged in projects related to roads, yet— and this is the third figure— there are under 1, 000 civil and local government servants engaged in issues relating to public transport. As regards the advice which the Government and Ministers are receiving, does that contrast in figures not suggest— this goes back to "Yes, Minister"— that that is where the emphasis of their policy originates from? I have no respect for Ministers who just accept the situation. The figures show just where the
1440
emphasis is among the advisers who provide the material upon which government policy is based. Until those figures are brought more into line with each other I fear that, whoever the Minister is, the same kind of conclusions will be drawn.
I do not wish to make this a purely negative speech. I, therefore, have some suggestions to make. As my noble friend Lady Phillips said, it is not our responsibility, and nor is it in our power, to lay down policy. Until we get into office we do not have sufficient facts or the mass of advice which any government have; but we can make suggestions, and I should like the Minister to respond to them.
First, do the Government agree on the basis of my argument so far that it is important both environmentally and socially for the people who are living in our cities that greater emphasis should be placed upon supporting public transport through the bus services and the Underground? I hope that the Minister will not say that London Underground is always overcrowded. It is not. Indeed, there are many times of the day when it is not overcrowded. I suggest to him that it could be within the wit of Ministers to find the means of improving the facilities on the Underground and on the buses.
Secondly, I suggest that there should be a deliberate attempt to reduce the number of private cars allowed into city centres, especially into central London. One way of achieving that— and there should be many ways in which it could be worked out within ministries— would be to place a levy on drivers using private cars in the centre of cities. I am thinking particularly of central London.
Of course I recognise that the danger of such a measure is that it would penalise the poorer people and enable many of the rich, with their large cars, to occupy the roads. Therefore, in order to avoid what would be a socially inequitable situation, I suggest that the ministry should try to find out whether it is possible to base the levy on the size of the car. I leave it to the ministry to decide whether the levy should be in respect of the size of the engine or the size of the saloon. I am simply making suggestions from a position outside government in the hope that they will look into them and use the resources that they have, which we do not have, to work out some rational answers to these problems.
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, why do the Government not seriously contemplate the installation of continuous bus lanes which can be used only by buses? There could be bus actuated signals so that they could travel more speedily and with fewer hold ups. It has been done elsewhere. I should like the Minister to respond and say whether this is being seriously considered in the Department of Transport and whether the Government are prepared at least to make some effort to try it.
Fourthly, a point which we have raised before is that the taxing of company cars at the full rate would play a part in the reduction of the number of vehicles on the roads. Fifthly, not just a substantial but a huge increase in the fines for illegal parking, plus restricting the times of loading and unloading for heavy vehicles in London— my noble friend Lord McIntosh is better equipped to put the point than

1441
I— as I believe the GLC did at one time. Unless that is done, anybody who drives round London, Manchester, Glasgow or any city in the country knows that there will be blockages. Literally hundreds of cars will be held up by one parked vehicle. Fines for illegal parking, plus restrictions on times for loading and unloading, are essential if we are to keep the traffic which we allow into our cities moving at a reasonable pace.
The Government may say, "But this would be very unpopular". I have news for them. The Association of London Authorities recently took a poll on what Londoners think about the use of private cars in their city. Nearly two-thirds of those polled expressed a desire to see more restrictions on private cars in the City area. Therefore it would be popular. The Government would be listening to the people who are concerned. It would enable the Government to put into practice what every environmentalist and everyone concerned with the social life of the citizens of our cities immediately recognise as essential for the quality of their lives. In short, we are entitled to ask the Government for a transport policy— not a road or rail policy— which is based on the environmental and social needs of the citizens of our cities.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the timing of his debate and on the way in which he has introduced it. I wish to make two comments about his opening remarks. There is a different interpretation of the absence of government Back-Benchers in this debate. It seems to me quite likely that there are not enough of them willing to support the Government's policies who are prepared to stand up in the Chamber and say so.
The second comment I wish to make on my noble friend's opening remarks concerns his generalisation about the sharp division between the rich and the poor. I have to say to him that this is not confined to the cities. Our debate this afternoon is confined to the cities; therefore I cannot say too much about it. However, rural deprivation and rural poverty are real. Quite often its effects are even greater on individuals in rural areas than in the cities.
I have two main environmental problems about which I wish to talk. One of them has been covered in some detail by other speakers. My noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Pitt and, more recently, Lord Hatch have all talked about traffic problems. Nevertheless, I wish to emphasise one or two of the points that they have made.
As we have gathered, our road systems are already overloaded by motorists who do not have access to a co-ordinated transport policy. My noble friend Lord Hatch made that point clearly. There are alternatives— buses and trains. However, there is no co-ordination. It is not quite so noticeable in London because the choices here are greater. But in any suburban city if one tries to make a journey by public transport that involves the use of both buses and trains, one is in real trouble. The journey will take several times what it would take if one went by car. This is at the root of many problems.
1442
I wish to make one other suggestion. My noble friend Lord Hatch has drawn attention to poor traffic management, and I agree with him. I spent a considerable time as chairman of a traffic committee. The problems now seem to me to be much the same as they were then. The solutions that we found to some of our problems in Cambridge could well be applied elsewhere. This is one that we did not apply. The noble Lord asked why large commercial vehicles should be allowed to unload at rush hours. I agree with him.
I travelled by coach last week during the end of the morning rush hour. For much of the journey between the Palace of Westminster and the M4, moving traffic was restricted to one line because of the operations of delivery vehicles. Controlled delivery times are known to work in those areas where they have been applied. Why should they not become the normal way of easing rush hour congestion? It is perfectly possible to arrange for commercial deliveries to be made before 8 a.m. and after 9.30 a.m. That has been done, it adds a cost, but is that cost any greater than what we now pay in the loss of time of motorists held up on the way and of other drivers?
Traffic jams not only cause these frustrating and expensive delays, they also make a major contribution to the greenhouse effect. They add to the noise and pollution endured by city dwellers. There are other traffic management measures which could be used with little financial cost and much benefit to the environment. There is no need for the grandiose road schemes which can only make the quality of city life even worse.
It is not realistic to say that we shall prevent people from using their cars in a free country. We used to say that if ever petrol costs 10 shillings a gallon, people would cease to use their cars. It has cost £ 2 a gallon since last Monday. Still the roads are congested. It is not realistic to say that we can price the motorist off the road.
I walked along Victoria Street yesterday when it was closed to traffic for the visit of a head of state. I found myself looking at the buildings and the people instead of hurrying along with bent head, crushed by the noise and fumes. What a dreadfully low standard of life we have come to accept as normal in this city!
Most of our cities are filthy. I now come to the second of my main environmental points. To add to the chaos of litter, about which we have heard so much and which is bad enough in itself with its complement of greasy, fast food containers, plastic bags, cans and cigarette leavings, there is the growing menace of fouling by dogs. There is no problem from responsibly owned dogs whose owners obey the laws and by-laws. However, these are becoming a minority, outnumbered by those who acquire dogs as status symbols or as playthings for their children. These unfortunate animals are often allowed to roam uncontrolled and they are certainly untrained. They end up as strays and are put down in their thousands by the RSPCA. Many of our residential streets are nothing short of disgusting. It is clear that much stronger action is needed to control this nuisance.

1443
In August 1989 the Department of the Environment launched a consultation paper entitled Action for Dogs. The press release issued by the Department of the Environment stated that the paper proposed:
A new duty on local authorities in England and Wales to pick up, hold and if necessary destroy stray dogs; … a clarified duty on local authorities to enforce the existing requirement for dogs to wear a collar and identification tag in public. The Government will review local authority powers— to make byelaws and orders relating to dog fouling, dog bans in certain public places and requirements to hold dogs on leads … local authorities will have to keep the streets clear of dog mess".
The document continues in a similar vein. That is all very admirable, but nowhere in that paper, or since, has there been any suggestion of from where the money that is needed to meet these new measures is to come. It is not realistic to expect hard pressed local authorities to divert funds from even more pressing matters to deal with this worry.
The Government refuse to employ the most effective tool of all which is a realistic licensing or registration scheme. A clause enabling the Government to introduce such a scheme was added to the Local Government Act 1988 by a majority in this House. However, the Government have specifically announced that they will not implement that clause. Registration has the backing of many responsible bodies that are concerned with public health and animal welfare. It could provide much of the finance for realistic law enforcement and would greatly simplify the task of local authorities in tracing dog owners when required. When introducing her Dangerous Dogs Bill in July of last year a Conservative Member of another place said:
"Whilst the Bill I am sponsoring is a useful addition to the law relating to dangerous dogs, I am still firmly of the view that a dog registration scheme is essential in order to enforce"—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, what is the matter?
Noble Lords: You should be paraphrasing not quoting!
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the House. Among the points made by the Conservative Member who introduced that Bill was the fact that while the Bill that she was sponsoring was a useful addition to the law relating to dangerous dogs, she still firmly held the view that a dog registration scheme was essential in order to enforce not only the existing laws but also the Bill to which she was speaking. I hope that that presentation is acceptable to noble Lords.
A useful example of a licensing scheme exists in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has, by any measure, achieved success with its animal licence fee. The Northern Ireland dogs order became effective in December 1983. The order is flexible enough to allow reduced licence fees for old-age pensioners. The standard fee is currently £ 5 a year. It is collected by the Department of Agriculture which maintains a dog fund to cover the administration costs and to assist with the provision of dog wardens for district councils. All district councils must have dog pounds and run dog warden
1444
schemes. The officers, who have various powers of entry, may require the production of dog licences for examination. They may also seize stray and injured dogs.
Since the order was introduced in 1983, licence applications have more than doubled. The greatest request for licences occurred in the first year following the introduction of the order. Collection has been aided by the imposition of a maximum fine of £ 200 for owning a dog without a licence. The number of strays impounded, together with both the number of penalties imposed for allowing dogs to stray and the prosecutions for livestock worrying, peaked in 1985 and are now declining.
The Northern Ireland dogs order appears to be a resounding success. The licence is not an aid in itself, but it provides the funds for dog wardens and is the foundation of a system of regulations and enforcement for dogs which has improved dog welfare and has minimised problems caused by dogs in society. It has also cost ratepayers very little. If such a scheme can work in Northern Ireland, why could it not work in England and Wales? No one disputes the need to reduce this dangerous and unpleasant nuisance. I make no apology for talking at length about it. Although this may not seem an important item in relation to the philosophical discussions we had earlier, it is something which is an everyday nuisance to those of us who live and move in cities and towns.
If a little common sense were applied to the transport system, it could bring great benefits. Likewise the tried and tested system in Northern Ireland could bring great benefits, if applied here, in removing the nuisance caused by dogs. If both of those areas were tackled, the quality of urban life would be improved beyond measure. I hope the Government can be persuaded to introduce the solutions to these problems as they have them to hand.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I speak in this debate as a citizen of Manchester and as a proud Labour councillor for the Brooklands ward in the town of Wythenshawe in the city of Manchester. I am angry at the way this Government have treated my fellow citizens in Manchester. Not only has Manchester been deprived of rate support grant over the past 10 years, but we now also have the imposition of the terrible poll tax. Not content with depriving the city council of about £ 90 million of business rate— that incidentally has not benefited businesses because of the transitional arrangements for the introduction of the national business rate— the Government are also forcing every citizen of Manchester to pay £ 71 to a government fund which the Government then disburse to Tory authorities such as Wandsworth and Westminster to maintain low poll taxes in those areas.
Not content with reducing wages and social security payments, the Government have also cut child benefit. However, apart from the financial attacks that we citizens have had to face from this Government, they have also interfered with our democracy in that they have interfered with our ability to control our own affairs in the city of

1445
Manchester. I shall give the House an example of that. A few years ago a Tory education Minister had the temerity to pick out three schools which we could not touch in our reorganisation of secondary education. He said we could not touch them because they were schools of proven worth. Every school in Manchester is of proven worth. We are very proud of our education system. Unfortunately that interference resulted in the death of a pupil in a stabbing incident in the playground in one of the schools. I personally shall never forgive that Minister for intervening in that way.
I am very angry at the way the health service is run in south Manchester generally by government placemen. In south Manchester two district general hospitals serve two distinct communities. The Government placemen have produced a plan which effectively would destroy both of those hospitals. I suspect that that plan has even embarrassed the Government by its pure ineptitude.
I am also angry at the lack of housing provision that we can make as a result of government policy, and at our inability to resolve the problems of three households living in one dwelling. That situation forces young couples to live apart. The wife lives with her baby at her parents' home in an overcrowded situation while the husband lives with his parents in a similar situation. The housing situation forces disabled old ladies to live in their homes, albeit with the support and help of neighbours and friends, when they should be in sheltered accommodation. Last night I was discussing the housing problems in Manchester and I heard of a situation where a terraced house is being let for £ 100 a week. Apparently that house is worth about £ 16, 000. The rent is. four times the cost of mortgage repayments. However, the people who are forced into that market cannot get a mortgage from a building society.
I am angry at the way in which the loan sharks on the estates can charge 1000 per cent. interest to people who cannot get money from a social fund because it is inadequate and who are living in poverty due to the inequities of the social security system. I am angry that the children in one of our local schools— in my own ward— have to go out into the elements every time they go to the toilet. I thought that outside toilets were a relic of Tory-controlled county councils. That school is one of the few schools in Manchester in which we have not been able to enclose the verandahs because we have run out of money. Because of the introduction of the poll tax this year we are only now able to find the money to finish the schemes that we started last year. We have no money to spend on new schemes. Work at that school was one of the schemes to have been started this year.
I am angry that because of the introduction of the poll tax we are having to close swimming pools. They also are part of the programme of modernisation but we know that the money is not there. We cannot continue to subsidise the poor conditions. I am angry that we shall have to close a college of further education in my ward because the brunt of the education cuts is being taken by the post-16 sector. We have insisted on maintaining the good level of provision for the primary and secondary sectors.
1446
That is a legal requirement, but we are happy to do it. We believe that it is important to maintain our high provision for nursery education.
I turn now to some aspects of the environment. When one walks down the street and sees unkempt gardens and overgrown hedges one thinks that surely the people living there could cut the grass and trim the hedges. Then one realises that people may spend all their waking hours trying to cope with life. They may be living on minimum social security benefits and struggling to obtain their entitlements. They struggle to find the cheapest sources of food and clothing for their kids. They are totally worn out coping with inadequate and expensive public transport. They cannot afford the bus fare so they have to walk everywhere. That is exhausting. The mere process of life is exhausting. They do not have money and probably cannot afford a lawn mower, far less find the energy to push it to cut the grass.
Those problems are magnified when applied to the local authority. I went round one of our housing estates the day before yesterday. It was like a bomb site. Blocks of flats surround a courtyard of grass. Most of the flats are derelict because the council does not have the resources to do them up. We do not even have the resources to cut the grass in the middle of the courtyard. It is an overgrown jungle. It is diabolical. However, it is of more concern that people have a roof over their heads than that they cut the grass, keen as we are to improve the look of the area and introduce environment-friendly policies. Yes, we shall support the urban forest project, but so long as the Government contribute financial resources to enable us to do so.
As well as being angry I am proud that in the years of lack of government support the people of Manchester have dug deep into their pockets year after year to pay increased rate bills to help fund the provision of local services. I am proud that Manchester's provision in the nursery sector is among the best in the country. I am proud of the high standards of primary and secondary education. I am proud that the Labour policy in Manchester over the past few years has enabled a vast improvement in accessibility to council buildings for the physically disabled. I believe that now the city of Manchester is one of the most accessible for physically disabled people.
I am proud of the high standard of library services, the support for theatres and galleries. I am also proud of the support that we give to equal opportunities policies. They not only counteract discrimination in employment. To be honest, that occurs in our own establishment and we have had to develop policies to ensure that we do not discriminate against disabled people, women and the black community. We also have policies to counteract discrimination in society as a whole against the gay and lesbian community, the black community and immigrants.
I am proud that we have worked with the private sector to redevelop our inner city areas. We are all proud that Manchester is the British Olympic bid hope for the next few years.
It is not only Manchester that faces problems in the inner city. Those problems occur in every city in Britain. I believe that most of the problems faced

1447
by our citizens could be resolved by an improvement in democracy. By that I mean the ability of people to control their destinies. I am thinking particularly of the citizens of a city working together collectively to resolve their own problems. We can see that democracy is denied. First, there is financial denial. The Government's insistence on taxation policies that are regressive effectively increases taxation of the poor and transfers money to the rich by tax concessions. The imposition of the latest example, the poll tax, means that in Manchester— where services are having to be cut and people are being made redundant so that nothing is being improved— 77 per cent. of the citizens will be worse off than they were under the rating system.
Apart from those financial limitations our elected representatives have lost the power to control events on behalf of their fellow citizens. In 1985 we lost the metropolitan counties. Effective democratic control over transport, waste disposal, and the police was lost. Our control over the police was minimal at best but we have lost most of what control we had. Following recent Acts of Parliament put forward by this Government, we are losing control of education, housing and our ability to make changes to social service provision which will be hemmed about by Government restrictions. Those powers have either gone to unelected people operating locally or to central government.
Our cities need the return of powers taken from them. They need more money from the central taxation pot of government to be returned to them. Above all we need the abolition of the poll tax. Not only does it create financial hardship for a very large number of our citizens; it continues the creation of the under-class of the dispossessed, the people who have no stake in our society. That does the future of our cities and the well-being of the citizens who live in them no good.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, the terms of this afternoon's debate are widely drawn, embracing social, financial and environmental problems. To analyse all of those is rather like peeling an onion, revealing successive layers as our debate proceeds. Our debate was started in excellent fashion by the noble Lord McIntosh. My layer of the onion is solely the environmental one and a segment of that; namely, traffic and transport in greater London, a subject which has already motivated several speakers.
There is now no elected transport body for greater London. The present situation is that that function is effectivly handled directly by the Secretary of State. Whatever its failings— and they were many— a principal function of the old GLC— (against whose peremptory abolition I called a Division on Amendment No. 2 at the Committee stage of the Bill) was to act as an overall creator, arbiter and co-ordinator of traffic and transport in greater London.
We now have a vacuum between the 32 greater London boroughs, plus the City, and the man at the top. His present situation is perhaps reminiscent of
1448
my first job in the vast combine, Unilever, when one of the directors, asking my opinion on something, complained that he was isolated at the centre— seemingly a paradox, but a real predicament in large organisations and an analogous position to that of the Secretary of State now.
I suggest that an elected transport body would be vastly more in touch with local councils and, through them, with the electors. The latter cannot always be expected to know what is good for them, but they are, after all, largely the people in whose interests traffic and transport policy is directed.
For example, it was obvious ages ago that the electors intended to mount the most concerted objections to the very principle behind the London road assessment studies, whose aim was to produce plans to build many more roads, whatever detailed proposals eventually emerged. Effectively, by analogy, the Secretary of State as managing director of London Traffic and Transport Limited has reportedly spent £ 8–5 million of his shareholders' money on a project which, if he had first put it in principle to an annual general meeting, would have been voted out.
If that is not believed, perhaps I may say that a large proportion of the residents in my borough put up window posters saying "No to the roads". I even went to a theatrical performance at the Tower Theatre, Canonbury, to raise funds for opposition, which emphasises the breadth and determination of the opposition to substantially more roads which simple generate more traffic. My point is that it was obvious that Londoners would not stand for extensive new roads even before the assessment study was started. It never should have been started.
I am not trying to make a political point against the Government, but to say that we must fill the vacuum between the Secretary of State and the disparate and widely diverse and competing interests of 32 boroughs and the City and their residents. As with one definition of a committee, those town halls now decide individually to do nothing and corporately that nothing can be done.
I warmly congratulate Her Majesty's Government on deciding last week to shift the emphasis towards public transport, but that is not the point. Five precious years have been wasted producing plans whose very terms of reference are invalid. As for the new proposals, many people think that the proposed traffic director will fill the vacuum of which I have spoken, but my understanding is that his remit is to deliberate only on a priority route system— the so-called red routes, the pilot scheme for which incidentally passes within 50 yards of my front door at the Angel. That individual will not conceive, recommend and implement an overall transport and traffic policy for greater London.
As a commentator said last week, slightly unfairly and inaccurately:
"A few new roundabouts and high priority red routes do not amount to a transport strategy and that is what is needed".
Our present policy is what I call an Elastoplast policy, reacting only wherever there is trouble or difficulty, as evidenced by the dramatic events of last week. London, one of the great cities of the world and soon

1449
to be linked through Eurotunnel with the rest of Europe, deserves better. Her Majesty's Government should— dare I say, must— consider an elected, supervisory body for London.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey on initiating this debate. At the tail end of a debate it is inevitable that I have had to throw away bits and pieces and replace them with other bits and pieces.
It is sometimes a good idea to consider the effects of the legislation that we trundle through Parliament. It is all very well to look at the glossy reports and papers that come to us from time to time, but now and again we must stop to consider the effects. In today's debate we are talking about the effects on the people who are on the receiving end of what happens in this place.
I want to start with the financial regime in the recent Local Government and Housing Act as it affects council housing, which will in turn affect millions of citizens throughout the country. Like other speakers, I am more aware of and concerned about the situation in London. The aim of the financial regime of that piece of legislation is to force up council rents so that the pattern across the country resembles the pattern of house prices. It is argued that, if house prices in London are three times higher than in Lancashire, council rents should be three times higher. The aim is also to give tenants the extra incentive, if that is the right word, to consider transfer to other landlords or to opt for the right to buy.
The Government have been angry at the response to their proposals to implement the policy of alternative landlords in boroughs and to sell off huge blocks of council flats. Tenants have resisted that move and the Government's anger has now resulted in the move to push up rents. According to the Department of the Environment, the rents for 1990–91 have been damped. That is one of the latest phrases. Rents are not capped; they are damped. It has been assumed that the maximum amount by which rents will rise is £ 4.50 a week. That is a great deal of money to people who have to struggle for every pound. That is the figure to which most London boroughs have kept. The Government withdrew the subsidy to compensate for that increase before rents were increased. For most authorities that is a massive increase.
My borough of Camden is the borough most quoted by noble Lords who want to say something against the Labour Party. The borough has had to increase its rents by 20 per cent., which is a huge increase at this time. Although most Labour local authorities have decided to keep to the guidelines suggested by the Government, no publicity has been given to the fact that conservative authorities have not kept to them. There are many examples of Conservative authorities which have taken the opportunity to increase rents dramatically. I need only mention two such authorities which are not in London; namely, Redbridge and Canterbury. The average rent for Redbridge in 1989–90 was £ 35.63.
1450
The DoE guidelines for the increase in Redbridge were 95p; the actual rent increase is £ 15.64. The tenants in Redbridge face an increase of 44 per cent. on the existing rent. The other authority is Canterbury, where there is an average rent of £ 22.88. The DoE recommended guideline is for an increase of £ 1.92; the actual increase is £ 12.29, which is an increase of 54 per cent.
There are many other authorities in the same category. However, there has been no publicity about such rents; nor is there any threat to cap rents in Tory boroughs where they have extended the increase far beyond what even their own party's government suggested would be a reasonable rent. The effects of those rents have to be considered together with all the other increases that have been mentioned: cuts in subsidies, cuts in social security benefits, increases in mortgage costs, water, rates, electricity, gas and heating charges— the list is very long. There are also bus fares, tube fares and train fares to pay if one is lucky enough to have a job. They have all contributed to the quite apparent increase in the levels of poverty and hardship.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned an increase in multiple debt in the inner cities. It is there for all to see if one takes the trouble to do so. The added burden placed on local authorities and voluntary organisations which attempt to pick up the casualties is a task far beyond the resources that they are given. The situation is grim for the ordinary inhabitants of our inner cities.
The subject of homelessness has been fairly adequately covered by my noble friend Lord Pitt and therefore it would be a waste of time for me to speak on it. There have been a number of excellent reports on the subject. They have covered the academic side. What is needed now is action on the reports, and that is the point at which one comes up against the Government.
Recently I read the latest report from the Rowntree Trust, a new report on homelessness from the AMA, the Government's own review of homelessness legislation and an excellent special edition of the Correspondent Sunday supplement entitled "Ignored— Britain's Poor and Huddled Masses", on the very first page of which appears:
"The breakup of a marriage or loss of a parent are two of the commonest causes of homelessness. There are men from service backgrounds, without roots in civilian life, women whose husbands have left them without support, children who have come out of care with nowhere to go. The Government prefers to lump them together as one huge statistic, but every one has his own story".
I could not agree more. That is my experience of the homelessness situation in London.
I should like to make two immediate suggestions which I beg the Government to take on board. First, I beg them to listen to the people who know. It is absent from every facet of this Government's policy. The wide open fact is that they do not listen. I beg them to listen to people who understand the situation of those who sleep in cardboard boxes and the homeless. I urge them to accept one recommendation made by the AMA; namely, that local authorities should be given powers to take over empty properties rapidly for use as temporary accommodation for homeless people.

1451
Many weasel words have been spoken about empty properties, but what powers are the Government prepared to give to local authorities or voluntary organisations to take over such properties? I have figures from 1st April 1988 which give the total number of vacant properties throughout the country as 709, 600. Of those, only 102, 900 are local authority properties. There are 579, 500 private properties lying empty, many of which are boarded up or sealed with corrugated iron. An urgent attempt is needed to get those houses occupied. One must be seen to be concerned practically in the problems of the homeless.
I am left with a few minutes to talk about the poll tax, which is the inevitable outcome of all the Government's failed policies. They now have to look around for something else. I say with no fear of contradiction that there was no mass campaign in the constituencies with which I am familiar (nor so far as I know in any others) for the abolition of rates. There was always grumbling about the rates. It came mainly from the business community. However, there was no mass campaign. There was no agreement even within the Conservative Party on a number of occasions when alternatives to the rates were debated. Always one came back with attempts to improve the rating system and there was certainly room for improvement. But no one envisaged that one would go back to the situation in 1377, 1378, 1379 and 1381 and try to introduce a poll tax.
The example which I give to make that point easily understood by everyone is that of two politically opposed boroughs: Camden and Westminster. They are two boroughs which are quite close to each other. We all know them. They each have a different approach to the poll tax. First, one has to understand the Government's estimate of the spending need of each of those two boroughs. The standard spending assessment is the basis of all the calculations. For Camden it is £ 151 million; for Westminster it is £ 172 million. That has not been arrived at by carefully totting up the spending needs of either council service by service, such as libraries, street sweeping, social work and so on. There is no figure at all for homelessness, although Camden will spend £ 8 million next year on the homeless. A crude set of indicators was used which was devised for whole blocks of services. There is no way to take account of the precise position of an individual authority in terms of either its needs or its opportunities.
It can easily be shown that Camden is one of the most deprived boroughs— apart from Hackney and Islington. It is certainly more deprived than Westminster. It ought at least to have been given the same treatment as Westminster and certainly not come below Westminster in the Government's standard spending assessment. There are a number of differences to which I could point but I am trying to be quick and jump over them. For the two service blocks called "Other services— district and county level", Westminster receives £ 21 million more than Camden, which is the equivalent of £ 160 per head on the poll tax. The reason is that the SSA is calculated on an enhanced population which allows for the influx of workers and visitors who do not
1452
live in the borough. The figure is calculated on the 1981 census. How up-to-date is that census for Camden, which has an almost annually shifting population? It is totally out of order to base the figure on that census.
Leaving that point, I next look at the opportunities which some councils have and others do not. Westminster makes a profit of over £ 30 million a year from West End car parking solely because of the location of London's shopping and entertainment centres. No other council has that facility. From that, it uses about £ 15 million to £ 20 million to run other services. That accounts for another £ 130 off the poll tax.
Let me go through the other points. Westminster has never been rate-capped as has Camden, so it has been able to take some of the reserves which it has been able to build up to use this year— an election year— in order to reduce the poll tax. The Government came to its assistance even further by taking away the burden of financing the English National Opera, to which Westminster used to pay £ 2 million. The Government have now taken that burden from Westminster and that makes another £ 15 of the poll tax. One begins to see, if one adds up all these things, why the Westminster poll tax should in reality be £ 500. Now that Camden has been rate capped— poll tax capped, subsidies capped and all the other caps one can think of, plus dampers— its poll tax is £ 500. That is an honest figure. Westminster's jiggery pokery and almost government-assisted fiddling has brought its poll tax down to something like £ 178, which is a ridiculous figure to anybody who understands local government.
In Camden and a good many other inner London boroughs thousands of people will be far worse off as a result of the poll tax. It is no good putting up nice coloured charts on the day that they launch the Conservative Party election broadcast, with glossy pamphlets, and Cabinet Ministers making soft-spoken speeches to the people telling them how good the poll tax will be for them. One cannot tell people who will pay twice as much in poll tax as they paid in rates that it is good for them. Even when it is capped and the transitional benefits taken into account so that the rebate will be £ 16, it will be £ 16 off what the Government think the council should have spent, not off the poll tax. If people can overcome the confusion of the massive documentation, forms and figures, they will find that they are still a couple of hundred pounds worse off than they would have been had the rates been increased by 30 per cent.
I join those people who say that they are angry. Can the Government understand this? If there is anger at this level where people can communicate, where we are able to do something, what must it be like at the cardboard box level where people have no chance of communication, where the frustration must be tremendous and where nobody in Government is listening? I ask the Government to listen again and to act on what they are hearing from the people of this country.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, until a few years ago in such a debate I should have spoken with affection, pride, passion and despair about my native city of Manchester. But I have lost touch; I cannot do so. Furtunately, Manchester has been very well represented today by my two noble and Mancunian friends Lord Dean and Lord Monkswell.
Your Lordships have heard the word co-ordination often used on this side of the House during the debate. I can assure noble Lords that there has been no co-ordination of our speeches. Every speech that noble Lords have heard has been the product of free enterprise. If I had known that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, would say exactly what he said, I should not be making a speech which repeals almost identically everything that the noble Lord has said. However, they were wise words. I therefore have no hesitation in repeating them.
During recent discussion on whether or not the quality of life had improved, somebody pointed out that London no longer generates the choking, blinding, killing fogs about which Dickens wrote, and which are within the living memory of even the youngest of us in the House. That factor is a boon, especially to us elderly bronchitics. It needed government courage to get rid of the fog by proposing a ban on our beloved coal and wood-burning grates. Even our garden bonfires became officially illegal. It was a brave interference with the liberty of people to bum what they wanted, when they wanted and how they wanted. It was a brave interference in the interests of a community which valued its right to breathe less impure and punishing air.
Although the age of the pea souper has gone, another and more surreptitious source of pollution has been growing. It is the pollution that comes from the exhausts of motor vehicles. Indeed, the new demand is a need for control of the pollution as firm as that that we imposed on the ugly pollution that used to come from our beautiful coal fires. The gases and vapours that pour out of our lorries, private cars and buses do not challenge only our health and comfort; they also challenge the atmosphere that forms the earth's environment. The pollution is, however, invisible. If it had been as visible as the pea soupers used to be, there would be a demand for its control that no government would have resisted.
Yet little by little we have all become aware of the danger to our health of the lead emissions from traffic, in particular since they affect the mental development of young children. The Government have therefore placed physical restraints on the use of leaded petrol. But there are too many cars that cannot use unleaded petrol, and there is a reluctance to oblige them to fit expensive devices which would make the use of unleaded petrol possible. Are we to wait then until all those cars have disappeared in the fullness of time to the automobile equivalent of the knacker's yard?
However, there are other pollutants being belched out on our inner city streets. They include nitrogen oxide, a major cause of acid rain which destroys trees, even in far distant countries. It is now claimed that 40 per cent. of the nitrogen oxide in the
1454
atmosphere comes from road transport. A new generation of vehicles is being developed with catalytic converters. They will reduce the emissions of nitrogen oxide but will bring an increase in the unacceptable levels of carbon dioxide which is alleged to be the biggest single contributor to the greenhouse effect. It is depressing. Are we in a no-win situation?
It will be a long, slow, difficult and costly road to ensure that we have pure air in the cities. Governments will have to be kept under continual pressure to carry out and improve their remedial programmes. We must retain our new awareness that every car, bus and lorry in our city streets is contributing to the pollution, whether they are moving at London's average speed of 11 miles per hour or idling in a traffic jam. We have to accept that technical improvements to engines are unlikely to make sufficient improvement within the foreseeable future.
The alternative remedy with which we are left is to reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled in our cities— fewer cars doing less mileage. Pollution is only one of the reasons that we need first to stabilise the amount of traffic on our London streets and then to reduce it. The Secretary of State for Transport has rightly been persuaded by the force of public opinion that the destruction of thousands of houses to create fast motor roads into London will not solve the problem but make it worse. The Minister is now left without a policy, or with only the ghost of it. Yet public opinion is coming round to recognise that the freedom that we all have to drive our cars into central London is a freedom of diminishing utility as the jams increase and threaten a total blockage. One has only to talk to taxi drivers about that. They believe that the great day will come when the whole of central London traffic will become stuck and it will take hours to sort out.
At this moment tens of thousands of London journeys are being made by private car which could be made on an improved and developed public transport system. Yet the Chancellor has failed to discourage the company car commuter by taxing that perquisite. He has made a small symbolic addition to it. Of course there must always be provision for those private car journeys which are necessary even at peak hours. But we can no longer regard it as part of the acceptable cultural pattern of our cities that everyone with a car uses it for every urban journey.
We should like to hear some indication that the Minister has heard the message that has reached him from all over London in the consultation period on the traffic studies. The Minister was right to scrap the unwanted road schemes, but now he is left with no policy or perhaps only the remnant of a policy. He must go in reverse. The Government decided to put most of their money and faith in the roads and to make life hard for public transport by cutting its expenditure by one-third in the mid-1980s. It was hoped that developers and private sector money would finance major schemes in London. However, there is a reluctance to invest in part of an unco-ordinated system which cries out for a comprehensive plan.

1455
In recent studies it was suggested that improved public transport would have little effect in reducing the number of journeys made by car. That is what comes of trusting a computer rather than experience and common sense. The improvement of public transport is the easiest part of the solution to London's traffic problems. It takes only time, intelligence and money. Yes, money and loads of it; but worth every penny!
The harder part is traffic restraint. That will take brave government unafraid of the transport lobby or of losing a few votes from the motorists to whom the car is their god. But the Government need not worry because I do not believe that recent history will repeat itself. I do not believe that the AA nor the RAC will organise a riotous demonstration in Trafalgar Square.
As an essay in restraint, there is an immediate need to provide more bus and cycle lanes, close more streets, reduce the number of parking places in central London and make parking more expensive. And we must clamp, clamp and clamp again the offenders. We must also think about the practicality of road pricing. Nobody must pretend that what must be done will be easy, but there should be a political consensus around the theme "Don't let the car wreck London". We must destroy congestion and pollution, the two evil giants that threaten the good life of our great city.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, by now almost everything that can be said has been said. As a practising GP who lives in inner London I am acutely aware of all the problems referred to by noble Lords. I wish to concentrate on transport, and on a particular form.
First, I wish to comment on housing. I am sure that it is the most pressing and serious problem faced by cities. Like my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Pitt, I continue to be astonished at the illogicality of housing homeless people in seedy hotels and paying through the nose out of public funds. Surely homeless people need homes and not hotels. The empty buildings exist, as does the finance if councils were allowed to use it. I remain totally unconvinced that the use for housebuilding and repair by local authorities of the capital sums which they have acquired through council house sales would be inflationary. They should be allowed to use the whole of it on renovating old houses and building new houses for rent.
Homeless people are prepared to live in houses and flats which are less well decorated and more basic in their facilities than are full council house tenants. They should live in such halfway houses rather than in hotels while waiting their turn for more permanent accommodation. I consider that the Government have seriously miscalculated the scale of the problem and that the measures they have taken are insufficient. Other noble Lords have spoken more eloquently about the problem.
For my main topic I wish to speak about transport, traffic congestion and the atmospheric pollution mentioned by my noble friend. That pollution has penalties in economic and health terms. My noble
1456
friend Lord Pitt mentioned the fares fair policy adopted by the GLC in the early 1980s under which London Transport received an increased subsidy to reduce fares. I remember how much easier it was to travel about London during that brief period. Not only were buses and tubes cheaper but because commuters converted from cars to public transport the buses moved faster. So did the cars of those who continued to use them and I must admit that I was a car user. The delivery vans also moved faster. I am sure that investment in public transport will pay dividends. It should be accompanied by the introduction of improved priority routes for buses and an increase in the quality and quantity of tube trains and stations. We must also adopt a form of disciplinary restriction on the use of cars.
There is one method of transport which has hardly been discussed today. It is the most appropriate method of city transport; it is the bicycle. I do not suggest that it is a panacea for all our transport problems. However, more people would be encouraged to use bicycles if some of the constraints and dangers of cycling were eliminated.
I wish to look at some of the benefits of cycling and to quote from an unpublished paper by Imogen Sharp, co-ordinator of the National Forum for the Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease. She states:
"Cycling is a purposeful and enjoyable form of exercise which could make a major contribution to better health, including coronary heart disease prevention. It also has a wide range of environmental benefits including cutting traffic congestion, saving traffic space, conserving fuel and reducing environmental and noise pollution. A bicycle travels 1, 600 miles on the energy equivalent of just one gallon of petrol. On a less altruistic basis, cycling is simply a cheap and convenient form of transport which can be particularly fast in cities".
When she says "fast" she backs that up with figures.
Figures published in the Daily Cyclist in November 1988 show that in the London Transport race in 1988 it took a cyclist 21 minutes to travel from Brixton to Embankment compared to 29 minutes by public transport and 34 minutes by car. From Kentish Town to Embankment it took 16 minutes to travel by bike, 43 minutes by public transport and 90 minutes by car.
The health benefits of cycling are considerable. One of the major causes of ill health in our society is our relatively sedentary way of life. In a now famous study published 25 years ago Professor Jerry Morris showed that bus conductors had half the coronary heart disease mortality of bus drivers. That was related to their better physique, leaner body build and more active work. He followed that up with a wide study of civil servants which showed that vigorous leisure activity was also protective against heart attacks. The jogging movement in the United States, which has spread world wide, was based on that and similar research.
Cycling is a better form of aerobic exercise than jogging. Because it is non-weight bearing it is much kinder to joints, hence it is more suitable for people of all age groups. More particularly, it is a purposeful form of activity which can be built into daily life and can save rather than take our time. But, as we all know, there are serious constraints to cycling in cities. Any health benefits for an individual can be quickly wiped out by injury or death on the road.

1457
Some 300 cyclists are killed on the roads each year and there are 5, 000 serious accidents as well as many less serious accidents— 26, 000 are reported but there are possibly 50, 000 or so which are unreported. Per mile travelled cyclists are 17 times more vulnerable than car users and cycle accidents are increasing. Between 1975 and 1986 the rate of cyclist casualties per mile increased by about 10 per cent. for fatalities and 30 to 40 per cent. for non-fatal injuries. That was entirely related to the increasing traffic congestion on the roads.
Reduction in serious injury could be achieved by a number of methods: first, by use of helmets. At present, only about 1 to 2 per cent. of cyclists wear them. They are subject to full VAT taxation. Could they not be zero rated for VAT? Another constraint used to be hills but with excellent gear systems especially on mountain cycles, that is much less of a problem than it used to be, although Amsterdam has an advantage over London in that respect, particularly if you live in north Londo— at least farther north than N6.
For me the weather is the worst constraint, but I am told that on average it rains on only 12 days per year between 8 and 9 a.m. I should like to see better facilities— for example, changing rooms and showers— at workplaces for cyclists. Sometimes you get dirty and sweaty while cycling. I should also like to see safe places to lock up bikes.
Your Lordships' House is quite adequately equipped for the small number of us who cycle here. However, it would be totally inadequate if more or indeed all of your Lordships arrived on bicycles. The Government, local authorities and employers could do a lot to encourage cycling. If it could be made safe it would not only be the young who would ride to work or visit their friends. Among my patients I have a 77 year-old professor and a 65 year-old with heart disease who are frequently to be seen on their bikes.
There is now a document published by the Department of Transport entitled Making Way for Cyclists giving guidelines to local authorities which, if acted upon, could make a great difference to the safety of cyclists and encourage more people to take up the habit.
I apologise to the Minister who is answering this debate for not warning him that I should be raising this topic. I hope that he will be able to write to me giving the department's most recent views on cycling and improving facilities for cyclists. In exchange I shall gladly send him the paper from which I have quoted if he is interested.
There is an increasing public interest in cycling. I am convinced that that should be encouraged. If the problems which I have mentioned could be overcome we could see a major increase in cycling which would result in less pollution, less traffic congesion and a fitter population.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is my great pleasure to participate in this debate. I am sure that when the Minister rises, he can say truthfully that it has been a useful debate for him, his
1458
department and his ministerial colleagues. It is useful to hear your Lordships speak from knowledge of life's experience. Thus, your Lordships can plead, ever so gently, on behalf of people among whom your Lordships have lived and worked. My noble friend Lady Phillips said that she is proud to be a Londoner. My noble friend Lord Monkswell said that he was proud to be a Mancunian. When we detail and examine the terrible catalogue of situations, we must recognise that most people are proud of where they live and they are determined to leave that corner of the world a little better than when they inherited it. They do that not just for their family and their children, but also for the community.
Although the cities have enormous problems, most are vibrant places. The people who live there are not unused to being kicked in the face or pushed to the back of the queue. That has happened to those people time and time again. They never say die. They want sympathy and understanding from their politicians for their lot in life. Secondly, they want some of their problems eased. Thirdly, they want to feel that people who have it in their grasp to ease their problems are willing to listen sympathetically and to take account of what is being said.
I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Monkswell who said quite graphically that in our large cities an under-class has developed. That is a class of people who feel that they are dispossessed and not wanted; and that nobody listens to them. They believe that they have the dirty end of the stick. I think that is substantially true. I would not care to quantify those groups in percentages. However, I know that the number is growing. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in what I thought was a very fair resume of the problems, pointed out that the gap is widening between the haves and the have-nots. It is perhaps too graphic to say that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but some people are becoming poorer and some richer. However, the gap between those who are comfortable and those whose life is a misery is growing and widening.
The purpose of this debate is not to beat the Government over the head with any convenient stick, although there are many of those. At this time in the Government's life, I am not one to intrude on private grief. They have enough problems on their plate, and I do not wish to add to them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Speak for yourself!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I speak for myself and not for my noble friend Lord McIntosh who, as we all know, is a stirrer.
Much of what I wanted to say has already been covered by other speakers in this debate. People outside this House want to hear from the Minister, his colleagues and, above all, from his Government that although their problems cannot be solved this week, this month, or even this year or next year, their problems are receiving attention.
What do I want the Minister to accept as priorities? First, I want the Government to say something about steps to eliminate poverty. Poverty is more prevalent

1459
and visible in our cities than I have ever known it. I was born on Tyneside. I know the 'twenties, the 'thirties, the 'forties and the 'fifties there. I am no stranger to relative poverty. However, in those days most people were poor. I lived in a community where it was nothing new that those people in our house, our street, our block and our part of Newcastle, were poor. Only a few were not. Now most people are out of poverty. However, I want to hear what the Minister is doing to help to eliminate poverty. I want the Minister to tell us about what he is going to do to tackle the great anguish which those who are well housed— and that is every noble Lord in this House— must feel about the people who live in dreadful conditions. One of the most sobering moments for me was when I met people who lived in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Bayswater. I saw a scandalous waste of public money. I went to a room where a woman, her mother and three children lived. The sum of £ 22 a night was paid to their landlord. One might say that that is not too bad; but that figure of £ 22 a night was multiplied by five: that is, £ 110 a night— £ 770 a week for one room. Some of the money came from the national purse, but the vast majority of it came from the local council purse. Somebody was getting very rich.
It has been stated more than once this evening that the Government need to rethink their policy on housing. The situation needs to be reassessed. The Minister will tell us what the Government have done in order to help the homeless, but that kind of situation still exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made a sensible speech and referred to his hope that the Housing Act 1988 would do much to bring more rented housing on to the market. The Minister will be well briefed tonight, and I should like him to give the figures of how much additional housing has been brought on to the market as a result of the Housing Act 1988. At the time great play was made of the fact that the Act was the solution. We knew of the problems and how people would get around the Act, and that at the end of the day there would not be more housing but higher rents for the miserable people who have to live in conditions of the kind that I have mentioned.
We should like the Minister to state his plans for improving the schooling in our cities and whether the Government are doing anything to create more employment in our cities. What are the Government doing to bring peace of mind and absence of fear to the hearts of women, especially, in our cities? We have just experienced five days of terrible violence in two parts of the United Kingdom. Every day and certainly every night in all of our cities, large or small, acts of violence are perpetrated against our community by members of our community.
The Government must try to get the police to be a little more kindly disposed towards them than they are now as a result of the Government's action towards the police regarding their housing allowances. The Government must tell us what plans they have in order to ease the lot of people who are already living at the bottom of the pile.
Noble Lords from the Labour Benches have spoken not from textbooks and not from other noble
1460
Lords' speeches. I have heard every speech, and your Lordships know that they all spoke from the heart. Many of them spoke from experience in their constituencies as Members of Parliament. All of them were able to describe the conditions of the poor and the deprived from their experience of being born among them, working among them or currently living among them. We have heard an enormously satisfying debate.
The Minister will understand that on this side of the House we do not shrink from a charge that we would be throwing money at the problem if more resources are the answer to the problem. We do not hesitate to say that if there is an agony, a hurt or an injustice which can be put right by either local or central money, whether by poll tax payers' money or taxpayers' money, if money is what is needed, then it must be found. I believe that a future Labour Government will be more willing that this Government to face up to providing services and to easing detriment, even if it requires public money.
We made a very good start on this debate with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He was pleading with the Government to use their resources. The resources are not just money but people and good will. I can see many faces on the Government Benches that are sympathetic to the point I am making: people who give hours and hours of their time to voluntary work.
There are organisations, counsellors, groups, industries and a swathe of people who would like their good will to be tapped by the Government. Time and time again my friends have said: "We want you to listen, and the people out there want to know that you are listening". When my noble friends ask the Government to listen, the Minister says: "We have consulted widely and we believe that you have not consulted with the right people". The Minister is advised by those in his department. There needs to be a revision of the situation whereby the people at the sharp end of the problem are consulted. I do not attach any maliciousness to the Government. They genuinely wish to solve the problems. There are tenants, workers, shoppers and ordinary people who can give light and guidance to the Government in many ways.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, charged Members on these Benches with a terrible crime. He said that at times we are too overtly political. We are guilty, my Lords, because at the end of the day it is by political action that either we in office or this Government when moved by public opinion will do things. Of course we prefer that politics is not brought into such matters, but at the end of the day how does one get the ear of the Government? How are they to be pressurised? The Government are moved more by results such as those in Staffordshire than they might be by any speech in the House of Lords or anywhere else. Politics is a legitimate use.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has an interesting but curious sense of priorities in relation to money which might be spent. He spent a great deal of time speaking on the arts and the media, and I am deeply conscious of the noble Lord's desire to promote those subjects. However, if I had a choice between more houses, more jobs, home helps or

1461
homes for the elderly and art centres, I know where my priorities would be.
The right reverend Prelate did us a power of good. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that the Church should stand up and be counted instead of carping on the sidelines. I think he was saying that in his view the Church had been carping on the sidelines and not standing up to be counted. I see that the noble Lord nods his head. In my view, the Church has stood up to be counted, but the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has interpreted their position as carping on the sidelines.
One of the sad facts of the past five years is that when the Church has stood up to be counted, peers from Lord Mancroft's party have not hesitated to try to rubbish what the Church has said. When the Faith in the City document was published, we had the disgraceful situation of Mr. Norman Tebbit describing it as a Marxist doctrine. I should like to quote a little from the introduction to that document.
"Poor people are at the mercy of fragmented and apparently unresponsive public authorities. They are trapped in housing and in environments over which they have little control. They lack the means and opportunity which so many of us take for granted of making choices in their lives".
Can any noble Lord disagree with that statement? It is the nub of our debate. There are millions of people who could be encompassed in that description. So far as I am concerned, the Church is doing a very good job.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made some very interesting points. He described the pathetic case of a struggle by council servants to meet problems when resources are being denied to them and they are under severe restraint.
Many speakers have raised the subject of transport. The Minister does not specialise in transport matters, but I know that he will be well briefed and prepared because transport in inner cities was a banker. We should like to hear the Minister say something helpful. Many solutions have been put forward. I have some here from the Association of London Authorities and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. However, it would take too long to quote from them. There are solutions and they do not need to cost billions of pounds.
I am glad to see that the Minister has got away from the roads lobby. My noble friend Lord Hatch was right to say that what we want is not a roads policy but traffic and transport policies which need to be integrated. My noble friend Lady Nicol referred to the detrimental effects of the environment and the kind of life in our cities. She majored—if that is the right word—on the problems that arise from uncontrolled dogs. She raised the valid point that public money may or may not be required. All these effects are being suffered by city dwellers who are in the main inarticulate and often unrepresented and who need people like your Lordships, and others, to stand up and be counted. I have said as much as I can about dogs and the motto is, "Leash said, soonest mended".
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I now move on. My noble friend Lord Monkswell repeatedly used two words as the theme for his speech. He was "angry" at a range of changes that had happened to the democratic fabric of this great city of Manchester. He is absolutely right. He expressed "pride" in Labour's achievements and he is absolutely right in that respect.
My noble friend Lord Stallard, and others, put forward the interesting point that the Government are rate capping—poll capping—in the main Labour authorities for exceeding what the Government wrongly laid down as their standard spending assessments. Yet here we have the Government laying down a proposed rent increase and Tory authorities are exceeding that with gay abandon. The two worst examples were given by my noble friend Lord Stallard but I can give others, including my own borough of Enfield which was invited to make an increase of £4 and blithely made an increase of £6 for party political purposes in hoping to hang on to power at the elections in May. The noble Lord needs to take those points on board.
I hope that the Minister has listened to this debate. He always does and I am sure that he will have learned from the passion of the speeches that what we want is compassion from him and his colleagues. I know that he will faithfully report back. The people outside this place who are living miserable, frustrating and impossible lives want hope and a vision—the word used by the right reverend Prelate. We want a great deal more good done for those who depend upon the public purse.
Many years ago the phrase was coined that we live in private affluence which flourishes in the midst of public squalour. I do not use dramatic words but something like that describes the present situation. We hope that the Minister will not only give us satisfaction but will give hope to millions of people outside the Chamber.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in what can only be described, geographically, as a very wide-ranging address to the House, alluded to the fact that this afternoon could possibly be misinterpreted as a Labour Party seminar on matters concerning the inner cities. He went on to suggest that there was not enough interest on this side of the House.
It is important to put the record absolutely straight. This debate has had rather an odd career to date, if I may say so, in terms of its formation before arriving in the House this afternoon. Noble Lords will be aware that many supporters of the Government tend to make their arrangements for speaking in debates during the week beforehand. As of Friday night there were only three names down to speak in the debate. Encouragingly, the list of speakers later filled out to 17. At the end of last week certain noble Lords on this side of the House asked whether they should be speaking. I suggested that if there were only three speakers down to speak they may not want to do so. Therefore it is important to correct the noble Lord's suggestion.

1463
That said, I welcome the opportunity presented by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to debate this important issue. We are faced this afternoon with a substantial subject and I have listened with a great deal of interest to the comments of noble Lords. They show a very real and understandable concern for the problems facing inner city residents. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to reinforce the Government's wholehearted determination to tackle those inner city problems and outline some of the real progress that is being made.
These problems of inner city decay and deprivation have, of course, not occurred overnight. They are deep-seated and complex and have grown up over many years. We are aware of the problems, but we are also aware that we have had substantial successes. I do not pretend that they will be cured either quickly or easily but we should not lose sight of where we were and what has been achieved.
I think it is worth spending a moment on the causes of inner city decay and deprivation. One factor is economic decline. Old industries close leaving derelict sites which detract from the environment. The loss of income in the area is reflected in declining property standards and land prices. Younger, economically active people leave the area to live and work elsewhere. The result is an erosion of community pride.
Then there is social decline. Again, there are many facets to this. Loss of community pride and a depressing physical environment have adverse effects on attitudes to work. We see more crime and the creation of a dependency culture. With family ties much looser than in the past— because of changing social patterns, more generally— there is less parental control and guidance and a greater tendency for young people to drop out. Social decline and economic decline feed on each other, leading to a downward spiral which is very difficult to reverse.
The Government accepted when they launched their Action for Cities initiative two years ago that there is no overnight simple solution to inner city decay. It requires a variety of measures tailored to deal with different aspects of the problem. It also requires a sustained and determined approach and a number of years to bring about long-lasting benefits. Merely trying to solve the problems by spending taxpayers' money on the symptoms achieves only transitory relief and does nothing to tackle the underlying, root causes. Those root causes must be eradicated to achieve lasting success.
The Government's Action for Cities initiative aims to promote economic regeneration and get the pride and commitment back into our inner cities. The priorities are all aimed at encouraging the involvement of everyone concerned; to encourage enterprise and development; to improve people's job prospects, their motivation and skills; to make the inner cities attractive to both residents and to business; and to make the inner cities safe and attractive places in which to live and work. I am sure that all noble Lords subscribe to those objectives.
1464
They are essential goals but, again, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the Government cannot achieve them in isolation. Lasting revival cannot be sustained without an active and genuine partnership between all those with an interest in inner cities— central and local government, private sector business, the voluntary sector and particularly the people who live in inner city areas.
No lasting regeneration is possible in the inner cities unless there is a healthy local economy. That is the essential foundation on which renewal must be based. The aim is to create the conditions in which business can flourish. It is business men and women who must take the lead in revitalising local economies. I will say more about the vital role of the private sector in inner city regeneration in a moment. I will deal first with the Government's role, which is crucial in encouraging and promoting recovery through a carefully targeted set of initiatives.
We are promoting inner city regeneration through a range of measures which fall within the Action for Cities umbrella, each targeted at a specific issue. I do not propose to describe the full list; there are numerous different programmes adding up to about £ 4 billion a year in 1990–91. They range from instruments designed to clear dereliction and bring about the physical regeneration of an area, such as the urban development corporations and city grant, through to measures to encourage small businesses such as the consultancy grants under the Enterprise Initiative and the Enterprise Allowance Scheme; and from measures to improve education and training such as the introduction of schools— industry compacts and employment training through to schemes to support the arts, recreation and sport under the urban programme.
Environmental objectives have always been an important part of the Government's inner cities policies. I have already said that one of the keys to inner city revival is to make inner cities attractive places in which to live and work. Many of the government measures are designed to help inner cities make a direct contribution to improving the environment.
Action for Cities was launched in March 1988. Many of the programmes within it had been running for some time, but Action for Cities brought them together and gave a new focus to the Government's drive to improve inner cities. We have introduced some new measures; we have improved and simplified others. There are frequent calls on the Government to tackle this or that problem. We are doing that where it is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other noble Lords raised the question of housing policy in the inner cities. Around 40 per cent. of local authorities' capital expenditure on housing (some £ 1, 300 million) is spent in the 57 urban programme areas, as is 50 per cent. of the Housing Corporation's investment in new housing, which is some £ 600 million.
We take account of the needs of the inner cities through our standard needs assessment measures used in allocating local authority and Housing

1465
Corporation resources. But on top of that we give specific and explicit recognition to the problems resulting from concentrations of deprivation by way of additional allocations above what the needs measures indicate, amounting to a further £ 200 million— £ 100 million for local authorities and £ 100 million for housing associations.
The new local authority capital finance system introduced by last year's Local Government and Housing Act has given us much greater scope to target resources effectively on the areas in greatest need. In addition, a number of other housing programmes mainly benefit the inner cities. For example, the large majority of estate action schemes for reviving run down council estates are in inner city areas, as are most of the private sector area renewal schemes directed at the remaining pockets of bad private housing.
Overall, our objectives for housing in the inner cities are the same as they are throughout the country: to ensure that decent housing is within reach of all families and to promote choice not only for owner-occupiers but also for tenants. We recognise that some inner city areas face particularly intractable problems resulting from a concentration of poor housing, which has sometimes been made worse by the monopoly position of local authority landlords and their failure to deliver a proper maintenance service.
We also recognise that housing has a key role to play in economic regeneration. Employers will not move somewhere if their employees do not want to live there. We need to draw in private sector funds to supplement public expenditure, and we are gradually achieving this. But contrary to some of the charges we have heard, we are putting in the necessary public resources: £ 2 billion a year into the 57 urban programme areas which is a large sum by any standards.
I said earlier that we recognised that inner city problems will not be cured either quickly or easily. But there are encouraging signs that things are getting better. Public and private investment is taking place on a massive scale, providing new offices, factories, roads, housing and shopping centres. In 1988 the rate of new business formation in the inner cities was twice that in the country at large. In the UDC areas alone £ 800 million of spending has levered in over £ 7 billion of private sector investment.
New enterprise is creating new jobs. Unemployment in the 57 inner city areas has fallen by about a third over the past two years. Physical redevelopment and improvement and the removal of dereliction are making inner city areas more attractive for residents, workers and visitors.
In February the Prime Minister was in Bradford to mark the second anniversary of the Action for Cities initiative and launched a new report People in Cities. Such documents are important as a means of drawing attention to what is being done and how it is being done and to encourage others. Inner city revival is about confidence in areas and in the people within those areas. The report therefore emphasises two key themes: people and partnership.
1466
It is essential that all those who live and work in inner city areas should benefit from the progress now being made. The importance of working in partnership with local communities cannot be overemphasised. If we do not work together we shall not be able to ensure that the wishes and needs of local people are reflected in what we do. It is central to Action for Cities that local people should have the chance to be involved with what is happening in their areas. Many are already benefiting as the People in Cities report shows.
Inner city problems cover the problems of a wide variety of people and organisations. The pace at which we make progress will be determined to a large extent by how well the various public and private sector organisations work together. If we are to see lasting improvements, it is imperative that all those involved, central and local government, private sector and voluntary organisations, co-operate fully.
Through the introduction of city action teams and the inner city task forces we have sought to improve co-ordination and liaison at the local level. Last December a new team of Ministers, drawn from a wide range of departments, was formed to help reinforce this partnership. Each city action team and task force now has its own Minister committed to advising and assisting it. The team of Ministers will act and be a catalyst for change and encourage community involvement at all levels. Each Minister has already been out and about in the areas with which he or she is involved, talking to people and listening to their ideas.
The introduction of training and enterprise councils also provides a way in which the various agencies on the ground can work in partnership. The new TECs will have as their primary function the delivery of the training programmes, but TECs also have potential to perform a much wider role of contributing to community regeneration by stimulating enterprise and growth.
I mentioned earlier the vital role of the private sector in inner city regeneration. Business is crucial to inner city revival. The Audit Commission has noted that,
"there is now little argument that private sector led growth is the main long term answer to urban deprivation".
More and more companies are coming to realise that our inner cities offer a temendous opportunity for profitable investment. They can also help to regenerate their own local business environment.
There is a role for firms of all sizes. I am glad to say that industry and commerce are playing an increasing role in the development of their cities. Many firms are supporting local enterprise agencies and seconding personnel to help in the community. They provide training for unemployed people, work experience for pupils and support the schools-industry compacts.
Another welcome development is the creation of business leadership teams. Using their management and business skills, these leaders are working with the public authorities in shaping and inspiring the regeneration of their cities on a wider scale. I particularly welcome the joint CBI, Business in the

1467
Community and Phoenix initiative, Business in the Cities, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, alluded earlier. It was formed specifically to encourage the development of such teams. I am pleased that a number have been successfully set up around the country; for example in Bradford, Bristol, Newcastle and elsewhere.
I shall now try to answer some of the questions and points raised by noble Lords this afternoon. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, drew attention to the importance of the role of the police and the worry concerning crime, particularly in the inner cities. The fact is that 50 per cent. of crime in this country is committed within metropolitan areas. The Government recognise the special policing requirements that are required because of inner city crime. It is for that reason that they have increased the number of police officers for the metropolitan areas for 1990–91 by about 8, 000 posts.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and other noble Lords drew your Lordships' attention to the problems of debt. There are two points that I wish to make here. The first is that the Government have substantially increased and doubled in real terms since 1979 to about £ 11 million the amount of money that they give to the citizens advice bureaux. Many noble Lords will also be aware that a report has been produced by a working party chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It will be arranged for the pledging of money for further advice to be provided by the financial community. The Government look forward very much to being able to observe the impact of the implementation of that additional assistance in dealing with debt.
The noble Lords, Lord Pitt and Lord Cocks, and many others raised the question of homelessness and the situation regarding bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The Government fully share the concern that noble Lords showed for the homeless. We believe that our general housing strategy will reduce homelessness by widening choice and targeting increased resources. That said, serious local problems remain. For that reason, in pressure areas, particularly in London and the South-East, we have brought in additional resources of about £ 250 million which have been made available over the next two years to assist in dealing with that problem.
The noble Lords, Lord Northbourne, Lord Rea and Lord Pitt, drew your Lordships' attention to the plight of the single homeless. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred particularly to the voluntary organisations. The Government, having increased expenditure in this area by some £ 680, 000 to some £ 2 million, very much recognise the important and vital role that voluntary organisations play today and will play in the future. It is also worth remembering that some 21, 000 local authority properties are currently vacant within the greater London area.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, felt— I hope I did not misunderstand him— that local authorities were excluded from urban regeneration. We do not believe that this is the case. I should emphasise that People in Cities makes a point about the partnership with
1468
local authorities as well as with business and the voluntary sector. Under the urban programme, which is costing some £ 260 million in 1990–91, the Government provide a 75 per cent. grant towards schemes put forward by local authorities. That is true partnership.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to tell the House how many council properties are vacant in the London area. The Minister knows that, nationally, 2–36 per cent. of local authority stock is empty. Government agencies have 6–47 per cent. of their stock empty. How many government properties are empty in London? The noble Lord would not have come to the House armed only with figures for public authority empty properties, would he?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord has asked that question. He knows that very substantial amounts of government housing are owned by the Ministry of Defence and are situated in the middle of Salisbury Plain where they are not effectively able to play a constructive role— would that they were— in helping to solve the inner city problem.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, the noble Lord has tried to answer my suggestion that the Government were not co-operating with local authorities in dealing with the homeless by referring to certain grants. I pointed out straightforwardly that local authorities need to provide more dwellings for people accepted as homeless than they are allowed to build. I had hoped the Minister would say what the Government were doing to help local authorities to build more houses so that they can meet the problem. I said in my speech that in 1979 local authorities in London were building 8, 600 houses. They are now building 997 houses. That illustrates the problem. Will the Minister deal with that?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the Government see the role of local authorities as enablers in housing. At the moment, there is a gap which is difficult to cross. The Government are extremely keen to eliminate that gap. At present, there is local authority housing. We are now introducing more and more housing association housing to provide a staircase so that people can move and have flexibility in the housing market. The noble Lord will not need me to remind him that, compared with West Germany, France and the United States, we have a deplorable record in terms of private rented housing. We have only 7 per cent. in the United Kingdom. To rectify this we have changed the direction of housing policy, not our commitment to providing housing.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, there is a decline even in the provision of housing by housing associations. There is no use saying that we are moving—
Lord Denham: My Lords, we must allow my noble friend to reply to the debate.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, the Minister gave way.
Lord Denham: My Lords, my noble friend gave way twice.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I now propose to move on to the questions raised by noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh, Lord Pitt, Lord Hatch of Lusby, Lord Ardwick, Lord Rea and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the possibilities of the bicycle. I have a question for the noble Lord which I am sure he would be happy to answer outside the House later on this evening. If it takes 16 minutes to come down from Kentish Town, how long does it take to get back up, particularly if one is slightly overweight?
Noble Lords asked about infrastructure. In London, there is the Docklands Light Railway. In Manchester, there will be the Metro Link. The extension of the Jubilee Line into the Docklands will give a boost to the former docks. The cost of the project is £ 1 billion, of which the private sector contribution will be £ 400 million. Network South-East is spending £ 160 million on improvements to all stations, particularly in run-down areas. British Rail investment in real terms is the highest for a generation. Indeed, £ 3–7 billion is to be invested by British Rail in the next three years, which is 75 per cent. more than in the past three years.
Questions were asked and points were made. All the questions asked tended to avoid the nub of the problem. On the one hand, noble Lords said that they wanted fewer traffic jams. On the other hand, they said that they wanted no more roads. That is where we start running into a little local difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said that the Underground is not full for most of the day but only during the rush-hour. I can assure the House that the Department of the Environment is more than happy to hear the noble Lord's proposals on how we can fill up the Underground during those parts of the day when it is not full.
The noble Lord then proposed a levy on private cars in central London and suggested that there was a problem about equity. He suggested that the answer would be to insist on smaller cars. I do not believe that that is the answer. The only thing that will reduce the number of cars, whether they are large or small, is price. The problem about equity will remain, whether or not the cars are polished Minis or polished Rolls-Royces.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I did not say anything about forcing people to drive smaller cars. I said that a levy placed on cars driving into the centre of the city would be inequitable unless provision were made to make that levy higher for large cars than for small cars.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the crucial point is that the volume that has to be reduced to make a suitable
1470
reduction would result in there being fiscal inequity. One cannot get away from that.
Perhaps I may extend that point to the ALA poll, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch referred. There is a problem here which is rather like the problem with rural housing. On the one hand, people say that they want to have more cheap housing. On the other hand, they are the same people who resist the planning application when it appears. I wonder how many of those who answered the poll positively against the motor car would still say so if they were told that it would apply to their motor cars.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, referred to the few motorists to whom the car is God. I can only refer the noble Lord to a copy of the Financial Times earlier this week in which the Chancellor of Germany was interviewed. He said that he knew his Germans and that unification with East Germany would be good for the car industry because they liked cars first, beer second and travel third.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred to the inequitable distribution, as he saw it, of civil servants in the Department of Transport. I point out to him that there are 32, 000 kilometres of rail track in this country and 354, 000 kilometres of roads. On those roads there are some 18–4 million cars. That is why it probably requires more civil servants to attend to their needs.
I was very interested in the contribution of my noble friend Lord Mancroft and in his remarks concerning drink and drug addiction within the inner city. He dealt with the very intractable problems that they pose and the fact that there is no easy answer. I was also interested in the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about Sheffield and the cultural contribution that was made there. The Government can be proud. He pointed out that Channel 4 and the regional arts have been two of the main contributors. Both of those initiatives were commenced by this Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, did not have very kind words to say about the UDCs. However, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, made some rather nice comments about them. Therefore, sitting here on these Benches, I felt that we had probably got it right somewhere in the middle.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked why there was not such a mass campaign against the rates. I should like to ask him in return why there was not a revaluation for 17 years. He has clearly forgotten the marches which took place at the time. I remember the occasion well. Indeed, it was one of the first political acts in which I took part. The noble Lord also referred to the rent rises in Redbridge and Canterbury. I can only draw his attention to the remarks I made in answer to an Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, last week when I pointed out that this Government do not wish to interfere with local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made a truly fascinating statement when he said that the community charge safety net was designed to benefit Conservative-controlled authorities. I find that novel. I could introduce him to many shire

1471
councillors who would have a long and meaningful argument with him on the point. I should point out to him that people in the North will be beneficiaries of the changes in the national non-domestic rating system. But in order not to impose too fast a rise in the South, there has been a reduction in the gain in the North. However, gain there is and there is no questioning that.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield made a very good contribution to the debate when he spoke about the voluntary sector and the programme of the Church. He mentioned projects costing hundreds and thousands of pounds, and he said, I thought rather modestly, that this House only discusses billions. Often it is the hundreds and the thousands that are used by people for what they wish to do, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, that actually make a much greater contribution because the people who are in control feel that they themselves have carried out the work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, mentioned dogs. As a Minister one always remembers the first Division one loses at the Dispatch Box. The first Division I lost concerned the question of dogs under the 1988 Act. There will be ample opportunity in the months which lie ahead for Members of your Lordships' House, and especially the noble Baroness, to put down a suitable amendment on the matter of dogs. At this stage I do not propose to detain your Lordships for a moment longer on the subject.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave us a grand tour of the world before he returned to England. We set off from Sri Lanka and travelled to Caracas and Cairo and finally he brought us gently back to the Bay of Naples. I listened carefully to what he said. However, the proposals were not there. That is what I was really waiting for. I was waiting to hear the suggested alternatives to the Government's policies.
However, I can assure the noble Lord on one point. He constantly accuses the Conservative Party and the Government of talking about theories and ideology. I joined the Conservative Party for practicality and pragmatism and for a liberal party. There is a conspiracy theory which exists on the Benches opposite. But it is false. The Government have made great strides not only on their own but also in partnership with people, with business and with local authorities in tackling some of the greatest problems that face us in this country today. There are successes that can easily be seen. For example, one can visit Canary Wharf or the Albert Dock in Liverpool. There are, indeed, significant signs of success and the Government intend to build upon them.
7.25 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am acutely aware of the restrictions which the conventions of the House place upon me in this position. I am also aware that much as I would like to do so, it is not permissible for me to respond in detail to the arguments which have been put by the Minister. If I were allowed, I should very much like to point out to him that it is very easy once you have
1472
taken away millions of jobs and removed billions of pounds of resources from local government in our cities to talk about carefully targeted programmes.
It is easy to talk about schemes, task forces and initiatives and produce glossy reports, although I thought that the last one with colour photographs of nine Ministers was a little over the top. It is very easy to do that when what in fact has happened after 11 years is that the damage done by the Government is only being replaced by a mere scratching at the surface of the problems which have been pointed out during the course of the debate.
If it were wildly possible that I should be accused of having a political motivation in putting forward this Motion, then, like my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, I plead guilty. I am grateful to the tightly-knit group of politically motivated men and women on these Benches who have taken part in the debate. I am also grateful to all other noble Lords who have done so. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Consumer Guarantees Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Social Security Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

International Literacy Year: Promoting Skills
7.27 p.m.
Lord Renwick Lord Renwick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they plan to take during International Literacy Year in order to reduce the number of children who leave school without adequate skills in reading, writing or spelling.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government to answer my Unstarred Question on the Order Paper, I am glad of the opportunity to introduce the first debate in your Lordships' House on literacy in this International Literacy Year of 1990. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. I look forward to hearing their contributions on what I believe to be a very important subject. I shall of course listen with great interest to what my noble friend the Minister has to say. I realise that it would perhaps be unrealistic to expect too much too quickly, but at least I hope that we can lay the foundations of a continuing dialogue between us.
The British Dyslexia Association, of which I am a former chairman and of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, has recently completed a dyslexia awareness campaign. The association, which is not an enormous voluntary organisation, has attracted sponsorship in cash and in kind for this campaign amounting in total to about £ 250, 000. That is likely to be the largest event of International

1473
Literacy Year. An Early Day Motion in another place congratulating the British Dyslexia Association on its campaign attracted over 160 signatures from Members of Parliament. At the same time we have been preparing a government brief putting the economic case, among others, for intervention at an early age, as I shall mention later in my speech.
I hope that some noble Lords will have seen or heard evidence of our campaign on television, on the radio or in newspaper reports. In the course of three weeks the British Dyslexia Association received about 8, 000 inquiries. It is estimated that its local associations have received another 8, Q00 inquiries. Yet were the association to mount a second campaign tomorrow it would, I am sure, receive another 16, 000 inquiries. Moreover, I think that a further campaign would bring forth yet another 16, 000. There is an enormous unsatisfied demand from parents of children with literacy problems, and also from adults, for information, advice and help addressed to their needs.
The evidence of successive demographic studies shows that 15 per cent. of children leave our schools without adequate skills in reading, writing and spelling. That is an appalling waste of talent. The tragedy for some is well illustrated by a letter received by the BDA during its campaign. Writing about her son, who after years of struggle was recognised as a dyslexic late in his school career, a mother said that he had eventually achieved an engineering degree. "Sadly", she wrote, "the damage to his self-esteem was such that at the age of 22 he committed suicide". To have literacy problems can mean years of frustration, struggle and unrecognised potential. It is a bar to the recognition of ability, to the fulfilment of ambition and to satisfactory careers.
According to the Department of Employment, 25 per cent. of unemployed people have literacy problems. Our prisons and mental hospitals contain high proportions of such people. Research in the United States has shown that among the delinquent population a significantly increased proportion of young people are dyslexic and have not had adequate education.
Important advances in this area have been made during the past decade. For that we should give full credit to Her Majesty's Government. The Education Act 1981 imposed important duties both on school governors and on local education authorities. Governors of schools must use their best endeavours to ensure that children with special educational needs receive the education that they require. Local education authorities must keep their provision for special educational needs under review. They must have systems for identifying children with special needs. They must assess children for whom they should determine the provision and must provide what those children require. The Education Reform Act introduced further safeguards. Attainment targets are to be introduced for all children. Children are to be assessed and reported upon at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16, and of course the national curriculum includes provision for literacy.
Noble Lords will see that the legislative foundation is in place. All parties to the educational
1474
partnership— parents, schools, local education authorities and the Government— have the opportunity to build a system which will ensure literacy for all. However, it must be recognised that we have only the foundation. It will not be enough for Ministers to say that we have a national curriculum if, as I shall show, that curriculum is inadequate. It will not be enough for Ministers to say that there will be regular reports to parents if what is to be reported is continued failure. It is no answer to say that resources are inadequate if a change in priorities could produce substantial long-term savings.
We are not asking for a complex series of measures. Rather we ask for some simple steps. First, we ask for a simple declaration that it shall be the Government's policy to reduce the proportion of children leaving school without adequate skills in reading, writing or spelling to under 1 per cent. That step is purely declaratory and would cost nothing.
Secondly, we ask for the encouragement of a programme of assessment of literacy at the age of six, supplemented by the assessment at the age of seven within the national curriculum. Research suggests that children who have not acquired literacy by the age of eight are likely to have grave difficulties in doing so thereafter. One education authority— Mid-Glamorgan— has a programme for assessing all those children at the age of six, with beneficial results.
Thirdly, we are calling for a programme of additional teaching for those children who, at the age of six, can be shown to be falling behind in the acquisition of literacy. We have a topsy-turvey system in which we have the smallest classes, we spend the most money on the oldest and most able children, sixth-formers, who are most able to take responsibility for their own learning. We spend the least money on the infant age groups where learning has its foundations. To gauge the possibilities we need only to look at New Zealand. Their reading recovery programme involves the careful training of reading recovery teachers who are placed in each of their infant schools. Children who fall behind in reading receive daily periods of one-to-one teaching in a programme which lasts for no more than one term. The numbers of children leaving primary schools unable to read have been reduced to under 1 per cent.
One can look at Project Read in the United States where specialist support teachers have been trained in multi-sensory teaching methods and spend time in each of the elementary schools— for example in the Bloomington school district of Minnesota. All children who need additional help with literacy receive it. The result is again a reduction in the number of children leaving their schools with literacy problems to under 1 per cent.
Fourthly, we ask that some of the Government's resources for special projects be allocated to literacy. Educational support grant money should be used to support projects such as those I have described. The training of teachers skilled in the teaching of literacy should be a priority in the local education authorities training grant scheme. This is an area in which the Dyslexia Educational Trust— of which I am

1475
chairman— has been extremely active. It applies a good proportion of its resources each year to bursary funds for teachers to take the British Dyslexia Association diploma courses and other courses to help teachers identify and then give remedial help to dyslexics.
Fifthly, I ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to look again at that part of the national curriculum dealing with literacy. I understand that the national curriculum is more concerned with what children should learn than with how they should learn it. However, if the stations on the track are in the wrong place, the track is likely to follow the wrong route. There is a new fashion in the teaching of reading which holds that children learn to read by reading; there is no need to teach them how to interpret the marks on paper represented by written words in terms of the sounds words make. There is not a single respectable piece of research to support this view. Yet that seems to be the chosen approach by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
I am not appealing for a blind return to traditional phonics. I suggest that there is massive evidence that an integrated approach to reading, writing and spelling, incorporating the careful teaching of what are know as decoding skills, using multi-sensory methods, will work for all children. The methods implied by the national curriculum will only work for those children who in any case will find it easy to learn to read. A survey in Croydon has shown that the schools which have adopted these new methods are producing worse results than schools which have adopted a broader approach including more traditional techniques.
It is not a question of whether we can afford to do this. We cannot afford not to do it. While there will be some short-run costs, there will be significant direct savings and massive indirect economic gains. The direct savings will arise from reduced costs to our school system of special education for those who need not have failed in the first place. They will arise also from the reduced costs of dealing with vandalism and delinquency.
I ask noble Lords to consider the massive cost of the loss of productive potential of those who leave school with inadequate literacy. Six million adults in the United Kingdom have inadequate literacy. The loss in productive potential arises both from unemployment and from the under-employment of people with literacy problems, able people who are unable to use their talents to the full. If inadequate literacy reduces the earning potential of each of these men and women by no more than £ 1, 000 a year on average, the annual loss to the economy as a whole will be £ 6 billion. If we knew the true cost, it would surely be more than that.
Add to these sums the cost of specialist literacy teaching in our training schemes, the cost of adult literacy provision and the cost of institutional care for those who would not have required such care had they had an effective education, we can see that the sums are very large indeed. Lack of literacy is both a cost to the nation and a personal tragedy. It is a tragedy of frustration, of knowing that you
1476
cannot do what your fellows find easy. It is a tragedy for the child to be called thick, stupid or lazy; to be held in contempt by other children and, I regret to have to say, sometimes by teachers. Yesterday I spoke to people responsible for six specialist boarding schools for children with emotional disturbances and behavioural problems. The annual cost of educating each child in such a boarding school is between £ 15, 000 and £ 20, 000 a year. The number of children in these schools is increasing and up to half of them could be dyslexic. Few of them would be there if they had been given effective education from the earliest years. These children are not inherently bad; they are frustrated. In many cases their frustration is caused by the failure of the educational system to teach them to read, write and spell. Even in this television and computer age, the written word is of increasing importance. People write more, not fewer, letters and more books are published each year. Books remain the most effective way of conveying information.
International Literacy Year is not only a matter for the third world. Our first and fundamental duty is to produce a literate population in this country. Literacy is the first responsibility of our primary schools. I ask my noble friend the Minister to grasp the opportunity presented by International Literacy Year and give priority to measures which will increase the happiness and the economic health of our people.
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to offer strong support for the case that was so powerfully made out by the noble Lord who has just spoken and who has done so much for the cause under discussion. I wish to concentrate on dyslexia, which is one large aspect, although not the whole of the subject that was raised by the noble Lord. Others will no doubt deal with other aspects.
I cannot claim many credentials for speaking tonight. It is true that the firm of publishers of which I am chairman had the distinction of publishing Susan Hampshire's first remarkable book on this matter, but its success owes nothing to me. Thirty-five years ago, before the word dyslexia was known to most people, I used to visit a young man who was in prison. That came into my mind when I heard the noble Lord talk about frustration. The young man I visited had shot and killed a policeman. He was unable to read or write at that time. However, as he was just under the age of 16 he was not hanged, as he would have been had he been older. He learnt to read and write in prison, where special remedial efforts were made to teach him. All the psychologists and everyone else agreed that it was the terrible frustration that the young man felt which had boiled up in him and had led him to commit that appalling outrage. However, he has made good since leaving prison.
I was brought into closer touch with the subject of dyslexia three years ago through contact with a gallant family. That family had a son, Tim Bakewell, about whom I wish to say a few words. I should say at this point that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has done so much to help Tim Bakewell is unfortunately unable to be present as he has broken an ankle. I

1477
remember that I broke an ankle when I slipped on some ice about nine years ago. However, I do not think there is much ice about at the moment so I do not know how the noble Earl broke his ankle. However this accident occurred, it is regrettable from our point of view that the noble Earl, who is dyslexic, as he has told the House more than once, cannot be with us this evening. Later on I shall refer to somsthing that the noble Earl wanted me to say.
When Tim Bakewell was six years old he was diagnosed by some idiot as thick. I believe that term is quite often applied to people who turn out to be dyslexic. He was considered to be bone idle because he did not appear to be able to read. People believed that that must be his fault in some way. Now, at the age of 11, he receives treatment in a special unit within an ordinary school. I still do not quite have the picture of what is happening, but I believe he is in what is called a special unit. He is the only child who is recognised as dyslexic in the unit, although other children are taught with him. The whole thing sounds rather primitive to me, but at any rate that situation is better than nothing. He is taught by a teacher who is trained to teach dyslexics. However, when he reaches the age of 12, no such facilities will be available to him because in the area of the Midlands where he lives there is no secondary school that has a teacher who can provide such specialised teaching. That is the situation of just one boy, but it is a situation which is of course multiplied many times over, as the noble Lord and other experts know.
The first thing that strikes one about this subject if one comes to it fairly fresh, is that there are far more dyslexic people than most of us realise. We are told that about 4 per cent. of the school population is said to be dyslexic; that is about 350, 000 children. However, those are only the ones who have been diagnosed as dyslexic. Therefore, we can take it that there are far more dyslexics than that. There are, of course, many people who are only slightly dyslexic. There are many variations and degrees of dyslexia. One could take the example of Mr. Heseltine. It is difficult to mention him now, certainly in the presence of the Minister, without seeming to offer some comment on his claims to be the next Prime Minister. I am not saying that his dyslexia would make him a better or a worse Prime Minister. He must be accepted, as I am sure he will be accepted by the great party opposite, on his merits, persistence, and other qualities. At any rate, he is an admitted dyslexic. To do him justice, he has made no secret of that. I do not know whether it is part of his bandwagon at the moment, but he has contributed to Susan Hampshire's book in which dyslexics have recounted their stories. His is a fine and moving contribution. He says that he feels a fraud when confronted with dyslexics because he is only very slightly dyslexic. He has never had any special training. Whether he would have been better or worse with such training is a matter which I leave to the party opposite to decide. However, he has not had special training and he has, to put it mildly, gone quite a long way.
That is a slightly dangerous example because on the one hand it is encouraging to dyslexics to be told
1478
that, even if one is dyslexic one can get to the top, but on the other hand we do not want people to come along and say— there are people such as local authorities and even governments who would say such a thing— "If Mr. Heseltine can do that without any special training, why do we need to bother?" We need to watch this situation very carefully. Nevertheless, there is a brave man who has spoken out in a popular book about his difficulties as a dyslexic and how he has tried to overcome them. However, I repeat that Mr. Heseltine is only slightly dyslexic as opposed to the more severely affected dyslexics we are mostly concerned with this evening.
I shall now consider what bodies are tackling dyslexia. There is the association with which the noble Lord opposite has been so much connected. I pay tribute to that body. There is also the Dyslexia Institute. I have been told that I must not suggest that those bodies are rivals. They complement each other. However, the Dyslexia Institute has helped me in the preparation of my remarks. It is doing wonderful work. I shall give one or two examples of the kind of work it carries out. A study at Sheffield University has shown that of 19 dyslexic children studied, seven were taught at the Dyslexia Institute for two one-hour lessons per week. Of the 19 children who were found to be dyslexic those who had been taught at the Dyslexia Institute were found to be far more successful than those who had not been taught there. Those who were taught at the Dyslexia Institute were said to be remediated. I dislike that word, but apparently its use is unavoidable in this connection. Those who were not taught at the Dyslexia Institute fell further behind. Therefore, I think it is clear that training makes a lot of difference to dyslexic pupils.
However, in the long run, what is almost more important is teacher training programmes. In the end everything depends on getting enough teachers into ordinary schools throughout the country who are trained to teach boys and girls like my young friend whom I mentioned earlier. I am sure noble Lords would agree with that.
The Dyslexia Institute has done a great deal to provide teacher training. The readiness of local authorities to provide special training courses varies a great deal. Wigan is sometimes regarded as a joke. However, there is no joke about its extremely serious achievement. In 1988 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council invited the Dyslexia Institute to train 11 of its special needs teachers. That was of very great benefit. Kent is training 15 special needs teachers at Christ Church College, Canterbury, on a course which has been developed by the Dyslexia Institute. I could give other examples. However, it must not be thought that all local authorities are so enlightened.
The noble Earl, Lord Atlee, told a rather painful tale to Members of the House of Lords. He might have become more angry about it than I shall. I have no prejudice in favour of or against Dudley Metropolitan Borough education authority but that is the borough which was concerned with the young man I mentioned. The secretary of the West Midlands Dyslexia Association wrote to the chairman of the local education authority expressing regret at the proposed substantial reduction in

1479
education funding for Dudley during the coming financial year, which was bound to hit those needing special training particularly hard. The chairman of that body wrote a very sharp letter in reply. He said:
"I have received your letter of 18 March, which you sent recorded delivery. You ought to be aware that this method of posting put both my wife and myself to a great deal of inconvenience as we had to collect it from the sorting office".
That apparently annoyed them very much. He went on to say:
"Perhaps in future you would bear in mind that the tactics you have used in lobbying me have been counter-productive and you have now lost a sympathiser. I do not propose to respond to any further correspondence".
That is one attitude. There are good responses and bad ones, but that is a shocking story.
I blame the present Government for almost everything that happens in this country but I do not blame them for that. It is just a case of a very stupid local authority. I hope that the Government of the day, with this enlightened Minister— at least I assume that she is enlightened until I learn anything to the contrary— will say that they are considering providing funding for the Dyslexia Institute. That is perhaps something to be considered later.
I shall ask the noble Baroness two questions, of which I have given notice. Do the Government agree that there is a national duty to see that in every local authority scheme there are teachers specially trained to deal with and to teach dyslexic pupils? If so, what steps do they propose to take to encourage local authorities to bring about that result?
We must all be grateful to the noble Lord for raising the subject. Now I shall give way to a noble Lord, who knows much more about the subject from first-hand experience than I do.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, for introducing the subject of literacy for debate in your Lordships' House and also for drawing attention to the problems of dyslexia. As the noble Earl has pointed out, I suffer from dyslexia. I should like to point out from the start that I was one of the lucky ones. It was spotted that I was dyslexic.
Being able to spot those who are dyslexic and identifying their problem straight away is probably the most important single step that can be taken towards solving the problem. As the noble Earl pointed out, one small boy that he mentioned was told that he was stupid, slow, lazy and he must try harder. Once you tell children of any age that that is what they are they will live up to it very rapidly. My problem was very easy to spot because I was very dyslexic and my writing was very bad. Any teacher who is handed an entire page of hieroglyphics written from right to left knows that something is amiss. I also had articulate parents and therefore was not going to be overlooked. However, the child who is moderately dyslexic and under-achieving who is told to try harder, that his verbal skills have proved that he can do better and therefore he is either lazy or stupid will become a problem.
1480
Therefore every time a dyslexic child is not recognised as such he will have a personal problem. He will also create problems for every other child in the same class. A child will often decide to cover up his problem and his inadequacy in the classroom by becoming a nuisance in the class. He will make sure that no teaching is done so that he will not be shown up.
If 6 million or more people in this country have problems with literacy, as the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, pointed out, we have a huge economic and social tragedy on our hands. Those people will be under-achieving in terms of economic resources. In virtually all forms of paid employment literacy skills are an advantage. The technical revolution which is taking place places greater requirements on literacy skills now than ever before. Society is becoming more complex and we have to deal with more forms than ever before. Most dyslexics when presented with a form have to go away and sit down quietly to go through it. I certainly have to. If that occurs at work where one has to deal with dozens of forms one is a very unsatisfactory employee indeed in most situations.
There is also the problem of the social consequences. If someone has low self-esteem, as in the classroom, so it will be in later life; they will live up to that low self-esteem. I do not know the number of people in prison who have literacy problems but I am led to believe that it is extremely high. I suggest that if those people had found that they were of value in society they would not have turned to criminal ways of making ends meet.
At present the main form of help available to most dyslexics is provided through the process of statementing. The child has to be spotted and to undergo an educational psychologist's statementing process. The process states that they need help and help has to be given. That is a result of the Education Act 1981. There are many pieces of legislation over the past 10 years for which I would damn this Government but that is one for which I praise them. It was the light at the end of the tunnel and provided that help had to be given.
However, the Act may be negated to some extent by the national curriculum. The national curriculum states that pupils must take a certain number of subjects. Most dyslexics find that if they cannot write Engligh, being told to write French is a total disaster. I appreciate that there are attempts to change the method of teaching modern languages, but in most instances the teaching of languages in the classroom is based on written skills. Therefore anyone with literacy problems of any kind— and I believe that there is a danger of concentrating too much on dyslexia, even though 10 per cent. of the population suffer from it to some extent and 4 per cent. seriously enough to benefit from a statement— who has to take on a subject with which they cannot cope will find that it has a detrimental effect on all their other work. Valuable teacher time will be wasted. At present so few teachers are available that every single moment of their time should be regarded as gold-dust.
We also encounter other problems about the way in which local authorities will fund work to help

1481
children with special educational needs. Under the local management of schools, schools will now assess their own financing and budgets to a far greater extent. The LEAs have kept back 10 per cent. of the budgets to deal with special educational needs. How will that sum be appropriated? I suggest that that money be directed to helping finance psychologists for pupils and to ensuring that the statementing is carried out.
There is also the problem of those whose problems are not sufficiently bad to require statementing but who will still require special help. Once schools are locally funded, how will they tackle the problem of trying to meet their funding? How will the outside funding come together? How will that work into one whole? A new education system is being created. We are in a state of flux. At this point, the Government should think of establishing a watchdog body to ensure that appropriate help is given to those with special needs.
As parents now have far greater freedom of choice as to where their children go to school, we must ensure that schools do not discourage or try to palm off those with special educational needs because they might bring down their exam average which is usually, and probably unfairly, regarded as the academic level of attainment of a school. That matter needs consideration. I do not have a magic formula as to how that can be done; but, if those changes go through, some consideration should be given to the problem of ensuring sufficient allocation of resources for those with special needs in the mainstream schools.
I should like to support the Government in their attempt to bring people with special educational needs into the mainstream. If there are as many people with special educational needs as we think, it is ludicrous to try to put them in special units, as tends to happen. The recent report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate on the standards of education for 1988–39 states that there is no uniformity of standards in provision for special educational needs, and there is a trend towards people being pushed away into side units. If they are to acquire the academic qualifications that they need, they must be in the maintstream. If they are in the mainstream, teachers must be trained to spot their difficulties and give them the help that they need in the classroom. That might only be a case of recognising that a pupil has a problem with writing and therefore of not expecting him or her to take down notes all the time.
When I was at school, one or two teachers found that that came as a fundamental shock to their system as they dictated for large periods of the lesson. If you cannot take notes, any attempt to do so is a waste of time. In my case, I was making notes which were of a useless standard when it came to reading them. You reach the point when you have hieroglyphics in front of you which you cannot read, and no one else can read them. You concentrate so hard on getting the words down that you do not listen to what is being said. You have no record therefore of what has been said, so, effectively, you might as well not have been in the classroom in
1482
the first place. If a teacher does not place such an expectation on a pupil and allows him or her to listen without getting upset about things, the child will be able to achieve far more than if he or she were expected to go along with the rest of the children in the class learning by other methods.
The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, referred to the teaching of phonics in the classroom as opposed to the look-say method. He is right, certainly with regard to those with dyslexia and probably with regard to those with educational problems. One must be taught the structure of words. For some it may well be a waste of time; but for those with that problem or related problems, the structure of the words is essential because they cannot pick up the language the way that most people do. They have to construct words as they spell them. Thus, having a higher percentage of teachers trained in phonics and being able to help would certainly obviate a great problem.
Once again, that must not be restricted merely to remedial or special unit teachers because that will lead to school ghettos. Integration must be put in full swing in order to get the best out of pupils. Here we return to a more political point: if greater resources are required, the Government will have to provide them in order to meet the educational needs of those people. As the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, said, they are an economic and social asset and should be used. With a demographic downswing, it verges on the insane not to allow that proportion of the population to achieve its full potential.
It is not only a matter of the education of the teachers but of the parents. I doubt whether many parents know that their children are by law entitled to education up to the age of 19. Those who have a disability are entitled to education up to the age of 21. That includes education for an extra two years, plus two years' YTS. People should be entitled to know those things and to be aware of the help available to their children.
I have spoken for rather longer than I had intended. The real nub of the problem is information and knowledge on all levels— knowledge of the problems of the child so that its self-esteem is not destroyed, and knowledge for the parents so that they can support the child. The parent is far more important in this matter than the teacher. With the best will in the world, the teacher cannot replace the parent. The parents must know what is going on. The teacher then comes in to support them in the child's educational progress. There is therefore knowledge on all fronts.
Once we have a knowledge and understanding of the problem, we shall be halfway to tackling it. As a third step, the Government should ensure that every teacher, particularly in the primary sector, should be able to recognise at least a classic case of dyslexia. I was very easy to spot; many others will not be. Someone who is mildly dyslexic and merely under-achieving will be far harder to spot. Teachers must know what signs to look for because, once they have identified the problem, we can start to solve it.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we thank my noble friend Lord Renwick for having raised the subject of dyslexia and the subject of children leaving school without adequate skills in reading, writing or spelling. I should like to pay tribute to the Dyslexia Association, both nationally and locally. We have a wonderful branch of the Dyslexia Association in Oxford.
I wish to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I apologise for not having given the Minister notice of my question. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Renwick said that children's problems should be recognised at an early stage. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister— I can hardly expect a reply as I have not given notice of my question— what exactly is taught at teacher training colleges? That is where it all begins. Do the teachers take courses for assessing and learning how to recognise the various difficulties of children who cannot read and write? Do they have lectures on the problems of dyslexia? Do they take courses on how to recognise children with those problems?
I have had to deal with a number of dyslexic children during my career. I have found that it is an extraordinarily sad situation when a sympathetic and kind teacher recognises that a child has a problem. However, there is a kind of tariff system. Those responsible say, "Well let us try this". But that does not work. They then say, "Let us try that". But that does not work. Then they say, "Let us refer it to the hospital". So the child is referred to a hospital. If he goes to a hospital such as our Park Hospital in Oxford, he is immediately recognised as dyslexic. Unfortunately children are not always referred to such good hospitals. Therefore my plea to my noble friend who will reply to this Question is, does she believe that we should do much more about teacher training colleges so that all teachers, not just some, will know how to recognise dyslexia?
Secondly, does my noble friend agree that there should be some person in the Education Department who is specialised in these matters and to whom cases will be referred so that there does not have to be the tariff system? In one child's case that system has meant three wasted years and in another four wasted years until it was decided that the child was dyslexic.
I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that children should not be moved out of mainstream schooling. That was acknowledged in the 1981 Act. Children with dyslexia should be helped at school. Many of them are also helped in their own homes by volunteers who have taken courses in teaching dyslexic children. It has helped the child enormously to have individual attention in his own home. I pay tribute to the volunteers of this country who have learnt how to teach a dyslexic child and are willing to go to his or her home once, twice or perhaps three times a week. The child is thus not singled out at school but receives the extra attention that is required.
I also wish to mention the parents. Teachers or schools often do not sufficiently recognise the agony
1484
undergone by parents with a child who has something wrong with it but they do not know the cause. I pay tribute to the British Dyslexia Association for the help that it gives to parents.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, will forgive me for turning to quite a different area. A number of children leave school without having achieved adequate skills in reading, writing and spelling because they have not attended school regularly. Some are dyslexic children who cannot tolerate being at school. However a number of children have social problems or problems at home, or it may be that they just do not like school.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, who is to reply from the opposite Benches, will remember that when the last education Bill was passing through this House I moved an amendment about school non-attendance. I regret to have to say from my own party's point of view that it was rejected by the Government. A number of children simply do not attend school regularly. There is nothing wrong with them. Perhaps I may make a plea to the Secretary of State for Education to take up the matter of school non-attendance, which is very serious and quite widespread.
A short time ago I spoke to a teacher who said, "I simply cannot cope with that child in my class. Therefore I do not report the child as not attending school". The child attends the school and registers. He then leaves the class, puts on his T-shirt and goes out. He comes back at lunchtime and eats his school dinner, sandwiches or whatever. In the afternoon, when he finds that he does not like the lesson that is scheduled, he again goes out. He then goes back home from school. The parents know nothing of that. At the moment we do not give enough attention to our school non-attenders, some of whom are dyslexic, some of whom have social problems and some of whom just do not enjoy school.
I have deep sympathy with teachers who have a very disruptive child in class. I should like to mention that Barnado's in Birmingham has opened a house to take school non-attenders where they give individual attention to each child. The children attend every day and do not miss a lesson. I must confess that the last time I went there I was nearly deafened by the playing of the steel band. But at least the children came to school even if they did play in a perfectly ghastly steel band. It just so happens that I do not like steel bands. However playing in the band allowed the child to form the habit of going to school. That led on to the child doing ordinary lessons in maths, English and so on and finally to his returning to his ordinary school.
I ask my noble friend the Minister, first, to ensure that at the teacher training colleges there are medical lectures on the difficulties that children experience so that teachers can recognise them at once; secondly, to ensure that, having recognised those difficulties, there is immediately made available the assistance that is required. Thirdly, I ask her to make sure that truancy in this country is looked into in a big way.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having put down my name to speak in this debate. I did not think that I had anything to contribute to it. However, when I came into the Chamber the noble Lord was speaking about a matter that interested me. It was about training people.
In my Army period, at one time I took over a new area and wanted to find a house. I telephoned the sergeant-major, who arranged for me to go and see a scruffy looking place that would do for a short time. I went down about lunchtime, looked around and thought, "By Gad! I have never seen so much happening all at one time in a house". There were people inside. There were people outside. There were gardeners working there. There were armed guards round about and it seemed that the whole prison staff had turned out. Those chaps all worked with a will. They were all under guard. They were all quite experienced chaps in each of their own ways. There was furniture coming in and going out.
What interested me most was the gardener. He was a jolly good gardener. The wilderness that was there became a beautiful garden at the end of three days. The gardener was released from the prison in the morning. He did my garden and reported back to the prison at night. He learnt a lot and found out how to handle men from that. I should like to make one small comment. There is nothing like work to keep people away from trouble. Keep people busy and they are all right.
Again, I should like to say this. A short time ago there was a visit from the German Navy. One of my jobs was to receive the Navy when it came into port. There were a lot of young chaps among them. At one point I was having a chat about education. I asked how they had fared and how they worked in the different periods. It turned out that when these chaps joined the Navy if they signed up for a three-year contract they got a three-year university course. Classes were held on board ship and they were trained there. The Navy paid for the three years for which they had signed the contract. If they had not done that they would not have had three years which saw them through university.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, refers generally to children who leave school without adequate skills in reading, writing and spelling. Noble Lords who have spoken have tended to concentrate on dyslexia, leaving nothing for me to add on that subject other than to say how sympathetic I am, as indeed we all are, to what we have been told. I should also like to say that the British Dyslexia Association, apart from the good work that it does in its own field, is to be congratulated on promoting International Literacy Year.
The only slightly discordant note that I shall introduce is this. I believe that it is a great pity that the Government have not found themselves able to provide any financial support for the activity under that heading this year. I am perfectly well aware of the difficulties that the country is in at the present
1486
time. However, I can hardly believe that they are of such an enormous scale that the Government could not have responded rather more sympathetically.
I should like to talk more generally about the problems of literacy and semi-literacy, a subject that has interested me for a great many years. On adult literacy, or lack of it, the major initiative was carried out by the last Labour Government. I was very much associated with that in 1975. Indeed, when I consider my achievements, or in my case lack of them, the only thing of which I am 100 per cent. proud was being involved in that adult literacy initiative. I am glad to say that it has carried on independent of politics for the past 15 years.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, that literacy is not only desirable in its own right but is also economically beneficial. What concerns me is that we put in the effort and yet the problem seems to remain. My particular puzzle is this. Unfortunately, we do not have good enough statistics but so far as we know the percentage of illiterates or semi-illiterates in the adult population— which corresponds to a long period of education because they are adults— hardly seems to differ from what we are led to believe is the percentage of illiterates or semi-illiterates leaving school at the present time. If we are making the educational progress that we believe we are, it seems rather paradoxical. The fraction ought to decline.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, on setting an even more stringent target. I should love to believe that he and I will live to see a target of only 1 per cent. of children leaving school with such problems. I do not have an explanation. However, I worry that what little we know on the statistical side seems to provide us with grounds for pessimism rather than optimism.
What puzzles me is this. If we look at Her Majesty's inspectorate's report, which has been published recently on the teaching and learning of language and literacy in primary schools in our country, the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, will be interested to know that the word dyslexia does not appear in it. That may worry him a little. However, the document is overwhelmingly optimistic. It states that,
"The basic skills of reading and writing"—
referring to our primary schools in the 1980s—
"continue to receive a great deal of time and attention. The standards achieved are generally good and continue to improve, more so in reading for girls than boys. In writing the children are reasonably proficient spellers and constructors of sentences".
It continues:
"Overall, there is evidence from the APU of an improvement in writing that is more marked for boys than for girls",
That is a very optimistic description of what is going on in our schools. It contrasts somewhat with what has been said this evening.
I shall refer to an aspect which noble Lords have not raised. It is the ethnic minority problem with regard to literacy. However, to emphasise the puzzle that confronts us, the report states:
"The majority of primary schools teach the basic skills of reading and writing thoroughly and successfully".
It continues that they could achieve even more.

1487
However, it states that they do the job thoroughly and successfully. Again that seems to contrast with all that one heard earlier.
My last point relates to some extent to what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said. It is stated that the 1987 Department of Education and Science Primary Staffing Survey showed that English ranked highest among the subjects of the national curriculum in the levels of qualifications held by full-time teachers. Again they seemed to be arguing that in this area we have the very best teachers relative to other teachers. One wonders about other subjects.
I raise these matters to ask this question: how can Her Majesty's inspectorate provide what one would regard as an encouraging picture of our primary schools on literacy and so on which contrasts not merely with the idiosyncratic evidence of individual cases but with what we know more generally? There is some conflict of evidence and experience. I put it to the noble Baroness that it is a matter on which we ought to reflect even if we cannot immediately give an answer.
I do not wish to delay your Lordships too long. However, I believe it is my duty to mention one or two other topics. First, within the general area of literacy skills it is clear that children from what are called the ethnic minorities are obviously facing difficulties. For noble Lords who have mentioned illiteracy as a problem area for society generally, a fortiori for this part of our society the problem is that much more difficult. In so far as they have trouble integrating and merging into our community, it cannot be regarded as independent of their difficulties in speaking and understanding English. I am told—again by the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills unit—that its studies have shown that some 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of adults in the ethnic minorities cannot read or write our language. That is a larger figure than I had understood. It would not surprise us therefore that within that community the children also had learning difficulties in school.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord. His speech is extremely interesting. However, how does he square that factor with the recent report that we have had about high school achievements of Asian children? Are they included in these figures?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am giving the number of adults. I am not quoting the figures with regard to children. We know that, although these children of Asian origin themselves have considerable achievements, many of their families have major language problems. Indeed, to refer to a problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, raised about school attendance—a subject on which I am extremely sympathetic, as she knows—we have evidence, again more ad hoc than systematic, that children in those families are often kept at home in order to act as translators for their parents on occasions. There are therefore problems there.
I hope that there is no misunderstanding. I am not saying that it is the fault—to use a word that was used earlier—of the ethnic minorities. I point out
1488
that there is a problem. For those of us who are interested in literacy, it is among the class of problems to which we wish to address ourselves.
My final remarks relate to what we can do. To reassure the noble Baroness, I am not adopting the position that somehow I know what to do and no one else does. I fully appreciate that it is an enormously difficult area. However, I assert—and I am very old fashioned in saying this—that literacy is the most fundamental skill that we must give our young people. I do not see the point of anything else in the school if our schools cannot achieve literacy for all. That is why I was so sympathetic to the target of 1 per cent. to which the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, referred. I would say that we should aim for 100 per cent. achievement.
To be told that the children appreciate this or that but that they cannot read is not good enough. I am not an opponent of the national curriculum but I regard the achievement of literacy as a prerequisite which must take precedence over any other part of the national curriculum. We must give the issue first priority. Those comments relate to young people but I hold similar views about adults.
The real question, to which I do not know the answer, is: is it a matter of resources? I am not now on one of my other hobby horses of attacking the Government on education expenditure. In this case it is not obviously a matter of resources. If I am right that we have not advanced as far as we should have but that resources have increased, other factors must be involved.
The reason may be connected with two areas. The first, priorities, I have already raised in asking whether we are giving the right priority to this matter. Perhaps we are not. I do not wish to enter into the second area because it is controversial, although the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has not hesitated to do so. It is the area of techniques. My experience of talking to anybody in that field is that one's ability to offend people is limitless. To suggest that one technique is better than another appears to make people turn on you and say that you are unsympathetic, idiotic and so forth. It may well be that many kinds of techniques have their parts to play— that is my weasel way of getting out of the difficulty!
The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, appeared to be guiding us toward the thought that the techniques that work for some or even for the majority of children may not work for others. Many of us have children who somehow begin to read. I suddenly discovered that my children could read and, therefore, in a sense, they did not need to be taught to read. However, that cannot be true of all children, particularly of dyslexic children. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the important question of research in this area.
The subject is interesting and I have spoken for longer than I had intended. It is overwhelmingly important. This may be our first discussion about literacy but I hope that it will not be the last. I also hope that on the next occasion when we discuss the matter the Minister will be able to record some progress.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the small number of participants in the debate has more than been made up by the quality of the contributions that we have heard. It has been one of the most interesting debates we have had in this House for some time. I agree that this basic and fundamental subject is overwhelmingly important.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. My gratitude goes to my noble friend Lord Renwick for raising the issue, as it does to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who not only valiantly coped with his own speech but raised the points which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would have wished to put forward. I am sure that all noble Lords will join with me in sending best wishes to the noble Earl and wishing him a speedy recovery. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, would have liked to speak in the debate but illness has prevented him too from being present.
We respect the courage of and admire the skilful and effective contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I know that sometimes such compliments sound patronising but his ability to speak in this House without notes is much admired because he depends a great deal on the written word. It is useful to have his example. It sets a good example to many people who may struggle perhaps not so successfully with his particular difficulty.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Faithfull for the enormous expertise that she brings to bear in such debates and for the work that she has done in helping young people. She has fought a corner for them in many debates. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his contribution, to which I shall refer later in my speech. I was grateful too for the unannounced contribution of my noble friend Lord Borthwick.
I can assure noble Lords that the eradication of illiteracy is among the Government's major objectives for schools and adult education. It is greatly encouraging to know that in 1990, which the United Nations have designated International Literacy Year, more is being done throughout the world to increase public awareness of the scope, nature and implications of illiteracy as well as of the means and conditions of combating it. This initiative will of course, be especially important in third world countries where problems of illiteracy are particularly acute. But there are no grounds for complacency among the developed nations. Reading and writing skills provide the key to learning in all other subjects of the school curriculum and play a crucial part in all walks of adult life. The Government do not underestimate the importance for all pupils of acquiring and developing these skills before leaving school.
However, we also need to take account of the fact that the adequacy of knowledge and skills changes over time. The standard of literacy that we accept today may be inadequate to meet the needs of the future. That is why the Government's prime objective must be to improve the reading and writing skills of all pupils at all levels of ability and to ensure that each individual achieves his or her full potential. I understand the comment made about 1 per cent.
1490
of children. But we also accept that for one reason or another some pupils have particular difficulty acquiring even the most basic literacy skills. They deserve particular help and attention to get them over this hurdle.
Noble Lords have criticised the absence of new measures specifically for International Literacy Year. The Government have done and are doing a great deal to improve levels of literacy. The Government are providing over £ 3 million to the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit this year. An additional £ 30, 000 has been provided specifically this year for activities which the unit has planned for International Literacy Year and which are relevant for adults and children. The three main themes are: literacy in the workplace, literacy in the lives of young people and literacy for parents and children, which will include joint reading activities. Through education support grants the Government are also providing funding for open learning centres for adults with difficulties in literacy and numeracy; and the training of tutors in adult literacy and basic skills has also been designated a national priority area under the local education authority training grant scheme.
For schools, the Government are providing substantial funding through education support grants for a three-year training programme designed to improve the language expertise of all teachers of English, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, including primary teachers. With government funding the United Kingdom Reading Association is conducting research into the development of family reading groups. We believe that the most effective way to combat illiteracy is through the fundamental reform of the school curriculum.
My noble friend Lord Renwick has already acknowledged the advances in education that the Government are making through the Education Reform Act and especially through the national curriculum. However, he merely glanced over the improvements and safeguards which the national curriculum will bring. They have been rehearsed many times over in this House but since they are of particular relevance to this debate it is appropriate for me to run through them again.
First, the national curriculum will establish clear objectives for pupils and teachers. Targets are being set at progressively higher levels of attainment so that pupils of all ages and abilities have something to aim for. The new system will encourage them to achieve their full potential.
Secondly, it will ensure that all pupils have access to the same range of learning experiences as is already being provided in the most successful schools by the most able teachers.
Thirdly, pupils will be assessed at regular intervals to show how well they are progressing. With regular monitoring of performance teachers can determine whether able pupils are being sufficiently stretched and whether under-achieving pupils need more help or help of a different kind.
That diagnostic continuous assessment complements the more summative testing which I

1491
know concerned many noble Lords. That leads me to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renwick about the need to assess literacy skills at the age of six. I am pleased to inform him that the arrangements we are adopting to assess English will combine continuous teacher assessment with assessments based on the use of nationally prescribed standard assessment tasks. Together they will provide a very full picture of pupils' attainments throughout the compulsory school age range: not just at the key ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16. The systematic recording of assessments will demonstrate what a pupil can and cannot do and will highlight strengths and weaknesses. This will allow teachers to make well informed plans for future work in the classroom, ensuring that the literacy needs of all pupils, and particularly the less able, are met.
The significant point made by my noble friend Lord Renwick is that the problem should be identified and acted upon early in the school life of a child. That was a point made also by my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
Fourthly, schools will be more accountable for the education they provide. Parents will be able to judge their children's progress against the national targets. For the first time, schools will be required by law to produce a report on each child which will include assessment information. In spite of the cycnicism displayed by my noble friend Lord Renwick, I hope that he will at least allow these reforms to settle in, because if they are not worth the paper they are written on then we have failed signally. It is important that we must all play our part in these reforms. That means that all of us interested in this subject must make sure that those who are accountable for delivering the service deliver it to an adequate level to serve children.
As parents will have a statutory right of access to that information, they will know exactly what progress their child is making and will be able to discuss developments with the school. In addition, schools and local education authorities will be better placed to assess strengths and weaknesses, and the training needs of their teachers. And employers will have a better idea of what a school-leaver will have studied and learnt at school.
During the course of this debate a variety of data has been cited for the number of pupils leaving school with literacy problems. But the fact is that at present no one can say for certain how many school-leavers fall into this category. I was extremely relieved at the words of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, although he was cynical as regards this area. I do not believe that speculation on statistics is helping us to make progress. With the new assessment and reporting arrangements against nationally agreed attainment targets there will be no question about the standards attained or where they are unsatisfactory and further measures are required.
The attainment targets and programmes of study for English for five to seven year-olds came into effect last September. They have been warmly welcomed and are working well. The order specifying
1492
attainment targets and programmes of study for English for eight to 16 year-olds was laid before Parliament on 6th March. The new arrangements are being phased in from September this year. Implementation will be a gradual process so that teachers can cope with the new requirements.
There are five attainment targets for English. These cover knowledge, skills and understanding in speaking and listening, reading, writing, spelling and handwriting. They are supported by programmes of study which set out in detail what pupils should be taught in order to make satisfactory progress through the 10 levels of the attainment targets.
The national curriculum for English will give pupils a very thorough grounding in basic literacy skills before leading them on to more advanced studies. The requirements guide pupils through the very early stages of their development in reading and writing— from the point where they begin to recognise individual letters and words and use pictures, letters and words to convey meaning through to advanced levels of understanding and interpretation in reading and the use of sophisticated and effective techniques in writing. Again, I was relieved by the comments on technique. I was very nervous about that part of the debate. I know that the question of method of teaching is very vexed. Most pupils will acquire the basic skills of literacy at an early age and the great majority will be able to use them confidently and competently by the time they leave school. However, in this area vigilance on the part of us all is very important.
We have not forgotten those with specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia. Here I must pay tribute to the contribution to and the support for the British Dyslexia Association made by my noble friend Lord Renwick and of course to the work of that association.
The national curriculum will ensure that as far as possible all children, whatever their difficulties, will have access to the same broad range of educational opportunities. This does not mean of course that they must slavishly follow the same methods of learning. As my noble friend has rightly pointed out, the national curriculum is essentially about the content of the learning process, not teaching methods. It allows teachers freedom to choose how best to introduce and develop new skills and topics.
In the case of reading, the strength of the national curriculum is that it combines a range of techniques for helping pupils to decipher new words. This was not determined by fashionable theory, as has been suggested, but came about through an extensive and painstaking process of consultation, involving, among others, all local education authorities, teacher training institutions, teacher associations and special needs organisations. The eclectic approach which they endorsed is the best way of ensuring that teachers identify the combination of reading techniques most suitable for their pupils.
Inevitably different pupils respond to some techniques better than others. I know that my noble friend Lord Renwick and some others believe that pupils who are dyslexic respond better to more

1493
structured methods involving what is called phonics. I should stress that this is still permissible within the national curriculum. Indeed the use of phonic cues is positively encouraged. The point is that teaching styles and methods should be adapted to individual needs and follow neither fashion nor dogma. It is only by leaving the choice of teaching style and methodology in the hands of teachers that we can ensure that classroom practice is suitably geared towards the needs of individual pupils. However, the process of testing, assessment and evaluation will more easily expose the effectiveness of teaching method. Again, if we are vigilant and see that methods are not effective, it is up to all of us to put on pressure for change.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Baroness paid well justified tribute to the British Dyslexia Association, but I hope that she will not forget to pay tribute to the Dyslexia Institute.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise. Of course I include that organisation in my remarks.
I now come to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. He mentioned the training of specialised dyslexia teachers. I agree with him that specially trained teachers can be a great help to pupils with learning difficulties like dyslexia. Every local education authority has a duty to make proper provision for pupils with specific learning difficulties like dyslexia, just as they must make provision for all pupils in their area. It is for each LEA to decide what provision should be made in an individual pupil's cases and whether that should involve specialist teaching. The Government both encourage and support LEA expenditure on in-service training through the LEA training grants scheme which I mentioned previously.
Although dyslexia is not presently recognised as a national priority in its own right— and I am sure that that may disappoint some noble Lords— priority has been given to the training of designated teachers whose role is to advise on special educational needs and learning difficulties in ordinary schools which will include the area of reading and writing. I should add that following a recent efficiency scrutiny of education support grant and the training grant scheme, the Government are currently considering the possibility of broadening the scope for present national priorities for special educational needs training.
The case of Timothy Bakewell was also mentioned by the noble Earl. Dudley Education Authority responded very positively to Timothy's special educational needs and set up a primary special unit. I know that the noble Earl does not know very much about it, but I happen to know that it is a very effective unit which has done well by Timothy Bakewsll. Since September 1989 he has attended the unit for children with special learning difficulties. His statement of special educational needs has been amended to accommodate that and it is intended that he should attend the unit for two years before transferring to a secondary school.
1494
I cannot comment particularly on the correspondence between the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the chairman of education at Dudley.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, that was not between the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the authority.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise. I cannot comment on the correspondence between the secretary of the association and the chairman of education. I can say that Dudley Education Authority has a responsibility and an obligation, in consultation with Timothy's parents, to ensure that appropriate provision is made for his future.
The Government recognise that in-service training will play a vital part in achieving the Government's objective of raising educational standards, including literacy for all. In 1990–91 we will provide support by way of £ 69–5 million expenditure to local education authorities for training for the national curriculum and the associated assessment procedures. There will also be substantial support through education support grants for books and resources.
We are confident that with this assistance, teachers will be able to get the best out of the new arrangements for their pupils. Progress will be carefully monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate and local educational authorities will also play a major role in monitoring the situation. Local education authorities are being given specific grants under a five-year programme for the development of a coherent inspection policy to monitor the implementation of the national curriculum and also for the recruitment of additional inspectors to monitor the effects of the new arrangements on the quality of education provided.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, raised the question of what is happening in teacher training colleges. I am pleased to be able to tell my noble friend that the Government's criteria for the approval of initial teacher training courses includes a requirement that all intending teachers should receive instruction in identifying and, where appropriate, teaching pupils with special educational needs. I should expect that instruction to include the difficulties of reading and writing. If I have not given a full enough answer I shall write to my noble friend. She was also concerned about outer school teaching. While I cannot comment on all the examples that she gave of children who do not find themselves in school, I can say that there is a very effective portage scheme where the need for education at home is proven. I know that that system works very well.
In regard to disruptive children and children who, for one reasons or another, are misfits in mainstream schools, I can say from personal knowledge, because I am a governor of a special unit which supports secondary schools, that some very exciting work is going on in the field of helping schoolphobics and children who find it impossible to join mainstream schools. I am particularly pleased to be able to say that their policy is one of trying to reintegrate those children back into the system. It is a policy of reintegration which is very much to be supported.

1495
I am sure that I have missed some points that have been raised by noble Lords and I hope that they will forgive me. I should like to mention one of the outstanding matters that was raised, which was that of the difficulty of ethnic minorities. It is important to note that Section 11 moneys are specifically made available to schools where there is a high incidence of ethnic minority children. Those funds are used almost predominantly for teaching English as a second language to those young children. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, talked about some progress in that area and about the Asian children who are making huge progress. I am always delighted when I go to prize giving events at schools to see growing numbers of young people appearing in the list of recipients of prizes for outstanding achievements in our schools, in particular among the Asian community.
1496
I am delighted to have had the opportunity to describe the measures which the Government have introduced for raising levels of literacy among school-leavers and to have had the opportunity to persuade your Lordships that the Government are taking International Literacy Year very seriously.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.

  COMMUNITY CHARGE LIMITATION: LIST OF AUTHORITIES
  COMMUNITY CHARGE LIMITATION: LIST OF AUTHORITIES
  LEASEHOLD VALUATION DISPUTES
  LEASEHOLD VALUATION DISPUTES
  GREENHOUSE EFFECT: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  GREENHOUSE EFFECT: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  RATE AND COMMUNITY CHARGE COMPARISONS
  RATE AND COMMUNITY CHARGE COMPARISONS
  EC TRANSPORT COUNCIL MEETING, 29th MARCH
  EC TRANSPORT COUNCIL MEETING, 29th MARCH
  SIGNPOSTING OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS
  SIGNPOSTING OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS
  ROADS: CHANGE OF DESIGNATION
  ROADS: CHANGE OF DESIGNATION
  PRISONERS: WORK, EDUCATION AND TRAINING STATISTICS
  PRISONERS: WORK, EDUCATION AND TRAINING STATISTICS
  PRISONERS: EARNINGS
  PRISONERS: EARNINGS
  BIRMINGHAM, PENTONVILLE AND LEEDS PRISONS: CNA AND PRISONER NUMBERS
  BIRMINGHAM, PENTONVILLE AND LEEDS PRISONS: CNA AND PRISONER NUMBERS
  BIRMINGHAM, PENTONVILLE AND LEEDS PRISONS: PRISONERS' EMPLOYMENT
  BIRMINGHAM, PENTONVILLE AND LEEDS PRISONS: PRISONERS' EMPLOYMENT
  MR. JOHN STALKER
  MR. JOHN STALKER
  NORTHERN IRELAND: EDUCATION SUPERVISION ORDERS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: EDUCATION SUPERVISION ORDERS
  VIDEO RECORDINGS OF HOUSE OF LORDS PROCEEDINGS
  VIDEO RECORDINGS OF HOUSE OF LORDS PROCEEDINGS
  EQUAL PENSIONS TREATMENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN: RESPONSE TO REPORT
  EQUAL PENSIONS TREATMENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN: RESPONSE TO REPORT
  POTATOES: MARKET SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS
  POTATOES: MARKET SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS
  MANCHESTER OPTICIANS: INQUIRY RESULT
  MANCHESTER OPTICIANS: INQUIRY RESULT
  MEPs VISITING UK: FACILITIES
  MEPs VISITING UK: FACILITIES
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: MINISTERIAL VISITS
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: MINISTERIAL VISITS
  MEPs: BRIEFING ON GOVERNMENT POLICY
  MEPs: BRIEFING ON GOVERNMENT POLICY